Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM66733
Volume:
10 |
8 |
Aug 2026
Pages:
1-5
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Civil Engineering Department
P.E.S College of Engineering, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, M.S.
Civil Engineering Department
P.E.S College of Engineering, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, M.S.
One of the causes of a structure's reduced capacity is a column that is discontinuous and is known as a floating or hanging column. It is frequently added to buildings either as result of customer requests or poor planning, making them more vulnerable during earthquakes. To increase the capacity or strength of such type of structures, lateral load resisting systems such as concrete bracing, shear wall, moment frames, dampers, etc are introduced in structures. The main purpose of the current study is to check which structure is more stable in seismic zone IV by comparing the results obtained by response spectrum analysis of three considered structures using ETABS software. By comparing all the result parameters such as displacement, storey drift, base shear, time period and storey stiffness, it can be concluded that the floating column structure with shear wall is more resistant to seismic activities.
KEYWORDS
1. Displacement: • According to the results, The building with the floating column experiences more displacement than the building with the bracing and shear wall. • The outcome indicates that the floating column structure with bracing experiences 9% less displacement and structure with shear wall experiences 26% less displacement than bare frame structure or floating column structure. 2. Storey drift: • The building with the floating column experiences more storey drift than the building with the bracing and shear wall. • According to outcomes, the floating column structure with bracing experiences 13% less storey drift and structure with shear wall experiences 29% less storey drift than bare frame structure or floating column structure. 3. Base shear: • The building with the floating column experiences less base shear than the building with the bracing and shear wall. • The floating column structure with bracing experiences 0.8% more storey drift and structure with shear wall experiences 1.3% more storey drift than bare frame structure. 4. Time period: • The building with the floating column experiences more time period than the building with the bracing and shear wall. • The floating column structure with bracing experiences 5.3% less time period and structure with shear wall experiences 15% less time period than bare frame structure. 5. Storey stiffness: • The building with the floating column experiences less storey stiffness than the building with the bracing and shear wall. • The floating column structure with bracing experiences 7% more storey stiffness and structure with shear wall experiences 89% more storey stiffness than bare frame structure.
[1]. Subhashini. L, Dr. Subhash Chandra Bose R, Shiva Shankar K M, Pallavi H J (2022), “Seismic Analysis of Multistorey Floating Column Building with Lateral Load Resisting System”, International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET). [2]. Mohd Sharooq Shaik, (2018), “Comparative Seismic Study of Floating Column & Lateral Resisting System on RC Frame Building”, International Journal of Research in Advent Technology. [3]. Keerthi Gowda B. S and Syed Tajoddeen, (2014), “Seismic Analysis Of Multistorey Building With Floating Columns”, Annual Conference On Innovations And Development In Civil Engineering (ACIDIC). [4]. N. Lingeshwaran, Surya Kranthi Nadimpalli, KollaSailaja, Shaik Sameeruddin, Y. Himath Kumar, Sateesh Babu Madavarapu (2021), “A study on seismic analysis of high-rise building with and without floating columns and shear wall”, Sciencedirect. [5]. Dharanya A, Gayathri S, Deepika M (2017), “Comparison Study of Shear Wall and Bracings under Seismic Loading in Multi- Storey Residential Building”, International Journal of ChemTech Research. [6]. Rishi Mishra , Dr. Abhay Sharma, Dr. Vivek Garg (2014), “Analysis of RC Building Frames for Seismic Forces Using Different Types of Bracing Systems”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT). [7]. Syed Muhammad Bilal Haider, Zafarullah Nizamani1, and Chun Chieh Yip (2018), “Behavioural Study of Shear Wall with Correlational to Bracing under Seismic Loading”, E3S Web of Conferences. [8]. Pallavi G. A, Nagaraja C (2017), “Comparative Study of Seismic Analysis of Multistoried Building with Shear Wall and Bracings”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology. [9]. Hiba C K, Basith Ali K K, Anaswara Dileep K V, Arunima Satheesh M S (2021), “Effect of Bracing on Seismic Performance of Multi-storeyed Building Frames with Floating Columns”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT). [10]. Boria Anya, Tamal Ghosh (2021), “A Study on Effect of Shear Wall in Seismic Analysis of Building”, IOP Publishing.
Publication Date
8/19/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
2
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
2
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...