You are on page 1of 8

ORI GI NAL CONTRI BUTI ON

Response Spectrum Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings


N. R. Chandak
Received: 22 March 2012 / Accepted: 4 July 2012 / Published online: 29 August 2012
The Institution of Engineers (India) 2012
Abstract In this work, a parametric study on reinforced
concrete (RC) structural walls and moment resisting frames
building representative of structural types using response
spectrum method is carried out. Here, the design spectra
recommended by Indian Standard Code [1] and two other
well known codes (Uniform Building Code, Euro Code 8)
have been considered for comparison. The main objective of
this study is to investigate the differences caused by the use
of different codes in the dynamic analysis of multistoried
RC building. Three different oor plans that are symmetric
(SB), monosymmetric (MB), and unsymmetric (UB) with
torsional irregularity are taken as sample buildings. To
evaluate the seismic response of the buildings, elastic
analysis was performed by using response spectrum method
using the computer program SAP2000. Periods, base shears,
lateral displacement and interstory drift, torque located at
code dened ground type are comparatively presented. It is
observed from the comparative study that the base shear
using IS code is higher in all the three buildings, when
compared to that of with other codes.
Keywords Response spectrum analysis IS1893
Euro code UBC Elastic analysis
Notations
A
h
Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value
S
a
g
Spectral acceleration coefcient
T Time in sec
R Response reduction factor
C
a
, C
v
Soil modied ground motion parameters
S Soil factor
g Damping correction factor, its reference value is
g = 1 for 5 % viscous damping
W Seismic weight of building
Introduction
Earthquake codes are periodically revised and updated
depending on the improvements in the representation of
ground motions, soils, and structures. Moreover, these
revisions have been made more frequently in recent years.
The Indian Standard Code [1] was also revised in 2001 and
has been in effect since 2002. This improvement was done
followed to destructive earthquake occurred in Bhuj
(Gujarat State, India) on 26th January, 2001 which resulted
in more than 19,000 recorded death and 1,66,000 injuries.
Preliminary indications are that 600,000 people were left
homeless, with 48,000 houses destroyed and an additional
844,000 damaged. The Indian State Department estimates
that the earthquake affected, directly or indirectly, 15.9
million people, nearly 50 % of the population of Gujarat.
More than 20,000 cattle were reported killed. Government
estimates place direct economic losses at $1.3 billion,
although more recent estimates indicate losses may exceed
$5 billion. A number of separate teams from different
bodies conducted damage surveys and reported some
conclusions as briey summarized below.
Early reports stressed that quality of construction were
poor and that there were many structural mistakes and
deciencies due to the non-compliance with the earthquake
N. R. Chandak (&), Associate Member
Department of Civil Engineering, G.H. Raisoni Institute of
Engineering & Management, Jalgaon 425002,
Maharashtra, India
e-mail: narayanch@rediffmail.com
1 3
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128
DOI 10.1007/s40030-012-0012-9
code. It was concluded that the nature of the strong-motion
was also a major contribution factor to the level of damage.
Under the light of observations and lessons from the
2001 earthquake and past earthquakes, many studies have
been carried out up to now and number of improvements
are made [1]. The inuence of local ground conditions on
the seismic action is considered depending on the ground
types descried in the various codes considered in the
present study. That is why the emphasis has been given on
the differences caused by the use of spectra given in IS
Code and other well known codes such as UBC and EC8 in
the seismic analysis of sample buildings.
The effect of ground types dened in the codes on the
seismic response of buildings was also investigated for
different building congurations and different supporting
soils. Base shear and interstory drift for considered ground
types and buildings are compared to reveal the differences.
Investigations have been performed earlier on the structural
responses of three typical Perth structures, a masonry
house, a low-rise building (reinforced concrete frame), and
a high-rise building (reinforced concrete frame with core
wall), on various rock and soil sites to earthquake ground
motions of different return periods using numerical
dynamic analysis [2].
Elastic, Inelastic Response and Design Spectra
Various seismological and geophysical parameters affect
the shape of response spectra. The researchers have pre-
sented and discussed the effects of earthquake magnitude,
source-to-site distance, site classication, and style-of
faulting on the strong-motion accelerograms and conse-
quently response spectra [3, 4]. As known, the damping
ratio and structural vibration period are other parameters
affecting the response spectra. The earthquake induced
ground shaking is generally represented in the form of
acceleration response spectra or displacement response
spectra. Acceleration response spectra in all current seismic
codes, the earthquake actions are represented in the form of
a spectrum of absolute acceleration. But code acceleration
spectra tend to be conservative at longer periods with the
result that the long-period ordinates of the displacement
spectra are unnecessarily high [5]. Figure 1 shows typical
shape of elastic design spectra.
A typical shape of horizontal elastic design spectrum has
been given in Fig. 1, where T shows the periods of struc-
ture, Se
A
and Se
B
show the ordinate values at points A and
B of the elastic design spectra, TB and TC show the lower
and the upper limits of the period of the constant spectral
acceleration branch, and TD shows the value dening the
beginning of the constant displacement response range of
the spectrum.
The ordinates of elastic design spectra Se and inelastic
design spectra Sd for the reference return period dened by
the earthquake codes can be determined using the expres-
sions given in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the normalized
elastic design spectra drawn for ground types described in
Period (s)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n


S
eB
e
S A
B C
D
E
eA
S
T
B
C T T
D
T
Constant
acceleration
Constant
velocity
Constant
displacement
Fig. 1 Typical shape of elastic design spectra
Table 1 Ordinates of elastic and inelastic design spectra (Se and Sd) for IS, UBC and EC8
Code T _TB TB_T _TC T _TC
IS* For hard soil
Sa
g
=
1 15T 0:00 _T _0:10
2:50 0:10 _T _0:40
1:00
T
0:40 _T _4:00
8
<
:
For medium soil
Sa
g
=
1 15T 0:00 _T _0:10
2:50 0:10 _T _0:55
1:36
T
0:55 _T _4:00
8
<
:
For soft soil
Sa
g
=
1 15T 0:00 _T _0:10
2:50 0:10 _T _0:670
1:67
T
0:67 _T _4:00
8
<
:
SdR
g
=
1 15T 0:00 _T _0:10
2:50 0:10 _T _0:40
1:00
T
0:40 _T _4:00
8
<
:
Sd R
g
=
1 15T 0:00 _T _0:10
2:50 0:10 _T _0:55
1:36
T
0:55 _T _4:00
8
<
:
SdR
g
=
1 15T 0:00 _T _0:10
2:50 0:10 _T _0:670
1:67
T
0:67 _T _4:00
8
<
:
UBC Se = [Ca (1:5 Ca T)= TB[ g Se = 2:5 Ca g Se = Cv= T g
Sd = [Ca (1:5 Ca T)= TB[ g

g
I
=R Sd = 2:5 Ca g

g
I
=R Sd = Cv= T g

g
I
=R
EC8 Se = ag S[1 (T=TB)(g2:5 1)[ Sd = 2:5=q ag S TC_T _TD Se = 2:5ag S g TC=T [ [
Sd = ag S[2=3 (T=TB)(2:5=q 2=3)[ TC_T _TD Sd = (2:5=q):ag S TC=T [ [
*IS code refers Se as Sa
122 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128
1 3
IS code, UBC code, and EC 8 code. Same inelastic design
spectra can also be drawn for ground types described in IS
code, UBC code, and EC 8 code [6, 7]
The concept of dividing the elastic response spectra by a
single factor to arrive at the inelastic design spectra is a
practical one and has been adopted by most earthquake
codes. The factor used for reducing the elastic response
spectrum is called response reduction factor (R) in IS code,
behavior factor (q) in EC8, R coefcient in the UBC.
Earthquake codes describe different behavior factors.
The values of the maximum allowable behavior factor are
taken considering the type of structural system, regularity
in elevation and prevailing failure mode in the system with
wall in IS as well as in EC8.
Structural Data
Sample buildings described herein were selected as typical
six story reinforced concrete buildings. The buildings have
three different oor plans that are symmetric (SB),
monosymmetric (MB), and unsymmetric (UB). Six build-
ings are considered and they are henceforth referred to as;
6-SB, 6-MB, 6-UB. The plan dimensions of buildings,
typical at all oors, are 22.7 m by 13.75 m, with a story
height of 3 m as shown in Fig. 3. The structural systems of
the buildings are selected as structural systems consisting
of structural walls and moment resisting frames in both
directions. It is assumed that the structural systems have
nominal ductility level. Seismic load reduction factor
(R) for special moment resisting frame is taken as 5
[referring Table 7 of IS 1983 (Part I)-2002].
Columns, beams, structural walls, and slabs are sized
considering the requirements given in IS code. The
dimensions of columns and structural walls for x and y
directions, the thickness of slabs, the width and height of
beams are given in Table 2. As seen from this table, the
cross-sections of columns have been changed after the 3rd
story for 6-story building. Flexural rigidities for longitu-
dinal and transverse directions are different for each
building. Total moments of inertia of vertical structural
elements can be determined using dimensions given in
Table 2 for x and y directions. It should be noted that
Fig. 3 Floor plan for six story building
Fig. 2 Elastic design spectra drawn for ground types described in IS,
UBC, and EC8. (a) Response Spectra for different soils for 5 %
damping (IS). (b) Elastic design spectra for UBC. (c) Elastic design
spectra for EC8 (g were taken to be 1.0)
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128 123
1 3
values used for rigidities are gross values and they are not
reduced to consider cracking. According to IS, torsional
irregularity occurs in buildings when oor diaphragms are
rigid in their own plane in relation to the vertical structural
elements that resist the lateral forces. Torsional irregularity
to be considered to exist when the maximum story drift,
computed with design eccentricity, at one end of the
structures transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the
average of story drifts at the two ends of the structure. No
other structural irregularities occurred for sample
buildings.
Finite Element Modeling of Buildings and Analysis
Results
To evaluate the seismic response of the buildings, elastic
analyses were performed by the response spectrum method
using the computer program SAP2000 [8]. The seismic
analyses of the buildings are carried out separately in the
longitudinal and the transverse directions. However, seis-
mic responses only for x direction are comparatively pre-
sented with graphs and tables in this work for the sake of
brevity. Floor plan of six story building is shown in Fig. 3.
Sample nite element models of the six story buildings are
shown in Fig. 4. Degrees of freedom at the base nodes are
xed, for other nodes are left free. Therefore, there is no
nite element model for subsoil to consider soilstructure
interaction. Columns and beams are modeled with frame
elements, slabs and structural walls are modeled with shell
elements. Slabs also have been considered as a rigid dia-
phragm in each story level. The masses of inll walls are
also taken into account in the model. In the analysis,
Youngs modulus and unit weight of concrete are taken to
be 28,000 MPa and 25 kN/m
3
, respectively. The damping
ratio is assumed as 5 % in all modes. The reference peak
ground acceleration is taken to be 0.4 g that is recom-
mended in IS code and seismic zone 4 in UBC. Thus, it is
assumed that the buildings are sited in high seismicity
Fig. 4 The view of three-dimensional nite element models of six
story building
Table 2 Dimensions of structural members for building considered for analysis
Buildings Structural members Six story buildings
13 stories 46 stories
bx (mm) by (mm) bx (mm) by (mm)
Symmetric buildings (6-SB) C1 600 600 500 500
C2 900 900 700 700
W1, W2, W3, W4, W5 250 1,750 250 1,750
W3 3,000 250 3,000 250
Mono-symmetric buildings (6-MB) C1 600 600 500 500
C2 900 900 700 700
W1, W2 1,750 250 1,750 250
W3 3,000 250 3,000 250
W4, W5 250 1,750 250 1,750
Unsymmetric buildings (6-UB) C1 600 600 500 500
C2 900 900 700 700
W1 250 1750 250 1,750
W2, W3 3,000 250 3,000 250
W4, W5 250 1750 250 1,750
Thickness of slab S 150
Beam size B 250 9 500
124 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128
1 3
zone. Seismic analysis of the buildings accounting for the
inuence of the local ground conditions is carried out with
the help of the design spectra given in Fig. 2 for IS, UBC,
and EC 8.
Base Shear for the Analyzed Buildings
The base shear expressions dened in the codes are given
in Table 3. The base shears of the buildings were acquired
from seismic analysis using the design spectra corre-
sponding to 5 % critical damping and considering xed
base condition. Seismic analysis of buildings were carried
out for three ground types dened in IS, out of ve ground
types in UBC and in EC8 three ground types only con-
sidered which are similar to the ground type mentioned in
IS code for comparison. Therefore, nine ground types in
total are considered for the site. Figure 5 present the base
shears and maximum differences obtained for six story
buildings.
As seen from Fig. 5, IS code gives maximum base shear
for similar ground type dened in UBC and EC8.
Periods for the Analyzed Buildings
The mode numbers taken into account for six story build-
ings are 10. The rst seven modes with periods and partic-
ipating mass ratios for the buildings are presented in
Table 4. As seen from this table, the fundamental periods
are in the range between 0.548 and 0.071 s. In the rst mode
the 6-SB, vibrate dominantly in the x direction; whereas
6-MB and 6-UB vibrate in the y direction. The third mode
takes place as torsional modes for all buildings considered.
Base Shear for 6-SB Buildings
IS code gives maximum base shear for ground type III as
shown in Fig. 5a and maximum difference reaches to 24 %
between III and I. UBC gives maximum base shear for SD,
the maximum difference reached to 34 % between SD and
SA. Similarly EC 8 gives maximum base shear for ground
type E and maximum difference reaches to 31 % between
E and A.
Base Shear for 6-MB Buildings
IS code gives maximum base shear for ground type III as
shown in Fig. 5b and maximum difference reaches to 15 %
between III and I. UBC gives maximum base shear for SD,
the maximum difference reached to 63 % between SD and
I
II
III
SA
A
SD
E
D
SC
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Ground type
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
N
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
N
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
N
IS 1893 UBC-94 EC-8
(b)
I
II
III
SA
A
D
E
SC
SD
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Ground type
IS 1893 UBC-94 EC-8
(c)
I
II
III
SA
SC
A
SD
D
E
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Ground type
IS 1893 UBC-94 EC-8 (a)
Fig. 5 Base shear for 6-story buildings considering nine grounds type
dened in the codes. (a) For 6-SB building. (b) For 6-MB building.
(c) For 6-UB building
Table 3 Base shear dened in the IS, UBC, and EC8 codes
Codes Base shear
IS V
B
= A
h
W, which is given by
ZISn
2Rg
UBC
V
s
= S
d
(T) =
w
g
_
0:11C
a
c
1
:w
0:8ZN
v
c
1
R
:w(for zone 4)
8
>
<
>
:
2:5C
a
c
1
R
W _V
s
T = min(T
a
; 1:3T
e
)Forzone 4
EC8 F
b
= S
d
T ( )
w
g
k where k = 0:85 if T
i
_ 2T
i
or k = 1:00 otherwise
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128 125
1 3
SA. Similarly, EC 8 gives maximum base shear for ground
type E and maximum difference reaches to 47 % between
E and A.
Base Shear for 6-UB Buildings
IS code gives maximum base shear for ground type III as
shown in Fig. 5c and maximum difference reaches to 26 %
between III and I. UBC gives maximum base shear for
ground type SD, the maximum difference reached to 31 %
between SD and SA. Similarly, EC 8 gives maximum base
shear for ground type E and maximum difference reaches
to 38 % between E and A.
Lateral Displacements and Interstory Drifts
for the Analyzed Buildings
Minimum lateral displacement were estimated for all the
buildings with ground types SA 13 mm for 6-SB, 12 mm
for 6-MB, and 14 mm for 6-UB in UBC. IS code gives the
maximum, and UBC gives the minimum lateral displace-
ment values for the buildings. Figure 6 present drifts esti-
mated from seismic analysis of the 6-story building. As per
IS code, the maximum value of story drifts within a story,
shall not exceed 0.004 times the story height (i.e.,
0.004 9 3 = 0.012 m). As seen from the Fig. 6 the sample
building taken for study satises the condition dened in
the IS code.
All maximum and minimum displacement values
determined for each code are given in Table 5. As seen
from this table, the smallest difference between maximum
and minimum displacement values for the 6-story building
are obtained as to be 37 % between ground type III and I in
IS, 50 % between SD and SA in UBC and 45 % between E
and A in EC8.
The largest difference between maximum and minimum
displacement values for the 6-story building is obtained as
to be 80 % between E and A in EC8.
Torsional Response for 6-SB Buildings
IS code gives maximum torque for ground type III as shown
in Fig. 7a and maximum difference reaches to 8 % between
(a)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Story
I
II
III
SA
SD
SC
A
E
D
(b)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6
(c)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Story
Story
D
r
i
f
t

(
1
0
-
3

m
)
D
r
i
f
t

(
1
0
-
3

m
)
D
r
i
f
t

(
1
0
-
3

m
)
Fig. 6 Drift for six story buildings considering nine ground types
dened in the codes. (a) Story drift for 6-UB building. (b) Story drift
for 6-MB building. (c) Story drift for 6-UB building
Table 4 First seven periods (s) and modal properties of three dif-
ferent buildings
Buildings Modal
properties
Horizontal modes for the buildings
x-direction y-direction Torsional
mode
6-SB Mode, period 1st, 0.548 2nd, 0.450 3rd, 0.363
4th, 0.172 5th, 0.126 7th, 0.090
6th, 0.108
Mass ratio 1st0.767 2nd0.000 3rd0.000
4th0.050 5th0.000 7th0.000
6th0.050
6-MB Mode, period 2nd, 0.428 1st, 0.480 3rd, 0.384
6th, 0.115 4th, 0.148 5th, 0.120
7th, 0.104
Mass ratio 2nd0.718 1st0.000 3rd0.010
6th0.000 4th0.000 5th0.050
7th0.073
6-UB Mode, period 2nd, 0.416 1st, 0.474 3rd, 0.362
5th, 0.115 4th, 0.142 6th, 0.100
7th, 0.071
Mass ratio 2nd0.008 1st0.719 3rd0.020
5th0.005 4th0.1268 6th0.070
7th0.0524
126 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128
1 3
III and I. UBC gives maximum torque for SC, the maximum
difference reached to 27 % between SC and SA. Similarly
EC 8 gives maximum torque for ground type D and maxi-
mum difference reaches to 25 % between D and A.
Torsional Response for 6-MB Buildings
IS code gives maximum torque for ground type III as shown
in Fig. 7b and maximum difference reaches to 7 % between
III and II. UBC gives maximum torque for SC, the maxi-
mum difference reached to 3 % between SC and SA.
Similarly, EC 8 gives maximum torque for ground type D
and maximum difference reaches to 10 % between D and A.
Torsional Response for 6-UB Buildings
IS code gives maximum torque for ground type III as shown
in Fig. 7c and maximum difference reaches to 4 % between
III and I. UBC gives maximum torque for SD, the maximum
difference reached to 10 % between SC and SD. Similarly
EC 8 gives maximum torque for ground type D and maxi-
mum difference reaches to 10 % between D and E.
Conclusions
From the parametric study on reinforced concrete build-
ings, the following conclusions are drawn as:
IS code depict the higher values of base shear for
similar ground types dened in the other codes which
may lead to overestimate the overturning moment and
could results in heavier structural members in the
building.
For the buildings, IS code gives the maximum and UBC
gives the minimum displacement values.
In case of torsional response, IS code gives maximum
and UBC, EC8 gives minimum values.
In most cases, the estimated drifts for structural compo-
nents subjected to earthquake force satised the drift
demand (as per IS Code) for immediate occupancy level,
indicating that the structural responses are mainly elastic.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Ground type
(b)
IS 1893 UBC-94 EC-8
I
II
III
SA SD SC A D E
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ground type
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

k
-
N
m
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

k
-
N
m
T
o
r
q
u
e
,

k
-
N
m
(c)
I
II III
SA
SD
SC A D
E
IS 1893 UBC-94 EC-8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Ground type
(a)
IS 1893 UBC-94 EC-8
I
II
III
SA
SD SC
A
D
E
Fig. 7 Torsional response for 6-story buildings considering nine
ground types dened in the codes. (a) For 6-SB building. (b) For
6-MB building. (c) For 6-UB building
Table 5 Maximum and minimum displacement obtained for the three different buildings
Buildings IS-1893 (Part-I) UBC-94 EC-8
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
6-SB Displacement 18 mm 29 mm 13 mm 21 mm 15 mm 27 mm
Ground type I III S
A
S
D
A E
6-MB Displacement 19 mm 26 mm 12 mm 18 mm 13 mm 20 mm
Ground type I III S
A
S
D
A D
6-UB Displacement 21 mm 32 mm 14 mm 21 mm 20 mm 29 mm
Ground type I III S
A
S
D
A E
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128 127
1 3
Acknowledgments The author is grateful to Raisoni Group of
Institutions, Nagpur, India for publishing this research work.
References
1. IS1893 (Part-1), Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures-general provisions and buildings (fth revision), Bureau
of Indian Standards, India, 2002
2. J. Liang, H. Hao, Characterization of representative site proles
in PMA through ambient vibration measurement. Proceedings,
Australian earthquake engineering society conference, Victoria,
Australia, 2008
3. N. Ambraseys, K. Simpson, J. Bommer, Prediction of horizontal
response spectra in European earthquake. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 25,
371400 (1996)
4. J.J. Bommer, A.B. Acevedo, The use of real earthquake acceler-
ograms as input to dynamic analysis. J. Earthquake Eng. 8, 4391
(2004)
5. J. J. Bommer, A. S. Elnashai, A.G. Weir, Compatible acceleration
and displacement spectra for seismic design codes. Proceeding of
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 2000
6. EC 8, Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance
part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings,
European Norm. European Committee for Standardization, Euro-
pean Committee for Standardization Central Secretariat, rue de
Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels (2004)
7. UBC, Uniform Building Code. International Conference of
Building Ofcials, Whittier, California, 1994
8. SAP2000, Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design
(Computers and Structures, Inc, Berkeley, 2003)
128 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (MayJuly 2012) 93(2):121128
1 3