Appendex A

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STEP BACK

STRUCTURE ON SLOPE GROUND

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Technology
in
Structural Engineering

by
BALAJI NELAPATI
(13MST1028)

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL AND BUILDING SCIENCES

APRIL, 2015
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STEP

BACK STRUCTURES ON SLOPE GROUND” submitted by me, for the award of the
degree of Master of Technology, is a record of bonafide work carried out by me under
the supervision of Dr. I.YAMINI SREEVALLI, Associate Professor, SMBS, VIT
University Chennai. I further declare that the work reported in this thesis has not been
submitted and will not be submitted, either in part or in full, for the award of any other
degree or diploma in this institute or any other institute or university.

Place: Chennai

Date:

Signature of the Candidate

 Appendex B
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project review report / thesis entitled “SEISMIC
ANALYSIS OF STEP BACK STRUCTURE ON SLOPE GROUND” submitted by
BALAJI NELAPATI, for the award of the degree of Master of Technology is a record
of bonefide work carried out by him/her under my supervision, as per the VIT code of
academic and research ethics. The contents of this report have not been submitted and
will not be submitted either in part or in full, for the award of any other degree or
diploma in this institute or any other institute or university. The report fulfills the
requirements and regulations of the University and in my opinion meets the necessary
standards for submission.

Place: CHENNAI
Date: 28/04/2015

Signature of the internal Guide

Signature of the external Guide

ABSTRACT
 This project focuses on the analytical investigation of a step back structure on slope
ground with four different inclinations (150,300,450and600). The inclination is achieved
in two different phases, in first phase four different inclinations are obtained by
maintaining the height of the building constant and in second phase width of the
structure was maintained constant. The modeling and analysis was completed using E-
tabs. Seismic analysis was carried out in three different methods: Seismic coefficient
method, response spectrum method and non –linear static (pushover) method. From the
analysis it was observed that for any inclination ground story short column in middle of
the structure carries more load compared to the long length column. Increasing the angle
for fixed height the column forces and stiffness of the structure decreases with increase
in the angle whereas for fixed width structures it was increasing.

Appendex E
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Apart from the efforts kept by me, the success of this project mainly depends on
the encouragement and guidelines of many others. I take this opportunity to express my
gratitude to the people who have been instrumental in the successful completion of this
project.

I would like to show my greatest appreciation to DR. I.YAMINI SREEVALLI,

Associate Professor, School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT University,
Chennai Campus. And U.V.S.DIXITULU I feel motivated and encouraged due to his
continues support and proper guidance in the project work. Without his encouragement
and guidance this project would not have materialized.
I would like to express my special gratitude to Dr. M. HELEN SANTHI,
Program manager, Division of Structural Engineering, School of Mechanical and
Building Sciences, VIT University, Chennai Campus, for giving me such attention and
time in spite of her busy schedule during the progress of project work.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. K. JANARDHAN REDDY, Dean,
School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT University, Chennai Campus, for his
consistent help and encouragement to complete the project work.
I wish to express my valuable gratitude to Dr. ANAND SAMUEL, Pro Vice
Chancellor, VIT University, Chennai Campus for providing an opportunity for doing
the project work.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks to faculty members of School
of Mechanical and Building Sciences, lab technicians, one and all who had helped me to
complete the project work successfully.

Place: Chennai
Date:
NELAPATI BALAJI
13MST1028

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Page no

1.1. Background 1
1.2. Seismic behavior of structure on slopes in India 1
1.3. Configuration of buildings on hill slopes 2
1.4. Pushover analysis an overview 2
1.5. Pushover analysis procedure 3
1.6. Response spectrum 4

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Structures resting on slope grounds 5
2.2. Pushover analysis 10
Objective 14

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND MODELING

3.1. Methodology 15
3.2. Modeling 16
3.2.1 Fixed height 150 16
3.2.2 Fixed height 300 17
3.2.3. Fixed height 450 18
3.2.4. Fixed height 600 19
3.2.5. Fixed width 150 20
3.2.6. Fixed width 300 21
3.2.7. Fixed width 450 22
3.2.8. Fixed width 600 23

CHAPTER 4 LOADS AND CALCULATIONS 24

4.1. Dead load
4.2. Live load
4.3. Seismic load

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Response spectrum 25
5.1. Pushover curves 26
5.2. Fixed height results 34
5.3. Fixed width results 34
 5.4. Column design 35

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 37

REFERENCES 38
 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Page no

Fig.3.2.1(a) Plan view fixed height 150 16

Fig.3.2.1(b) 3-d view fixed height 150 16

Fig.3.2.2(a) Plan view fixed height 300 17

Fig.3.2.2(b) 3-d view fixed height 300 17

Fig.3.2.3(a) Plan view fixed height 450 18

Fig.3.2.3(b) 3-d view fixed height 450 18

Fig.3.2.4 (a) Plan view fixed height 600 19

Fig.3.2.4(b) 3-d view fixed height 600 19

Fig.3.2.5(a) Plan view fixed width 150 20

Fig.3.2.5(b) 3-d view fixed width 150 20

Fig.3.2.6(a) Plan view fixed width 300 21

Fig.3.2.6(b) 3-d view fixed width 300 21

Fig.3.2.7(a) Plan view fixed width 450 22

Fig.3.2.7(b) 3-d view fixed width 450 22

Fig.3.2.8(a) plan view fixed width 600 23

Fig.3.2.8(b) 3-d view fixed width 600 23

Fig 5.1(a) model mass participation factor 25

Fig 5.2(b) mode shape 25

Fig.5.2(a) pushover curve fixed height 150 26

Fig 5.2(b) pushover curve fixed height 300 27

Fig 5.2(c) pushover curve fixed height 450 28

Fig 5.2(d) pushover curve fixed height 600 29

Fig 5.2(e) pushover curve fixed width 150 30

Fig 5.2(f) pushover curve fixed width 300 31

Fig 5.2 (g) pushover curve fixed width 450 32

Fig 5.2 (h) pushover curve fixed width 600 33

Table 5.3 fixed height results 34

Table 5.4 fixed width results 34

Appendex F

CHAPTER-1

Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND
Some places in the India are hilly areas, mainly in north-east regions (like Meghalaya,
Arunachal Pradesh and etc...) Hilly regions are more and these are mainly in zone IV
and V category. In hilly regions the occurrence of earthquakes are also more,
considering recent major earthquakes in Sikkim the earthquake of magnitude of 6.9 and
Doda the earthquake of magnitude 4.9, the past earthquakes Uttarkashi earthquake in
India 1991, Tokachi in japan in the year 1968, Assam earthquake in India 1950 Bihar
and Nepal in the year of 1934&1980.

As the density of population in hilly areas is increasing it is necessary to go for

multistory structures and because of different contour levels in base of the structures the
column length may varies at ground story, to study this in this project four different
inclinations 150,300,450 and 600 are considered. At each inclination the modeling of the
structure was done with respect to fixed length and fixed width, so force at the ground
level of the columns will be different during seismic events hence it is necessary to
investigate the column forces while considering the design of the structures

1.2 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURE ON SLOPES IN INDIA

Shillong Plateau earthquake (M8.0) of 1897 and the Kangra earthquake (M7.8) of 1905,
were the major of several devastating earthquakes to occur in northern India. An
estimated of more than 375,000 population were killed in epicentral region, and over
100,000 buildings were destroyed by the earthquake. Similarly in recent earthquakes
like Bihar-Nepal (1980), Uttarkashi (1991), Sikkim (2011), and Doda (2013) affected
many buildings on hill slopes.
India having a great arc of mountains consisting of the Himalayas defines the northern
Indian subcontinent. These were formed by the ongoing tectonic collision of the Indian
and Eurasian plates where housing densities of approximately 62159.2 per Sq Km are
around as per 2011 Indian census. Hence there is a need to study on the seismic safety
and design of these structures on slopes.
Dynamic characteristics of hill buildings are significantly different from the buildings
resting on flat topography, as these are irregular and unsymmetrical in both horizontal
and vertical directions. The irregular variation of stiffness and mass in vertical as well
as horizontal directions, results in center of mass and centre of stiffness of a storey not
coinciding with each other and not being on a vertical line for different floors. When
subjected to lateral loads, these buildings are generally subjected to significant torsional
response. Further, due to site conditions, buildings on hill slope are characterized by
unequal column heights within a story, which results in drastic variation in stiffness of
columns of the same storey. The short, stiff columns on uphill side attract much higher
lateral forces and are prone to damage.

The scarcity of plain ground in hilly areas compels construction activity on

sloping ground  resulting  in  various important buildings such as reinforced  concrete 
framed  hospitals, colleges, hotels and  offices resting  on hilly slopes. Since,
the behavior of buildings during earthquake depends upon the distribution of mass
and stiffness in both horizontal and vertical planes of the buildings, both of which vary
in case of hilly buildings with irregularity and asymmetry due to step
back and step backset back configuration. The presence of such constructions
in seismically prone areas makes them exposed to greater shears and torsion as
compared to conventional construction. In order to highlight the differences in behavior,
which may further be influenced by the characteristics of
the locally available foundation material, a parametric study has been conducted on
five different step back and step backset back buildings. Current building codes
including IS:  1893 (Part 1):  2002 suggest detailed dynamic analysis of these types of
buildings on different soil (hard, medium and soft soil) types. To assess acceptability of
the design it is important to predict the force and deformation demands imposed on
structures and their elements by severe ground motion by means of
static pushover analysis.

1.3 CONFIGURATION OF BUILDINGS ON HILL SLOPES

Buildings constructed in hilly areas have peculiar structural configurations. Successive

floors of such buildings step back towards the hill slope and sometimes, the buildings
also set back, The stepping back of building towards hill slope results in unequal
column heights in the same storey, which causes severe stiffness irregularities in along-
and cross-slope directions. When subjected to lateral loads in cross-slope direction,
even the buildings with symmetric rectangular configurations are subjected to
significant torsional coupling due to varying lateral stiffness of uphill and downhill side
frames. The torsional behaviour of these buildings is much more complex than that of
buildings on flat ground due to shifting of centre of stiffness and centre of mass with
floor level. Under along-slope excitation, the buildings having a symmetric
configuration are not subjected to torsion, but the shorter columns on uphill side of a
storey take the major share of the storey shear, which is usually much higher than their
capacity and may result in shear failure.

1.4 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS – AN OVERVIEW

The use of the nonlinear static analysis (pushover analysis) came in to practice in
1970’s but the potential of the pushover analysis has been recognized for last 10-15
years. This procedure is mainly used to estimate the strength and drift capacity of
existing structure and the seismic demand for this structure subjected to selected
earthquake. This procedure can be used for checking the adequacy of new structural
design as well. The effectiveness of pushover analysis and its computational simplicity
brought this procedure in to several seismic guidelines (ATC 40 and FEMA 356) and
design codes (Eurocode 8 and PCM 3274) in last few years. Pushover analysis is
defined as an analysis wherein a mathematical model directly incorporating the
nonlinear load-deformation characteristics of individual components and elements of
the building shall be subjected to monotonically increasing lateral loads representing
inertia forces in an earthquake until a ‘target displacement’ is exceeded. Target
displacement is the maximum displacement (elastic plus inelastic) of the building at
roof expected under selected earthquake ground motion. Pushover analysis assesses the
structural performance by estimating the force and deformation capacity and seismic
demand using a nonlinear static analysis algorithm. The seismic demand parameters are
global displacements (at roof or any other reference point), storey drifts, storey forces,
and component deformation and component forces. The analysis accounts for
geometrical nonlinearity, material inelasticity and the redistribution of internal forces.

The  Nonlinear  static  pushover  analysis is a  relatively simple  solution to  the 
problem of predicting  force and  deformation demands imposed  on structures and 
their elements by  severe ground motion. Nonlinear static methods involve three distinct
phases:  estimation of capacity, estimation of demand and correlating the two
to decide the performance of the buildings. The nonlinear static pushover analysis is
a comprehensive method of evaluating earthquake response of structures explicitly
considering nonlinear behavior of structural elements. The capacity spectrum method is
adopted for implementing pushover analysis that compares structural capacity with
ground shaking demand to determine peak response during an earthquake. The capacity
spectrum method estimates peak responses by expressing both structural capacity
and ground shaking demand in terms of spectral acceleration and displacement. The 
capacity spectrum method  assumes peak  response  of the  nonlinear  structure to  be 
equal to the  modal displacement  of an equivalent elastic  system with an 
effective period, Teff based on secant stiffness. The intersection of capacity
curve and demand curve established the performance point.
1.5 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Pushover analysis is a static nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the lateral
load is increased monotonically maintaining a predefined distribution pattern along the
height of the building , the Building is displaced till the ‘control node’ reaches ‘target
displacement’ or building collapses. The sequence of cracking, plastic hinging and
failure of the structural components throughout the procedure is observed. The relation
between base shear and control node displacement is plotted for all the pushover
analysis Generation of base shear – control node displacement curve is single most
important part of pushover analysis. This curve is conventionally called as pushover
curve or capacity curve. The capacity curve is the basis of ‘target displacement’
estimation So the pushover analysis may be carried out twice: (a) first time till the
collapse of the building to estimate target displacement and (b) next time till the target
displacement to estimate the seismic demand. The seismic demands for the selected
earthquake (storey drifts, storey forces, and component deformation and forces) are
calculated at the target displacement level. The seismic demand is then compared with
the corresponding structural capacity or predefined performance limit state to know
what performance the structure will exhibit. Independent analysis along each of the two
orthogonal principal axes of the building is permitted unless concurrent evaluation of
bidirectional effects is required.

1.6 RESPONSE SPECTRUM

In order to perform the seismic analysis and design of a structure to be built at a

particular location, the actual time history record is required. However, it is not possible
to have such records at each and every location. Further, the seismic analysis of
structures cannot be carried out simply based on the peak value of the ground
acceleration as the response of the structure depend upon the frequency content of
ground motion and its own dynamic properties. To overcome the above difficulties,
earthquake response spectrum is the most popular tool in the seismic analysis of
structures. There are computational advantages in using the response spectrum method
of seismic analysis for prediction of displacements and member forces in structural
systems. The method involves the calculation of only the maximum values of the
displacements and member forces in each mode of vibration using smooth design
spectra that are the average of several earthquake motions.

The dynamic analysis of structures is carried out by two methods,

Response Spectrum Method and Time History Method. The Response Spectrum
Method consists of determining the response in each mode of vibration and then
superimposing the responses in various modes to obtain the total
response. The seismic analysis of all buildings was carried out by Response Spectrum
Method in accordance with IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002, including the effect of eccentricity
(static and accidental). Damping considered for all modes of vibration was five percent.
For determining the response of the buildings in different directions for
ground acceleration the response spectrum analysis was conducted in longitudinal
and transverse direction. The other parameters used in seismic analysis were,
moderate seismic zone (V), zone factor 0.36, importance factor
1 and the response reduction factor as 5. Ordinary moment resistant frame for all
configurations was assumed.

Chapter- 2

Literature Review
2.1 STRUCTURE RESTING ON SLOPE GROUND

Birajdar and Nalawade et al. (2004) studied seismic performance of buildings resting on
sloping ground. They considered twenty four RC building frames with three different
configurations as Step back building, Step back Set back building and Set back building
situated at a slope of 27 degree with the Horizontal. They studied the seismic response
of buildings with varying storey level ranging from 4 to 11 (15.75m to 40.25m), consist
of three bays along slope direction and one bay across slope, located in seismic zone III.
They carried out 3D analysis including torsional effect by using Response spectrum
method. They observed that there is a linear increase in the value of top storey
displacement and fundamental time period as the height of building increases. From
comparison they found that, this increase in top storey displacement and fundamental
time period as the height of step back building increases is higher than step back set
back building, as shown in Figure 3(a) and Figure 3(b). From their study it is observed
that the shear force in the column towards extreme left is significantly higher as
compared to rest of the columns, in case of step back building it is found to be 55-250%
more than step back set back building. Thus they conclude that extreme left column at
ground level, which are short are the worst affected and step back building could prove
more vulnerable during seismic excitation than other type of configuration. They
observed in step back buildings, the uneven distribution of shear force in the various
frames suggests development of torsional moment due to static and accidental
eccentricity.

Nagargoje and Sable et al.. (2012) studied seismic performance of buildings on hill
slope. They carried out 3D space frame analysis to study dynamic response of the
buildings, in terms of base shear and top floor displacement. A parametric study was
carried out on thirty six buildings with three configurations as step back, step back set
back and set back buildings located in seismic zone III. B.G.Biradar and S.S.Nalawade
(2004) studied seismic performance of hill buildings by considering story level up to 11,
however in this paper the study is carried out by considering storey level ranging from 4
to 15 (15.2 m to 52.6m). They found that the storey displacement of step back buildings
is quite high as compared to step back –set back buildings, as shown in Figure 4. They
observed that the base shear induced in step back set back buildings is higher in the
range of 60 and 260% than set back building. They suggested step back set back
buildings may be favored on sloping ground.

Singh et al (2012) studied seismic behavior of buildings located on slopes .An analytical
study is carried out on buildings considered, by using linear and nonlinear time history
analysis. They considered 9 storey buildings, which include step back building at a
slope of 45 degree with the horizontal, a RC frame located on steep slope /vertical cut
which was not considered in previous studies, in which foundations are provided at two
levels, at base downhill and at the road level, to compare the behavior, they considered
buildings resting on flat ground with 3 and 9 story’s. All buildings are located in
seismic zone IV, consist of seven bays along slope and 3 bays across the slope. They
have analyzed buildings for a set of five ground motions, as shown in Table 1, which is
taken from strong motion database of pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre.
It is observed that, in all buildings on sloping ground, storey shear is resisted by short
column. The effect of torsion irregularity in the building configuration can be
represented by the ratio of maximum to average inter storey drifts (Δmax/Δavg) in a
storey. From which they observed that, in step back building torsion is observed in all
store’s denoted as SI. Whereas torsion is observed in only top store’s of building
located on vertical cut denoted as SII, as shown in Figure 5. They conclude that the step
back buildings are subjected to significant torsional effects under cross slope excitation.
They also studied the inter storey drifts in the top three story’s of all buildings from
which they observed that the inter storey drifts in the top three storey of hill building are
quite close to those in the 3 storey regular building and the pattern of inter storey drifts
of a storey building differs from other buildings.

Prashant and Jagadish et al (2013) studied seismic response of one way slope RC
frame building with soft storey. In this paper study is focused on the behavior of
buildings situated on sloping ground with and without infill wall, the influence of infill
wall on buildings situated on sloping ground is presented. Nonlinear static pushover
analysis is carried out on 10 storey buildings which include bare frame without infill
wall and other model with infill wall including a soft storey building on sloping ground.
All buildings consist of 5 bays along slope direction situated at a slope of 27 degree
with the horizontal, located in seismic zone III. Building frame system considered is
SMRF. They observed that the time period of bare frame model is found to be 1.975 sec
which is almost 96-135% more than other models with presence of infill wall. Thus
they conclude, this higher value of natural period in bare frame compared to infill frame
ultimately results in underestimation of design base shear in bare frame model on
sloping ground. The abrupt changes in the slope profile indicates stiffness irregularity,
they observed that the displacement in bare frame model is found to be more because of
reduced stiffness compared to other models with infill wall. They found that the base
shear of infill models is almost 250% more compared to bare frame. It is concluded that
the formation of plastic hinges is more in bare frame model and soft storey building
compared to fully in filled fames. In this paper study is concentrated on variation of
stiffness due to presence of infill wall and soft storey on sloping ground.

Rayyan and Vidyadhara et al (2013) carried out seismic analysis of earthquake

resistance multi-storey multi bay RC frame. They studied the seismic behavior of bare
frame model, building with first soft storey (infill wall in upper story’s) with presence
of both infill and shear wall at corner position for which they used 4 bay twelve storey
building situated at a slope of 1:1/3 located in seismic zone V. These buildings have
been analyzed using Equivalent static, Response spectrum and Pushover analysis. Based
on Equivalent analysis results they noted that their is reduction in displacement of
models with infill and shear wall at corners with respect to bare frame model by almost
79.15% and 89.27% respectively in longitudinal direction and from Response spectrum
analysis which are almost 50.95% and 73.97% respectively. Hence they conclude that
the presence of brick infill and shear wall reduces lateral displacement considerably. It
is observed that there is increased base shear in building with shear wall when
compared to bare frame model, as shown in Figure 6 (a). As per IS 1893 part (1) 2002
code, the permissible inter storey drift is limited to 0.004 times the storey height. In this
study they found that all buildings considered are within permissible drifts, however the
inter storey drifts of bare frame model on sloping ground found to be relatively higher
compared to buildings with infill wall and shear wall, as shown in Figure 6 (b). From
pushover analysis, it is observed that the spectral displacement and Roof displacement
of bare frame is higher than building with shear wall at corner. Thus they conclude that
the presence of infill wall and shear wall influences the overall behavior of structures
when subjected to lateral forces by effectively reducing large joint displacements found
in bare frame, which was also concluded in study done by Mohammad Umar Farooque
patel and Prashant D etal.

Jitendra (2012) carried out pushover analysis of various symmetric and asymmetric
structures constructed on plain as well as sloping ground subjected to various kinds of
loads. They considered various structures in plan symmetry and also asymmetry with
different in bay sizes in mutual direction. On sloping ground they considered a 4 storey
building in which they have taken one storey above ground level which is situated at a
slope of 30 degree with the horizontal. They found that the short column lies in the
severity level beyond collapse prevention (CP) from pushover analysis, they obtained
displacement and base shear for asymmetric sloping ground as 104X10-3 m and 2.77 x
103 kN respectively. Based on results they developed pushover curves with
displacement on X-axis and Base shear on Y-axis and have given comparison between
various cases they considered. They observed that the Base shear resisted for maximum
displacement up to failure limit by symmetric structure is 70% and by asymmetric
sloped building is 24% more than base shear resisted by asymmetric building on plain
ground. They conclude that the structure with vertical irregularity is more critical than a
structure with plain irregularity.

Ravikumar (2012) focused on the study of seismic performance of irregular

configurations of RC buildings in which they studied vertical irregularities of buildings
such as geometric irregularity and buildings resting on sloping for which two types of
configurations were considered as buildings resting on sloped ground in X-direction and
buildings resting on sloped ground in Y-direction. All buildings consist of 5 bays in X-
direction and 4 bays in Y-direction with 3 story located in severe zone V. The
performance of these buildings was studied by linear analysis using code IS 1893 (part-
1) 2002 and Nonlinear analysis using ATC 40. They observed that the vulnerability of
sloping ground buildings was found to be remarkable which attracts large force to
deform moderately. Base shear of building on hill slope was found to be 6019.2 kN,
which was around 25-55% more than other buildings and also displacement was found
to be 83.4 mm which was moderately higher than other buildings. They found that the
performance goal was not achieved of sloping ground buildings in X-direction and in
Y-directions this was achieved after collapse point. Thus they conclude that the
buildings resting on sloping ground are more vulnerable to earthquake than the
buildings resting on plain ground.

Halkude et al (2013) focused on seismic analysis of buildings resting on sloping ground

with varying number of bays and hill slopes. They studied the variation of time period,
base shear and top storey displacement with respect to variation in number of bays
along slope direction and hill slope angle. To study the seismic behavior they
considered different configurations, as step back building which are in the range of 4 to
11 storey and consist of varying bays of 3 to 6 in X-direction .They have not studied the
seismic behavior by varying bays along Y-direction, thus they considered one bay along
Y-direction, situated at varying slopes of 16.32°, 21.58°, 26.56° and 31.50° with the
horizontal located in seismic zone III .It is observed that, in all configurations, base
shear increases with increase in number of storey , increases with increase in number of
bay and decreases from lower angle to higher angle of slope as shown in figure 7 (a),
Figure 7 (b) and Figure 7 (c), when compared between different configurations, base
shear of step back building is found to be higher than step set back building. They
observed that the time period increases with increase in number of storey in all
configurations, in step back building time period increases with increase in number of
bays, which is a reverse case in step back set back building in which time period
decreases with increase in number of bay and in all configurations time period
decreases with increase in hill slope showing minor change in time period as shown in
Figure 7 (d). In all configurations it is observed that the top story displacement
increases with increase in number of storey, displacement is nearly alike for 3 bay and 4
bay, But, it decreases considerably from 4 to 5 bay and further increases for 6 bay, as
shown in figure 7 (e), with respective to hill slope, they found that the top storey
displacement decreases with increase in hill slope showing lower value for higher
slope .Thus they conclude that the step back frames produce higher base shear, higher
value of time period and higher value of top storey displacement as compared to step
back set back frames. Also they conclude that greater no of bays are observed to be
better under seismic excitation, as number of bays increase time period and
displacement decreases.

Karavasilis et. al. (2008) carried out a study on the inelastic seismic response of plane
steel moment resisting frames with setbacks. A family of 120 such frames, designed
according to the European seismic and structural codes, is subjected to an ensemble of
30 ordinary earthquake ground motions scaled to different intensities in order to drive
the structures to different limit states. The author concluded that the level of inelastic
deformation and geometrical configuration play an important role on the height wise
distribution of deformation demands. The maximum deformation demands are
concentrated in the “tower” for tower like structures and in the neighborhood of the
setbacks for other geometrical configurations. Athanassiadou (2008) addressed seismic
performance of multi-storey reinforced concrete (R/C) frame buildings irregular in
elevation. Two ten-storey two-dimensional plane frames with two and four large
setbacks in the upper floors respectively, as well as a third one, regular in elevation,
have been designed to the provisions of the 2004 Eurocode 8 (EC8). All frames have
been subjected to both inelastic static pushover analysis and inelastic dynamic time-
history analysis for selected input motions. It is concluded that the effect of ductility
class on the cost of building is negligible. Seismic performance of irregular frames are
equally satisfactory (and not inferior) to that of the regular ones even for motions twice
as strong as the design earthquake. Also conventional pushover analysis seems to be
underestimating the response quantities in the upper floors of the irregular frames. This
conclusion is based on the multi-mode elastic analysis and evaluates the seismic design
provisions of Eurocode EC-8 according to which the design provision given in the
European standard for setback building are not inferior to that for regular buildings. As
per this reference the setback building and regular building designed as per EC-8
performs equally good when subjected to seismic loadings.

Shahrooz and Moehle et al (1990) studied the effects of setbacks on the earthquake
response of multistoried buildings. In an effort to improve design methods for setback
structures, an experimental and analytical study was undertaken. In the experimental
study, a six-storey moment-resisting reinforced concrete space frame with 50% setback
in one direction at mid height was selected. The analytical study focused on the test
structure. The displacement profiles were relatively smooth over the height. Relatively
large inter-storey drifts at the tower-base junction were accompanied by a moderate
increase in damage at that level. Overall, the predominance of the fundamental mode on
the global translational response in the direction parallel to the setback was clear from
the displacement and inertia force profiles. The distribution of lateral forces was almost
always similar to the distribution specified by the UBC code; no significant peculiarities
in dynamic response were detected. To investigate further, an analytical study was also
carried out on six generic reinforced concrete setback frames.
Soni and Mistry at al (2006) reviewed the studies on the seismic behavior of vertically
irregular structures along with their findings in the building codes and available
literatures and summarized the knowledge in the seismic response of vertically irregular
building frames. The building codes provide criteria to classify the vertical irregular
structures and suggest dynamic analysis to arrive at design lateral forces. He observed
most of the studies agree on the increase in drift demand in the tower portion of setback
structures and on the increase in seismic demand for buildings with discontinuous
distribution in mass, stiffness and strength. The largest seismic demand is found for the
combined stiffness and strength irregularity.

Wong and Tso et al (1994) studied the validity of design code requirements for
buildings with setbacks that require a dynamic analysis with the base shear calibrated
by the static base shear obtained using the code's equivalent static load procedure. The
paper discusses two major issues:
(i) Whether the code static base shear is applicable for buildings with setbacks and (ii)
whether the higher mode period should be used in computing the base shear when the
modal weight of a higher mode is larger than that of the fundamental mode. With regard
to the first issue, modification factors were derived for adjusting the code period
formula so that it can provide a more reasonable estimate for the period of a building
with a setback. With regard to the second issue, it was demonstrated that for cases
where the modal weight of a higher mode is larger than that of the fundamental mode,
using the higher mode period for base shear calculation will result in unnecessarily
conservative design.

2.2 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Naeim et. al. (2001) described the seismic performance of buildings and performance
objectives to define the state of the building following a design earthquake. They also
outlined the promises and limitations of performance based seismic engineering. They
introduced and discussed the methodologies and techniques embodied in the two
leading guidelines of this subject i.e. ATC13 40 and FEMA-273/274. They provided
some numerical examples to illustrate the practical applications of the methods used.

Chandler and Mendis et al (2000) reviewed the force based seismic design method and
also the displacement based seismic assessment approach. They also presented a case
study for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames designed and detailed according
to European and Australian code provisions having low, medium and high ductility
capacity. They used Electros NS earthquake ground motion as the seismic input to get
the performance characteristics of these frames. The author concluded the displacement
based approach predicts accurately the overall displacement demands for the frames.
Ghobarah et al (2001) reviewed the reliability of performance based design in
earthquake engineering, need of multiple performances, and hazard levels for future
seismic design practice. He also reviewed the advantage of performance based seismic
engineering. He concluded that the advantage of performance based design is the
possibility of achieving predictable seismic performance with uniform risk and there are
several challenges to be addressed and much research and development remain to be
done before procedures for performance-based design can be widely accepted and
implemented.

Goel and Chopra et al (1997) evaluated the formulas specified in present U.S. codes
using the available data on the fundamental period of buildings measured from their
motions recorded during eight California earthquakes from 1971 San Fernando
earthquake to 1994 Northridge earthquake. They developed improved formulas for
estimating the fundamental periods of reinforced concrete and steel moment resisting
frame buildings by regression analysis of the measured period data. Also, the paper
recommended factors to limit the period calculated by a rational analysis.

M C Griffith and A V Pinto et al have investigated the specific details of a 4-story, 3-

bay reinforced concrete frame test structure with unreinforced brick masonry (URM)
infill walls with attention to their weaknesses with regards to seismic loading. The
concrete frame was shown to be a “weak-column strong-beam frame” which is likely to
exhibit poor post yield hysteretic behavior. The building was expected to have
maximum lateral deformation capacities corresponding to about 2% lateral drift. The
unreinforced masonry infill walls were likely to begin cracking at much smaller lateral
drifts, of the order of 0.3%, and completely lost their load carrying ability by drifts of
between 1% and 2%.

Shunsuke Otani at al studied the development of earthquake resistant design of RCC

Buildings (Past and Future). The measurement of ground acceleration started in 1930’s,
and the response calculation was made possible in 1940’s. Design response spectra
were formulated in the late 1950’s to 1960’s. Non-linear response was introduced in
seismic design in 1960’s and the capacity design concept was introduced in 1970’s for
collapse safety. The damage statistics of RCC buildings in 1995 Kobe disaster
demonstrated the improvement of building performance with the development of design
methodology. Buildings designed and constructed using outdated methodology should
be upgraded. Performance basis engineering should be emphasized, especially for the
protection of building functions following frequent earthquakes.

Ciro Faella, Enzo Martinelli, Emidio Nigro et al proposed an assessment procedure in

terms of displacement capacity and demand. The sample application of the proposed
procedure to a typical building emphasized how easy and quick can be its application.
As a brief parametrical investigation, the influence of subsoil stiffness on the seismic
vulnerability of the building was analyzed pointing out that vulnerability was much
larger as subsoil was less stiff. A rational design procedure for choosing the retrofitting
system was proposed with the aim of determining the key mechanical characteristics of
a bracing system working in parallel with the existing structure for complying the safety
requirement provided by Eurocode 8 – Part 3 entirely devoted to existing structures. In
the proposed design procedure, according to a displacement-basedapproach, the
strengthening substructure was designed in terms of lateral stiffness, because Page12
displacement demand is strictly controlled by the displacement capacity of the existing
structure. For this reason, usual force-based design procedures suitable for new
structures, in which displacement capacity is only imposed by the new structure itself,
are not directly applicable for bracing system utilized for retrofitting existing structures.

Oğuz, Sermin et al ascertained the effects and the accuracy of invariant lateral load
patterns utilized in pushover analysis to predict the behavior imposed on the structure
due to randomly selected individual ground motions causing elastic deformation by
studying various levels of nonlinear response. For this purpose, pushover analyses using
various invariant lateral load patterns and Modal Pushover Analysis were performed on
reinforced concrete and steel moment resisting frames covering a broad range of
fundamental periods. The accuracy of approximate procedures utilized to estimate
target displacement was also studied on frame structures. Pushover analyses were
performed by both DRAIN-2DX and SAP2000. The primary observations from the
study showed that the accuracy of the pushover results depended strongly on the load
path, the characteristics of the ground motion and the properties of the structure.

Rai et al gave the guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of buildings. This
document was developed as part of project entitled ―Review of Building Codes and
Preparation of Commentary and Handbooks, awarded to Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur by the Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), Gandhinagar
through World Bank finances. This document was particularly concerned with the
seismic evaluation and strengthening of existing buildings and it was intended to be
used as a guide.

Thermou and Elnashai et al made a global assessment of the effect of repair methods on
ductility, strength and stiffness, the three most important seismic response parameters,
to assist researchers and practitioners in decision-making to satisfy their respective
intervention aims. Also the term ‘rehabilitation’ was used as a comprehensive term to
include all types of retrofitting, repair and strengthening that leads to reduced
earthquake vulnerability. The term ‘repair’ was defined as reinstatement of the original
characteristics of a damaged section or element and was confined to dealing with the as-
built system. The term ‘strengthening’ was defined as intervention that lead to
enhancement of one or more seismic response parameters (ductility, strength, stiffness,
etc.), depending on the desired performance.
Kadid and Boumrkik et al proposed use of Pushover Analysis as a viable method to
assess damage vulnerability of a building designed according to Algerian code.
Pushover analysis was a series of incremental static analysis carried out to develop a
capacity curve for the building. Based on the capacity curve, a target displacement
which was an estimate of the displacement that the design earthquake would produce on
the building was determined. The extent of damage experienced by the structure at this
target displacement is considered representative of the damage experienced by the
building when subjected to design level ground shaking. Since the behavior of
reinforced concrete structures might be highly inelastic under seismic loads, the global
inelastic performance of RC structures would be dominated by plastic yielding effects
and consequently the accuracy of the pushover analysis would be influenced by the
ability of the analytical models to capture these effects.

Goel et al evaluated the nonlinear static procedures specified in the FEMA-356,

ASCE/SEI 41-06, ATC-40, and FEMA-440 documents for seismic analysis and
evaluation of building structures using strong-motion records of RC buildings. The
maximum roof displacement predicted from the nonlinear static procedure was
compared with the value derived directly from recorded motions for this purpose. It was
shown that: (i) the nonlinear static procedures either overestimates or underestimates
the peak roof displacement for several of the buildings considered in the investigation;
(ii) the ASCE/SEI 41-06 Coefficient Method (CM), which was based on recent
improvements to the FEMA-356 Coefficient Method suggested in the FEMA- 440
document, does not necessarily provide better estimate of the roof displacement; and
(iii) the improved FEMA-440 Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) provided better
estimates of the roof displacement compared to the ATC-40 CSM.

Saptadip and Sarkar et al studied the Design of Earthquake resistant multi stories RCC
building on a sloping ground that involves the analysis of simple 2-D frames of
different floor heights and varying number of bays using a software tool named STAAD
Pro. Using the analysis results various graphs were drawn between the maximum
compressive stress, maximum bending moment, maximum shear force, maximum
tensile force and maximum axial force being developed for the frames on plane ground
and sloping ground. The graphs were used to draw comparisons between the two cases
and the detailed study of Short Column Effect failure. In addition to that, the feasibility
of the software tool to be used was also checked and the detailed study of seismology
was undertaken.

Siamak Sattar and Abbie Liel et al quantified the effect of the presence and
configuration of masonry infill walls on seismic collapse risk. Infill panels are modeled
by two nonlinear strut elements, which have compressive strength only. Nonlinear
models of the frame-wall system were subjected to incremental dynamic analysis in
order to assess seismic performance. There was an increase observed in initial strength,
stiffness, and energy dissipation of the infilled frame, when compared to the bare frame,
even after the wall’s brittle failure modes. Dynamic analysis results indicated that fully-
infilled frame had the lowest collapse risk and the bare frames were found to be the
most vulnerable to earthquake-induced collapse. The better collapse performance of
fully-infilled frames was associated with the larger strength and energy dissipation of
the system, associated with the added walls.

Benyamin Monavari, Ali Massumi & Alireza Kazem et al used nonlinear static analysis
and five locals and overall yields and failure criteria to estimate seismic demands of
buildings. The failure is directed towards losing structure’s performance during the
earthquake or subsequent effects. Because of the consequent excitations of an
earthquake or lateral imposed loads on a structure, the stiffness of some elements of
structure reduced and the structure started to fail and lose its performance; although
failure happened either in small parts of structure or at the whole. In this study thirteen
reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 20
stories, having 3 and 4 bays were designed using seismic force levels obtained from the
Iranian Seismic Code 2005 and proportioned using the ACI318-99 Building Code and
then were modeled by IDARC. Pushover analysis with increasing triangular loading
was used.

Haroon Rasheed Tamboli & Umesh N. Karadi et all performed seismic analysis using
Equivalent Lateral Force Method for different reinforced concrete (RC) frame building
models that included bare frame, in filled frame and open first story frame. In modeling
of the masonry infill panels the Equivalent diagonal Strut method was used and the
software ETABS was used for the analysis of all the frame models. Infilled frames
should be preferred in seismic regions than the open first story frame, because the story
drift of first story of open first story frame is very large than the upper stories, which
might probably cause the collapse of structure. The infill wall increases the strength and
stiffness of the structure. The seismic analysis of RC (Bare frame) structure lead to
under estimation of base shear. Therefore other response quantities such as time period,
natural frequency, and story drift were not significant. The underestimation of base
shear might lead to the collapse of structure during earthquake shaking.

Narender Bodige and Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla et al modeled a 1 x 1 bay 2D four

storied building using AEM (applied element method). AEM is a discrete method in
which the elements are connected by pair of normal and shear springs which are
distributed around the elements edges and each pair of springs totally represents stresses
and deformation and plastic hinges location are formed automatically. Gravity loads and
laterals loads as per IS 1893-2002 were applied on the structure and designed using IS
456 and IS 13920. Displacement control pushover analysis was carried out in both cases
and the pushover curves were compared. As an observation it was found that AEM gave
good representation capacity curve. From the case studies it was found that capacity of
the building significantly increased when ductile detailing was adopted. Also, it was
found that effect on concrete grade and steel were not highly significant.

OBJECTIVE
1. The main objective of the study was to determine seismic analysis of a structure with
different slope levels of a ground.
2. Different inclinations are considered between 15 degrees to 60 degrees by
considering the setback buildings.

CHAPTER -3

Methodology and Modeling

3.1 METHODOLOGY

Review of literature

Model the setback buildings with fixed height (15

to 60 degrees)

The seismic properties are

calculated for different slope in the
ground (using E-tabs )

Compare the different slopes of buildings

column forces base shear and story drift are
obtained
 Final report

Modeling of the structure is different for a fixed height and for fixed width, for a fixed
height the total height 15m is constant the value of width is changing for 150 to 600 for
150 the total width of the structure in x-direction two bay each of 10.5m. For 300 the
total width of the structure in x-direction two bay each of 5.2m. For 450 the total width
of the structure in x-direction two bay each of 3m. For 600 the total width of the
structure in x-direction two bay each of 1.73m. The width is constant for in z- direction
for all degrees of inclination it is constant two bay each of 3.5m length

For a fixed width 10m length is constant in x-direction of two bays height of the is
changing from 150 to 600 for 150 the total height of the structure is 11.8 m. for 300 the
total height of the structure was 14.8m. 450 the total height of the structure is 19m. For
600 the total height of the structure is 26.2 m

3.2 MODELING

3.2.1 FOR 150 INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 10.5 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of
3.5 m length. Total height of the structure is 15m each story height 3m base 6m.
2. The column dimension on ground level 1300×1800mm for the short length column
(3m) at middle of the structure and the long length columns (6m) on ground level.
3. The column dimension 1000×1500mm for remaining two short columns on ground
story.
4. The column dimension 700×1000mm for left side 3 columns on story1.
5. The column dimension 500×700mm for remaining all columns.
6. The beam dimension 300mm×600mm for all beams.
 Figure 3.2.1(a): plan view 150 inclination

Figure 3.2.1(b): 3-D view 150 inclination

3.2.2 FOR 30 0INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 5.2 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of 3.5
m length. Total height of the structure is 15m each story height 3m base 6m.
2. The column dimension on ground level 500×700mm for long length columns (6m).
3. The column dimension on ground level 400×600mm for short length column (3m).
4. The column dimension 300×500mm for remaining all columns.
5. The beam dimensions 230×380mm for all beams.
 Figure 3.2.2(a): plan view 300 inclination

Figure 3.2.2(b): 3-D view 300 inclination

3.2.3 FOR 45 0INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 3 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of 3.5
m length. Total height of the structure is 15m each story height 3m base 6m.
2. The column dimension on ground level 500×700mm for long length columns (6m).
3. The column dimension on ground level 400×600mm for short length column (3m).
4. The column dimension 300×500mm for remaining all columns.
6. The beam dimensions 230×380mm for all beams.
 Figure 3.2.3(a): plan view 450 inclination

Figure 3.2.3(b): 3-D view 450 inclination

3.2.4 FOR 600INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 1.73 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of
3.5 m length. Total height of the structure is 15m each story height 3m base 6m.
2. The column dimension on ground level the 350 ×500mm for long length column
(6m).
3. The column dimension 280×400mm for short column (3m).
4. The column dimension 250×380mm for remaining all columns.
5. The beam dimensions 230×380 for all beams.
 Figure 3.2.4(a): plan view 600 inclination

Figure 3.2.4(b): 3-D view 600 inclination

3.2.5 . FOR 150INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 5 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of 3.5
m length. Total height of the structure is 11.8m each story height 3m base 2.8m.
2. The column dimension on ground level the 500 ×700mm for long length column
(2.8m).
3. The column dimension 450×550mm for short column (1.4m).
4. The column dimension 380×500mm for remaining all columns.
5. The beam dimensions 230×380 for all beams.
 Figure 3.2.5(a): Plan view 150 inclination

Figure 3.2.5(b): 3-D view 150 inclination

3.2.6 FOR 300INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 5 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of 3.5
m length. Total height of the structure is 14.8m each story height 3m base 5.8m.
2. The column dimension on ground level the 500 ×800mm for long length column
(5.8m).
3. The column dimension 450×700mm for short column (2.9m).
4. The column dimension 425×700mm for remaining all columns.
5. The beam dimensions 250×400 for all beams.
 Figure 3.2.6(a): Plan view 300 inclination

Figure 3.2.6(b): 3-D view 300 inclination

3.2.7 . FOR 450INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 5 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of 3.5
m length. Total height of the structure is 19m each story height 3m base 7m.
2. The column dimension on ground level the 600 ×900mm for long length column
(7m).
3. The column dimension 500×800mm for short column (2m).
4. The column dimension 400×600mm for remaining all columns.
5. The beam dimensions 230×380 for all beams.
 Figure 3.2.7(a): Plan view 450 inclination

Figure 3.2.7(b): 3-D view 450 inclination

3.2.8 FOR 600INCLINATION

1. Plan in X- direction 2bay each of 5 m length and in Z- direction 2 bay each of 3.5
m length. Total height of the structure is 26.2m each story height 3m base 11.2m.
2. The column dimension 600 ×900mm for all columns.
 3. The beam dimensions 230×380mm for all beams.

Figure 3.2.8(a): Plan view 600 inclination

Figure 3.2.8(a): 3-D view 600 inclination

Chapter-4
Loads and Calculations

4.1. DEAD LOAD

Slab of thickness 150 mm is considered

Unit weight of concrete is 25 kN/m3
Floor finish is 1 kN/m2
Total dead load on slab is 4.75 kN/m3

4.1.1 WALL LOAD

Wall of thickness 230 mm
Unit weight of brick 19 kN/m3
Total wall load on beam is 13.11 kN/m

4.2. LIVE LOAD

Live load was considered as per IS 875 part II 3kN/m2

4.3. SEISMIC LOAD

1)
2) Seismic load was consider as per zone V of IS 1893

Seismic Zone Factor, Z [IS Table 2] Z=0.36

Response Reduction Factor, R [IS Table 7] R=5
Importance Factor, I [IS Table 6] I =1
Site Type [IS Table 1] = II

3) Seismic Response

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient, Sa /g S a Sa

=2.5 =2.5
[IS 6.4.5] g g

4) Equivalent Lateral Forces

Sa
ZI
Seismic Coefficient, Ah [IS 6.4.2] g
Ah =
2R
5)
Eccentricity Ratio = 5% for all diaphragms
Chapter -5

Results and Discussions

6)
7) From the analysis it was observed that the column forces are constant for
seismic coefficient method and pushover analysis and for a fixed height and fixed width
the short column at the middle of the structure was taking more force from the pushover
analysis stiffness was calculated by using pushover curves from the response spectrum
analysis the model mass participation factor was considered. From the seismic
coefficient method story drift and base shear values are tableted

8) 5.1 RESPONCE SPECTRUM:

9) Response spectrum analysis is done as per IS 1893:2002 the minimum values
model mass partition factor should considered as more than 90 percentage total seismic
mass and the ratio between the design base shear and fundamental base shear value is
equal to one.

10) 5.4 PUSHOVER:

11) Pushover analysis is carried out by considering displacement control method
with a load to a monitored displacement of magnitude of magnitude of 0.04h. h is the
total height of the structure for a fixed height it is the displacement was constant. Hing
values for beams and columns was taken as per ASCE 41-06 .

12)
13)
14) Model mass partition factor:
15)

16) Figure 5.1(a) : model mass participation factor for first 6 modes

17)

18)

5.2 PUSHOVER CURVES

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

II. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.
 III. INPUT DATA
Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ

IV. PLOT

Figure 5.2(a): fixed height 150

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

V. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.

VI. INPUT DATA

Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ

VII. PLOT

Figure 5.2(b): fixed height 300

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

VIII. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.

IX. INPUT DATA

Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ
 X. PLOT

Figure 5.2(c): fixed height 450

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

XI. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.

XII. INPUT DATA

Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ

XIII. PLOT

Figure 5.2(d): fixed height 600

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

XIV. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.
 XV. INPUT DATA
Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ

XVI. PLOT

Figure 5.2(e): fixed width 150

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

XVII. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.
 XVIII. INPUT DATA
Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ

XIX. PLOT

Figure 5.2(f): fixed width 300

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

XX. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.
 XXI. INPUT DATA
Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ

XXII. PLOT

Figure 5.2(g): fixed width 450

Pushover Curve - Base Shear vs Monitored Displacement

XXIII. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

This is the base shear vs monitored displacement data for a pushover analysis.
 XXIV. INPUT DATA
Name Pushover1
Load Case Push Plot Type V vs Displ

XXV. PLOT

Figure 5.2(h): fixed width 600

5.3. FIXED HEIGHT RESULTS

 Model Storey Maximum Base Maximum Maximum Stiffness of Model
Fixed height on top shear Column forces Column pushover load
width in (m) Story drift (Vb) in on ground story forces on curve in participa
In (mm) KN Middle Frame ground story kn/mm tion
left side column Middle Frame dependin
Of 3m length right side g on
In (KN) column 90% no
Of 6m length og
In (KN) modes

AT 15 15 0.0015 436.51 3988.15 2828.012 100 9

degrees
At 30 15 0.001 158.28 1943.98 1330.67 64 5
degrees
At 45 15 0.0006 112.78 1327.14 974.13 28 4
degrees
At 60 15 0.0006 71.23 813.84 719.18 16 4
degrees

Table 5.2: Fixed height result

5.4 FIXED WIDTH RESULTS

Model Storey Maximum Base Maximum Maximum Stiffness of Model
Fixed height on top shear Column forces Column pushover load
width in (m) Story drift (Vb) in on ground forces on curve in participat
In (mm) KN story ground story kn/mm ion
Middle Frame Middle dependin
left side Frame right g on 90%
column side column no og
Of 3m length Of 6m length modes
In (KN) In (KN)

AT 15 11.8 0.001 148.17 1906.15 1272.42 36 6

degrees

At 30 14.8 0.00072 187.72 1943.6 1346.23 63 6

degrees

At 45 19 0.0008 201.39 2204.45 1571.289 85 7

degrees

At 60 26.2 0.0008 317.214 2260.11 1893.07 125 7

degrees

Table 5.4.: Fixed width results

5.4 COLUMN DESIGN

For fixed height 150 file maximum force column design

 Column Element Details

Section Length
Level Element
ID (mm)
Story1 C11 column 3000

Section Properties

Cover
b (mm) h (mm) dc (mm) (Torsion)
(mm)
1300 1800 60 30

Material Properties

Lt.Wt
Ec fck fys
Factor fy (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(Unitless)
27386.1
30 1 415 415
3

Design Code Parameters

ɣC ɣS
1.5 1.15

Longitudinal Reinforcement Design for Pu - Mu2 - Mu3 Interaction

Rebar
Column Rebar
Area
End %
mm²
Top 18720 0.8
Bottom 18720 0.8

Design Axial Force & Biaxial Moment for Pu - Mu2 - Mu3 Interaction

Design Design Design Station

Column Controllin
Pu Mu2 Mu3 Loc
End g Combo
kN kN-m kN-m mm
1917.06 124.225
Top 0 2400 DCon8
33 7
Bottom 2043.38 0 - 0 DCon8
6 666.935
 Design Design Design Station
Column Controllin
Pu Mu2 Mu3 Loc
End g Combo
kN kN-m kN-m mm
9

Shear Reinforcement for Major Shear, Vu2

Rebar Design Station

Column Controllin
Asv /s Vu2 Loc
End g Combo
mm²/m kN mm
Top 1440.96 0 2400 DCon8
Bottom 1440.96 0 0 DCon8

Shear Reinforcement for Minor Shear, Vu3

Rebar Design Station

Column Controllin
Asv /s Vu3 Loc
End g Combo
mm²/m kN mm
206.013
Top 1995.18 2400 DCon8
2
206.013
Bottom 1995.18 0 DCon8
2

Column Element Details

Section Length
Level Element LLRF
ID (mm)
Story1 C8 column1 3000 0.6

Section Properties

Cover
b (mm) h (mm) dc (mm) (Torsion)
(mm)
400 600 58 30

Material Properties

Lt.Wt
Ec fck fys
Factor fy (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(Unitless)
27386.1
30 1 415 415
3
 Design Code Parameters

ɣC ɣS
1.5 1.15

Longitudinal Check for Pu - Mu2 - Mu3 Interaction

Rebar
Column Rebar D/C
Area
End % Ratio
mm²
Top 2413 1.01 0.596
Bottom 2413 1.01 0.578

Design Axial Force & Biaxial Moment for Pu - Mu2 - Mu3 Interaction

Design Design Design Station

Column Controllin
Pu Mu2 Mu3 Loc
End g Combo
kN kN-m kN-m mm
kN kN-m kN-m mm
1931.76
Top 38.6352 78.8647 2620 DCon2
08
1661.22
Bottom 83.0649 41.9294 0 DCon5
95

Shear Reinforcement for Major Shear, Vu2

Rebar Design Station

Column Controllin
Asv /s Vu2 Loc
End g Combo
mm²/m kN mm
Top 443.37 0 2620 DCon8
Bottom 443.37 0 0 DCon8

Shear Reinforcement for Minor Shear, Vu3

Rebar Design Station

Column Controllin
Asv /s Vu3 Loc
End g Combo
mm²/m kN mm
Top 665.06 41.1582 2620 DCon8
Bottom 665.06 41.1582 0 DCon8
 Chapter -6
Conclusion
From the results it was concluded the short length column at ground level will take
more force when compare to the long length columns and the opposite long length
column was also taking more fore (which was less than short column force) compare to
remaining columns.
While increasing inclination of the structure the for fixed height the column forces are
decreasing and for the fixed width it was increasing while increasing the angle and the
story drift was increasing while increasing, for the inclination at 45 0 and 600 was equal.
The value of base shear was decreasing while increasing the angle of inclination of the
structure.
 For fixed width the value of base shear was increasing from pushover analysis results
it was observed that for fixed height while increasing the inclination stiffness of the
structure was decreasing for fixed width case while increasing the inclination stiffness
of the structure was increasing.
From response spectrum results it was observed that for fixed height model load
participation ratio value increasing for fixed width case the model load participation
ration is decreasing.

REFERENCES

Akkar, S.D. and Metin, A. (2007). Assessment of Improved Nonlinear Static

Procedures in FEMA-440. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 133(9), 1237-
1246.

Akkar, S.D., and Miranda, E. (2005). Statistical evaluation of approximatemethods for

estimating maximum deformation demands on existing structures.Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 131(1), 160–172.

Akkar, S., and Özen, Ö (2005). Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands
for SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34, 1551–1571.
 Antoniou S., Rovithakis A. and Pinho R. (2002). Development and verification of a
fully adaptive pushover procedure, Proceedings Twelfth European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, London, UK, Paper No. 822.

Aschheim, M.A., Maffei, J., and Black, E.F. (1998). Nonlinear static procedures and
earthquake displacement demands. Proceedings of 6th U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Paper 167.

Birajdar.B.G,”Seismic analysis of buildings resting on sloping ground”, 13thWorld

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1472,
2004.

Fardis M. N. (2009): Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of Concrete

Buildings, Springer Publication.

Griffith M. C., Pinto A. V. (2000):“Seismic Retrofit of RC Buildings - A Review and

Case Study”, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia and European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Ispra Italy.

Goel R. K. (2008): Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures for Reinforced

Concrete Buildings, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October
12- 17, 2008, Beijing, China.

Halkude et al “Seismic Analysis of Buildings Resting on Sloping Ground With Varying

Number of Bays and Hill Slopes” International Journal of Engineering Research and
Technology ISSN:2278-0181,Vol.2 Issue 12, December-2013

IS: 1893 (I)-2002. “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures” BIS, New
Delhi

Jitendra Babu, K.Y.G.D Balaji “pushover analysis of unsymmetrical framed structures

on sloping ground” International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and
Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD) ISSN 2249-6866
Vol. 2 Issue 4 Dec - 2012 45-54.

Kadid A., Boumrkik A. (2008): Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame

Structures, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) Vol.

Krawinkler H., Seneviratna G.D.P.K. (1998): Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis of
Seismic Performance Evaluation, Engineering Structures, Vol.20, 452-464.

Lawson R.S., Reinhorn A.M., Lobo R.F. (1994): Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis -
Why, When and How? Proceedings of the 5th US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Chicago, Vol. 1, 283-292
Mohammed Umar Farooque Patel et al “A Performance study and seismic evaluation of
RC frame buildings on sloping ground” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-ISSN: 2320-334X-, PP 51-58,2014.

Monavari B., Massumi A., Kazem, A (2012): Estimation of Displacement Demand in

RC Frames and Comparing with Target Displacement Provided by FEMA-356, 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24th to 28th September, 2012, Lisbon,
Portugal.

Mouzzoun M., Moustachi O., Taleb A. (2013): Seismic Damage Prediction of

Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Pushover Analysis, International Journal of
Computational Engineering Research (ijceronline.com) Vol. 3 Issue. 1, January 2013.

Mouzzoun M., Moustachi O., Taleb A., Jalal S. (2013): Seismic performance
assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using pushover analysis, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE); ISSN: 2278-1684 Volume 5, Issue 1
(Jan. - Feb. 2013), PP 44-49.

Mwafy A. M., Elnashai A. S. (2001): Static Pushover versus Dynamic Analysis of RC

Buildings, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, 407-424.

Nagargoje and K.S.Sable," Seismic performance of multi-storeyed building on sloping

ground", Elixir International Journal, 7 December 2012.

Otani S. (2000): Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,

Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Series B, Vol., XLVII, October 2000, pp.
5 - 28. 16. Pillai S. U., Menon D. (2009): Reinforced Concrete Design, TMH
Publication.

Poluraju P., Nageswara Rao P. V. S. (2011): Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete

frame structure using SAP 2000, International Journal of Earth Sciences and
Engineering, ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, pp. 684-690.

Prashant D, Dr. Jagadish Kori G “ Seismic Response of one way slope RC frame
building with soft storey” International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and
Development Issue 3, Vol.5 (September 2013).

Rayyan-Ul-Hasan Siddiqui and , H. S. Vidyadhara “Seismic Analysis of Earthquake

Resistant Multi Bay Multi Storeyed 3D - RC Frame” International Journal of
Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 Vol. 2 Issue 10,
October – 2013.

Ravikumar C M,*, Babu Narayan K S “Effect of Irregular Configurations on Seismic

Vulnerability of RC Buildings” Architecture Research 2012,2(3):20-26DOI:
10.5923/j.arch.20120203.01.
Rai, Durgesh C. (2005): “Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Buildings”
IIT Kanpur and Gujarat State Disaster Mitigation Authority.

Singh and Phani Gade “Seismic Behavior of Buildings Located on Slopes” - An

Analytical Study and Some Observations From Sikkim Earthquake of September 18,
2011. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Journal 2012.

Sarkar S. (2010): Design of Earth-quake Resistant Multi-storied RCC Building on a

Sloping Ground, Bachelor of Technology Thesis, National Institute of Technology
Rourkela.