International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2017, pp. 9198, Article ID: IJCIET_08_06_011

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=6
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORIED BUILDING

WITH AND WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMN
USING ETABS
Sasidhar T
M.Tech Student, Structural Engineering,
VIT University, Vellore, TamilNadu, India

P. Sai Avinash
M.Tech Student, Structural Engineering,
VIT University, Vellore, TamilNadu, India

N. Janardan
M.Tech Student, Structural Engineering,
VIT University, Vellore, TamilNadu, India

ABSTRACT
In the modern era of construction multi-storied building with floating column
plays a major role in Urban India. These floating columns are used mainly for
satisfying the space requirement in the structure and to get good architectural view of
the building. In the present study, the analysis and design of multistoried building
with and without floating columns was done using static analysis. A residential
multistoried building consisting of G+5 has been chosen for carrying out project
work. The work was carried out considering different cases of removal of columns in
different positions and in different floors of the building. The equivalent static
analysis is done on the mathematical 3-D model of building and results have been
compared. All the work was carried out by using the software ETabs Version 9.7.4.
Key words: Floating Column, ETABS, Equivalent static analysis, Magnification
factor.
Cite this Article: Sasidhar T, P. Sai Avinash and N. Janardan. Analysis of
Multistoried Building with and Without Floating Column Using ETabs. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(6), 2017, pp. 9198.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=6

1. INTRODUCTION
In the present day construction of buildings in urban India the main problem arises in the
accommodation of parking areas, reception lobbies etc. To overcome this problem floating
columns came into existence and now it has become an unavoidable feature in most of the
multistoried buildings. The floating column shows undesirable results during earthquake

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 91 editor@iaeme.com
 Sasidhar T, P. Sai Avinash and N. Janardan

excitation and the base shear induced is dependent on the natural period and shape of the
building. As the height of the building is increased, the earthquake load acting at different
floors of the building varies and these should be carried down in the shortest distance. If the
load travelling has any discontinuity in its path, it will cause the reduction in the performance
of the building. Due to discontinuity in the load transfer path, many buildings in Gujarat have
been collapsed in Bhuj 2001 and the buildings with the vertical setbacks caused a sudden
jump.
The floating column are safe for the vertical loading but the lateral loads acting on the
building causes overturning of the building and load travel path is also disturbed which
results in the damage of the columns by buckling. This is because the strength of the lower
floor is less due to removal of the columns. This project mainly focuses on the comparison of
the building with and without floating columns.

1.1. Floating Column

A column is supposed to be a vertical member which starts from the foundation level and
transfers the load safely to the ground from the building. Floating column is a vertical
member in which the lower end rests on the beam and load is transferred to the nearby
column through the beam as shown in fig 1.

Figure 1 Load transfer system

2. LITERATURE ON ANALYSIS OF MULTISTORIED BUILDING

WITH FLOATING COLUMN USING ETABS
Floating columns are used in many multistoried building to provide good architectural
flexibility and more floor space index. Many researches has been carried out on these floating
columns for comparison with normal building some of them are
T.Raja sekhar et al (2014) computed the behavior of multistoried building with and
without floating columns and its seismic behavior for different intensities using Finite
Element Analysis.
Srikanth.M.K et al (2014) specified about Seismic response of multistoried building
with floating columns at different zones.
A.P Mudada et al (2014) showed comparative seismic analysis of multistoried building
with and without floating columns.
Prema Nautiyal(2013) discussed about seismic response of RC framed building with
floating column for different soil conditions.
Sukumar Behra (2012) worked on the seismic behavior of multi storied building with
floating column.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 92 editor@iaeme.com
 Analysis of Multistoried Building with and Without Floating Column Using ETabs

3. OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT
To check the behavior of multistory building with and without Floating column.
To provide more open space in ground floor for parking and reception lobbies.
Proper design and detailing of transfer girder for different load combinations.

4. METHODOLOGY
4.1. Modeling of the Building
In this project, building selected is G+5 multistoried building in the zone II region. Static
analysis was carried out. The building was analyzed in the normal condition with all the
columns are present. The building is divided into 6 cases depending on the position of
removal of columns in the different regions. The results that are obtained in all the cases are
compared with the normal building.

4.2. Normal Building without floating Columns

Figure 2 Normal building in 3-D view

Fig 2 shows the 3D view of normal building obtained in the ETabs software and Table 1
shows different specifications of the normal building.

Table 1 Specifications of normal building

Parameters Normal building

Soil Type Medium Soil
Seismic Zone II
Height of the Building 19.2m
Floor Height 3.2m
Thickness of slab 150mm
Beam Dimensions 230mmX300mm
Column dimensions 350mmX450mm
Grade of Concrete M30

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 93 editor@iaeme.com
 Sasidhar T, P. Sai Avinash and N. Janardan

4.3. Different cases considered based on positioning and removal of columns in

the building

Normal Building: Case 3: Removing only 4 columns

alternatively in the 2nd floor

Case 1: Removing the 8 columns Case 4: Removing only 4 columns

nd
in the 2 floor alternatively in the 4th floor

Case 2:Removing the 8 columns Case 5: Removing only 6 columns

th
in the 4 floor alternatively in the Ground floor

Figure 3 Plan of different cases of column positioning

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 94 editor@iaeme.com
 Analysis of Multistoried Building with and Without Floating Column Using ETabs

4.4. Loads and Load Combinations for Analysis

Dead Load: As per code IS 875 Part I the calculated dead load is 17 kN/m
Live Load: As per code provisions IS 875 Part II for the Residential building Live Load
acting on it is taken as 3 kN/m
Earth Quake Load: Static method of analysis is done by using IS1893
The base shear acting on different storey height from top is
i) 113kN ii) 79kN iii) 50kN
iv) 28.2kN v) 12.5kN vi) 1.75kN

Table 2 Load combinations considered in the analysis

Combination 1 1.5D.L+1.5L.L
Combination 2 1.5D.L+1.5E.L
1.2D.L+1.2E.L
Combination 3
+1.2L.L

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Present study is to compare the results of the building with and without floating columns
and finding out the optimum position of the floating column for the desired results among all
the cases considered. The parameters used for comparison are displacements, bending
moment, shear force and area of reinforce-ment.

5.1. Max Moment Occurred in all the Cases

From the Fig 4 as shown below it was observed that maximum moment for normal building
is 162.05 kN-m in storey 2, maximum moment occurred among all the cases is 463.71kN-m
in case I occurred in 2nd storey..Among all the cases considered,maximum moment obtained
in different cases are shown in the Table 2.
500
Moment in kN-m

400 Normal Building

300 case1
200 case 2
100 case 3
0 case 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 case 5
No of Stories

Figure 4 No. of floors Vs Max moment graph

5.2. Max Shear Occurred in all the Cases

From the Fig.5, it was observed that maximum shear for normal building is 174.08 kN in
storey 2,and maximum shear occurred among all the cases is 365.6kN in case I occurred in
2nd storey.Among all the cases considered,maximum shear obtained in different cases are
shown in the Table 2.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 95 editor@iaeme.com
 Sasidhar T, P. Sai Avinash and N. Janardan

400
350
300 Normal Building

Shear in kN
250
case1
200
150 case 2
100 case 3
50
case 4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 case 5

No of Stories

Figure 5 No. Of Floor Vs Max shear graph

5.3. Joint Displacement for different Floors

From the Fig.6 as shown below it was observed that maximum displacement for normal
building is 35mm in storey 6,and maximum displacement occurred among all the cases is
37.5mm in case 1.Among all the cases considered,maximum storey displacement obtained in
different cases are shown in the Table 2.

40 Normal
35 Building
Storey Displacement, mm

case1
30
25 case 2

20 case 3
15
case 4
10
5 case 5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 No of Stories

Figure 6 No. Of Floor Vs Storey displacement graph

5.4. Maximum Values of Moment, Shear and Storey Displacement

From Table 2 it was observed that all the maximum values of moment, shear and storey
displacement was occurred in case 1 because of removal of columns in 2 nd floor.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 96 editor@iaeme.com
 Analysis of Multistoried Building with and Without Floating Column Using ETabs

Table 3 Values of Maximum Moment, shear and Storey displacement

Max
Max Moment Storey Displa-
Storey Shear
(kN-m) cement
(kN)
162.05 174.8 35
Normal Building
(Storey2) (Storey2) (Storey6)
463.74 365.6 37.5
Case I
(Storey2) (Storey3) (Storey6)
406.3 350.9 36.7
Case II
(Storey5) (Storey5) (Storey6)
381.11 324.6 36.7
Case III
(Storey3) (Storey3) (Storey6)
328.41 284.4 36.3
Case IV
(Storey5) (Storey5) (Storey6)
420.88 329.5 36.2
Case V
(Storey1) (Storey2) (Storey6)

5.5. Area of Reinforcement Required

From Table 3 area of steel reinforcement required for whole building in normal case is
7284905 mm2 and maximum reinforcement is required in the building among all the cases is
11881475 mm2 in case IV and minimum is 660599 mm2 in case V.

Table 4 Area of reinforcement required

Total Ast Required for whole
Type of Building
Building in square mm
Normal Building 7284905
Case I 11962541
Case II 9491283
Case III 10352693
Case IV 11881475
Case V 6640599

6. COMPARISON OF ANALYSIS RESULTS

From the above results all the readings are all cases are compared to the Normal Building and
the observations are as follows:
1. The moment in the case 1 has increased maximum value in the 2 nd floor when compared to
the Normal Building and all other cases.
2. The Shear force has also increased to a maximum extent in the same storey and the case 1
itself when compared to the all other cases and Normal Building.
3. The Shear Requirement is higher in case 1 when compared to all other cases and it
becomes uneconomical.
4. In the design of Transfer Girder has given the 1.2mX0.85m dimension and Steel bars of 25
nos of 25 mm diameter at bottom and 22 nos of 25 mm diameter at top when compared to
the Normal building in the same point it is safe for 0.23mX0.3m and reinforcement of 6 bars
of 16mm dia at bottom and 2 bars of 16mm diameter at top.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 97 editor@iaeme.com
 Sasidhar T, P. Sai Avinash and N. Janardan

7. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the test results, the following conclusions were made:
Use of floating columns results in the increase in the bending moment, shear and Steel
requirement.
These floating columns are not suitable in the seismic zones in which load travel path will be
disturbed due to earth quake and building may be damaged.
The optimum position to provide floating column is the at 2 nd floor alternatively so that
moment, shear and steel requirement of the whole building can be minimized.
Hence provision of floating column is advantageous in providing good floor space index but
risky and vulnerability of the building increases.

REFERENCES
[1] Hardik Bhensdadia and Siddharth Shah Pushover Analysis of RC Frame structure with
Floating column and soft story in different earthquake zones, International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Technology, vol 2,Issue 4,ISSN 2321-7308.
[2] Prerna Nautiyal, Saleem Akhtar and Geeta Batham Seismic Response Evaluation of RC
frame building with Floating Column considering different Soil Condition" , International
Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, vol 4,2014,ISSN 2347 5161
[3] A.P.Mundada and S.G.Sawdatkar Comparative Seismic Analysis of Multistory Building
with and without Floating Column, International Journal of Current Engineering and
Technology,vol 4,No 5,2014.
[4] Srikanth.M and Yogeendra.R Seismic Response of complex buildings with Floating
column for zone ii and zone v, International journal of Engineering and Research
Online, vol 2, issue 4, 2014.
[5] M. Rajesh Reddy, Dr. N. Srujana and N. Lingeshwaran, Effect of Base Isolation in Multistoried
Reinforced Concrete Building. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(3),
2017, pp. 878887.
[6] Dr. S. B. Shinde and N.B. Raut, Effect of Change in Thicknesses and Height in Shear Wall on
Deflection of Multistoried Buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
7(6), 2016, pp.587591.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 98 editor@iaeme.com