Check Plag

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
As of late the developing economies like India and other South Asian nations are facing a
tremendous issue of housing inadequacy an Earth-wide temperature boost normal cataclysms,
for example, earthquake so we need to discover a building material which is light in weight, eco-
friendly in nature, Strong And Durable and furthermore susceptible to seismic loads and with the
assistance of which pace of construction will turn out to be speedier requiring little to no effort.
In India, there is a housing insufficiency of around 68.53 million housing units including both
urban and rural area as per census 2011. To suit the quickly developing populace lion's share of
which have a place with low and medium pay population.
GFRG panels are one of the solutions to avoid all these problems which have been developed by
researchers after an extensive research for many years. These panels are firstly developed in
Australia in the early 1990s and subsequently adopted by other countries including China and
India. GFRG panels can be used for residential commercial and industrial buildings. With the
help of GFRG panels, we can design a building without including column and beams. These
panels have already found a large application even without mature structural design manual as
because of their ecofriendly nature. In perspective to India, GFRG panels are one of the most
important material to be considered for affordable and mass housing because according to Kyoto
Protocol GFRG panels are eligible for carbon credit by the World Bank.
Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 1

GFRG panel is a new building panel product which is also called rapid wall have a gigantic
potential for use as a load bearing and non-load bearing wall panels they are load bearing panels
with cavities suitable for both external and internal walls it can likewise be used as immediate
floor slab/roof. They are not only eco-friendly but also resistant to termites, heat, rot, corrosion,
water and fire concrete infills with vertical reinforcement rods enhances its vertical and lateral
load capabilities.
1.1 GFRG BUILDING SYSTEM
1.1.1 GFRG PANELS
The danger of environmental change brought about by the expanding centralization of

greenhouse gasses in the climate is driving the entire world into a calamitous emergency
circumstance with general concern. The need of the 21st century is for energy proficient and eco-
friendly items. The building industry represents 40% of CO2 discharges. Building development
causes CO2 emission therefore of exemplified energy devoured in the generation of energy
escalated construction materials and furthermore the repeating energy utilization for cooling and
warming of the indoor condition. Rapid wall, likewise called gypcrete wall is an energy proficient
green building material with enormous potential for use as load bearing and non-load bearing
divider boards. The rapid wall is a huge load bearing board with secluded cavities reasonable for
both outer and interior dividers. It can likewise be utilized as middle person floor/rooftop section
in the mix with RCC as a composite material. Since the approach of inventive Rapid wall board
in 1990 in Australia, it has been utilized for structures extending from single story to medium -
tall structures. Light weighted Rapid wall has high compressive strength, shearing strength,
flexural strength, and ductility. It has abnormal state of imperviousness to fire, warm, water,
termites, decay and erosion. Concrete infill with vertical support bars improves its vertical and
horizontal load abilities.

1.1.2 PHYSICAL AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Rapidwall board is world's biggest loadbearing lightweight boards. The boards are industrial
facility made with size 12 m length, 3m tallness and 124 mm thickness. Each board has 48
particular cavities of 230 mm x 94 mm x 3m measurement. The heaviness of one board is 1440
kg or 40 kg/sqm. The thickness is 1.14g/cm3, being just 10-12% of the heaviness of equivalent
cement/block stone work. The physical and material properties of boards are as per the following:
Weight- lightweight 40 Kg/ sqm

Axial load capacity 160 kN/m{ 16 tons/ m}
Compressive strength 73.2 Kg/cm2
Unit Shear strength 50.90 kN/m
Flexural strength 21.25 kg/cm2
Tensile Strength 35 KN/ m
Ductility 4
Fire resistance 4 hr rating withstood 700-10000 C
Thermal Resistance R 0.36 K/W
U Value 2.85W/M2K
Thermal conductivity 0.617
Elastic Modulus 3000-6000Mpa
Sound transmission{STC} 40
Water absorption < 5%
The vertical and lateral load capability of Rapid wall Panel can be increased many fold by infill
of concrete after placing reinforcement rods vertically. As per structural requirement, cavities of
wall panel can be filled in various combinations.

Fig no.1.1 Plan and elevation of GFRG panels (source CED4(7987)WC )
1.1.3 JOINTS
One end to the other 'L', 'T', "+" point joints and flat divider joints are made by cutting of internal
or external spines or web suitably and infill of cement concrete with vertical reinforcement with
stirrups for safe anchorage.
Fig 1.2 Joints in the GFRG Building (source CED4(7987)WC )

1.1.4 FOUNDATION
For GFRG housing construction which is also called as rapidwall housing the type of foundation
required for the support to the building will depend upon the type of soil. It may be raft, isolated
pile or spread footing. All around the building where the panels are to be erected plinth beams of
required dimension are to be constructed and then a steel bar of 12 mm diameter and 0.75 m in
length are to be erected at a distance of 0.75 m from c/c. The bars are 0.45 m protrudes up and
the remaining 0.15m angle is placed for proper anchorage in cement concrete plinth beam.
Fig 1.3 Foundation details of GFRG Building (source CED4(7987)WC )
1.1.5 RAPIDWALL FOR RAPID CONSTRUCTION
Rapidwall empowers FastTrack method for construction. Regular building development includes
different bulky and tedious procedures, similar to
i) Brickwork wall construction
ii) Cement plastering requiring curing,
iii) Casting of RCC slabs requiring focusing and framework and curing

iv) Removal of scaffolding and fixing
v) Plastering of the ceiling.
It likewise adds to pollution and ecological degradation because of debris and jetsam left on the
site. Conversely, Rapid wall development is substantially speedier and easier. There will be no
debris left at the site. Construction time is limited to 15-20%. Rather than step by step
development, Rapid wall empowers wall by wall development. Rapid wall additionally does not
require concrete plastering as both surfaces are smooth and even and prepared for utilization of
exceptional preliminary and completing layer of paint. Fast Construction Method according to
the building arrangement, each GFRG panels will be cut at the manufacturing plant with
millimeter exactness utilizing a robotized cutting saw. Entryway/window/ventilator, openings for
AC unit and so forth will likewise be cut and boards for each floor is stamped identifying with
building drawing. Boards are vertically stacked at the processing plant on stillages for transport
to the development destinations on trucks. Each stillage holds 5 or 8 pre-cut boards. The stillages
are put at the development site near the establishment for erection utilizing vehicle mounted crane
or another sort of crane with required blast length for the development of low, medium and tall
structures. Exceptional lifting jaws reasonable to lift the board are utilized by embeddings into
the cavities and penetrated into networks so that lifting/treatment of boards will be protected.
Boards are raised over the RCC plinth bar and cement is infilled from the top. Every one of the
boards is raised according to the building arrangement by taking after the documentation. Each
board is raised level and plumb and will be upheld by parallel props to keep the board in level,
plumb and secure in position. When divider boards raised, entryway and window casings are
settled in position utilizing ordinary cinches with cement infill of cavities on either side. Installed
RCC lintels are to be given wherever required by cutting open outer rib. Fortification for lintels
and RCC sunshades can be given needed covering and help.
1.1.6 CONCRETE INFILL
After inserting the reinforcement bar which is having a minimum dimension of 8 mm diameter
into the hollow cavities as per the design then it is to be clamped with the reinforcement bar

which is embedded in the plinth beam. The diameter of the reinforcement bar and the spacing
between the two bars is to be decided according to the load applied. As the load applied on the
wall increases the distance between the two bars reduces and vice versa. after fixing the bar in
position the cavities is to be filled with concrete of minimum grade M 7.5 which comprise an
aggregate of maximum size 12mm. the concrete is to be poured into the cavities with the help of
small hose which have to capacity to go up to 1.5 to 2 m into the cavities. The cavities are to be
filled with concrete into three different layers of equal height and there will be time lapse of 1
hour between the two layers of concreting. Vibrators are not required for the compaction of the
concrete because due to gravitational forces the concrete will achieve a self-compacting property
the exposure condition, in this case, is to be considered as mild because the concrete will not be
in a direct contact with the atmosphere
1.1.7 FINISHING WORK
Once the concreting in the cavities of the wall panels and the roof is done which are supported
by a props. After the period of four days it can be removed and then the voids between the walls
and the floor is to be finished using plaster of Paris putty. The cavities in the GFRG panels can
also be used for the electrical and sanitation fitting of the building there is no extra need to provide
a conduit for electrical fittings. The panels are so smooth that there will be no need to plaster the
outer and inner surface of the building. The surface is ready for painting and will give remarkable
aesthetic appearance.
1.1.8 RAPIDWALL BUILDING/ HOUSING IS COOLER
Glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels also consist one of the most important property that they
have low thermal conductivity and more thermal resistance as compare to concrete which is
having more thermal conductivity and less thermal resistance . This property also add an another
feature to the glass fiber reinforced gypsum construction because the countries which lies in the

tropical region of earth where the temperature is high we can use GFRG panels as a option for
mass and affordable housing. The researchers has found out the inner room temperature of a
house constructed using GFRG can be found reduced by 5-6 C which also gives a upper edge to
glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels over other building materials.
1.1.9 RAPIDWALL IS ENERGY EFFICIENT
Low energy utilization for large scale manufacturing of building material and diminished
utilization of repeating energy for operational utilize is extremely basic to accomplish carbon
discharge reduction to spare nature and battle an unnatural weather change. This is the need of
the century. The primary crude material is calcined prevalent quality gypsum mortar with virtue
over 90%. Gypsum mortar, likewise called Plaster of Paris, is delivered by calcining regular
mineral gypsum shake (CaSO42H2O) or by calcining modern waste by-item gypsum accessible
liberally in India at different areas the nation over. The utilization of cutting edge low energy
based green and cleaner innovation in reprocessing/reusing the crude material into GFRG panelss
devours low energy and secures the earth. Ecological insurance is financially valued now through
carbon discharge lessening (CER) exchanging under Kyoto Protocol connected through
uncommon market component (CDM - Clean Development Mechanism). This makes Rapidwall
Panel large scale manufacturing exceptionally appropriate to address the difficulty of moderate
lodging for the poor people. As per the Ministry of Housing, Government of India in Dec 2007
urban lodging lack has been assessed at 24.7 million units toward the finish of the tenth Five
Year Plan (2006-07) and 99% of the deficiency relates to the monetarily weaker segments and
low salary gatherings. Rapidwall is for moderate quality lodging Access to satisfactory haven at
reasonable cost by low salary segment and everyday citizens is critical for India for
comprehensive advancement.. The blasting of land and development industry has without a doubt
shot up the cost of development because of the constantly expanding expense of bond, steel,
bricks, waterway sand, solid materials and work cost. In this circumstance, sheltered and great
quality lodging will wind up noticeably excessively expensive to every one of the segments.

Usually utilized separating India is brick masonry work. Cost of brick with two sides concrete
putting has expanded by very nearly 4 times amid the most recent 5 years as found in Brick work
development cost was Rs 460/sqm in 2003. This expanded to Rs 1600/sqm in 2016. In
perspective of likely increment in cost of energy, bricks, bond, stream sand, water, work and
contract charges for platform and so forth, the cost of workmanship made of bricks or solid pieces
will keep on rising in future. This will make Rapidwall panels significantly less expensive and
moderate to the building business while it will likewise secure the earth, as one sqm panels will
spare carbon emanation diminishment of around 80 Kg.
Rapidwall panels has amazing acoustic properties. Testing of panels by IIT Madras found that
the panels has a place with a class of STC 40 concerning air-borne sound protection. Infill of
cavities with locally accessible less expensive materials like quarry clean blended with concrete
(1:20) and water or sand and bond (1:20) up to lintel/window tallness can make the divider strong
and address security-related concerns. Other than Australia and China, India is set to profit by
the innovation as Rapidwall panels are to be fabricated and showcased in Mumbai inside couple
of months by RCF, one of the biggest manure organization of Govt of India. Reality, another
huge open undertaking manure organization in joint wander with RCF is likewise setting up
another Rapid divider plant in Cochin.
In Rapid divider development, particularly in monotonous sort mass housing, time for
development will be lessened by 75-80% consequently diminishing general overhead foundation
costs with decreased bolt up venture period and less work segment. Similar investigation of Rapid
wall building and traditional building (2 story 1500 sft) demonstrates huge reserve funds in
Rapidwall structures. Typified energy of Rapid divider building is just 82921 kWh, while regular
same size building would have 215400 kWh, in this manner sparing 61.5% epitomized energy
1.1.10 USES OF RAPIDWALL
The most valuable use of Rapidwall is its use as load bearing wall in multi storey construction in
combination with RCC. Rapidwall can also be used as non-load bearing and partition wall in
RCC framed structures. IIT Madras has recently developed method of fixing panel in between

RCC columns, beams and floor slab with clamping system. By this panel can be fixed to floor
slab and panel at bottom using screws, which will be embedded within flooring and skirting. At
top clamps will be fixed to panel and ceiling slab or beam. On sides also clamped at bottom to
RCC column, floor slab and panel. Plastering of walls can also be saved thereby saving time and
cost. If this is taken into account at design stage itself, dead load reduction of more than 50% can
be made. This will save in foundation, RCC columns and beams, in turn steel and concrete. This
will make substantial savings in cost of construction
1.2 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND ROBUSTNESS
With inll reinforced cement concrete in their cavities, GFRG walls have signicant axial and
shear strength and are appropriate for the construction of multi-story structures. GFRG structures
are like developments with precast solid walls. As the principle structural issue for development
with precast solid divider boards is making satisfactory associations between the precast units, it
is believed that GFRG structures endure a similar issue.
The horizontal joints between two GFRG walls and the vertical joint between the walls and a
section appear in Fig. 1.a and b, individually. Obviously the joints are signicantly weaker than
the wall itself, and it is this inalienable shortcoming of the joints that has brought on genuine
worry about the seismic execution of GFRG structures, as the seismic outline rule of ''strong
column, weak beam, and more grounded joints" is generally connected to GFRG fabricating,
particularly in territory China and India.
In actual fact, the GFRG basic framework is altogether different from the traditional rigid frame
structural system that must maintain the ''strong column, weak beam, and more grounded joints"
guideline. Surely, in the run of the mill structural type of GFRG building, as illustrated in Fig. 3,
the flat joints and the out-of-plane resistance of the vertical joints can be totally ignored. Clearly,
the structural framework is stable and sound the length of the walls and joints have sufcient in-
plane axial, exural, and shear strength. In spite of the fact that the GFRG boards stop at the oor
joints, which lessens the out-of-plane exural resistance of the walls, this decrease in strength
does not influence the general soundness of the system, as the entire structure depends just on

the in-plane resistance of the walls. The joints just give axial and shear resistances, which are
practically unaffected by the brokenness of the GFRG boards. The inll solid centers inside the
GFRG boards and the slabs are solidly thrown in-situ, as with strengthened solid developments.
Moreover, the persistent fortification bars inside the solid centers of the GFRG walls and pieces
frame a solid, firmly dispersed, and nonstop tie framework like a net, which stays away from the
feeble associations found in developments with precast solid walls and structures a profoundly
hearty structure. The common failure mode of dynamic fall for precast divider developments is
probably not going to happen in GFRG structures, the length of the strengthening bars inside the
solid centers of the GFRG walls fulfill the prerequisite of the base tie strength specied by
relevant reinforced concrete design codes.
Several strong earthquakes in the past have demonstrated that the infilled seismic performance
of properly designed precast concrete panel construction is outstanding, which indicates that
GFRG buildings should be at least as good as, if not better than, precast concrete wall building
in terms of seismic performance.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The main objective of this study is to find out a suitable building material which can be used to
provide a affordable and mass housing for the low to medium income group people of the
developing countries which lies in seismic prone areas and can replace a conventional building
material. In this study we have tried to study the maximum displacement, drift, base shear and
maximum acceleration of the two different structures having a same floor plan and height
designed using GFRG panels without using beam and column with a structure designed using
masonry. both the structures are subjected to four different ground motion such as El Centro,
Synmarf, Petrolia and Array and then we have compared the max displacement, drift, storey
shear and max acceleration under the four different peak ground accelerations (PGA). as our aim
is also to come out with a solution for an affordable housing we have also calculated the cost of
material used in the construction as per the CPWD 2016 manual. To accomplish this study both

the models are designed and analyzed analytically. ETABS 2015 has been used for time history
analysis using all ground motion mentioned above to perform the nonlinear dynamic analysis.
1.4 ORGANISATION OF THE DISSERTATION
The dissertation work is arranged in six chapters.

Chapter (1) includes the introduction and the introduction of a new building material called as
glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels. Its physical and mechanical properties and its advantage
over other building materials with and objective of the study.
Chapter (2) includes past research in the field of GFRG and literature review.
Chapter (3) consists of methodology of the study.
Chapter (4) includes modelling of the different conditions and calculations involved in the study.
Chapter (5) includes dynamic analysis results in forms of response envelopes and their
observations for different cases and different ground motions.
Finally, Chapter (7) consists of conclusions and scopes of future work regarding thesis work are
mentioned.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE RIVEW
Y.F.WU (2009 ) have studied the properties of Glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels and tries to
develop a methodology for a new building system consisting of glass fiber reinforced gypsum
panels he studies the behavior in between the panels and concrete core and reach to a conclusion
that there is a relative slip and partial interactivity in between the glass fiber reinforced gypsum
panels and the concrete core which will be more efficient to reduce the effect of seismic forces
when a building is subjected to a earthquake excitation.
Yu Fei Wu and Mike P Dare (2004) have studied the axial load carrying capacity and a shear
strength of the glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels and find out that the compressive strength
of the wall is governed by the out of plane bending capacity of the panels and not by the concrete
core present with the reinforcement bar in it and he also concluded that the axial load capacity is
also affected by the eccentricity at which load is applied on the wall as well as the end conditions.
They also concluded that the shear strength of the panels is dependend only on shear strength of
panels not the infill concrete walls.

Eng. Pshtiwan N. Shakor et al Jan March 2011- Vol.2.No.2, Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Use in Construction, International Journal of Technology And Engineering System , the research
investigated the comparison between concrete with glass fiber and without glass fiber on the
basis of compressive strength, flexural strength by using cubes of various sizes and the result
indicates the GFRC is very useful in the construction industry for non-structural elements, like
faade panels, piping and channels. GRC offers many advantages, such as being lightweight, fire
resistance, good appearance and strength. The main advantage identified from this literature is
that the GFRC has a good resistance for tension so we can also use GFRC in tension zone of a
structure.
Maganti Janardhana, et al ( 2011) studies on the conduct of glass fiber reinforced gypsum
divider boards This paper presents rules for the utilization of GFRG divider board as a lateral
load opposing part in structures in light of a numerical investigation system to land at its ability
estimation under hub pressure, pressure with in-plane bending and shear. Variety of buckling
load of unfilled GFRG divider boards for different widths is accounted for and with help of this
a designing model is proposed to survey the quality of unfilled and cement filled GFRG divider
boards in multi-storied building framework subjected to parallel load, for example, earthquake
Y F Wu and M P Dare et al (2006) have studied the flexural and shear strength of composite
lintels in glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels construction and reached to a conclusion that the
design of GFRG composite lintels involves the selection of tension reinforcement bars and the
determination of heightof the compression zone h. while designing the neutral axis for the lintel
beam through flexural theory the heightof GFRG panels is to ignored and the heightof concrete
infill is only considered and the neutral axis should also fall within compression zone h so that
there will be no failure cracks occur in the panels.
Athulya R Prasad and Nmitha Chandran (2016) have done the comparative study to
determine the dynamic behavior of glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels using ETABS 2015 and

determined the maximum displacement, and drift and compared it to the conventional framed
structure and in their study they find out that the displacement of Glass fiber reinforced building
is within the permissible limit as per IS 1893(Part 1); 2002 and is less as compare to conventional
RCC framed structure.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDIES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this study is to find out a suitable building material which can be used to
provide a affordable and mass housing for the low to medium income group people of the
developing countries which lies in seismic prone areas and can replace a conventional building
material. In this study we have tried to study the maximum displacement, drift, base shear and
maximum acceleration of the two different structures having a same floor plan and height
designed using GFRG panels without using beam and column with a structure designed using
masonry. both the structures are subjected to four different ground motion such as El Centro,
Sylmarf, Petrolia and Array and then we have compared the max displacement, drift, storey shear
and max acceleration under the four different peak ground accelerations (PGA). As our aim is
also to come out with a solution for an affordable housing we have also calculated the cost of
material used in the construction as per the CPWD 2016 manual. To accomplish this study both
the models are designed and analyzed analytically. ETABS 2015 has been used for time history
analysis using all ground motion mentioned above to perform the nonlinear dynamic analysis

3.2 RESPONSE SPECTRA METHOD
Response spectrum analysis is the most common method used in design to assess the maximum
structural response as a result of seismic excitation. It is a linear imprecise method based on
modal analysis and on a response spectrum definition. Design response spectra which is detailed
in clause 6.4.5 of IS code 1893:2002 and represented in Fig. 2 of the same code, has been used
for the study. It is expressed in terms of maximum pseudo acceleration at constant 5% damping
Fig 3.1 Response spectra for 5 percent damping (After IS code 1893:2002)
3.3 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
Time history analysis consists of the dynamic response of the structure at each increment of
time, when its base is subjected to a specific ground motion time history.
3.3.1 SELECTION OF GROUND MOTION
For the analysis, six different ground motions have been taken into account. The peak ground

acceleration (PGA) of these ground motions varies from 0.22g to 0.883g. The effect of
earthquake of a certain magnitude on building which mainly depends upon the characteristics of
ground motion like amplitude, frequency, duration of shaking and distance from fault has been
taken into consideration for engineering purpose.
The six sorts of ground increasing speeds, for example, Petrolia (1992), Northridge (1994), El
Centro(1940), Loma Prieta(1989), Holliste, Array 06 have been connected to models of various
cases to discover reaction of the models and to plot reaction envelope for acceleration, speed and
displacements of models.
Table 3.1: Details of ground motions data.
SI Earthquake Location Year Magnitude PGA Predominant time

No. Name (g) period range, (second)
1 El Centro Imperial 1940 7.1 0.348 0.45-0.87
Valley,
California,
USA
2 Petrolia Cape 1992 7.2 0.662 0.5-0.83
Mendocino,
California,
USA
3 Loma Prieta Loma Prieta, 1989 6.9 0.220 0.41-1.61
California,
USA
4 Northridge Northridge, 1994 6.7 0.883 0.20-2.20
California,
USA
5 Parkfield Parkfield, 1996 6.0 0.434 0.30-1.20
California,
USA

3.3.2 FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL PERIOD (Ta)
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta), in seconds, for moment-resisting
frame buildings with cement concrete infill panels is calculated as per clause 7.6.2 of IS code
1893(Part I):2002. It is estimated by following observed formula:
0.09
=

Where, .
d = Base distance (in m) of the building at the plinth level along the measured
direction of the considered horizontal force.
h = Building height, in m
3.4 ASSIGNING LOAD
3.4.1 LOAD CASES
Two different building of designed using GFRG panels and masonry building have been modeled
in ETABS2015 and after that the possible load case like gravity loads (dead load, super dead
load, live load) and the horizontal loads (earthquake loads) are assigned to the model as calculated
using codal provision.
3.4.2 DEFINING LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations have been defined as per IS code 1893:2002. In the limit state design of
reinforced concrete structures, following load combinations have been defined as per clause
6.3.1.2 of IS code 1893:2002.

Table 3.2 : Load combinations as per clause 6.3.1.2 of IS code 1893:2002
3.5 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear VB along principal direction X and
principal direction Y has been evaluated as per clause 7.5.3 of IS code 1893(Part I):2002 is as
follows:
VB = Ah W
Where Ah is the design horizontal acceleration spectrum value and has been calculated using
fundamental natural period T in considered direction of vibration of the building as per clause
6.4.2 of IS code 1893(Part I):2002.

Ah= . . (As per clause 6.4.2 of IS code 1893:2002)
2
Where, Z = Zone factor, depends on the perceived maximum seismic risk characterized by
maximum considered earthquake in the zone in which structure is located. Values of
zone factor as per clause 6.4.2 of IS code 1893:2002 are given in following table

Table 3.3 Zone factor, Z (After table 2, IS code 1893:2002)
I= Importance factor, depends upon the post-earthquake functional needs, historical value,
or economic importance of the structure. The value of I is 1.5 for important service and community
buildings like hospitals and school buildings and I is 1.0 for all other buildings.
R = Response reduction factor, depends on the perceived seismic damage performance of the
structure and is characterized by ductile or brittle deformation. It should be noted that the ratio
(I/R) must not be greater than 1.0. The values for R have been referred from table 7 of IS code
1893(Part I):2002.
Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient for hard soil, medium soil and soft soil. It is
evaluated using the fig 2 of IS code 1893(Part I):2002 and table 3 of IS code 1893(Part I):2002
for a particular soil site.
W= Seismic weight of the building, it is the sum of the seismic weights of all the floors and has
been calculated as per clause 7.4 of IS code 1893(Part I):2002. The seismic weight of each floor
has been calculated by adding its full dead load and appropriate amount of imposed load as per
table 8 of IS code 1893(Part I):2002.
Table 3.4 Percentage of Imposed load to be reflected in seismic weight calculation

(As per table 8 of IS code 1893(Part I):2002)

3.6 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
in analyses and design of GFRG structure the main task is to determine the response spectrum
factor of a building or a type of a structure which is to be determined using general observed
performance of same type of structure during past earthquakes, estimate of system toughness and
and the amount of damping present during inelastic response. A reasonable choice of R factor
can only be made by comparing the GFRG building using traditional building
GFRG wall are composite members with partial interaction and the ductility of a partially
interactive member is generally than that of a fully interactive reinforced concrete member.
Building constructed using GFRG is treated as reinforced concrete wall and the response
reduction factor for the GFRG structure is to be taken a s 3.0
3.7 DESIGN REQUIREMENT FOR SAFETY AGAINST PROGRESSIVE

COLLAPSE
Glass fiber reinforced gypsum structure is to be designed with proper structural integrity because
if there will a small failure in the structure it will lead to the failure of major part of india
The following precaution will provide proper structural integrity to the structure
a) All the building should be capable of resisting the lateral load of 1.5 times the
characterstics dead load on each floor.
b) All the buildings should be provided with a horizontal ties at periphery, inner wall and
outer walls
c) All the building with more than 5 storeys should be provided with vertical ties

3.8 AXIAL LOAD CAPACITY
While assessing the axial capacities of the glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels it is important to
consider the possible eccentricities in loading. A minimum eccentricity is always to be considered
a) The design of a glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels should be done with the
consideration of a minimum eccentricity which is minimum value of one sixth of the wall
thickness
b) Additional value is to be considered when out of the plane eccentricity is to be considered
c) The characteristics values of axial compressive strength is to be evaluated using
compression test result with different boundary condition generally the both the ends are
considered to be pinned
d) In the absence of alternate rigorous data there will be some formula used to determine the
axial load capacity of a filled and unfilled GFRG panels
i) Unfilled panels
Pud = (68-0.9e)
ii) Filled panels

Pud = (600-13.75e)
3.9 SHEAR STRENGTH
The unit shear strength capacity of 3 m glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels is given in a tabular
form the shear strength is given on basis of research done on a GFRG panels given as
a) Unfilled GFRG panels 14.4 KN/m
b) GFRG panels with M20 concrete 40 KN/m
c) GFRG panels partially filled with M 20 14.4+25.6n KN/m
In a multi storey construction different wall of different height will have different shear strength
and the maximum allowable height of the building is to be 3.5 m. In some structure there will be
a local increase of a shear strength up to 20% but the average value of all the system must be

within the maximum value. Double wall will be provided when there will be a need to provide
more shear strength.
3.10 IN PLANE BENDING CAPACITY
Glass fibre reinforced gypsum can not only be used as load bearing wall but it can also be used
for transferring lateral load resisting axial forces lateral in plane shear force and in plane bending
moment such wall have to be reinforced with steel rods and concrete of appropriate grade
The in-plane twisting limit of the walls relies on upon its length, the fortification gave, and also
the level of hub load and parallel shear. The plan in-plane bowing limit (Mud) and its association
with the outline hub stack limit (Pud) is normally portrayed by methods for a Pud - Mud interaction
diagram. The estimations of Mud increment with the length of the walls. Be that as it may, trial
investigations of GFRG boards subjected to sidelong stacking have demonstrated that
disappointment is started by vertical splitting brought about by shear disappointment of the
GFRG skin Taking after such vertical splitting, the walls sections isolated by the vertical breaks
have a tendency to carry on autonomously, in spite of the fact that their disfigurements at the top
and base are administered by the relating misshapenness in the interfacing floor stomach.
Consequently, for all down to earth purposes, the in-plane twisting limit is restricted by the
relating shear limit. Longer shear walls have a tendency to pull in bigger horizontal burdens
what's more, will frame vertical shear splits in the centre locale, bringing about a further
redistribution of powers, and conceivable further vertical shear splitting.
Thus, under considered horizontal burdens (tremor or wind), it is suggested that in the limited
component demonstrate, the long walls are reasonably fragmented with the end goal that no
portion surpasses 3.5m long. Likewise, while displaying, care ought to be taken to consider T, L
also, I formed flanged segments as being comprised of partitioned rectangular portions with no
shear exchange between them.
Tests have demonstrated that giving two vertical bars in every pit produces enhanced execution
than a solitary bar. Pivotal load minute communication graphs (outline diagrams), for different
walls lengths, fluctuating from 1.0 m to 3.5m with augmentations of 0.25 m, for different bar

widths (8 to 18 mm) of Fe 415 and Fe 500 review steel, M20 what's more, M25 review cement,
are given for advantageous use in the plan office
For low rise building there is no need to fill all the cavities of a building using reinforced concrete
although it is a desirable to fill the cavities with a cement concrete reinforcement bar should be
provided where ever it is required. Single bar reinforcement should be provide in such a low rise
building Design interaction curve of GFR wall panels is shown
Fig 3.2 Interaction Curve (source CED4(7987)WC )
3.11 BASIC DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR GENERATING PUD MUD

INTERACTION DIAGRAM
Generation of the interaction diagram of a GFRG building walls depends on a rearranged system,
which is a changed rendition of the 'lower bound arrangement', initially proposed by Wu (2009).
Certain suppositions are made to build up the inexact collaboration bend from the standards of
mechanics.
The cross segment of a typical GFRG board infilled with cement and support bars in every cell
is appeared. The conduct of the GFRG wall infilled with cement relies on upon the bond between
the solid and the GFRG walls. This is reflected in the variety of ordinary strain (in the vertical
bearing) along the length of the wall, as appeared in Figure On the off chance that there is no
bond, there would not be any interaction between them, bringing about little strain with various

neutral axes, as appeared in Figure In the event that it is expected that the concrete cores are
completely attached to the GFRG board, then the "plane segment stay plane" suspicion is
substantial for the whole segment and the strain profile will be a straight line with a solitary
impartial pivot, as appeared in Figure This conduct is like reinforced cement concrete flexural
walls. Be that as it may, the restricted bond between the solid centres and the GFRG board is
hard to measure. The plausible strain profile is probably going to be as appeared in Figure A
direct 'lower bound' suspicion of strain profile can be accepted with a definitive compressive
strain (cu), as appeared in Figure The estimation of cu is restricted by the out of plane buckling
strength of the board and incorporates improvement because of strain slope for short wall lengths
Fig 3.3 Stress strain curve of GFRG panels (source CED4(7987)WC )

CHAPTER 4
MODELING AND CALCULATION OF STUDY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The structural elements of both the structure i.e. glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels structure
and the masonry structure are designed using structural design manual of GFRG panels which
has been published by building, materials and technology promotion council. The structural
elements of the GFRG building has been designed using structural design manual and the design
results has been used for the modelling of GFRG and masonry building in ETABS 2015 as the
GFRG panels is a new material it has been defined in ETABS 2015 and finally the time history
analysis has been done by using different PGA such as EL Centro sylmarf Petrolia and array and
then the results which has been obtained after the analysis such as maximum displacement, storey
shear, drift and maximum acceleration are used to compare both the structure on their structural
behavior. As one of the main aim of our project is also to compare both structure on the basis of
cost so cost estimation has been done

4.2 BUILDING GEOMETRY & LOAD ASSIGNED
4.2.1 Geometry details of GFRG building
a) Size of dimension =6mx6m

b) No of stories =2
c) Storey height =3m
d) Total height =9m
e) Size of plinth beam = 200 mm x 230 mm
f) Size of T beam = 124 mm x 230 mm
g) Thickness of slab = 60 mm
h) Dimension of filled cavities = 94 mm x 230 mm
i) Thickness of wall = 124 mm
4.2.2 Geometrical details of masonry building
a) Size of dimension =6mx6m

b) No of stories =2
c) Storey height =3m
d) Total height =9m
e) Size of plinth beam = 230 mm x 230 mm
f) Size of lintel beam = 230 mm x 200 mm
g) Thickness of slab = 150 mm
h) Thickness of wall = 230 mm
Loading details of both the buildings
a) Live load = 3 KN/m2

b) Floor finish = 1.5 KN/m2

4.2.3 Plan of a building
4.2.4 Elevation Of The GFRG Building
Fig 4.1 Elevation of GFRG Building

4.2.5 Elevation of the Masonry Building
Fig 4.2 Elevation of Masonry Building
4.3 DEFINING OF GFRG MATERIAL
While designing the glass fiber reinforced gypsum building we have defined the material by
using a option define property in ETABS 2015. The physical and mechanical property of the
building is been taken by a paper published by professor devdas menon and design manual of
BMPTC government of India. These properties has been obtained by performing a test on
material. The stress strain graph of a glass fiber reinforced gypsum building is obtained by
performing a tensile test on a panel by using universal testing machine is given below and these
property has been used directly from the data given in a design manual. The properties of GFRG
material which are entered in to the ETABS 2015 are given below.

Fig 4.3 Stress strain diagram of GFRG material (source CED4(7987)WC )
Weight- lightweight 40 Kg/ sqm

Axial load capacity 160 kN/m{ 16 tons/ m}
Compressive strength 73.2 Kg/cm2
Unit Shear strength 50.90 kN/m
Flexural strength 21.25 kg/cm2
Tensile Strength 35 KN/ m
Ductility 4
Fire resistance 4 hr rating withstood 700-10000 C
Thermal Resistance R 0.36 K/W
U Value 2.85W/M2K
Thermal conductivity 0.617
Elastic Modulus 3000-6000Mpa
Sound transmission{STC} 40
Water absorption < 5%

Fig 4.4 Defining of GFRG stress strain graph in modelling
Fig 4.5 Defining GFRG material in ETABS 2015

4.4 ASSUMPTION IN THE MODELLING OF GFRG BUILDING
While designing the glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels residential building using ETABS 2015
we have considered some assumption for reflecting the same onsite condition in our modelling
the assumption which we have assumed are given below
a) In onsite condition the cement concrete is cast in to the cavities of GFRG panels. These
both material behave like a composite material and the bond between the two materials
is neither strong nor reliable which may result in relative movement between the two
layers so this system will create a complexibilites in structural integrity as well as
structural analysis so to avoid these type of condition we have modelled our glass fiber
reinforced gypsum residential building by providing a small gap between the gfrg wall
and the cement concrete core in the model designed using ETABS 2015 and we have
assumed that by providing small gap. we have achieved the same site condition as
required.
Fig 4.6 GFRG wall modelling In ETABS 2015
b) According to literature review the joint which are provide in the construction of glass
fiber reinforced gypsum panels are assumed to be T, L and + in shape but while
modelling the structure we have provided the rectangular column having very minute
space between them which in combinations behave like a T L + shaped joint as given in
the literature.
Fig 4.7 Types of joints as given in design manual (source CED4(7987)WC )

Fig 4.8 Joints modelled in ETABS 2015
c) According to literature review the beam which are present in the roof slab is behaved as
a micro T beam and the GFRG panels which are present below will be used just to provide
a support to the concrete slab because of which we can remove the formwork below the
slab within 4 days of concreting of slab instead of 14 days as in conventional building
and the slab between the two T beam is behave like a one way slab and is designed
according to IS 456:2000 so while modelling of the GFRG residential building we have
first provides the micro T beam at a distance of 0.75 m and then we have provided the
slab of thickness 50 mm over these T beam and assume that it will show the same
behavior as it is given in the literature by Professor Devdas Menon of IIT madras
4.5 DESIGN OF A SLAB
GFRG-RC composite section frameworks might be utilized effectively in floor pieces and slab.
The ribs ought to be arranged along the shorter traverse, upheld on GFRG wall panels. Despite
the fact that this is a composite framework containing GFRG board and cast in situ strengthened
cement, for comfort in plan, the commitment of GFRG board towards the flexural strength might
be overlooked and the GFRG board can be dealt with as lost formwork. RC disguised bars, given
by filling cavities at normal interims (regularly, every third hole or each substitute depression, if
required) and appropriately reinforced, consolidated with a screed cement of thickness at the very
least 50 mm, as appeared in Figure given below, give a flanged-bar activity. One way section
activity might be accepted for quality and avoidance check, considering T beam activity of the
inserted bars. In the screed concrete, appropriate welded wire texture (of required gage and

separating) should be provided. The design of reinforcement in the concealed beams might
acclimate to the necessities of IS 456. Such slabs can be helpfully planned up to ranges of 5m.
For commercial or residential structures with high live load, the most extreme clear traverse
might be constrained to 4m.
Fig 4.9 Ductile Detailing of GFRG slab
Effective heightassuming 12 mm diameter bar d = (124+50-15-8-12/2)
=145 mm
Effective span as per clause 22.2 of IS:456-2000
Effective span (l) is the minimum of
(i) Clear span + effective depth =4+0.145 =4.145 m

(ii) c/c of supports =4.00 + 0.124 =4.124 m
Accordingly, l =4.124 m
Loading
Weight of empty GFRG slab panels =0.44 KN/m2
Weight of filled concrete plus ther 50 mm screed concrete =1.97 KN/m2

Floor finish =1.0kn/m2
Live load as per IS: 875 (part-2) 1987 =2.00 KN/m2
Total service load w =5.4 KN/m2
Including a load factor of 1.5
Design bending moment Mud =(1.5 x 5.4 x4.124 2/8)
=17.22 KN-m/m
Design bending moment/ rib Mud =0.75 x 17.22
=12.92 KN-m
Mud/bd2 = (12.92 x 106)
(230 x (145)2)
=2.67 KN/mm2
From table 3 of SP 16 Design aids to IS 456
Pt =0.876
Ast =292 mm2
Provide 2 Y12 + 1y10 giving an area of 305 mm2
Shear force Vu =1.5 x 5.4 x 0.75 x (2-0.145)
=11.27 KN
Shear stress = (11.27 x 103 )/ (230 x 145 )
= 0.34 KN /mm2
From Table 19 of IS 456
For Pt =0.914
Shear stress =0.62 N/mm2 > 0.32 N/mm2

Hence, only nominal stirrup streel is required
Minimum stirrup steel Ast = (0.4bsv)/ (0.87 fy)
Maximum spacing, S v max =0.75 x 145 =108 mm
= 100 mm
A sv =(0.4 x 230 x 100 )/ (0.87 x 250 )
= 42.3 mm2
Provide 6 mm two legged mild steel stirrups @100mm c/c
Nominal steel for screed concrete = (0.12/100) x 50 x 103
= 61.2 mm2 / m
Provide 10 gauge welded mesh @ 300 mm c/c on top
4.6 CHECK FOR CAPACITY OF RC CORES
It is useful to check the overall shear capacity ignoring the contribution of GFRG panels and
considering only the concrete core. All cavities of GFRG panels are to be considered to be
filled with M 20 grade of concrete and 2 10 mm diameter bar as per requirement.
Number infilled M 20 concrete cores (230 mm x 94 mm) @ 250 mm spacing
In X direction nx =83/ 0.25
= 332
In Y direction, ny = 69/ 0.25
= 276
Reinforcement ratio, 100 Ast / bd = 100 x 3.14 x 122
(4 x 94 x ( 230-30))

= 0.60
Design shear strength of each infilled concrete column =0.522 MPa
Shear capacity of each infilled concrete column Vc = shear stress x area
= 0.522 x 94 x200/1000 = 9.18 KN
Shear strength of building
In X direction = n x Vc
=332 x 9.81 = 3257 Kn > VBX
= 1114 KN
In Y direction = ny x Vc
= 276 x 9.81 = 2707 KN > VBY
=1166 KN
Hence safe

4.7 DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
For GFRG housing construction which is also called as rapidwall housing the type of foundation
required for the support to the building will depend upon the type of soil. It may be raft, isolated
pile or spread footing. All around the building where the panels are to be erected plinth beams of
required dimension are to be constructed and then a steel bar of 12 mm diameter and 0.75 m in
length are to be erected at a distance of 0.75 m from c/c. The bars are 0.45 m protrudes up and
the remaining 0.15m angle is placed for proper anchorage in cement concrete plinth beam.
Fig 4.10 Ductile detailing of strip foundation

Design of stem wall
Assume width of stem = 200 mm
The vertical load per m length of the wall =315 KN
Design vertical load = 315 x 1.5
=473 KN
Bearing strength fbr =0.45 x fck
=0.45 x 20
= 9 MPa
Ultimate bearing resistance =9 x 1000 x 200
= 1800 KN > 473 KN
Hence, a minimum reinforcement of 0.25 percentage of gross cross sectional area may be
provided in each direction.
Minimum vertical reinforcement Ast min =0.0025 x 1000 x 200
=500 mm2
Spacing of 12 mm reinforcement on each face of stem wall in vertical direction
= 1000 x 113/ (500/2)
>300 mm
Spacing of 8mm reinforcement on each face of stem wall in horizontal direction

=1000 x 50/(500/2)
= 200 mm
Hence provide 12 mm diameter bars at 300 mm spacing along vertical direction and 8mm
diameter bars at 200 mm spacing along horizontal direction on each side of stem wall

Size of Footing
The vertical load per m length of the foundation =315 KN x 1.1
= 347 KN
A strip footing can be selected as the type of foundation
Area of the footing per m length = 347 KN/ 300 KN/m
= 1.16 m
Width of the footing = 1.2 m
Thickness of footing
The uniform pressure at bottom of slab = 315 x 1.5/1.4
=394 KN/m2
=0.39 N/mm2
Shear force at a distance d from face =0.390 x 1000 x(500-d)
Permissible shear stress for Pt = 0.25 and M 20 concrete is 0.36 MPa
Shear resistance =0.36 x 1000 x d
D = 261 mm
Overall heightD =261+75+16/2
= 350 mm
Check for gross soil pressure
Gross soil pressure q max = (315+24 x(1.1 x 0.2 +0.4
X 1.4) + 1.8 x 1.1x1.2)/1.4
= 292.7 KN/m2 < SBC
= 300 KN/m2

Hence OK
Flexural reinforcement in footing slab
Moment at face Mu =0.394 x 1000 x 5002/2
= 4.92 x 107 N mm
Mu/bd2 =68.5 x 106/100.489 x 106
=0.68 N/mm2
Pt =0.194
Provide 16mm diameter bars at 150 mm c/c
4.8 COST ESTIMATION OF THE BUILDING
4.8.1 COST ESTIMATE OF MASONRY BUILDING
The total quantity of material is calculated using material estimation and then the cost estimation of
the masonry building is done using CPWD 2016 rate manual and then the final comparison on the
basis of cost has been done.
Table 4.1 Cost estimation of masonry building
DESCRIPTION RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT

111 EARTHWORK
1 Earthwork in surface excavation not Rs 53 21.6 m2 Rs 1144.80
exceeding 30 cm in height but exceeding per sqm
1.5 m breadth as well as 10 m2 on plan
including getting out and clearance of
excavated earth up to 50 m and lift up to
1.5 m

2 Earthwork in excavation by mechanical Rs 166 43.2 m3 Rs 7172
means hydraulic excavator/ manual per
means over area ( exceeding 30 cm in cumec
height not exceeding 1.5 m in width as
well as 10 sqm on plan including getting
out and clearance of excavated earth lead
up to 50 m and lift 1.5 m
3 Open timbering over area like including Rs 37.40 144 m2 Rs 5385.60
strolling and shoring complete per sqm
measurement to be taken of the face area
timbered
Height exceeding 1.5 m to 3 m
4 Filling available excavated earth in Rs 126 24.48 m3 Rs 3084.48
trenches plinth sides of foundation per
consolidating earth deposited layer by cumec
ramming and watering lead up to50 m
and lift up to2 m
5 Supplying and filling in plinth with sand Rs 918 10.8 m3 Rs 9914.40
under floor including watering ramming per
and consolidation and dressing complete cumec
6 Extra for levelling and nearly dressing of Rs 38 24.48 m3 Rs 930.24
disposed soil completely per
cumec
7 Anti-termite treatment Rs 100 36 m2 Rs 3600
per sqm
B MORTAR
1 Cement mortar ( 1 cement : 2 fine sand ) Rs 10.904 m3 Rs 55978.41

5133.75

per
cumec
C CONCRETE WORK
1 Providing and laying in position cement

concrete of specified grade excluding the
cost of fixing and shuttering ( All work
up to plinth level )
2 M 20 concrete Rs 12.96 m3 Rs 76783.46
5924.65
per
cumec
3 M 7.5 concrete Rs 4.32 m3 Rs 19345.60
4478.15
per
cumec
4 Fixing and shuttering including strutting Rs 144 m2 Rs 27928.80
propping etc. and removal of form work 193.95
for foundation, footing , bases for column per sqm
D R.C.C
1 Providing and laying in position Rs 6215 13.176 m3 Rs 81888.84
specified grade of reinforcement cement per
concrete excluding the cost of fixing cumec
shuttering finishing and reinforcement up
to plinth level
2 R.C.C work in beam , floors lintels above Rs 7390 6.624 m3 Rs 48951.36
plinth level up to floor five excluding the per
cost of fixing shuttering finishing and cumec
reinforcement

3 Cost of fixing and shuttering including
strutting propping etc and removal of
form from all height
4 Foundation , footing and base of column Rs 165.60 m2 Rs 31985.64
193.15
per sqm
5 Suspended floors roofs landings Rs 108 m2 Rs 45608.40
balconies and access platform 422.30
per sqm
6 Lintel beam, plinth beam and beam Rs 33.12 m2 Rs 11356.848
342.90
per sqm
7 Column , pillar pier abutments post and Rs - -
strut 467.85
per sqm
8 Steel reinforcement for R C C work Rs 56.60 937.875 kg Rs 53083.725
including straightening cutting bending per Kg
placing in position and bending all
complete up toplinth level
9 Steel reinforcement for R C C work Rs 56.60 2631.88 kg Rs 148964.86
including straightening cutting bending per kg
placing in position and bending all
complete above plinth level
E BRICK WORK
1 Brickwork with common burnt clay Rs 5640 62.698 m3 Rs 353616.72

machine moulded perforated bricks of per
class designation 12.5 conforming IS cumec

2222 in superstructure above plinth level
up to floor five level in cement mortar 1:6
2 extra for brickwork in superstructure Rs 205 62.698 m2 Rs 12853.09
above five level per
cumec
F FLOORING
1 Providing and laying ceramic glazed Rs 108 m2 Rs 74343.96
floor tiles of size 300 X 300 mm of 1 st 688.37
quality conforming to IS 15622 of per sqm
G PAINTING
1 Inner wall Rs 125 355.40 m2 Rs 44425
per sqm
2 Outer wall Rs 302 81.8 m2 Rs 24703.6
per sqm
3 ceiling Rs 90 108 m2 Rs 9720
per sqm
H WOODEN FIXTURES
1 DOOR (Block board construction flush Rs 1800 29.4 m2 Rs 52920

door with teak wood ply on both faces 35 sqm
mm thick)
2 WINDOW (Block board construction Rs 1800 22 m2 Rs 39600
flush door with teak wood ply on both per sqm
faces 35 mm thick)
Rs
1198223.20
EXTRA 10% Rs 119822.30

Total Rs
1318045.50
4.8.2 ESTIMATION OF GFRG BUILDING
The total quantity of material is calculated using material estimation and then the cost estimation of
the GFRG building is done using CPWD 2016 rate manual and then the final comparison on the
basis of cost has been done.
Table 4.2 Cost estimation of GFRG building
SS DESCRIPTION RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT

A EARTHWORK
1 Earthwork in surface excavation not Rs 53 18 m2 Rs 954
exceeding 30 cm in height but exceeding 1.5 per sqm
m breadth as well as 10 sqm on plan including
getting out and clearance of excavated earth
up to 50 m and lift up to 1.5 m
2 Earthwork in excavation by mechanical Rs 166 36 m3 Rs 5976
means hydraulic excavator/ manual means per
over area ( exceeding 30 cm in height not cumec
exceeding 1.5 m in width as well as 10 sqm
on plan including getting out and clearance of
excavated earth lead up to 50 m and lift 1.5 m
3 Open timbering over area like including Rs 37.40 144 m2 Rs 5385.60
strolling and shoring complete measurement per sqm
to be taken of the face area timbered
Height exceeding 1.5 m to 3 m

4 Filling available excavated earth in trenches Rs 126 22.68 m3 Rs 2857.68
plinth sides of foundation consolidating earth per
deposited layer by ramming and watering lead cumec
up to50 m and lift up to1.5 m
5 Supplying and filling in plinth with sand Rs 918 10.8 m3 Rs 9914.40
under floor including watering ramming and per
consolidation and dressing complete cumec
6 Extra for levelling and nearly dressing of Rs 38 22.68 m3 Rs 861.84
disposed soil completely per
cumec
7 Anti-termite treatment Rs 100 36 m2 Rs 3600
per sqm
B MORTAR
1 Cement mortar ( 1 cement : 2 fine sand ) Rs - Rs 0
5133.75
per
cumec
C CONCRETE WORK
1 Providing and laying in position cement

concrete of specified grade excluding the cost
of fixing and shuttering ( All work up to plinth
level )
2 M 20 concrete Rs 9.9 m3 Rs 58654.035
5924.65
per
cumec
3 M 7.5 concrete Rs 3.6 m3 Rs 16121.34
4478.15

per
cumec
4 Fixing and shuttering including strutting Rs 144 m2 Rs 27928.80
propping etc. and removal of form work for 193.95
foundation, footing , bases for column per sqm
D R.C.C
1 Providing and laying in position specified
grade of reinforcement cement concrete
excluding the cost of fixing shuttering
finishing and reinforcement above plinth level
2 T Beam Rs 6215 4.62 m3 Rs 28713.30
per
cumec
3 Slab Rs 6215 5.4 m3 Rs 33561
per
cumec
4 Infills in cavities Rs 6215 13.86 m3 Rs 86139.90
per
cumec
5 R.C.C work in beam , floors lintels above Rs 7390 6.624 m3 Rs 48951.36
plinth level up to floor five excluding the cost per
of fixing shuttering finishing and cumec
reinforcement
6 Cost of fixing and shuttering including
strutting propping etc and removal of form
from all height
7 Foundation , footing and base of column Rs 165.60 m2 Rs 31985.64
193.15
per sqm

8 Suspended floors roofs landings balconies Rs 108 m2 -
and access platform 422.30
per sqm
9 Lintel beam, plinth beam and beam Rs 33.12 m2 -
342.90
per sqm
10 Column , pillar pier abutments post and strut Rs - -
467.85
per sqm
11 Steel reinforcement for R C C work including Rs 56.60 724 kg Rs 40978.400
straightening cutting bending placing in per Kg
position and bending all complete up toplinth
level
12 Steel reinforcement for R C C work including Rs 56.60 2298.28 kg Rs 130082.64
straightening cutting bending placing in per kg
position and bending all complete above
plinth level
E BRICK WORK
1 Brickwork with common burnt clay machine Rs 5640 0 Rs 0
moulded perforated bricks of class per
designation 12.5 conforming IS 2222 in cumec
superstructure above plinth level up to floor
five level in cement mortar 1:6
2 extra for brickwork in superstructure above Rs 205 0 Rs 0
five level per
cumec
3 Gfrg panels Rs 700 432 m2 Rs 302400
per sqm

F FLOORING
1 Providing and laying ceramic glazed floor Rs 108 m2 Rs 74343.96

tiles of size 300 X 300 mm of 1 st quality 688.37
conforming to IS 15622 per sqm
G PAINTING
1 Inner wall Rs 125 355.40 m2 Rs 44425
per sqm
2 Outer wall Rs 302 81.8 m2 Rs 24703.6
per sqm
3 ceiling Rs 90 108 m2 Rs 9720
per sqm
H WOODEN FIXTURES
1 DOOR (Block board construction flush door Rs 1800 29.4 m2 Rs 52920

with teak wood ply on both faces 35 mm sqm
thick)
2 WINDOW (Block board construction flush Rs 1800 22 m2 Rs 39600
door with teak wood ply on both faces 35 mm per sqm
thick)
Rs
1055642.49
EXTRA 10% Rs 105564.24
Total Rs
1161206.73

CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The comparative study between the glass fiber reinforced gypsum panel structure and masonry
structure has been done by plotting response envelopes of buildings in terms of floor acceleration,
displacements and storey drift. All models of buildings used for the study of stability in different
cases have been modeled in ETABS 2015. Time history analysis has been performed for the
dynamic analysis using various ground motions.
5.2 GROUND MOTIONS
There are three types of ground accelerations such as Petrolia (1992), Northridge (1994), El
Centro (1940), array (2004), Hollister and Array 06 which have been applied to models of
different cases to find response of the models and to plot response envelope for acceleration,
velocity and displacement of models. Details of ground motions are tabulated in table 3.1 in
methodology section. Plots/graphs of above mentioned ground motions which has been
generated in ETABS 2015.

5.3 STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURE UNDER NORTHRIDGE
EARTHQUAKE 1994 RESPONSE APPLIACTION
The 1994 Northridge seismic tremor happened on January 17, at 4:30:55 a.m. PST and had its
epicenter in Reseda, an area in the north-focal San Fernando Valley locale of Los Angeles,
California. It had a term of around 1020 seconds. The visually impaired push tremor had a
minute size (Mw) of 6.7, which delivered ground increasing speed that was the most elevated
ever instrumentally recorded in a urban region in North America, measuring 1.8g (16.7 m/s2).
The excitation at the sylmarf station which is available in northridge is given beneath
Fig 5.1 Earthquake response of Northridge earthquake
In this study we have used the Northridge earthquake sylmarf earthquake excitation and we have
matched it with Indian standard response spectra for earthquake zone IV and silt type II using
ETABS 2015 and then the excitation has been applied on both GFRG and masonry structure and
then comparison of both the structure on the basis of maximum displacement, storey shear,
maximum acceleration on building and drift has been done to evaluate the structural stability of
GFRG panel structure.

5.3.1 Response Envelope of Displacement
10
7
STOREY HEIGHT ( m )
0 0, 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
DISPALCEMENT ( mm )
GFRG MASONARY
Fig 5.2 Displacement Vs Storey height comparison under Northridge earthquake
10
9
8
7
STOREY HEIGHT ( M )
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-05 2.00E-05 3.00E-05 4.00E-05 5.00E-05 6.00E-05 7.00E-05
DRIFT ( mm )
GFRG X MASONARY X
Fig 5.3 Drift Vs Storey height comparison under Northridge earthquake

Both the structure The GFRG residential building and the masonry building are modelled using
ETABS 2015 and then it is subjected to Northridge earthquake having magnitude 6.7 and peak
ground acceleration of 1.8g m/s2. The maximum displacement of GFRG building is observed as
0.3 mm and for masonry building is 0.42 mm this shows the maximum displacement for GFRG
will be less than the masonry building. The comparison of both the structure have also been done
on the basis of drift and the graph is given above
5.3.2 Response Envelope of Storey Shear
ground acceleration of 1.8g m/s2. The maximum storey shear at plinth level of GFRG building is
observed as 264.41 KN reduced to 53.03 KN at the top storey and for masonry building the
maximum storey shear at plinth level is observed as 326.65 KN and is reduced to 62.6 KN at top
storey. This show that the storey shear at plinth level in GFRG building is less than masonry
building.
Fig 5.4 Storey shear comparison between both structure under Northridge earthquake

5.3.3 Response Spectrum of Acceleration
ground acceleration of 1.8g m/s2. The maximum acceleration has been observed on the storey 3
at beam no 3 as 2.36 m/s2 for glass fiber reinforced gypsum building where as the maximum
acceleration has been observed as 2.54 m/s2 at storey 3 when they are subjected to same
acceleration and constructed on same type of site condition.
The maximum acceleration observed at top floor of both the building under different ground
acceleration it is found that the initial acceleration in GFRG building is high because of the partial
interactivity between the panels and the concrete core for a fraction of time but after the panel
settles down the maximum acceleration for GFRG building will be less than the masonry
structure.
3000
2000
Acceleration (mm/s2)
1000
0 GFRG
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-1000
-2000
-3000
Time ( second )
Fig 5.5 Acceleration response of both the structure under Northridge earthquake

5.4 STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURE UNDER CAPE
MENDOCINO CALIFORNIA USA 1992 RESPONSE APPLIACTION
The 1992 Cape Mendocino tremors (or 1992 Petrolia seismic tremors) happened along the Lost
Coast of Northern California on April 25 and 26. The three biggest occasions were the extent is
7.2 pushed principle stun that struck close to the unincorporated group of Petrolia late morning
on April 25 and two essential strike-slip consequential convulsions measuring 6.5 and 6.6 that
took after at a young hour the following morning. The profundity of epicenter is 10.5 km and the
pinnacle ground quickening is seen as 2.2g. we have taken the station named Petrolia which is a
situated in cape Mendocino California.
Fig 5.6 Earthquake response of Petrolia earthquake
In this study we have used the cape Mendocino California earthquake petrolia earthquake
excitation and we have matched it with Indian standard response spectra for earthquake zone IV
and silt type II using ETABS 2015 and then the excitation has been applied on both GFRG and
masonry structure and then comparison of both the structure on the basis of maximum
displacement, storey shear, maximum acceleration on building and drift has been done to
evaluate the the structural stability of GFRG panel structure.

10
9
8
STOREY HEIGHT ( m )
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0, 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
DISPLACEMENT ( mm )
GFRG MASONARY
Fig 5.7 Displacement Vs Storey height comparison under Petrolia earthquake
10
7
STOREY HEIGHT ( m )
0
0.00E+00 1.00E-05 2.00E-05 3.00E-05 4.00E-05 5.00E-05 6.00E-05 7.00E-05 8.00E-05 9.00E-05 1.00E-04
DRIFT ( mm )
GFRG X MASONARY X
Fig 5.8 Drift Vs Storey height comparison under Petrolia earthquake

ETABS 2015 and then it is subjected to cape Mendocino California USA 1992 earthquake having
magnitude 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 2.2g m/s2 . The maximum displacement of GFRG
building is observed as 0.42 mm and for masonry building is 0.6 mm this shows the maximum
displacement for GFRG will be less than the masonry building.
magnitude 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 2.2g m/s2 .. The maximum storey shear at plinth
level of GFRG building is observed as 304.064 KN reduced to 62 KN at the top storey and for
masonry building the maximum storey shear at plinth level is observed as 316.246 KN and is
reduced to 38 KN at top storey. This show that the storey shear at plinth level in GFRG building
is less than masonry building.
Fig 5.9 Shear comparison between both structure under Petrolia earthquake

5.4.3 Response Spectrum Of Acceleration
magnitude 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 2.2g m/s2 .. The maximum acceleration has been
observed on the storey 3 at beam no 3 as 3.5 m/s2 for glass fiber reinforced gypsum building
where as the maximum acceleration has been observed as 3.1 m/s2 at storey 3 when they are
subjected to same acceleration and constructed on same type of site condition
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 GFRG
2 4 6 8 10 12 MASONARY
-1000
12, -1387.2
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
Time ( second )
Fig 5.10 Acceleration response of both the structure under Petrolia earthquake
structure

5.5 STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURE UNDER PARKFIELD
EARTHQUAKE 2004 RESPONSE APPLIACTION
A earthquake of very high magnitude near to 6.0 struck the central coast of California on the
second day of the week that is September 28, 2004 the epicenter of the earthquake was 11 km
that is 7 miles SSE of parkfield at a heightof approximately 8 km. After four minutes there will
be aftershock of magnitude 6.0 . As expected lot of aftershock continues to strike to epicenter
region. The peak ground acceleration for parkfield earthquake at station array is 0.484gm/s2
Fig 5.11 Earthquake response of Parkfield earthquake
In this study we have used the parkfield ( array station ) earthquake excitation and we have
matched it with Indian standard response spectra for earthquake zone IV and silt type II using
ETABS 2015 and then the excitation has been applied on both GFRG and masonry structure
and then comparison of both the structure on the basis of maximum displacement, storey shear,
maximum acceleration on building and drift has been done to evaluate the the structural stability
of GFRG panel structure.

10
9
8
STOREY HEIGHT ( m )
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 0, 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
DISPLACEMENT ( mm )
GFRG MASONARY
Fig 5.12 Displacement Vs Storey height comparison under Parkfield earthquake
10
7
STOREY HEIGHT ( m )
0
0.00E+00 2.00E-05 4.00E-05 6.00E-05 8.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.20E-04
DRIFT ( mm )
GFRG X MASONARY X
Fig 5.13 Drift Vs Storey height comparison under Parkfield earthquake

ETABS 2015 and then it is subjected to Parkfield having magnitude 6 and peak ground
acceleration of 0.434g m/s2 . The maximum displacement of GFRG building is observed as 0.49
mm and for masonry building is 0.69 mm this shows the maximum displacement for GFRG will
be less than the masonry building.
acceleration of 0.434g m/s2. The maximum storey shear at plinth level of GFRG building is
observed as 333.337 KN reduced to 75 KN at the top storey and for masonry building the
maximum storey shear at plinth level is observed as 356.397 KN and is reduced to 75 KN at top
storey. This show that the storey shear at plinth level in GFRG building is less than masonry
building
Fig 5.14 Storey shear comparison between both structure under Parkfield earthquake

5.5.3 Response Spectrum of Acceleration
acceleration of 0.434g m/s2. The maximum acceleration has been observed on the storey 3 at
beam no 3 as 3.2 m/s2 for glass fiber reinforced gypsum building where as the maximum
acceleration has been observed as 3.3 m/s2 at storey 3 when they are subjected to same
accelearion and constructed on same type of site condition
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GFRG
-1000 MASONARY
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
TIME ( Seconds)
Fig 5.15 Acceleration response of both the structure under Petrolia earthquake

structure

CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISSCUSIONS
Maximum accelerations, displacements, storey shear and cost of every building material used of
different cases of adjacent buildings subjected to various ground motions are provided here in
tabular form
6.1 COMPARISON OF DISPLACEMENT FOR DIFFERENT CASES

SUBJECTED TO ALL GROUND MOTIONS
Table 6.1 Comparison of maximum displacements between two different cases of adjacent
buildings
S NO NAME OF EARTHQUAKE MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (mm)

MASONRY GFRG
BUILDING BUILDING
1 Northridge earthquake 0.418 0.305
2 Cape Mendocino earthquakes 1992 0.60 0.42
3 Parkfeild earthquake 0.68 0.49

6.2 COMPARISON OF STOREY SHEAR FOR DIFFERENT CASES
Table 6.2 Comparison of maximum storey shear between two different cases of adjacent
buildings
S NO NAME OF EARTHQUAKE MAXIMUM STOREY SHEAR (KN)

MASONRY GFRG
BUILDING BUILDING
1 Northridge earthquake 236.7 KN 264.4 KN
2 Cape Mendocino earthquakes 1992 316.2 KN 304 KN
3 Parkfeild earthquake 356.397 KN 333.337 KN
6.3 COMPARISON OF ACCELERATION FOR DIFFERENT CASES

Table 6.3 Comparison of maximum acceleration between two different cases of adjacent
buildings
S NO NAME OF EARTHQUAKE MAXIMUM ACCELERATION ( m/s2)

MASONRY GFRG
BUILDING BUILDING
1 Northridge earthquake 2.54 2.36
2 Cape Mendocino earthquakes 1992 3.6 3.5
3 Parkfeild earthquake 3.3 3.2

6.4 COMPARISON OF BOTH THE STRUCTURE ON THE BASIS OF
COST FOR A PARTICULAR BUILDING MATERIAL
Table 6.4 comparison of both the structure on the basis of cost for a particular building
material
S NO NAME OF ACTIVITY COST ( Rs )

GFRG MASONRY
BUILDING BUILDING
1 CONCRETING Rs 3,32,055.375 Rs 3,43,848.948
2 STEEL WORK Rs 1,71,061.04 Rs 2,02,048.585
3 EXCAVATION Rs 29,549.52 Rs 31,231.12
4 PAINTING Rs 78,848.60 Rs 78,848.60
5 PLASTERING 0 Rs 55,978.41
6 BRICKWORK 0 Rs 3,66,469.81
7 GFRG WALL PANELS Rs 3,02,400 0

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
Based on the comparative study between the glass fiber reinforced gypsum and masonry structure
the conclusions are listed below
1. The glass fiber reinforced gypsum panels building showed less deflection as comparison
to masonry structure when it is subjected to different ground motions which implies that
the structural stability of GFRG building is better in comparison to masonry structure
2. The storey shear and base shear calculated results shows that the GFRG building is light
in weight as comparison to masonry structure which also add an advantage to these type
of construction.
3. it is found that the initial acceleration in GFRG building is high for a fraction of time but
after the panel settles down the maximum acceleration for GFRG building will be less
than the masonry structure which also proves that the GFRG construction gives better
structural stability under earthquake excitation as compare to masonry construction.
4. The cost estimation and its comparison for the two building models wiz masonry and
GFRG shows that the building construction using GFRG panels is cost efficient.
5. The total amount of concrete used in the construction is also less for GFRG building
which also proves that GFRG construction is ecofriendly.

FUTURE SCOPE
1. A methodology can be synthesized to construct GFRG building suitable for temporary

shelter during an emergency situation
2. In the future a detailed study can also be done to use GFRG panels in the construction of
other infrastructure projects and multi-story building

REFERENCES
1) ATC-19 Structural response modication factors.. Redwood, (CA): Applied Technology

Council; 1995
2) Booth E. Concrete structures in earthquake regions: design and analysis. UK: Longman;
1994.
3) CED4(7987)WC Draft Indian Standard for Design of Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum
(GFRG) Panels for Buildings- Code of Practice
4) IS: 456-2000 Code of practice for plain and Reinforced concrete, BIS, New Delhi.
5) IS 1893: Part I: 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures Part I: General
Provisions and Buildings, BIS, New Delhi.
6) IS 875 : Part I : 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings
and structures Part I Dead loads Unit weights of buildings material and stored materials
(Incorporating IS: 1911-1967), , BIS, New Delhi.
7) IS 875: Part 5: 1987 Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings
and structures Part 5 Special loads and load and load combinations, IS 875: Part 5: 1987, BIS,
New Delhi.
8) Evaluation of seismic performance of gypcrete building panels. Structural Engineering

Research Centre CSIR, Chennai, India; August 2002. Project no. CNP 053241/2.

9) Han Y, Zhao K, Zhang X. Experimental study on compressive strength of the Rapidwall. J
Shangdong Jianzhu Univ 2007;22(1):912
10) Janardhana M, Prasad AM, Menon D. Studies on the behavior of glass ber reinforced
gypsum wall panels. In: Proceedings of the 8th US national conference on earthquake
engineering, San Francisco, California, USA; 1822 April 2006. Paper no. 1326.
11) Janardhana M, Prasad AM, Menon D. Behavior of glass ber reinforced gypsum wall panel
under cyclic lateral loading. In: Proceedings of the fourth international structural engineering
and construction conference (ISEC-4), Melbourne, Australia; 2628 September 2007. p. 707
11.
12) JD14-010-2007. Technological specication of compound wall structural system with big
ber hollow plaster panel. PR China: Shang Dong Construction Bureau; 5th September 2007.
13) Jiang X, Gou Y. Cyclic behavior of ber-reinforced plasterboard with core concrete
composite shear walls. In: Proceedings of the ninth Canadian conference on earthquake
engineering, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; June 2007. p. 123442
14) Liu K, Wu YF, Jiang X. Shear strength of concrete lled glass ber reinforced gypsum walls.
Master Struct 2008;41(4):64962
15) Omahen R. Ecologically sustainable development: approaches in the construction industry.

Master of economics thesis, Faculty of Economics, University of Regensburg: Regensburg,
Germany; 2002.
16) Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New
York: John Wiley and Sons; 1992.
17) Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. J
Struct Eng ASCE 1994;120(8):231029.

18) Wu YF. A 2002 report into the physical testing and the development of design guidelines for
the structural application of Rapidwall in building construction. Adelaide (Australia): Dare
Sutton Clarke Engineers; 2002.
19) Wu YF, Dare MP. Axial and shear behavior of glass ber reinforced gypsum wall panels:
tests. J Compos Constr ASCE 2004;8(6):56978.
20) Wu YF. The effect of longitudinal reinforcement on the cyclic shear behavior of glass ber
reinforced gypsum wall panels: tests. Eng Struct 2004;26(11): 163346.
21) Wu YF, Dare MP. Flexural and shear strength of composite lintels in glass ber reinforced
gypsum wall constructions. J Mater Civil Eng ASCE 2006;18(3):41523
22) Zhang X, Liang M, Zhao K. Experimental study on seismic behavior of reinforced rapid-wall.
J Shangdong Jianzhu Univ 2007;22(2):938.
23) Zhao K, Zhang X, Wei TJ. Full-scale model test on the performance of a ve- storey ber
plaster board building. In: Proceedings of the seventh international RILEM symposium ber
reinforced concrete: design and applications (BEFIB-2008 symposium), Chennai, India; 17
19 September 2008

Check Plag

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Check Plag

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CHAPTER 1

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 1

1.1 GFRG BUILDING SYSTEM

1.1.1 GFRG PANELS

The danger of environmental change brought about by the expanding centralization of

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 2

Weight- lightweight 40 Kg/ sqm

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 3

Fig 1.2 Joints in the GFRG Building (source CED4(7987)WC )

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 4

Fig 1.3 Foundation details of GFRG Building (source CED4(7987)WC )

1.1.5 RAPIDWALL FOR RAPID CONSTRUCTION

i) Brickwork wall construction

ii) Cement plastering requiring curing,

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 5

v) Plastering of the ceiling.

1.1.6 CONCRETE INFILL

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 6

1.1.7 FINISHING WORK

1.1.8 RAPIDWALL BUILDING/ HOUSING IS COOLER

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 7

1.1.9 RAPIDWALL IS ENERGY EFFICIENT

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 8

1.1.10 USES OF RAPIDWALL

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 9

1.2 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND ROBUSTNESS

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 10

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 11

1.4 ORGANISATION OF THE DISSERTATION

The dissertation work is arranged in six chapters.

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 12

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 13

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 14

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 15

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDIES

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 16

3.3 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

3.3.1 SELECTION OF GROUND MOTION

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 17

Table 3.1: Details of ground motions data.

SI Earthquake Location Year Magnitude PGA Predominant time

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 18

3.4 ASSIGNING LOAD

3.4.1 LOAD CASES

3.4.2 DEFINING LOAD COMBINATIONS

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 19

3.5 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 20

Table 3.4 Percentage of Imposed load to be reflected in seismic weight calculation

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 21

3.7 DESIGN REQUIREMENT FOR SAFETY AGAINST PROGRESSIVE

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 22

ii) Filled panels

3.9 SHEAR STRENGTH

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 23

3.10 IN PLANE BENDING CAPACITY

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 24

Fig 3.2 Interaction Curve (source CED4(7987)WC )

3.11 BASIC DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR GENERATING PUD MUD

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 25

Fig 3.3 Stress strain curve of GFRG panels (source CED4(7987)WC )

Dept. of CE, NIT Patna. Page 26

MODELING AND CALCULATION OF STUDY