See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330618400

Response Spectrum Analysis for Irregular Multi-Storey Structure In Seismic

Zone V

Conference Paper · December 2018

CITATION READS

1 3,442

2 authors, including:

Mohd Firoj
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
6 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohd Firoj on 03 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 16th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering
December 20-22, 2018
IIT Roorkee, India
Paper No. 300

Response Spectrum Analysis for Irregular Multi-Storey

Structure in Seismic Zone V
M. Firoj1* and S. K. Singh2
1
Project Assistant, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, mohdfiroj2493@gmail.com
2
Senior Principal Scientist, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, sksingh_cbri@yahoo.co.in

Abstract
Earthquake is the most disastrous and unpredictable natural phenomenon which causes huge
destruction to human lives as well as infrastructure. Seismic forces generated during
earthquake leads to severe damage to structural elements and sometimes structural failure.
Therefore, analysis and design of the buildings considering the effect of lateral forces is very
important aspect. In the present study, a G+10 storied building was analyzed through the
response spectrum analysis using three different computer software i.e. ETABS, STAD PRO
and SAP2000. The displacements of joints, axial forces, time period and mass participating
factors were studied. The design response spectrum curve suggested by the IS: 1893 Part-1
for seismic design is utilized to perform the dynamic analysis. It was found that the
considered building is stiff for earthquake excitation as modal mass participation factor is
more than 75 percent. The joint displacement in X- direction is found more as compared due
to the fact that the earthquake motion was applied in X-direction.

Introduction
In the events of earthquake, irregular multi-storied buildings/ structures are more prone to
damage and even culminate into collapse. The structures with soft storey (due to mass
irregularity) are most vulnerable to seismic forces. Various countries have their seismic
design code incorporating provisions to design a structure capable of sustaining such seismic
loading. In India, IS 1893:2016 (Part-1)- “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures” is the design standard code for the design of structures for seismic forces.
Behaviour of irregular multi-story building during earthquake excitation depends on the
stiffness, mass distribution and strength in vertical and horizontal direction (Moehle, 1984).
During earthquake, damages/failures start form the weakest point in the structure, these
weakest points rise due to the irregularity in the structure (Kumar and Babu, 2016). In the
present modern era, the growing population forced the engineer and architects to plan the
multi-storey building structures with soft storey (Valmundsson and Nau, 1997). For the
seismic safety of these structures, it is utmost important to analyze their seismic response.
Berrah and Kausel (1992) developed the procedure by extending the response spectrum
analysis for the multiple supported structure subjected to varying earthquake motion
.Tremblay et al. (2005) studied the application of equivalent static analysis on the multi-
storied structures with mass irregularity and observed higher magnitude of displacements in
static analysis as compared to dynamic analysis. Raheem (2006) presented the tool for the
inelastic analysis of seismic pounding effect between two structures. The effect of linear and
nonlinear contact force model for different separation distances were also studied and
compared with nominal model without pounding consideration. Bagheri et al. (2012) assess

1
 Response Spectrum Analysis for Irregular Multi-Storey Structure in Seismic Zone V

the multi-storied irregular structure based on dynamic and static analysis and found more
displacement in static analysis as compared to dynamic analysis. Kumawat and Kulurkar
(2014) studied the composite structure using the response spectrum and equivalent linear
analysis and found that composite structures were economical than the conventional multi-
storied structures. Mahmoud and Abdallah (2014) studied the response of the multi-storey
structure using the equivalent static and response spectrum method and pointed out that
equivalent static analysis gives the result in loading direction only while response spectrum
analysis produce the result such that displacement, base shear and base moment in both
direction regardless of loading direction. Haque et al. (2016) studied the performance of
multi-storied structure considering the plan irregularity (W shape, L shape, rectangular and
square) and concluded that W shape was more vulnerable as compare to others.
The objective of the present paper is to study the response spectrum analysis of irregular
multi-storey building using computer programs (ETABS, STAD PRO and SAP2000
software). The effect of strong ground motion were also evaluated on joint displacement,
axial force and time period of the structure. To achieve this objective a G+10, reinforced
concrete irregular multistoried building were selected to evaluate the seismic response in all
three direction.

Response Spectrum Analysis

In the response spectrum method of analysis, multiple mode of vibrations were used in the
frequency domain. The response of a multi-storey structure is defined as a combination of
various special modes i.e. in a vibrating string corresponds to the "harmonics". The computer
program is used to determine this special mode of structure. For each mode, a response is
recorded from the design response spectrum, based on the modal mass and the modal
frequency; they are then combined to estimate the total response of the structure. In the
present study, the magnitude of forces in all directions i.e. X, Y & Z were calculated and then
the effects of lateral forces on the building were analysed. The design acceleration coefficient
for different soil types and response spectrum graph obtained from the IS 1893:2016 (part 1)
used in the present study is shown in the Fig. 1.

1+15T T<0.10 s
2.5 0.10 s<T<0.40 s
Rock or Hard soil 1
0.40 s<T<4.00 s
T
{ 0.25 T>4.00 s
1+15T T<0.10 s
Sa 2.5 0.10 s<T<0.55 s
= Medium/stiff soil 1.36
g 0.55 s<T<4.00 s
T
{0.34 T>4.00 s
1+15T T<0.10 s
2.5 0.10 s<T<0.67 s
Soft Soils 1.67
0.67 s<T<4.00 s
T
{ {0.42 T>4.00 s

2
 16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018

Hard Soil
2.5
Medium Soil
Soft soil
2.0
Sa/g

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 2 4 6
Time (Sec)

Figure 1. Design Response Spectrum for different soil (5% damping)

Modeling and Building Description

A G+10 storey building located in seismic zone V was considered for the response spectrum
analysis as shown in Fig. 2. The plan of the residential building was 40m × 30m. The total
height of the structure was 40m. The roof slab was supported by the beam and column having
120mm thickness. Two type of cross section of column were used to support the structure as
500mm × 750mm and 350mm × 750mm. M25 grade for concrete and Fe 415 grade for steel
were used in the modeling of beam and column. The loads considered were self-weight of
beam and column as 15kN/m uniformly distributed load for the one brick wall and 7.5kN/m
for the half brick wall, 3kN/m2 live load for the entire floor and 3.75kN/m2 slab load as self-
weight of the roof slab. The response reduction factor was taken 5 (for moment resisting
frame) and importance factor 1 (for residential building) and the damping ratio as 5% (for
rigid structure). The zone factor 0.36 was taken for the seismic zone V as per IS 1893:2016.
The response spectrum for the medium soil was used in the analysis as shown in Fig. 1.
The 3D model of reinforced concrete of multistoried structure with vertical irregularities is
generated as shown in Fig. 2. The slab was modeled using the shell element to simulate the
stiffness of slab. A rigid diaphragm was used for the slab so as to sufficiently transfer the slab
load to beam and column. The beam and column were modeled using the linear element and
beam-column joints were assumed to be rigid joint. The support at the base was provided
fixed (restrained in all direction). 3D analysis was carried out using three different computer
software.

3
 Response Spectrum Analysis for Irregular Multi-Storey Structure in Seismic Zone V

Figure 2. G+10 multistoried structure elevations

Results and Discussions

The response spectrum analysis of G+10 irregular multi-storey building results were
evaluated using different available commercial computer program. The joint displacement in
X, Y and Z direction, axial force, fundamental time period of structure in different modes and
modal mass participation ratio in X and Z direction were presented in this section.

2.5
ETABS
SAP2000
2.0 STAAD.PRO
Time Period (sec)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Mode No.

Figure 3. Time period of structure in different modes

4
 16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018

120
Mass Participation Factors (%)

100

80

ETABS
60 SAP2000
STAAD.PRO

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Mode No.

Figure 4. Modal Mass participation in X direction

120
Mass Participation Factors (%)

100

80

60 ETABS
SAP2000
STAAD.PRO
40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Mode No.

Figure 5. Modal Mass participation in Z direction

5
 Response Spectrum Analysis for Irregular Multi-Storey Structure in Seismic Zone V

0 ETABS
SAP2000
-500
STAAD.PRO
Axial Force p (kN)

-1000

-1500

-2000

-2500

-3000
11

10

--
Y

Y
Y

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE
RE

RE

O
O

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST
ST

ST

Figure 6. Axial force on column

100
ETABS
90
SAP2000
80 STAAD.PRO
Joint 1 displacement (mm)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1

10

11

--
Y

Y
RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE

RE
O

O
ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

Figure 7. Joint 1 displacement in X direction

6
 Joint 1 displacement (mm)
Joint 1 displacement (mm)

0
2
4
6
8
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

ST
O ST
RE O
Y RE
ST 1 Y
O ST 1
RE O
Y RE
2 Y

ETABS
ST
O 2

SAP2000
ST
O
ETABS

RE
Y
SAP2000

RE
3

STAAD.PRO
ST Y
O ST 3
STAAD.PRO

RE O
Y RE
ST 4 Y
O ST 4
RE O
Y RE
5 Y
ST 5

7
O ST
RE O
Y RE
Y
ST 6 6
O ST
O
RE
Y RE
Y
ST 7 7
O ST
RE O
RE
Y Y
ST 8 8
ST
O O
RE RE
Y Y
9

Figure 9. Joint 1 displacement in Z direction

Figure 8. Joint 1 displacement in Y direction
ST ST 9
O O
RE RE
Y Y
ST 10 ST 10
O O
RE RE
Y Y
11 11

-- --
16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018
 Response Spectrum Analysis for Irregular Multi-Storey Structure in Seismic Zone V

The variation of the time period in different mode is shown in Figure 3. It is observed that the
frequency in first mode of vibration is 0.44 Hz by STAD PRO and SAP2000 analysis
whereas it is 0.57 Hz by ETAB analysis. The variation of modal mass participating factor in
X and Z direction are shown in Figure 4 and 5 respectively. As the mass participating factor
is less than that of 75% in the first and second mode of vibration in all software, the dynamic
analysis of the irregular multistoried structure should be performed. Figure 6 shows the
magnitude of axial force on column at different storey. It is observed that axial compressive
force decreases with the increase in height/ storey of the building. The storey wise variation
of the maximum displacement at joint no-1 in X, Y and Z-direction are shown in Fig.7, 8 and
9 respectively. The joint displacements in X- direction are 92 mm, 56 mm and 47 mm
obtained by STAD PRO, SAP2000 and ETAB analysis respectively as shown in Fig 7.

Conclusions
Based on the response spectra study on multi-storey irregular building, following points are
concluded:
 The dynamic analysis must be carried out for high rise structure with vertical
irregularities having height more than 40 m.
 As the modal mass participating factor is more than 75% in the higher mode, the
considered structure is stiff for earthquake excitation.
 The frequency in first mode of vibration is found between 0.44 Hz to 0.57 Hz by
different programs, which shows building much stiffer.
 The joint displacement in X- direction is found more as compared to Y and Z
directions due to the fact that the earthquake motion was applied in X-direction. This
shows the uplift in Y- direction and displacement in Z-direction.

References
1. Bagheri, B. E.; Firoozabad S. and Yahyaei, M.(2012) “Comparative Study of the Static
and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Storey Irregular Building”. World Academy of Science,
Engineeringand Technology, International Journal of Civil, Environmental, and
Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 6(11), pp. 1045-1049.
2. Berrah, M. and Kausel, E.(1992) “Response spectrum analysis of structures subjected to
spatially varying motions”. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 21(6),
pp.461-470.
3. Haque, M. Ray, Chakraborty S.Elias A.M. and Alam, I.(2016) “Seismic Performance
Analysis of RCC Multi-Storied Buildings with Plan Irregularity”. American Journal of
Civil Engineering, 4(3), pp.68-73.
4. IS 1893:2016 Part, 1. (2016) “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures.
Bureau of Indian Standards”.
5. Kumar, M. and Babu V.G. (2016) “Comparative Study of Seismic Performance of
Building Having Mass Vertical Irregularity at Different Floor Levels”. International
Journal of Science and Research, 5(1), pp. 895-899.

8
 16SEE, IIT Roorkee, Dec. 20-22, 2018

6. Kumawat, M.S. and Kalurkar, L.G.(2014) “Analysis and design of multistory building
using composite structure”. International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering
Research, 3(2), pp.126-137.
7. Mahmoud, S. and Abdallah, W.(2014) “Response analysis of multi-Storey RC buildings
under Equivalent static and dynamic loads according to Egyptian code”. International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, 2(1), pp.79-88.
8. Moehle, J.P.(1984) “Seismic response of vertically irregular structures”. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 110(9), pp.2002-2014.
9. Raheem, S.E.A.(2006) “Seismic pounding between adjacent building structures”.
Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 6(66), pp.155.
10. Tremblay, R. Merzouq, S. Izvernari, C. and Alexieva, K. (2005) “Application of the
equivalent static force procedure for the seismic design of multistorey buildings with
vertical mass irregularity”. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(3), pp.561-568.
11. Valmundsson, E. V. and Nau J. M. (1997) “Seismic response of building frames with
vertical structural irregularities”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(1), pp. 30-41.

View publication stats