Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9828–9832 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICEMS 2016

Nonlinear Analysis of Irregular Buildings Considering the Direction

of Seismic Waves
Prajwal T P*, a,Imtiaz A Parvezb, Kiran Kamatha.
a
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal-576104, India.
b
CSIR- Fourth Paradigm Institute, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore-560037, India.

Abstract

In recent trends, the architectural designs have many irregularities in the buildings that are unavoidable. These irregularities make
the structure more vulnerable during disastrous natural event like earthquakes. In the present study, the behavior of irregular
building during seismic event is studied. To assess the performance and vulnerability of the irregular building models considered,
nonlinear static analysis is performed. The modelling and analysis is done using SAP 2000.

The angle of incidence of seismic force is important in case of irregular buildings. The incidence of seismic action causes the
building structure more vulnerable even if it is safe when analyzed and designed as per the design code provisions, hence it is
essential to study behavior of the considered models, accounting the incidence angle of earthquake forces using parametric test.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis has been carried out along different direction to determine critical angle of incidence by considering
the different earthquakes which is comparable to response spectra of the Indian standard code.

© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering and Material
Sciences (ICEMS-2016).

Keywords: Nonlinear dynamic analysis, nonlinear static analysis, angle of incidence, plan irregularity;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-97384477415;

E-mail address: prajwal.t@learner.mainpal.edu

2214-7853 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering and Material Sciences (ICEMS-
2016).
 Prajwal T P/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9 8 28 –9 8 32 9829

1. Introduction

Irregular buildings exhibit unfavorable behavior during earthquakes. The irregularities in the building causes
damage amplification under seismic action. Past earthquakes, indeed have shown the buildings with irregular
configuration or asymmetrical distribution of structural properties have shown the greater damage (Stefanu et. Al.,
2014) [6]. Most seismic codes, including IS-1893 (part 1): 2002 [4], classify the buildings into regular and irregular
type based on the stiffness and mass distribution in plan and elevation. The plan irregularity causes the torsional
effect in the structures and elevation irregularity causes the increase of seismic demand in the specific storey. Both
type of irregularities causes the local increase in seismic demand in specific element which are not provided with
sufficient strength and ductility. Indian standard code has recommended a parameter called design eccentricity to
account the torsional effect. But, these recommendations are based on highly idealized single story linearly behaving
framed structure models. So the actual torsional effect differs from those estimated for conventional design. Hence it
is important to choose such an analysis method which can give real behavior of structures when subjected to seismic
excitation.

Another important factor is the direction of excitation of buildings by earthquake forces. Many design codes
consider the earthquake motion in principle direction of building, but the direction of earthquake and principle
structural axes are different. Magliulo et. Al., (2014) and Riganto and Medino (2007) [5] have demonstrated that the
inelastic peak deformation demands are underestimated if the bi-directional ground motions are applied along
principal axes of an inelastic building as compared to those obtained at other angle of incidence. The responses of
the building in different direction will not be same as that of the response along principle axes. Therefore, the
structure should be able to resist under different excitation angle of seismic force. In the past, researcher like
Athanatopoulou (2005) [1] have proposed analytical formula for critical angle of incidence of seismic force that give
maximum seismic demand. But this formula was based on the assumption that structure behaves linearly.

The aim of the present study is to analyze the seismic response of plan irregular building models with
bidirectional earthquake forces. The nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis were used as the
analysis methods. Furthermore, the effect of angle of incidence of seismic excitations on the response of the
considered irregular models are evaluated using parametric test by rotating the orthogonal components by 30
degrees for each analysis.

2. Modelling

In this study three different RC buildings are considered. Their plans are as shown in figure 1. The irregularities
in the models are created based on IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 [4] code. Model 1(fig 1a) is a regular doubly symmetric
building. Model 2 (fig 1b) is a Re-entrant corner in L-shaped plan building whose projection provided is 40% in X-
direction and 50% in Y-direction. Model 3 (fig 1c) is also a Re-entrant corner in L-shaped plan but the projection
provided is 60% in X-direction and 50% in Y-direction.

All models are 3 storey buildings and have 3 m inter storey height for each level. The Characteristic compressive
strength of concrete is 20 N/mm2 and yield strength of the reinforcement is 415 N/mm2 for all models. The buildings
are assumed to be founded on type 2 (medium) soil type, according to IS 1893 (part 1):2002 [4] soil classification.
Also the buildings are assumed to be founded in zone 4 classification of IS 1893 (part 1):2002 [4].

Nonlinear analysis is performed using computer software SAP2000. Scaling, filtering and base line corrections of
considered time histories are done using Seismosignal. Mender’s unconfined model is used for modelling of
concrete for beams and columns. Axial force-bending moment interaction is considered in plastic hinges for
columns. Yielding and ultimate moments are defined by the bilinear envelope of moment curvature diagram using
Caltrans idealized model generated from SAP2000.
 9830 Prajwal T P/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9 8 28 –9 8 32

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1: Plan of models (a) Regular doubly symmetric building in plan (model 1), (b) Re-entrant L shaped in plan
with 40% projection x-direction and 50% in Y direction (model 2), (c) Re-entrant L shaped in plan with 60%
projection in X dirction and 50% projection in Y direction (model 3).

All models are 3 storey buildings and have 3 m inter storey height for each level. The Characteristic compressive
strength of concrete is 20 N/mm2 and yield strength of the reinforcement is 415 N/mm2 for all models. The buildings
are assumed to be founded on type 2 (medium) soil type, according to IS 1893 (part 1):2002 [4] soil classification.
Also the buildings are assumed to be founded in zone 4 classification of IS 1893 (part 1):2002 [4].

The yielding rotation and ultimate rotation of plastic hinges are evaluated as provided in EC 8 (CEN 2005) [2].
The hysteretic model is Takeda type for nonlinear dynamic analysis. An elastic-perfectly plastic steel stress strain
diagram is considered for the longitudinal steel.

Table 1: Set of time histories selected for the study and their details.

Record Number Earthquake Name Magnitude Year Mechanism Scale

Factor
164 "Imperial Valley-06" 6.53 1979 strike slip 1.7404
289 "Irpinia_ Italy-01" 6.9 1980 Normal 1.9752
864 "Landers" 7.28 1992 strike slip 1.1261

3. Methodology

3.1 Nonlinear static analysis

The pushover analysis is performed for each model according to improved equivalent linearization procedure as a
modification to the Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40 recommended by FEMA-440 [3]. The analyses are
performed along two horizontal directions. The hinges used for push over analysis are the user-defined hinges.

3.2 Nonlinear dynamic analysis

For time history analysis six natural recorded events are used and are listed in table 1. These are selected to match
the target spectrum for seismic zone 4 and soil type medium with 5% damping of IS 1893 (part 1):2002[4] as shown
in figure 2. The nonlinear time history analysis was performed in SAP 2000.
 Prajwal T P/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9 8 28 –9 8 32 9831

1.4
1.2
RNS-289 RNS-864 RNS-164 TARGET SPECTRA
1
Sa (in gunits)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time period (in second)

Figure 2: Comparison of selected accelerograms of 0.3g peck ground acceleration with IS- 1893:2002 [4] response spectra for zone 4 medium
soil.

4. Results

For accessing the seismic performance of the models considered, the Nonlinear static analysis is used. The
performance points obtained from the Nonlinear static procedure give the clear knowledge about the most
vulnerable model among models under study. Table 2 gives the performance points for the models considered for
the study.
Table 2: Performance points from pushover analysis of various models are tabulated.

Model Base shear (KN) in Displacement (m) in Base shear (KN) in Displacement (m) in
number X-direction X -direction Y-direction Y-direction
1 1302.952 0.059 1179.581 0.090
2 1238.674 0.073 960.733 0.086
3 1157.604 0.066 913.217 0.081

The maximum top displacement obtained from Nonlinear dynamic analysis is plotted with direction of incidence of
seismic force to understand the variation of the response of the irregular building when the angle of incidence of the
seismic force is varied. Figure 3 shows the variation of top displacement at the control node for various angle of
incidences for different earthquake used in the study.

0 0
150 200
330 30 330 30
150
100
300 60 300 100 60
50 50
270 0 90 270 0 90

240 120
240 120

figure 3(a) 210 150

210 150 figure 3(b)
180
180
RNS-289 RNS 864 RNS-164 RNS-289 RNS-164 RNS 864

Figure 3: (a) Maximum top displacement along X direction for Model 2. (b) Maximum top displacement along Y direction for Model 2.
9832 Prajwal T P/ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 9 8 28 –9 8 32

The variation of top displacement plotted above shows the clear uncertainty in the definition of critical angle of
incidence that gives the maximum response. To quantify the uncertainty of the parameter, empirical cumulative
distributions are fitted with the lognormal graph. Figure 4 shows the cumulative distribution and lognormal plots.

Displacement in x direction Displacement in x direction

1
lognormal
0.8

actual
Frequency

0.6
frequency

0.4
actual
frequency
0.2
lognormal
0
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21
Displacement (m)

Figure 4: cumulative normal distribution of top displacement in X-direction and Y- direction for Model 2 and Earthquake RNS-164.

5. Conclusion

1) The results of pushover analysis show that Re-entrant L shaped in plan with 60% projection in X dirction
and 50% projection in Y direction model is more vulnerable.
2) From the time history analysis along different direction shows that there is a significant variation in the
response of the models considered with different angle of incidence. For Re-entrant L shaped in plan with
40% projection x-direction and 50% in Y direction model the variation about 90% for maximum
displacement compared to zero-degree displacement.
3) The critical angle of incidence depends on the chosen engineering parameter and the seismic input
properties. This shows that there is a clear uncertainty in the definition of critical angle.
4) The uncertainty can be represented in the form of coefficient of variation, which is the ratio of standard
deviation to mean demand value. This value varies from 0.132 to 0. 29 confirming that variation in the
seismic demand due to angle of incidence cannot be neglected.

6. References

[1] Athanatopoulou A M, Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components, Engineering structures, 2005, pp.301-312.
[2] CEM (2005), Eurocode 8: Design structures for earthquake resistance- part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, EN 1998-1,
Brussels, Belgium.
[3] FEMA 440, Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C,
2005.
[4] IS 1893 (Part 1), Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, 2002.
[5] Magliulo G, Maddaloni G, Petrona C, Influence of earthquake direction on the seismic response of irregular plan RC buildings”.
Earthquake engineering and engineering vibration 13, 2014, pp. 243-256.
[6] Mario De Stefano and valentina Mariani, Pushover analysis for irregular building structures, Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering 34,
2014, pp. 429-448.