IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 12 | June 2016

ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional

Multistoried Buildings using ETABS
Athulya R Prasad
PG Student
Department of Civil Engineering
Sree Buddha College of engineering, Pattoor Alappuzha,
Kerala, India

Namitha Chandran
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Sree Buddha College of engineering, Pattoor Alappuzha,
Kerala, India

Abstract
Glass fiber reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) panel is a new building panel product, where there is a tremendous need for costeffective mass-scale affordable housing. GFRG panel otherwise called Rapidwall, is a vitality effective green building material
with gigantic potential for use as 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 intermediate floor slab/roof slab in combination with RCC
as a composite material. They are not only eco-friendly, but also resistant to termites, heat, rot, corrosion, water and fire.
Concrete infill with vertical reinforcement rods enhances its vertical and lateral load capabilities. Comparative studies of GFRG
and conventional buildings have been carried out in the present investigation. Rapidwall panel provides speedier construction
and leads to environmental protection. Subsequently, it is a perfect option building material to replace bricks or concrete blocks.
This paper focuses on equivalent static analysis of G+7 storied, GFRG and conventional buildings to evaluate the story
displacement, story drift and base shear.
Keywords: Gypsum panel, Rapidwall, Tie beam, Story displacement, Drift
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I.

INTRODUCTION

Glass fiber reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) panel also known as Rapidwall is a building panel product, made of calcined gypsum
plaster, reinforced with glass fibers, used for building construction, was originally developed and used since 1990 in Australia.
GFRG panels are made to a length of 12m, height of 3m and thickness of 124mm. The cavities of panels might be unfilled,
somewhat partially filled or fully filled with reinforced concrete according to structural requirement. Test studies and research in
various countries have exhibited that GFRG panels, suitably filled with plain reinforced concrete has considerable quality to act
as load bearing elements as well as shear wall, capable of resisting lateral loads due to earthquake and wind. GFRG panel can
likewise be utilized beneficially as in-fills in combination with RCC framed columns and beams with no limitation on number of
stories. Micro-beams and RCC screed can be used as floor/ roof slab. A typical cross section of the panel is shown in the Figure
1.

Fig. 1: a) GFRG panel

b) Cross section details

(c) GFRG builing

Use of reprocessed/recycled industrial byproduct (waste gypsum) to manufacture GFRG panel, helps to abate pollution and
protect the environment. It is also suitable for load bearing applications as well as hybrid construction in multi storey buildings.
There will be increased speed of construction with less man power, saving of cement, steel, river sand; burnt clay bricks/concrete
blocks.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

563

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS

(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 12 / 101)

II. PROBLEM DEFINITION

A typical plan for a proposed building at RCF, Mumbai is considered for the analysis. Both GFRG and conventional building is
having a same height of 24m. In the case of conventional buildings, floor and roof slabs are RCC slabs of 200mm thickness
using M20 grade concrete. Wall thickness is taken as 250mm. Beams of size 250mm x 300mm and columns of size 450mm x
450mm with a yield strength of steel of Fe 415. Zone III, Zone factor, Z (Table2 of IS 1893-2002) 0.16, Importance factor, I
(Table 6 of IS 1893-2002) 1.0, Response reduction factor, R (Table 7 of IS 1893-2002)- 3.00, Soil type (figure 2 of IS 18932002) Type II (Medium soil). In the case of GFRG building, there will not be any beams and columns. All the roof/floor slabs
and wall panels are 124mm thick. The gravity loads acting on the slabs includes 2 kN/m 2 live load and 1 kN/m2 floor finish. The
bottom support are assumed to be hinged.
Static and dynamic analysis of both G+7 storied buildings is carried out. The main objective of the study is to carry out the
comparison of GFRG and conventional buildings. The plan layout for all the building models is kept as same. Study has been
done on different models of a G+7 storey building, using ETABS software. Following are the models considered for analysis in
ETABS 2015, using equivalent static analysis. The plan and layout of conventional and GFRG building are illustrated in Figure
2 and 3.

Fig. 2: Plan and 3D view of conventional building

Fig. 3: Plan and 3D view of GFRG building

Various load combinations considered for the analysis process are:

1.5DL
1.5(DL + LL)
1.5(DL EQ)
1.2(DL + LL EQ)

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

564

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS

(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 12 / 101)

0.9DL 1.5EQ
1.5(DL WL)
1.2(DL + LL WL)
0.9DL 1.5WL
III. ANALYSIS OF MODELS

The described 3D building model is analyzed using equivalent static method. Distinctive parameters like story deflection, story
drift and base shear are considered for the models. Dead load and live load are considered according to IS-875(part 1 &2), wind
load is considered according to IS-875(part 3) and earthquake loading is considered according to IS: 1893 (Part1)-2002.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this paper, comparison of analysis results for GFRG and conventional building in terms of story displacement, story drift and
story shear are presented and compared to understand the structural performance. Static analysis for critical load case
(1.5DL+1.5EQX) are performed in X and Y direction for all the models using ETABS Software.
Maximum permissible displacement and permissible story drift are calculated from IS: 1893-2002 and IS: 456-2000.
Maximum permissible displacement is limited to H/500, where H - Total height of building.
For H=12m, permissible story displacement = 24mm.
Maximum permissible story drift is limited to 0.004h, where h story height.
For h=3m, permissible story drift = 12mm.
1) Story displacement: Figure 4 shows story displacement for GFRG and conventional G+7 storied buildings due to critical
load.

Fig. 4: Story displacement due to critical load

2) Story drift: Figure 5 shows story drift for GFRG and conventional G+7 storied buildings due to critical load.

Fig. 5: Story drifts due to critical load

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

565

Static Analysis of GFRG and Conventional Multistoried Buildings using ETABS

(IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 12 / 101)

3) Base shear: Figure 6 shows base shear for GFRG and conventional G+7 storied buildings due to critical load.

Fig. 6: Base shear due to critical load

V. CONCLUSIONS
1) From the analysis results for GFRG and conventional buildings indicate that, GFRG building perform better in terms of
least story displacement, story drift and base shear when compared to conventional buildings.
2) Among all load combinations, combination of 1.5DL+1.5EQX is observed to be more critical combination for all the
models.
3) The story displacement and story drift for both GFRG and conventional buildings are within the permissible limits.
4) Critical displacement for conventional building is 39.5mm and for GFRG building is 1.2mm, which is less than permissible
limits.
5) Static analysis is not sufficient for high rise buildings and its necessary to do dynamic analysis.
REFERENCES
Maganti Janardhana, A. Meher Prasad, Devdas Menon, Studies On the behaviour of Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Wall Panels, Structural engineering
division, IIT Madras
[2] GFRG/RAPIDWALL Building Structural Design Manual, prepared by Structural Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras,
2012.
[3] Deepak M Jirage, V.G. Sayagavi, N.G. Gore, Comparative Study of RCC and Composite Multi-storied Building, International Journal of Scientific
Engineering and Applied Science , Volume 1, Issue 6, September 2015
[4] Bahador Bagheri, Ehsan Salimi Firoozabad, Mohammadreza Yahyaei, Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Storey Irregular
Building, International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 11, May 2012
[5] Mohammed Rizwan Sultan, D. Gouse Peer, Dynamic analysis of multi-storey building for different shapes International Journal of Innovative Research
in Advanced Engineering, Issue 8, Volume 2, August 2015
[6] Arvind reddy, R. J. Fernandes, Seismic analysis of RC regular and irregular frame structures International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Volume. 02, Issue 05, Aug 2015
[7] Ashok Thakur, Arvinder Singh, Comparative Analysis of a Multistoried Residential Building with and without Shear Wall using STADD Pro
International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, Vol. 1, Issue 1, June 2014
[8] IS 1893:2002 (Part I), Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[9] IS 875:1987(Part 2), Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and structures- Imposed Loads, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi
[10] IS 875:1987(Part 3), Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design loads (Other than Earthquake) for buildings and structures- Wind Loads, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
[1]

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

566