8 V May 2020

http://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2020.5223
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue V May 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

Review on Analysis of Multi-storey Building with

and without Floating Columns
Shubham Mandwale 1, Nikhil Pitale 2
1 2
PG Student, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering Nagpur, India

Abstract: There are many studies carried out on analysis of structure with floating and without floating column, also studied
seismic analysis of RC framed building for different strata and studied comparison of shear wall structure included floating
column structure for the parameters displacement, storey shear, time period and base shear of structure under earthquake
excitation. Floating column is use to satisfy the space requirement and to get good elevations to the structure. From the reviews
it is founded that floating column structure are not economical if designed as earthquake resistant also the use of floating
columns results in the increase in the displacement, bending moment, storey shear, time period and Steel requirement of
structure.
Keywords: Floating column (FC), Storey shear, Base Shear, Storey displacement, ETabs.

I. INTRODUCTION
Multi-storey buildings are constructed for industrial, residential and commercial purpose with open ground storey. The main
problem is to get space for the parking, reception lobbies or halls. At present time, India’s infrastructure system has grown up
tremendously and parallel with lots of research has been done in the field of construction. For commercial or hotel buildings lower
floor required conference halls, reception lobbies, showroom or parking areas for that required large open space for the easy
movement of vehicles and people. Based on the planning of upper floors closely spaced columns are not useful in the lower floors.
For the solution of that problem concept of floating column has evolve. Vertical member of structure called column begin from the
base that is foundation and transfers load of structure to the ground. Floating column is not different from the regular column but it
is rest on beam which is horizontal member. It acts as a point load on a beam and the load transfer to the column below the beam.
Buildings with floating column are designed for the vertical loads not designed for the seismic loads so structure with floating
columns are not safe under seismic prone areas. Now a day’s earthquake resistant design got main attention in design of any type of
structure.
II. LITERATURE REVIEWS
Sasidhar [1], In this paper Equivalent static analysis has done. Six cases were considered depending on position of removal of
columns. G+5 storey structure in zone II are considered. The results of different cases for the parameters displacement, bending
moment , shear force, and area of reinforcement compared with the regular structure that have regular columns. From the analysis
author concluded that structure with floating column has more base shear and required more steel compared to normal building also
floating column is not suitable in higher seismic zones. Prerna [2], In this paper studied on structure has floating columns under
seismic loading for the change in soil conditions. Response spectrum analysis was done to analyze different building models. Two
models were considered of G+3 and G+5 building in that six different cases are considered for each model. Results were obtained
for soil type II and soil type III, conditions for all cases and checked the variation for parameters like storey shear, bending moment.
From the analysis it concluded that base shear is more in medium soil compared to hard soil in both cases. From response spectrum
analysis concluded that floating column at corner of exterior frame found critical than other locations.
Kirankumar [3], Studied on two different structure one with the floating column and structure without column also shear wall
structure considered. Analysis was done using equivalent static and response spectrum method for seismic zone v. Considered four
models of G+20 storey buildings. Model 1. Normal building, Model 2. Floating column building, Model 3. Shear wall building, 4.
Shear wall and floating column structure. Analysis was done for the parameters storey shear, displacement, , storey drift and time
period. From the analysis and after comparing the parameters it is obsereved that the structure with shear wall gives better
performance, lesser displacement and more strength. Time period for floating column structure is more compared to other models.
Nakul [4], Studied on two structures with and without seismic loading, structure one is the floating columns structure another
without floating columns structure. Response spectrum analysis is used for the analysis. Analysis has done to find out roof
displacement, inner storey drift, base shear and comparison of amount steel and concrete required in different cases. The results of

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 1395

 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue V May 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

analysis is that floating column model has more displacement value according to code it is not permitted to provide in higher zones.
Similarly for drift floating column model has more drift value than the normal building also the increasing height of building
increases storey drift and storey displacement. Performance of floating column structure is less during earthquake. structure with
floating column is not economical if designed as earthquake resistant.
Dipak [5], Studied variation of Storey Shear, Base Shear, and Moment on high rise structures for Different Seismic Zones. Staad pro
software used for the anlysis. Different models were considered G+3, G+5, G+7, G+9 storey buildings for different plan area and
different seismic zones. Considered two plan areas of 9m X 12m and 12m x 15m. from the analysis it observed that base shear and
storey shear increased with increase in seismic zones and storey height for both the plan areas.
Deekshitha [6], Studied comparative study of G+5 storey building of structure with floating columns and with regular columns for
different parameters drift value, base shear and horizontal displacement. Analysis has done in Etabs software. Conclusion of
analysis is that storey displacement increase as the height of building increases. Displacement is more in floating column building
specially for the corner floating building compare to normal building. Storey drift increases as storey displacement increases and
base shear value decreases due to introduction of floating columns.
KeerthiGowda [7], Studied on structure with floating columns and without floating columns under seismic loading. Analysis was
done using Etabs software for the seismic zone v. Three models were considered of G+10 storey, Model 1. Reinforced concrete
building without floating columns. Model 2. Sturucture with floating columns and Model 3. Structure with floating column after
providing bracings. From the results author concluded that storey drift for structure of floating column is 5.87 % more than normal
building. After providing bracings storey drift of structure of floating columns reduced by 18.28%. Storey shear value of regualr
building compare to structure of floating columns is higher by 4.11%. After providing bracings the building storey shear of floating
column has increased by 31.78%. Structure with floating columns has time period value is 4.04% more than that of normal building,
after providing bracings the value of time period for structure with floating column has reduced by 10.94%. Displacement of
building with floating columns is 4.74% more than that of normal building. The displacement of building after providing bracings
has been reduced by 9.83%. From the results concluded that structure of floating column performed poor under seismic loading.
Performance of structure under seismic loading improved by providing bracings in structure of floating columns.
Kandukuri [8], Studied on structure of floating columns under seismic loadings. Equivalent static analysis was done. Considered six
models of G+4, G+9 and G+14 storey building with floating column and without floating column bullding. Equivalent static
analysis has done for zone III in Etabs. Conclusion of analysis is that storey drift increase as zone intensity increases. Drift value
and lateral displacement increase for floating column model. Height of building increase , Increases the storey drift and deflection.
Shear wall structure is safe compared to other structure but not economical for less height structure. Building with bracings perform
well in case of small height structure than high rise building.
Amit[9], Looked At the reactions of RC frame buildings with various kinds and possible locations of floating columns & also
without floating column under earthquake loading. RSA used for the analysis of models with the help of ETABS. The (G+12) with
a floating column building, with SMRF specially moment resisting frames in two orthogonal directions is selected for the study. The
structure is viewed as situated in Zone III according to IS 1893:2002. Different cases are considered Type A) Structure without
floating column, Type B) Structure With one side floating Column, Type C) Structure with both side floating column – Fig 4 Type
D) Structure with one side floating column with strut support. Each type of structure considers for analysis for 3 more cases on the
basis of distance of cantilever i.e. floating column from original column. Cases are as following. a) Distance considered is
equivalent to 1.2 m b) Distance considered is equivalent to 1.5 m c) Distance considered is equivalent to 2.0 m. In view of
investigation following ends can be drawn. Displacement of the structure is getting reduce in type D structure (Structure with
floating column with strut support). Strut support is safer for large cantilever of 1.5 m and 2.0 m to reduce deflection of the building.
Storey shear comparison carried out to know effect of lateral force on building structure. Storey shear highly affect Type C building
because double floating column increasing mass of the building structure, as it is less for Type D (at strut support) which gives more
stability to structure and will consume less reinforcement as compare to other type of structure.
Kishalay [10], Studied assessment of seismic performance of structure with floating columns. A 10 story structure with area 13440
sq. ft. Length in x-course 16' and straight range in y-course 14'. Five unique cases are thought of for analysis. Equivalent static
analysis, Modal analysis, Response spectrum analysis are the methods used for analysis of models. From the investigation it is
presumed that, torsional irregularity does not depend on floating column number or ground floor column size, it is mainly depend on
floating column location. Story stiffness is less in structure with floating columns compared to regular structure. Floating column
should be provided symmetrically to avoid torsional irregularity as well as column size should be increased to get rid of from soft
story effect.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 1396

 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue V May 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

Allacheruvu [11], Studied relative seismic investigation on strengthening of structure with floating columns using bracings. In this
current examination four models are utilized particular, ‘Model 1 (G+9 Normal RC Building)’, ‘Model 2 (G+9 RC structure with
floating columns)’, ‘Model 3 (G+9 RC structure with floating columns with Bracings at corner)’, ‘Model 4 (G+9 RC structure with
floating columns with Bracings at centre)’. Seismic analysis is completed on every one of four cases using equivalent static method
and RSA in two zones (V, III). Correlation of results Storey Drifts, Storey shears, Time period, Base shear and Maximum
Displacement, for every one of the four models are noted. From every one of these outcomes can see that the “structure with
bracings at centre” (Model 4) performs very much contrasted with all the models. Model 4 resulted in resisting higher base shear
values compared to Model 3 with small displacement values.
Sharma [12], Studied the analysis of G+5, G+7, G+9, G+11 and G+13 storey structure with floating column and structure without
floating. The analysis is done by using Staad Pro V8i software by using RSA. To study the effect of floating column which is at
corner of building and resting on two cantilever beams at the free tip end under seismic loading for severe seismic zone. From the
response spectrum analysis it is noticed that the floating column building is having more displacements than a building without any
floating column. So structure with floating columns is unsafe than a normal building. Structure with floating column becomes
uneconomical as compare to normal building. Due to increase in sizes the cost of construction increases so that the structure with
floating columns becomes uneconomical. So construction of floating column building should be avoided.
Kuldeep [13], The time history of overturning moment, inter storey drift, floor displacement, base shear are computed for the frames
with floating column. Analysis by STAAD ProV8i software. 1. Static Analysis (Plane Frame Element) 2. Dynamic Analysis (Time
History Analysis, New mark's Method). In this analysis author get the results that structures are safe under static loading condition,
structure with floating column found unsafe under dynamic loads. Structure with floating column can make safe by increasing
members size, about 27% concrete quantity required more for the structure of floating columns. Structure with floating column is
uneconomical. By applying floating column in structure building make serviceable for utilization purpose.
Avinash [14], In this paper the seismic exhibition of working with and without FC sections are introduced as far as different
parameters, for example displacement, storey drift, maximum column forces, time period of vibration etc. The structure having
different areas of drifting segments for example FC beginning from various stories are considered for the examination. The building
is modeled by using finite element software ETABS. Equivalent static analysis and response spectra dynamic analysis are
performed on the various buildings and their seismic performance is evaluated. Four unique cases were thought of. Plan region 24m
x 18m with 16 number of stories for the seismic zone IV. Investigation came about that FC structure not reasonable in high seismic
zone since unexpected change in firmness was watched. Required huge size of brace pillar to help FC, By utilizing FC huge
utilitarian space can be given which can be useful. FC prompts irregularity in building.

III. CONCLUSIONS
A. Use of floating columns is good for more space index and architectural view.
B. Shear wall structure gives good performance, lesser displacement and more strength compared to other models like floating
column structure or normal structure.
C. Building with floating column are not economical if designed as earthquake resistant.
D. Floating column structure gives increase value of storey drift, lateral displacement and time period.
E. Increase height of building increases the storey displacement.

REFERENCES
[1] Sasidhar T, P. Sai Avinash, N. Janardan, “Analysis Of Multistoried Building With And Without Floating Column Using Etabs”, IJCIET, Volume 8, Issue 6,
June 2017.
[2] Prerna Nautiyal, Saleem Akhtar, Geeta Batham, “Seismic Response Evaluation of RC frame building with Floating Column considering different Soil
Conditions” IJCET, Vol.4, No.1 February 2014.
[3] Kirankumar Gaddad, Vinayak Vijapur, "Comparative Study Of Multi Storey Building With And Without Floating Columns And Shear Walls", IRJET p-ISSN:
2395-0072 Volume: 05 Issue: 07 | July-2018
[4] Nakul A. Patil, Prof. Riyaz Sameer Shah, "Comparative Study of Floating and Non-Floating Columns with and Without Seismic Behaviour- A Review",
IJREST, ISSN 2395-6455.
[5] Dipak M. Kolekar, Mukund M. Pawar, “Study of Base Shear, Storey Shear and Base Moment on Multistory Building for Different Seismic Zones” IJESC
Volume 7 Issue No.6.
[6] Deekshitha.R, Dr. H. S.Sureshchandra, "Analysis Of Multi-Storey Building With And Without Floating Column", IJERT, Vol. 6 Issue 06, June - 2017.
[7] KeerthiGowda B. S, Syed Tajoddeen, “Seismic Analysis Of Multistorey Building With Floating Columns” ACIDIC-2014 NITK Suratkal, India 19-20 May
2014.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 1397

 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue V May 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

[8] Kandukuri Sunitha, Mr. Kiran Kumar Reddy, “Seismic Analysis of Multistorey Building with Floating Column by using Tabs” IJETSR, ISSN 2394 – 3386
Volume 4, Issue 8 August 2017.
[9] Amit Namdeo Chaudhari, Dr. R. S. Talikoti, “Study of Seismic Behavior of Building with Different Positions and Types of Floating Column” IJESC, ISSN
Volume 7 Issue No.7, July 2017.
[10] Kishalay Maitra, N. H. M. Kamrujjaman Serker, “Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Floating Column building” AJCE, ISSN 2330-8729 Volume 6, Issue
No.2, April 2018.
[11] Allacheruvu Raghavendra, T.Appa Reddy, G.N.Sreekanth, “Comparative Seismic Study On Strengthening Of Floating Column Building Using Bracings”
IJAMCE, ISSN: 2394-2827, Volume-3, Issue-5, Oct.-2016.
[12] Sharma R. K, Dr.Shelke N. L, “Dynamic Analysis of RCC Frame Structure with floating Column” IJARSET, ISSN: 2350- 0328, Vol. 3, Issue 6 , June 2016.
[13] Kuldeep Dubey, Dr. Rakesh Patel, “Reliability Analysis of Multi-Storey Building with Floating Column for Long Span” IJIRSET, ISSN (Print): 2347-6710,
Vol. 7, Issue 9, September 2018.
[14] Avinash Pardhi, Parakh Shah, SatishYadav, Pundlik Sapat, Amit Kumar Jha, “Seismic Analysis Of Rcc Building With & Without Floating Columns, IJATES,
ISSN 2348-7550, Vol. No.4, Issue No. 03, March 2016.

©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved 1398