Structural Engineering International

ISSN: 1016-8664 (Print) 1683-0350 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsei20

Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Structures

Sekhar Chandra Dutta , Pranab Kumar Das & Piyali Sengupta

To cite this article: Sekhar Chandra Dutta , Pranab Kumar Das & Piyali Sengupta (2017) Seismic
Behaviour of Irregular Structures, Structural Engineering International, 27:4, 526-545, DOI:
10.2749/222137917X14881938989765

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2749/222137917X14881938989765

Published online: 23 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsei20
Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Structures
Sekhar Chandra Dutta, Dr, Prof.; Pranab Kumar Das, Research Scholar; Piyali Sengupta, Dr, Asst. Prof., Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India. Contact: scdind2000@gmail.com. dutta.sc.
civ@ismdhanbad.ac.in
DOI: 10.2749/222137917X14881938989765

Abstract
Vertically irregular buildings are frequently constructed across the globe for eventually propagates to the progressive
functional as well as aesthetic considerations. However, post-earthquake recon- collapse of the entire building or major
naissance survey reports revealed high seismic vulnerability of buildings with parts of it.7,8 In reality, almost all the
vertical irregularities. Consequently, it is crucial to explore the reason behind buildings across the world contain irregu-
their high seismic vulnerability in order to improve their performance during larities to some extent due to functional
impending earthquakes. Considering the scarcity of relevant research in this or architectural purposes. From the
regard in the existing literature, a humble effort is undertaken to comprehend viewpoint of seismic safety, the funda-
the seismic behaviour of irregular structures. Several case studies comprising mental period of the structure, base
different configurations of irregular structures are chosen for performing shear and, most importantly, stress con-
response spectral as well as non-linear time history analyses. The results of the centration and ductility demand in locali-
analysis indicate that the irregular structures may have lesser base shear owing sed regions of a structure play a very
to lesser mass as compared to a similar reference regular structural system. crucial role in the seismic vulnerability of
However, there is ample chance of higher stress concentration as well as higher the irregular structures.
ductility demand in the members around the irregularity. This phenomenon In this context, this paper aims to
may trigger early damage of these members, leading to early damage propaga- explore the reason behind the high
tion culminating into progressive collapse of the entire or a major part of the seismic vulnerability of the irregular
structure. Member strength enhancement in the vicinity of vertical irregularity structures in order to improve their
may improve the overall seismic performance of the irregular structures. seismic resistance and to ensure
Keywords: vertically irregular structure; base shear; ductility demand; equiva- enhanced seismic safety in case of
lent infill brick panel; soil–interaction; member force. earthquakes in future. Furthermore,
the extent of stress concentration and
ductility demand in the elements sur-
The seismic performance of buildings rounding the irregular locations of
Introduction the structure is also studied. Since
with vertical irregularity is the primary
With the rapid growth of urbanisation focus of this research. Seismic vulnerabil- most of the seismic codes provide
occurring across the entire world, ity assessment of vertically irregular prohibitive guidelines, an extensive
irregular buildings are quite fre- seismic performance evaluation of
buildings is of the utmost significance for
quently built in almost every country, several buildings with vertical irregu-
potential risk assessment during impend-
including India. Such irregular build- larities may enable the engineering
ing earthquakes, pre-earthquake emer-
ings generally exhibit higher vulnera- community to propose refined guide-
gency disaster response planning and
bility under earthquake loading and lines and design methodologies in
post-earthquake seismic retrofit selection
thus require a thorough assessment to order to ensure the seismic safety of
and retrofit prioritisation.1–6 Seismic per-
ensure their safety during seismic such structures.
formance of a building depends on
events. Irregularities of buildings can numerous factors such as adequate lat-
be broadly classified into two major eral strength, stiffness, ductility, regular- Provisions of Various Codes for
groups, namely plan irregularity and ity and the extent of simplicity in its Vertically Irregular Structures
vertical irregularity. Vertical irregular- configuration. During an earthquake,
ity may be further categorised into geometrically regular-shaped buildings There was no provision for vertically
two subgroups, namely irregularity with uniformly distributed mass and stiff- irregular structures in the 1984 version
due to vertical distribution of mass ness perform relatively well compared to of Indian Seismic Code IS 1893.9 How-
and irregularity due to vertical distri- the vertically irregular buildings. Poor ever, the revised version (2002) of the
bution of stiffness. Photos of two ver- performance of vertically irregular IS 189310 has provided some discussion
tically irregular buildings and the buildings, as observed during past about the same. Different types of irre-
schematic diagram of the elevation of earthquakes, can be attributed to their gularities are defined and incorporated
the corresponding structural frames irregularity in the vertical distribution of in Table 5 of IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002,10
are shown in Fig. 1. as follows.
mass and stiffness. Stress concentration
occurs at the elements in the vicinity of 1. (a) Stiffness irregularity—soft sto-
the geometrical irregularity due to rey: A soft storey is one in which
Peer-reviewed by international ex- abrupt changes in mass and stiffness the lateral stiffness is less than 70%
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board along the height, resulting in high locali- of that in the storey above or less
sed ductility demand. Thus, the elements than 80% of the average lateral
Paper received: August 25, 2016 surrounding the abrupt geometrical stiffness of the three storeys above.
Paper accepted: March 19, 2017 change maytrigger local damage, which (b) Stiffness irregularity—extreme

526 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

(a) (b)
Fi g. 1: Real types of irregular buildings and configurations of Indian Seismic Code. (a) Vertically irregular building at Kathmandu,
Nepal; (b) idealised form of vertical irregularity; (c) vertically irregular building at Kathmandu, Nepal; and (d) idealised form of vertical
irregularity
soft storey: An extreme soft storey
is one in which the lateral stiffness
is less than 60% of that in the sto-
rey above or less than 70% of the
average stiffness of the three stor-
eys above. Buildings on stilts are
examples of this category.
2. Mass irregularity: Mass irregularity
occurs where the seismic weight of
any storey is more than 200% of
that of its adjacent storeys. The
irregularity need not be considered
in case of roofs.
3. Vertical geometric irregularity: Verti-
cal geometric irregularity is consid-
ered to exist where the horizontal
dimension of the lateral force-resist-
ing system in any storey is more
than 150% of that in its adjacent
storey.
4. In-plane discontinuity in vertical ele-
ments resisting lateral force: In-plane
discontinuity in vertical elements
occurs when an in-plane offset of
the lateral force-resisting elements is
greater than the length of those
elements.
5. Discontinuity in capacity—weak sto-
rey: A weak storey is one in which
the lateral strength of the storey is
less than 80% of that in the storey
above. The lateral strength of the
(a) (b)
L L
A A A A
A/L > 0.10 A/L > 0.15
Fi g. 2: Different types of elevation for vertical irregularities10
Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017
(c)
storey is the total strength of all seis-
mic force-resisting elements sharing
the storey shear in the considered
direction.
Figure 2 presents five different types of
vertical geometric irregularities categori-
sed by IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002.10
The Eurocode11 recommends few
design guidelines for setback build-
ings. In a gradual setback preserving
axial symmetry, the setback at any
floor would not be greater than 20%
of the previous plan dimension in the
direction of the setback, as explained
in Fig. 3a and c. A single setback
lower than 15% of the total height of
the main structural system would not
be greater than 50% of the previous
plan dimension, as illustrated in
Fig. 3d. If the setback does not pre-
serve symmetry, each face of the set-
backs at all storeys would not be
greater than 30% of the plan dimen-
sion at the ground floor above the
foundation or above the rigid base-
ment top. Subsequently, it can be per-
ceived well that the individual
setbacks would not be greater than
10% of the previous plan dimension,
as shown in Fig. 3b.
(c) (d)
L L2
A L1
A/L > 0.25 L2 > 1.5L1
(d)
Federal Emergency Management
Agency FEMA 450, Part 1: 200312
included provisions for some typical
irregular buildings. Additionally,
FEMA 356: 200013 incorporated regu-
lations for the irregular structures with
out-of-plane discontinuity and severe
weak storey irregularity. However, the
variation of provisions in different
codes and the prohibitive nature of the
provisions clearly indicate the necessity
of a general consensus to ensure safe
seismic performance of such irregular
buildings. A detailed study on the seis-
mic behaviour of irregular structures
may enlighten the engineering commu-
nity with the possible mechanisms of
initiation of failure. Furthermore, the
extent of stress concentration in the
elements surrounding the location of
the irregularity due to excessive local
deformation may also be enumerated.
Existing Research on the
Seismic Behaviour of Irregular
Structures
Numerous research works have been
conducted on the seismic vulnerability
assessment of the regular structures.
However, there is still a dearth of
(e)
L2
L1
Shear Wall
L2 > 1.5L1
Scientific Paper 527
(a) (b)
L1
L1
L2
L2
L1–L2
≤ 0.2 L–L2
L1 ≤ 0.3;
L L1
F ig . 3: Elevational criteria for irregular buildings11
sufficient research studies to elucidate
the possible mechanics involved in
irregular structures under earthquake
loading. In general, analytical meth-
ods are the most common approach in
seismic performance evaluation of
structures as analytical methods utilise
a detailed vulnerability assessment
algorithm to allow straightforward cal-
ibration with the structures as well as
the hazard characteristics. However,
the difference between the real struc-
ture and its model highly influences
the reliability of the results. Conse-
quently, the application of various
analytical methods may be limited by
the modelling capabilities and the
computational effort.
Seismic analysis of structures can be
broadly classified into two categories: (a)
pseudo static analysis and (b) dynamic
analysis. The fundamental period for the
vertically irregular buildings is observed
to be lesser than their regular
counterparts.14 Several approaches are
proposed by many researchers to evalu-
ate the fundamental period of vertically
irregular buildings, mostly in the form of
empirical expressions. In this context, it
may be appropriate to present the
expressions obtained by a few of
researchers for calculating the funda-
mental periods of the irregular buildings.
Indian Seismic Code IS 1893 (Part-1):
200210 incorporates a formula (Eq. (1))
for calculating the fundamental periods
of regular buildings. To calculate the
fundamental period of a vertically irreg-
ular structure, an empirical expression
(Eq. (2)) was proposed15 by modifying
the IS 1893 (Part-1): 200210 formula
(Eq. (1)), as presented below:
Ta = 0:075 h0:75
528 Scientific Paper
L
(c)
L3 L L1
0.15H
L1–L2 L1+L3
≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.2
L L
(Set back occurs above 0.I5H)
T = 0:075 h0:75 × k ð2Þ
where
k = TTref =
Fundamental period of irregular building
Fundamental period of same type of regular building
= ½1− 2ð1 − ηÞ ð2η −1Þ; for 0:6 ≤ η ≤ 1:0
Here, η = regularity index = Γ1Γ, 1ref; Γ1 =
first mode participation factor for the
irregular building frame; Γ1,ref = first
mode participation factor for the simi-
lar regular building frame without ver-
tical steps; h = overall building height
(in “m”); and T = fundamental period
of irregular building (in “s”).
A modified empirical expression for
obtaining the fundamental period of
irregular buildings was suggested,16 as
mentioned in Eq. (3).
T = λ0 0:075 h0:75 ð3Þ
where
λ0 = TTri = Fundamental period of irregular building
Fundamental period of regular building
Here, h = overall building height
(in m) and T = fundamental period of
irregular building (in s).
A qualitative review was conducted by
the researchers17 to summarise existing
research on the seismic response of ver-
tically irregular buildings. Excerpts
from the research suggested that there
is ample chance of increase in seismic
demand of buildings comprising height-
wise irregular distribution of mass, stiff-
ness and strength. Furthermore, the
buildings containing the combined stiff-
ness, mass and strength irregularities
have a higher seismic demand. Another
research18 concluded that the regular
buildings are safer in seismic zones II,
III, IV and V with respect to their
ð1Þ irregular counterparts. It was deduced
from the study19 that the seismic zones
Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017
(d)
L3 L L1
H
H
0.15H
L1+L3
≤ 0.5
(Set back occurs below 0.15H)
may play a very important role in regu-
lating the seismic vulnerability of verti-
cally irregular structures. Additionally, it
was observed that the lateral load-carry-
ing capacity of buildings decreases with
an increase in the vertical irregularities
of the building. Two other studies20,21
focussed on the seismic response of the
irregular buildings on sloping ground in
hilly areas and found that these buildings
experienced higher displacement and
base shear compared to the buildings
resting on plain ground. Buildings rest-
ing on sloping ground are more suscepti-
ble to seismic excitations as the shorter
column attracts more forces and under-
goes early damage during earthquakes.
Mass-irregular and stiffness-irregular
buildings face higher storey shear and
displacement compared to similar regu-
lar buildings.22 After conducting the
response spectrum analysis (RSA) on
different types of vertically irregular
buildings, it was concluded14 that the sto-
rey drift increases proportionally with
the vertical irregularities of the buildings.
Based on the incremental dynamic
analysis results of several buildings,23 it
was understood that the dynamic perfor-
mance of buildings would be affected if
their lateral load-resisting properties
were not uniformly distributed.
Another study24 explained the differ-
ent methods for increasing lateral load
capacities of soft storey buildings.
High-rise, vertically irregular buildings
are observed as being more vulnera-
ble to ground excitation25 as plasticity
and damage generally initiate at the
locations of the irregularities. Another
study26 discussed the accuracy of
modal pushover analysis to evaluate
the seismic performance of high-rise,
irregular buildings. A recent study27
following the Gorkha earthquake in
Nepal on 25 April 2015 also underlines
the vulnerability of the irregular struc-
tures. Furthermore, the importance of
considering torsional irregularity and
higher mode effects in seismic response
analyses were highlighted by some
researchers.28–30 Non-linear analysis is
stated to be essential for performance-
based design and collapse prevention of
the irregular structures.31–33 Another
research34 was conducted on the seismic
performance of setback buildings retro-
fitted with damped braces, incorporating
the higher mode effect. Additionally,
the behaviour of buildings with torsional
irregularity was studied35 using the time
history analysis method to examine the
effect of eccentricity of the buildings,
with regard to seismic excitation, on
their seismic performance.
The study presented in this section
summarises the empirical expressions
for the estimation of the fundamental
period of vertically irregular buildings.
Furthermore, the seismic vulnerability
of various irregular buildings is briefly
demonstrated. However, a detailed
study to understand the basic mechan-
ism of irregular buildings under seis-
mic loading is still missing in the
literature. Although most of the exist-
ing research emphasised the additional
vulnerability of the irregular buildings,
the location of stress concentration—
that is, the zone of initiation of yield-
ing and damage—was not clearly indi-
cated. The location of stress
concentration or high ductility demand
may give an idea about the failure
path of the irregular buildings when
subjected to seismic loading. Consider-
ing the scarcity of the relevant
research in this context in the existing
literature, a humble effort is
(a)
3m
3m
3m
3m
3m
4m
4m
4m
4m 16 m
4m 4m 4m4m
16 m
Fi g. 4: Layout and cross-sectional details of a vertically regular (R) RC frame. (a) Layout of vertically regular RC frame building;
(b) reinforcement details of a typical column (left); and a typical beam (right)
Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017
undertaken to comprehend the seismic
behaviour of the irregular structures.
In the first part of the present study, a
response spectrum method is
employed for the three-dimensional
models of vertically irregular buildings
to understand their basic response
under free vibration analyses. The fun-
damental periods of the irregular
buildings can be accumulated from the
results of the analysis to compare the
performance of the empirical expres-
sions. The comparison study may
enlighten the engineering community
about the suitable empirical expression
to estimate the fundamental period of
irregular structures. In the second part,
several case studies comprising differ-
ent configurations of irregular struc-
tures are chosen to perform response
spectral as well as non-linear time his-
tory analyses. The nature and contribu-
tion of various modes may be able to
explain the vulnerability of the irregu-
lar buildings. Stress concentration and
higher ductility demand in the mem-
bers around the location of irregularity
may trigger early local damage, leading
to early damage propagation and cul-
minating into progressive collapse of
the entire or a major part of the struc-
ture. Member strength enhancement in
the vicinity of irregularity may improve
the overall seismic performance of the
irregular structures.
Configurations of Regular
and Irregular Buildings
In order to understand the effect of
irregularities on seismic performance, a
five-storey regular frame and a set of
irregular frames with similar bay length
(b)
40 mm
500 mm
40 mm
15 m
500 mm
8 mm diameter
stirrup
4 nos. 25 mm diameter bar
at intermediate positions
4 nos. 28 mm diameter bar
at corner positions
and storey height are chosen for seis-
mic analyses. A symmetrical five-storey
building with four bays in each direc-
tion is considered a reference symmet-
rical building, denoted by “R”. The
height and bay length of each storey
are considered to be 3 and 4 m, respec-
tively. Detailed geometry of the regular
frame, along with the cross-sectional
details of a typical column and a typical
beam, is shown in Fig. 4. A ‘strong col-
umn weak beam’ philosophy is utilised
for the design of the regular and irregu-
lar buildings.
Seismic response of the regular frame
is chosen as a reference to compare the
response of their irregular counter-
parts. These irregular counterparts are
derived from the regular building
frame (R) to encompass various possi-
ble types of irregularities, as shown in
Fig. 5. The bay length, storey height
and cross-sectional properties of irregu-
lar frames are similar to the regular
frame, as shown in Fig. 4. The cross-
sectional dimensions and material
properties of the beam, column and
slabs are shown in Table 1. Dead load
and live load applied at the roof levels
and floor levels of the regular and
irregular Reinforced Concrete (RC)
frames are enumerated in Table 2. In
this study, the Takeda hysteresis model
is utilised to incorporate the non-linear-
ities while modelling the regular and
irregular buildings.
Free Vibration and Spectral
Analyses of Regular and
Irregular Buildings
The regular and irregular buildings
shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively,
25 mm
250 mm
25 mm
350 mm
8 mm diameter
stirrup
1 no. 20 mm diameter bar
at intermediate positions
4 nos. 25 mm diameter bar at corner positions
Scientific Paper 529
 are subjected to free vibration ana-
lyses to determine the fundamental
period and initial three natural fre-
quencies. Then, the same buildings
are subjected to complete quadratic
combination (CQC) analysis to com-
pute the stresses in the critical mem-
bers. The mode shapes of the regular
and irregular buildings are compared
to identify the most deformed mem-
Irregular Frame 1 (IR1) Irregular Frame 2 (IR2) Irregular Frame 3 (IR3) bers visible from the mode shapes of
irregular structures and the stresses
developed in them. This method
enables the identification of the physi-
cal reason of excessive deformation
due to stress concentration. Such a
stress concentration may initiate local
failure that may gradually propagate,
culminating into partial or complete
structural collapse. In particular, such
a proportion cannot be firmly ascer-
Irregular Frame 4 (IR4) Irregular Frame 5 (IR5) Irregular Frame 6 (IR6)
tained if the deformation and stress
distribution of similar elements of ref-
erence symmetric structure are not
compared. If the deformations in the
mode shapes as well as distribution of
forces or stress quantities are much
lesser in the similar element of the
regular structure, it may be clearly
understood that the irregularity con-
tributes to the excessive deformations,
forces and stresses. Such an investiga-
tion will help in pointing out the vul-
Irregular Frame 7 (IR7) Irregular Frame 8 (IR8) Irregular Frame 9 (IR9) nerable members of irregular
structures and help in arriving at
guidelines to protect them. The initial
three mode shapes of regular and
irregular frame structures, along with
their modal participation factors
(PF) and the effective masses (mk),
are shown in Table 3. The effective
mass (mk) as a ratio of modal mass
(Mk) and total seismic mass (W) in
percentage is computed using Indian
Irregular Frame 10 (IR10) Irregular Frame 11 (IR11) Irregular Frame 12 (IR12)
Seismic Code IS 1893 Part 1 (2002).10
The first three mode shapes of the
F ig . 5: Layouts of several irregular (IR) RC frames. (a) Irregular frame 1 (IR1);
(b) irregular frame 2 (IR2); (c) irregular frame 3 (IR3); (d) irregular frame 4 (IR4);
irregular buildings and the regular
(e) irregular frame 5 (IR5); (f ) irregular frame 6 (IR6); (g) irregular frame 7 (IR7);
building are presented in a schematic
(h) irregular frame 8 (IR8); (i) irregular frame 9 (IR9); (j) irregular frame 10 (IR10);
diagram in Table 3 to provide an idea
(k) irregular frame 11 (IR11); and (l) irregular frame 12 (IR12) about the deformation pattern in each
of three mode shapes. To make the
modelling more realistic, the masonry
Structural elements Dimensions Materials partition walls are modelled as equiva-
Column 500 mm × 500 mm M25 concrete, Fe 415 for main lent compressive diagonal struts only.
reinforcement and Fe 250 for transverse Furthermore, the periods of low-rise
Beam 350 mm × 250 mm buildings (which are generally stiff in
reinforcement
Slab 125 mm thickness nature) may also be considerably
lengthened by soil flexibility. For accu-
Table 1: Cross-sectional dimensions and material properties of RC frame structures racy of the results, effects such as those
described in following section are con-
Level Dead load (kN/m2) Live load (kN/m2) sidered. Generally, the first mode
Roof level 10 1.5 shapes of irregular buildings have pri-
marily lateral and torsional deforma-
Floor level 12 3 tion. In the second mode shapes of
Table 2: Dead load and live load on RC frame structures irregular buildings, the amounts of

530 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Types of building First mode shape Second mode shape Third mode shape

Natural Period: 0.572 seconds

PF (X): 39.22; PF (Z): 39.33 PF (X): 39.33; PF (Z): 39.22 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 0.00
Regular (R) mk: 78.88% mk: 79.34% mk: 80.29%

Natural Period: 0.570 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 63.15 PF (X): 70.71; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 0.00
Irregular (IR1) mk: 74.08% mk: 70.64% mk: 70.41%

Natural Period: 0.541 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 61.78 PF (X): 73.42; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 7.61
Irregular (IR2) mk: 75.34% mk: 73.62% mk: 73.73%

Natural Period: 0.534 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 57.61 PF (X): 71.17; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 5.46
Irregular (IR3) mk: 73.34% mk: 71.09% mk: 70.93%

Natural Period: 0.520 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 50.62 PF (X): 66.68; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 3.47
Irregular (IR4) mk: 71.79% mk: 66.70% mk: 66.28%

Tab l e 3: Regular and vertically irregular RC frame buildings with their initial three mode shapes

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 531

 Types of building First mode shape Second mode shape Third mode shape

Natural Period: 0.798 seconds

PF (X): 79.39; PF (Z): 0.17 PF (X): 0.17; PF (Z): 20.58 PF (X): 0.06; PF (Z): 63.56
Irregular (IR5) mk: 80.48% mk: 83.98% mk: 84.89%

Natural Period: 0.592 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 68.44 PF (X): 69.98; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.06; PF (Z): 3.47
Irregular (IR6) mk: 69.86% mk: 69.67% mk: 71.80%

Natural Period: 0.570 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 61.29 PF (X): 73.47; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 3.44
Irregular (IR7) mk: 76.51% mk: 73.36% mk: 73.07%

Natural Period: 0.501 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 55.63 PF (X): 70.71; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 0.00
Irregular (IR8) mk: 70.56% mk: 70.16% mk: 72.64%

Natural Period: 0.566 seconds

PF (X): 33.18; PF (Z): 33.18 PF (X): 38.21; PF (Z): 38.21 PF (X): 6.03; PF (Z): 6.03
Irregular (IR9) mk: 77.00% mk: 78.34% mk: 78.44%

T abl e 3: Continued

532 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Types of building First mode shape Second mode shape Third mode shape

Natural Period: 0.560 seconds

PF (X): 26.66; PF (Z): 32.98 PF (X): 39.44; PF (Z): 33.04 PF (X): 8.86; PF (Z): 8.55
Irregular (IR10) mk: 72.03% mk: 75.94% mk: 75.54%

Natural Period: 0.559 seconds

PF (X): 26.71; PF (Z): 32.97 PF (X): 39.26; PF (Z): 32.95 PF (X): 8.60; PF (Z): 8.28
Irregular (IR11) mk: 69.6% mk: 73.77% mk: 72.44%

Natural Period: 0.565 seconds

PF (X): 0.21; PF (Z): 73.89 PF (X): 74.23; PF (Z): 0.25 PF (X): 0.58; PF (Z): 0.58
Irregular (IR12) mk: 61.52% mk: 83.21% mk: 80.25%

Table 3: Continued

torsional deformation are increased.

However, in the case of the third mode
(a) (b) shape of the irregular buildings,
generally, a further domination of tor-
sional displacements, as well as other
The portion of brick wall local deformations, is observed. These
Brick infill effectively behaving as a may play a very important role in regu-
compressive strut lating the seismic response. On the
other hand, first and second mode
shapes of regular buildings have shown
Deformed shape of a single panel purely lateral displacements, and the
third mode shape represented the tor-
(c) Equivalent compression only diagonal strut sional deformation. Further, torsional
displacements are dominated specially
at the location where the irregularities
Lateral load
a a exist for irregular structures. In fact,
hcol
hinf this issue will be more clearly under-
rinf rinf stood if the mode shapes of irregular
θ building frames, for example IR9,
IR10, IR11 and IR12, are studied. It
may be noticed that the members near
Fi g. 6: (a) Reinforced frame building with masonry infill; (b) different configuration of a the sudden geometrical change, which
typical panel of brick infill; and (c) schematic diagram of equivalent compression only causes irregularity, may suffer larger
diagonal strut36 deformation, particularly in second and

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 533

 Lateral stiffness of of the masonry infill panels of RC
columns (Kframe) frames in the form of an equivalent
Mass of
diagonal strut model, multiple strut
building model and equivalent bi-diagonal
compression strut model.36–44 How-
Translational spring Rocking spring
ever, in the present research, an
with stiffness Kx with stiffness Kθ equivalent compression-only diagonal
strut model, as shown in Fig. 6, is
adopted. During dynamic analysis,
Torsional spring Square footing of between each of the two lateral direc-
with stiffness Kf length (L) = width (B)
tions of the diagonal struts, only the
equivalent diagonal strut in compres-
sion becomes effective. From the liter-
F ig . 7: Idealised model of a structure with translational, torsional and rocking springs to
ature, dimensions of the compressive
incorporate SSI due to lateral vibration of building strut can be obtained for application
in the computational model. Out of
the few guidelines available regarding
third modes dominated by the torsional of the most common types of con- the dimensions rinf, a, hinf of the
deformations. The modal participation struction throughout the world. A equivalent diagonal compressive strut
factors PF (X) and PF (Z) of the regu- masonry wall can withstand considera- shown in Fig. 6c, the formula
lar and irregular buildings in the X and ble compressive stress but almost no (Eq. (4)) as provided in FEMA37 is
Z directions, respectively, are pre- tensile stress. When subjected to lat- used in the current study.
sented in Table 3, along with the effec- eral loads, especially seismic loads,
tive masses (mk) for the initial three the masonry infill provides additional a = 0:175ðλ1 hcol Þ − 0:4 rinf ð4Þ
modes. The second and third modes stiffness arising from the compressive
together may have a considerable influ- strut effect, as explained in Fig. 6. where λ1 = [(Emtinf sin 2θ)/(4EfeIcol
ence on overall building response, as Due to the lateral deformation of a hinf)]0.25; a is the width of equivalent
revealed from their PF and effective typical rectangular panel caused by strut; hcol is the column height between
masses (mk). So, the vulnerability of the seismic load, the panel tends to the centre lines of beams; Em is the
irregular structures may be attributed take the shape of a parallelogram expected modulus of elasticity of infill;
to the early failure of individual highly (Fig. 6b), causing elongation of one tinf is the thickness of infill panel and
deformed/stressed elements at the diagonal and shortening of the other. equivalent strut; hinf is the height of the
point of sudden geometrical change. infill panel; θ is the angle whose tangent
The shortened diagonal will carry a
compressive load and behave like a is the aspect ratio of infill (height to
compressive strut in the equivalent length); Efe is the expected modulus of
Modelling Effect of Masonry sense. elasticity of frame material; Icol is the
Infill and Soil Flexibility moment of inertia of column; and rinf is
Till date, several researchers have the diagonal length of infill panel. In
Reinforced concrete frames with non- proposed different modelling techni- this research, hcol = 3000 mm; Em = 14
reinforced masonry infill walls are one ques to capture the realistic behaviour 000 MPa; tinf = 250 mm; θ = 37 ;
Efe = 25 000 MPa; Icol = 520833 × 104
mm4; hinf = 2650 mm; rinf = 4390 mm;
Building type Stiffness of equivalent Stiffness of Stiffness of Stiffness of and a = 500 mm are considered to rep-
spring with inclusion of frame translational rocking resent a realistic condition.45,46 Thus,
equivalent diagonal (Kframe) spring (Kx) spring (Kθ) the regular building (R) and irregular
struts and SSI (Kxeqv) buildings (IR1–IR12) are equipped
R1 0.281 × 106 0.289 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 with an equivalent diagonal compres-
sive strut to incorporate the effect of
IR1 0.216 × 10 6
0.221 × 10 6
17.349 × 10 6
8251.792 × 106
masonry infill in their fundamental
IR2 0.202 × 106 0.207 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 period.
IR3 0.191 × 106 0.196 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 Furthermore, the effect of soil structure
IR4 0.172 × 10 6
0.175 × 10 6
17.349 × 10 6
8251.792 × 106 interaction (SSI) is taken into account
IR5 0.292 × 106 0.302 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 in the analyses of the regular (R) and
irregular buildings (IR1–IR12) to
IR6 0.259 × 106 0.267 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106
obtain a more realistic seismic
IR7 0.224 × 106 0.229 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 response. On the basis of the concept
IR8 0.189 × 10 6
0.192 × 10 6
17.349 × 10 6
8251.792 × 106 and procedure put forward in the exist-
ing literature,47–56 a similar study was
IR9 0.201 × 106 0.215 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106
conducted to incorporate the SSI effect.
IR10 0.245 × 106 0.250 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 The effects of soil flexibility along the
IR11 0.243 × 106 0.249 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 horizontal rotation were introduced
through the addition of a torsional
IR12 0.251 × 106 0.258 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106
spring with stiffness Kf. The effects of
Table 4: Numerical values of stiffness (kN/m) of various equivalent springs of regular and soil flexibilities in the lateral and rock-
irregular buildings ing movements are incorporated by a

534 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Types of “T” by “T” by “T” by “T” by FE T= T= “T” (s) by Nature of
building Indian Eurocode11 FEMA12 (s) analysis 0.075h0.75 × λ0 0.075h0.75 considering fundamental
Seismic (s) without k (s)15 (s)16 the effects mode shape
Code10 (s) considering of
the effect of equivalent
masonry diagonal
infill and strut
SSI (s) and SSI
Regular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.618 0.572 0.637 0.480 Purely
building (R) lateral
displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.570 0.436 0.570 0.518 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR1) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.541 0.432 0.543 0.535 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR2) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.534 0.429 0.539 0.540 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR3) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.520 0.454 0.535 0.560 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR4) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.798 0.589 0.972 0.507 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR5) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.592 0.463 0.587 0.503 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR6) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.570 0.431 0.570 0.516 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR7) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.501 0.432 0.541 0.568 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR8) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.566 0.447 0.410 0.542 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR9) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.560 0.429 0.559 0.502 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR10) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.559 0.570 0.558 0.504 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR11) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.565 0.514 0.565 0.496 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR12) displacement
Table 5: Comparison of fundamental periods (in s) of regular and vertically irregular RC frame buildings obtained through various
sources with and without incorporating the effect of masonry infill and SSI

translational spring and a rocking 1 1 1 L2 foundation; J (L/B) = correlation fac-

spring, respectively. The mathematical = + + ð5Þ tor; G = shear modulus of soil medium;
expression of equivalent soil flexibility Kxeqv Kframe K x Kθ ν = Poisson ratio of soil medium; and
(Kxeqv) in terms of frame stiffness L and B are length and width of rectan-
Kframe, translational spring stiffness Kx 8GR3 gular foundation, respectively.
and rocking spring stiffness Kθ is pre- where Kx = ð8GR
2−νÞ and Kθ = 3ð2− νÞ; Kf =
0 0

sented in Eq. (5).57 The effect of SSI in
an idealised model of a structure is
modelled by adding translational, rock-
ing and torsional springs, as shown in
Fig. 7.
K0 (R0). J (L/B);

2
R0 = 2B:π2L = radius of equivalent
circular foundation; K0 (R0) = corre-
sponding stiffness of equivalent circular
The stiffness of an equivalent spring
incorporating equivalent diagonal
struts and SSI (Kxeqv), stiffness of
frame (Kframe), stiffness of transla-
tional spring (Kx) and stiffness

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 535

 3.0 13% higher than the fundamental peri-

Coefficient of spectral acceleration ga

ods of the same buildings without

s
2.5 Type III (soft soil) incorporating the effects of equivalent
Type II (medium soil)
diagonal strut and SSI. On the other
2.0 hand, the fundamental periods of verti-
Type I (rock or hard soil)
cally irregular buildings IR1–IR2, IR6–
1.5 IR7 and IR9–IR12 are 1 to 15% lower
when the effects of equivalent diagonal
1.0 strut and SSI are considered. Vertically
irregular building IR5 shows a decrease
0.5 of 36% in the fundamental period
when the effects of equivalent diagonal
0.0 strut and SSI are incorporated.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period (s)
Variations in Base Shear
F ig . 8: Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5% damping10 in Regular and Vertically
Irregular Buildings
rocking spring (Kθ) are summarised which may create a possibility of
in Table 4. increase in base shear. However, base Base shear of a building depends on
shear depends on both spectral accel- both spectral acceleration Sa/g and
The fundamental periods of regular and
eration Sa/g and mass. Irregular build- mass. Irregular buildings have less
vertically irregular buildings obtained
ings have less mass compared to their mass compared to their regular
from finite element (FE) analysis with
regular counterpart. Therefore, it is counterparts. However, the funda-
and without taking into account the
very difficult to predict whether the mental periods of vertically irregular
effect of masonry infill and soil irregularity in buildings will cause an buildings are mostly lower than the
flexibility, along with the same increase in base shear or not. This fundamental periods of the reference
outcomes obtained from different code issue is further investigated by com- regular buildings. This may result in
provisions and exiting research puting the base shear of regular and an increase of Sa/g. Thus, it is very dif-
guidelines, are presented in Table 5. irregular buildings in the following ficult to predict whether the irregular-
Table 5 demonstrates that the funda- section. ity in buildings will cause an increase
mental periods of vertically irregular It can be noticed that the fundamental in the base shear or not. Therefore,
buildings (except IR5) are lower than period of the regular building with from the response spectrum analyses
the fundamental period of the refer- inclusion of the equivalent diagonal of the regular (R) and vertically irreg-
ence regular building (R). The reason strut and SSI is 22% lower than the ular buildings (IR1–IR12) along X
may be understood if we consider an fundamental period of the same build- direction, base shears of the buildings
example of typical response spectra, ing without incorporating the equiva- are calculated using the CQC method
which is provided in Indian Seismic lent diagonal strut and SSI. However, and square root of the sum of the
Code IS 1893 Part 1 (2002),10 as the fundamental periods of vertically square (SRSS) method. The base
shown in Fig. 8. This figure implies irregular buildings IR3, IR4 and IR8 shears of regular and vertically irregu-
that with a decrease in the fundamen- with inclusion of the effects of equiva- lar buildings computed using the CQC
tal period, an increase in Sa/g occurs, lent diagonal strut and SSI are 1 to method and SRSS method are
summarised in Table 6.
Types of building Base shear (kN) Table 6 reveals that the base shears cal-
culated using the SRSS method for ver-
SRSS CQC
tically irregular buildings IR5–IR6 are
Regular building (R) 626.90 886.67 approximately 42% higher than the
Irregular building (IR1) 709.75 709.98 base shears calculated for the regular
(R) frame. Similarly, the base shears
Irregular building (IR2) 718.89 730.73
calculated using the SRSS method for
Irregular building (IR3) 699.91 700.73 IR7–IR8 are approximately 25 to 30%
Irregular building (IR4) 643.12 646.50 higher than the base shears calculated
Irregular building (IR5) 891.93 894.49 for the regular (R) frame. The base
shears calculated using the SRSS
Irregular building (IR6) 887.34 887.90 method for IR1–IR3 are approximately
Irregular building (IR7) 781.03 781.55 12 to 15% higher than the base shears
Irregular building (IR8) 812.49 816.17 calculated for the regular (R) frame.
The base shears calculated using the
Irregular building (IR9) 552.52 792.03
SRSS method for IR4 and IR12 are
Irregular building (IR10) 525.01 749.99 approximately 3 to 6% higher than the
Irregular building (IR11) 518.56 739.45 base shears calculated for the regular
(R) frame. The base shears calculated
Irregular building (IR12) 666.97 761.90
using the SRSS method for IR9–IR11
Table 6: Base shears of regular and vertically irregular RC frame buildings by SRSS and are approximately 12 to 17% lower
CQC method than the base shears calculated for the

536 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

6 115

6 5 115
4

Members
3 4 121
5
1
2 3 143

2 143

1 144

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR1)

9 120
4
6 8 127
5 3 7 127
2
7 6 154

Members
1
9
8 5 167
4 167
3 167
2 168
1 168

Irregular building (IR2) % of Increase in moment of members

9 164
2
8 164
3
4 5 7 164
1 6
Members

8 167
6
7 5 167
9
4 168
3 168
2 168
1 174

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR3)

Tab l e 7: Moments on identified members of vertically irregular buildings

regular (R) frame. On the other hand,
the base shears calculated using the
CQC method for IR1–IR4 and IR7–
IR12 are approximately 8 to 30% lower
than the base shears calculated for the
regular (R) frame. The base shears cal-
culated using the CQC method for
IR5–IR6 are marginally higher than
the base shears calculated for the regu-
lar (R) frame. Therefore, this clearly
shows that irregularity does not neces-
sarily cause a considerable increase in
base shear. Thus, the possibility of
excessive vulnerability of such build-
ings may only arise due to excessive
force or moment generated in some of
the members as predicted earlier. This
issue is investigated in the following
section.
Moment Increase in Various
Members Due to Irregularities
High seismic vulnerability of the irreg-
ular buildings may be attributed to
the increased bending moment of the
members located in the vicinity of
abrupt geometrical change. Conse-
quently, bending moments of beams
and columns in the regular
(R) building and irregular buildings
(IR1–IR12) are calculated using RSA
based on Indian Seismic Code IS 1893
Part 1 (2002).10 Then, bending
moments of beams and columns of
irregular buildings are compared to
those of the similar members in the
regular building. Table 7 presents the
increases in bending moment of the
critical members of the irregular
buildings. The members of an irregu-
lar building which experience
increased bending moment when com-
pared with the similar members of a
regular building are considered the
critical members and are marked by
bold lines and numbered for ease of
identification. The percentages of
increase in bending moment of the
critical members of irregular buildings

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 537

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

9 123
2
1 8 123
8
3 7 123
7
6 161

Members
9 5
4
6 5 161
4 161
3 168
2 168
1 169

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR4)

5 2 9 105
9 8 8 112
6
3 7 113
1 4
6 114
Members
7 5 115
4 117
3 120
2 122
1 132

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR5)

2 6 110
3
4 5 115
5 6
Members

4 120
1
3 120

2 120

1 127

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR6)

T abl e 7: Continued

with respect to their regular counter-
parts are presented in Table 7 in the
form of a bar diagram.
Table 7 depicts the percentage of
increase in moment of the critical
members of the irregular buildings
(IR1–IR12) with respect to the similar
members in the regular (R) building. In
the irregular building IR1, a 115 to
144% increase in moment is observed
due to irregularity, with a maximum
increase (144%) in moment in the ver-
tical member 1. In the irregular frame
IR2, a 120 to 168% increase in moment
is observed, with a maximum increase
(168%) in bending moment in the ver-
tical members 1 and 2. Additionally,
members 3, 4 and 5 in irregular frame
IR2 have 167% increases in moment
with respect to their regular counter-
parts. In the irregular frame IR3, a 164
to 174% increase in moment can be
observed in the critical members, with
a maximum increase (174%) in
moment in the vertical member 1. In
the irregular frame IR4, a 123 to 169%
increase in moment can be observed in
the critical members, with respect to
their regular counterparts. Vertical
member 1 of irregular frame IR4
experiences a maximum increase
(169%) in moment. By examining the
amount of increase in moments in the
critical members of the irregular build-
ings IR1–IR4, it can be clearly per-
ceived that, with an increase in
irregularities, a considerable increase in
the moments can be obtained in a
higher number of members.
Irregular building IR5 has symmetrical
irregularities on both sides of the
building, and thus, all the members of

538 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

8 126
3
1 7 126
2 6
4 6 131

Members
5
5 131

7 8 4 137

3 171

2 171

1 171

Irregular building (IR7) % of Increase in moment of members

6 111
3
1
5 111
2

Members
5 4 112
4
6 3 115

2 115

1 115

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR8)

9 126
9 3 1
8 130
4
2 7 130
7
6 6 131
Members

8 5
5 131
4 166
3 166
2 167
1 167
% of Increase in moment of members
Irregular building (IR9)

Tab l e 7: Continued

the over-hanged portion experience a
105 to 132% increase in moment
compared to the regular building. Fur-
thermore, other members of the build-
ing also face some increase in moment
compared to the regular building. In
the irregular frame IR6, a 110 to 127%
increase in moment can be observed in
the marked members with respect to
their regular counterparts. Additionally,
irregular building IR6 is found to be in
a more stable condition compared to
the irregular building IR5. In the irregu-
lar building IR7, a 126 to 171% increase
in moment can be observed in critical
members, with a maximum increase
(171%) in moment observed in the ver-
tical members 1, 2 and 3. In the irregu-
lar frame IR8, a 111 to 115% increase
in moment is found in critical
members with respect to their regular
counterparts.
Irregular buildings IR9–IR12 contain
irregularities in both directions. In the
irregular building IR9, a 126 to 167%
increase in moment can be observed
in critical members, with a maximum
increase in moment observed in the
vertical members 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the
irregular frame IR10, a 130 to 171%
increase in moment can be observed
in the critical members, with a maxi-
mum increase (171%) in moment
observed in the vertical member
1. Vertical members 2 to 5 face a 166
to 167% increase in moment due to
irregularities in the building. Irregular
building IR11 experiences a 102 to
167% increase in moments in the criti-
cal members, with a maximum
increase (166–167%) in the vertical
members 1, 2 and 3. In the irregular
building IR12, a 116 to 167% increase
in moment can be observed in the

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 539

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

5 2 9 130
4 8 130
3
6 1 9 7 132
7
6 138

Members
8
5 166
4 166
3 167
2 167
1 171

Irregular building (IR10) % of Increase in moment of members

9 9 102
2 8 102
1
4 7 104
3
Members
6 115
7
5 5 123
8 4 134
6 3 166
2 167
1 167

Irregular building (IR11) % of Increase in moment of members

2 3
9 116
8 116
5 1
7 130
4
6
Members

130
8 5 132
6 7 9
4 135
3 135
2 136
1 167

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR12)

Table 7: Continued

critical members, with a maximum
increase (167%) in moment observed
in the vertical member 1.
By inspecting the amount of increase in
moment in irregular buildings, a com-
mon feature is observed: maximum
increase in moment occurs at the loca-
tion of abrupt change in width, introdu-
cing irregularities in the frames. Hence,
the irregularities in the buildings cause
stress concentration in the vicinity of
abrupt geometrical changes. The mem-
bers located near the sudden geometri-
cal change due to the irregularity of the
building exhibit a higher deformation
in the second and third modes, experi-
encing higher moment. This phenome-
non triggers early local failure in the
overstressed critical elements, leading
to damage propagation and culminat-
ing into partial and complete collapse
of the building. Consequently, it can be
observed that the domination of defor-
mation in the second, third or even
higher modes appears to be the physi-
cal cause of higher seismic vulnerability
in irregular buildings. In the following
section, the seismic ductility demand of
the critical members of irregular build-
ings is determined using non-linear
time history analyses.
Non-linear Time History
Analyses of Regular
and Irregular Buildings
Seismic ductility demand of the critical
members of the irregular buildings can
be investigated by performing non-lin-
ear time history analyses. Seismic dis-
placement ductility demand of a
structural member is the ratio of maxi-
mum displacement occurring at the end
of seismic time history and the displace-
ment corresponding to the yield level
of the structure. In this regard, the reg-
ular frame and irregular frames IR3

540 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 No. Year Earthquake Magnitude Mechanism Station Peak Ground Peak Ground Peak Ground
(Mw) Acceleration Velocity Displacement
(PGA) (g) (PGV) (cm/s) (PGD)
(cm)
1 1994 Northridge 6.7 Thrust Saturn Street 0.43 43.52 23.04
School
2 1971 San Fernando 6.6 Thrust Castaic, Old 0.27 25.90 4.87
Ridge Route
3 1979 Imperial Valley 6.5 Strike Slip Calexico 0.27 42.49 36.12
Table 8: Ground motion summary

and IR11 were chosen for conducting selected for the time history analyses, are not incorporated in the analyses.
the dynamic analysis. Three far fault are summarised in Table 8. The effects The regular frame and irregular frames
ground motions (GM), which are of masonry infill and soil flexibilities IR3 and IR11 are subjected to three

Building Type Seismic Ductility Demand of Members

9 Ground
2 8 Motion 1
3 Member Numbers 7
4 5
6
1 5
8
6
7 4
R=4
9 3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

Irregular building (IR3) 9 Ground

8 Motion 2
Member Numbers

7
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

9 Ground
8 Motion 3
Member Numbers

7
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

Tab l e 9: Seismic ductility demand of critical members of vertically irregular buildings for response reduction factor R = 1, 2 and 4

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 541

 Building Type Seismic Ductility Demand of Members

9
8
9 Ground

Member Numbers
2 7
Motion 1
1 6
4 5
3 4
7 R=4
5 3
R=2
2
8 R=1
1
6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

9
Irregular building (IR11) 8
Ground

Member Numbers
7
Motion 2
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

9
8
Ground
Member Numbers

7 Motion 3
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

Table 9: Continued

GM time histories with response reduc-
tion factors (R) 1, 2 and 4 by assigning
adequate strength to the members as
derived from the strength demand to
remain elastic, that is, at R = 1. There-
after, the seismic ductility demand of
the critical members of IR3 and IR11,
as marked in Table 7 , is estimated.
Table 9 presents the ductility demand
of the critical members near abrupt
stiffness change as identified from the
elastic analysis presented in the previ-
ous section.
Table 9 demonstrates that the seismic
ductility demand of irregular frame
IR3 is 1.6 to 2.1 for response reduction
factor R = 1, 3.1 to 4.2 for response
reduction factor R = 2 and 6.1 to 7.2
for response reduction factor R = 4.
Similarly, the seismic ductility demand
of irregular frame IR11 is 1.3 to 1.8 for
response reduction factor R = 1, 2.7 to
4.3 for response reduction factor R = 2
and 5.3 to 8.6 for response reduction
factor R = 4. Enhanced displacement
ductility demand of the members can
also be attributed to the high seismic
vulnerability of the irregular buildings
due to localised concentration of defor-
mation at places near the change of
abrupt stiffness.
Unreinforced Brick Masonry
Structures
Seismic vulnerability of irregular
unreinforced brick masonry (URM)
structures is investigated in this section.
A regular building made of URM was
considered in the literature.46,58,59 For
this study, in-plane stiffness and out-of-
plane stiffness were calculated from the
basic consideration of bending and
shear in a rectangular plate by Eq. (6).
The wall situated in the longitudinal
direction of the lateral force is desig-
nated as the in-plane wall, while the
wall situated in the perpendicular

542 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 literature.48 For each storey, the stiff-
ness of the in-plane wall and out-of-
plane wall is considered to be springs
connected in a parallel series. The
equivalent storey stiffness is deter-
mined by considering each storey con-
nected in series. This idealization of
inter-storey as well as intra-storey
walls is based on the basic concept of
URM IRURM1 IRURM2
mechanics, as explained in Fig. 10.59
The lateral stiffness of each wall can
Fi g. 9: Regular and irregular buildings made of URM be expressed as Kwall as shown in
Eq. (6). The equivalent soil stiffness
(a) Ksoil is provided in Eq. (7).
Out-of-plane wall
In-plane wall Kout-of-plane
Kwall = 
1
Lateral load Lateral load
Kin-plane fð11H 3 Þ=ð60Em I Þg + fð2αH Þ=ð3Gm AÞg
Actual building ð6Þ
Idealized condition
where H is the height of wall; I is the
(b) moment of inertia of wall; A is the
Lateral load area of wall, α is the shape factor; and
1st storey K1st KGr
Em and Gm are modulus of elasticity
Lateral load
and shear modulus of brick masonry,
respectively.
Ground

storey Ksoil = ½2GL0 =ð2 −νÞ 2 + 2:50χ 0:85

– ½0:2=ð0:75 − νÞGL0 1 − ðB0 =L0 Þ ð7Þ

Fi g. 10: Representation for carry-out equivalent stiffness. (a) Parallel spring connection
for in-plane wall and out-of-plane wall; (b) series spring connection for multistorey
building59 where χ = (Ab/4L0 2); Ab = area of
foundation; ν = Poisson ratio of soil;
direction of the lateral force is termed (IRURM-1, IRURM-2) masonry build- G = shear modulus of soil; and L0 and
the out-of-plane wall. The equivalent ings are considered, as shown in Fig. 9. B0 are half-length and half-width of
stiffness due to the effect of soil flexibil- Storey height and bay dimension of the the foundation, respectively.
ity is calculated by Eq. (7) using the URM buildings are the same as the
For analysing the regular and irregular
formula from the literature.46 In the dimensions of reinforced concrete-
masonry buildings, the masonry walls
present study, an effort is undertaken frame buildings shown in Fig. 4.
are modelled as in-plane plate elements,
to calculate the natural periods of SSI is incorporated into the computa- with material properties of masonry
URM buildings. A regular (URM) tional model in the form of equivalent obtained from the literature.46,58 Numer-
masonry building and two irregular soil springs, as suggested in the ical values of equivalent storey-wise

Building type Equivalent spring stiffness for ground storey (KGr) Equivalent spring stiffness for first storey (K1st)
In-plane stiffness (Kin- Out-of-plane stiffness In-plane stiffness (Kin- Out-of-plane stiffness
plane) (Kout-of-plane) plane) (Kout-of-plane)
URM 1 690 140.845 12 614.646 1 690 140.845 12 614.646
IRURM1 1 690 140.845 12 614.646 845 070.422 8409.764
IRURM2 1 690 140.845 12 614.646 563 380.282 4204.882
Table 10: Equivalent in-plane and out-of-plane spring stiffness (kN/m) of unreinforced masonry regular and irregular buildings

Type of building “T” by Indian “T” by FEMA11 “T” by Eurocode12 “T” by FEA “T” by
Seismic Code9 computational
method with SSI
URM 0.190 0.187 0.192 0.190 0.185
IRURM-1 0.190 0.187 0.192 0.190 0.182
IRURM-2 0.190 0.187 0.192 0.190 0.193
Table 11: Fundamental periods of regular and irregular URM buildings

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 543

in-plane and out-of-plane springs are
provided in Table 10. The fundamental
periods of the initial three modes of the
regular and irregular masonry buildings,
inclusive of the effects of SSI, are deter-
mined by Dunkerley’s method.59 Funda-
mental periods determined by the
computational method as well as by
using the formulae specified by various
codes are shown in Table 11.
In the following equation, foundation
length (L) = 10 m; half length (L0 )
= 5 m; foundation width (B) = 10 m;
half width (B0 ) = 5 m; area of founda-
tion (Ab) = 10 × 10 = 100 m2
 
χ = Ab =4 L0 = ð10 × 10Þ=ð4 × 52Þ = 1
2


Ksoil = ½2GL0 =ð2 −νÞ 2 + 2:50χ 0:85
− ½0:2=ð0:75 −νÞGL0 1 − ðB0 =L0 Þ
= 4 218 750 kN=m
A trend of results similar to that
obtained for RC frames is observed
for masonry buildings. The walls
where sudden change of width takes
place exhibit about 20 to 90% more
shear for URMIR-1 and 30 to 110%
more shear for URMIR-2 compared
to the reference regular walls because
of high torsional deformation of the
structure in the second and third
modes. However, the fundamental lat-
eral periods of masonry buildings do
not vary much, as observed for irregu-
lar RC buildings. The detailed results
for regular and irregular masonry
buildings are not presented for the
sake of brevity.
Summary and Conclusions
The present study is an effort to
explore the reason and extent of high
seismic vulnerability of various irregu-
lar buildings. A large variety of setback
RC buildings are studied and com-
pared with their regular counterparts.
Effects of masonry infills are
accounted for by employing equivalent
compressive diagonal struts. SSI is
incorporated by adding equivalent soil
springs based on the existing literature.
The study provides valuable insights
into the vulnerability of irregular
buildings. It has been realised that the
variations of lateral periods and base
shears are not the causes of high seis-
mic vulnerability of the irregular
buildings. From the response spectral
analysis and non-linear time history
analysis, a conclusion has been made
that the sudden increases in member
544 Scientific Paper
forces/stress concentration and ductil-
ity demand at the locations of abrupt
change in width or height cause early
localised damage, resulting in progres-
sive damage propagation and partial
or complete collapse of the structures.
The moment in critical members of
irregular buildings may increase to
170% with respect to their regular
counterparts.
Similarly, the seismic ductility demand
of critical members of irregular build-
ings may increase to 2.2 for response
reduction factor 1, 4.3 for response
reduction factor 2 and 8.6 for
response reduction factor 4. This
observation may be utilised to ensure
better seismic performance of irregu-
lar buildings by providing greater
strength and stiffness to the vulnera-
ble members located near the abrupt
geometrical change.
This study as a whole is a humble
attempt to identify the reason of high
seismic vulnerability of irregular rein-
forced concrete and masonry build-
ings with the intention of enhancing
their seismic performance during
impending earthquake events. This
study may further facilitate the build-
ing of irregular structures that go
beyond the protective provisions of
various seismic codes.
References
[1] Aslani H, Miranda E. Fragility assessment
of slab–column connections in existing non-
ductile reinforced concrete structures. J. Earthq.
Eng. 2005; 9(6): 777–804.
[2] Brown PC, Lowes LN. Fragility functions
for modern reinforced concrete beam–column
joints. Earthq. Spectra 2007; 23(2): 263–289.
[3] Gulec CK, Whittaker AS, Hooper JD. Fra-
gility functions for low aspect ratio reinforced
concrete walls. Eng. Struct. 2010; 32(9):
2894–2901.
[4] Pagni CA, Lowes LN. Fragility functions for
older reinforced concrete beam–column joints.
Earthq. Spectra 2006; 22(1): 215–238.
[5] Sengupta P, Li B. Seismic fragility evalua-
tion of lightly reinforced concrete beam–column
joints. J. Earthq. Eng. 2014; 18(7): 1102–1128.
[6] Sengupta P, Li B. Seismic fragility assess-
ment of lightly reinforced concrete structural
walls. J. Earthq. Eng. 2016; 20(5): 809–840.
[7] Huang ZW, Li B, Sengupta P. Reliability
assessment of damaged RC moment-resisting
frame against progressive collapse under static
loading conditions. ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 2013;
139(1): 1–17.
[8] Huang ZW, Li B, Sengupta P. Reliability
assessment of damaged RC moment-resisting
frame against progressive collapse under
Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017
dynamic loading conditions. Adv. Struct. Eng.
2014; 17(2): 211–232.
[9] Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 1893: 1984.
Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resist-
ant Design of Structures. BIS: New Delhi, 1984.
[10] Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 1893 (Part-
1): 2002. Indian Standard Criteria for Earth-
quake Resistant Design of Structures. BIS: New
Delhi, 2002.
[11] European Committee for Standardization.
Euro-code 8: 2004. Design of Structures for
Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. CEN:
Brussels, 2004.
[12] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA 450, Part 1: 2003. NEHRP Recom-
mended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures. Building
Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute
of Building Sciences: Washington, DC, 2003.
[13] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA 356: 2000. Prestandard and Commentary
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
FEMA: Washington, DC, 2000.
[14] Saraswathy B, Udaya KL, Leslie R. Effect
of vertical irregularity on performance of rein-
forced concrete framed buildings. Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on
Advances in Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering. Zurich: Switzerland, 2014.
[15] Sarkar P, Prasad AM, Menon D. Vertical
geometric irregularity in stepped building
frames. Eng. Struct. 2010; 32: 2175–2182.
[16] Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B. Fun-
damental time period of RC setback buildings.
Concr. Res. Lett. 2014; 5(4): 901–935.
[17] Soni DP, Mistry BB. Qualitative review of
seismic response of vertically irregular building
frames. J. Earthq. Technol. 2006; 43(4):
121–132.
[18] Singh R, Pahwa S, Gupta A. Seismic beha-
viour of buildings having vertical irregularities.
Universe Emerg. Technol. Sci. 2014; I(V):
620–625.
[19] Kalibhat MG, Arun Kumar YM,
Kamath K, Prasad SK, Shet S. Seismic perfor-
mance of r.c. frames with vertical stiffness irreg-
ularity from pushover analysis. J. Mech. Civil
Eng. 2014; 2: 61–66.
[20] Birajdar BG, Nalawade SS. Seismic analy-
sis of buildings resting on sloping ground. 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004.
[21] Ravikumar CM, Babu Narayan KS,
Sujith BV, Venkat RD. Effect of irregular con-
figurations on seismic vulnerability of RC build-
ings. Archit. Res. 2012; 2(3): 20–26.
[22] Bansal H, Gagandeep. Seismic analysis
and design of vertically irregular RC building
frames. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2012; 3(8): 207–215.
[23] Khan QUZ, Tahir T, Mehboob SS. Investi-
gation of seismic performance of vertically
irregular reinforced concrete buildings. Life Sci.
J. 2013; 10(12s): 949–955.
[24] Pirizadeh M, Shakib H. Probabilistic seis-
mic performance evaluation of non-geometric
vertically irregular steel buildings. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2013; 82: 88–98.
[25] Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK. Effective-
ness of some strengthening options for masonry
infilled RC frames with open first story.
J. Struct. Eng. 2009; 135(8): 925–937.
[26] Mwafy A, Khalifa S, El-ariss B. Relative
safety margins of code-conforming vertically
irregular high-rise buildings. Second European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Istanbul, 2014.
[27] Khoshnoudian F, Mohammadi SA. Seismic
response evaluation of irregular high rise struc-
tures by modal pushover analysis. The 14th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Beijing, China, October 12–17, 2008.
[28] Dutta SC, Nayak S, Acharjee G,
Panda SK, Das PK. Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake
of April 25, 2015: actual damage, retrofitting
measures and prediction by RVS for a few typi-
cal structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2016; 89:
171–184.
[29] Bento R, Bhatt C, Pinho R. Using nonlin-
ear static procedures for seismic assessment of
the 3D irregular SPEAR building. Earthq.
Struct. 2010; 1(2): 177–195.
[30] Ferraioli M. Case study of seismic perfor-
mance assessment of irregular RC buildings: hos-
pital structure of Avezzano (L’Aquila, Italy).
Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2015; 14(1): 141–156.
[31] Duan XN, Chandler AM. Inelastic seismic
response of code designed multistorey frame
buildings with regular asymmetry. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 1993; 22(5): 431–445.
[32] De Stefano M, Pintucchi B. A review of
research on seismic behaviour of irregular
building structures since 2002. Bull. Earthq.
Eng. 2008; 6(2): 285–308.
[33] Kreslin M, Fajfar P. Seismic evaluation of
an existing complex RC building. Bull. Earthq.
Eng. 2010; 8(2): 363–385.
[34] Mazza F. Nonlinear seismic analysis of r.c.
framed buildings with setbacks retrofitted by
damped braces. Eng. Struct. 2016; 126: 559–570.
[35] Özhendekci N, Polat Z. Torsional irregu-
larity of buildings. The 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China,
October 12–17, 2008.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017
[36] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of
Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley &
Sons Inc.: New York, 1992; 768 pages.
[37] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA 273: 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA:
Washington, DC, 1997.
[38] Samoila D. Analytical modeling of
masonry infills. Civil Eng. Archit. 2012; 55(2):
127–136.
[39] Polyakov SV. On the Interaction Between
Masonry Filler Walls and Enclosing Frame
When Loaded In Plane of the Wall. Earthquake
Engineering and Research Institute: San Fran-
cisco, 1960.
[40] Madan A, Reinhorn A, Mander JB,
Valles RE. Modelling of masonry infill panels
for structural analysis. ASCE J. Struct. Eng.
1997; 123(10): 1295–1302.
[41] Chrysostomou CZ, Gergely P, Abel JF. A
six-strut model for nonlinear dynamic analysis
of steel infilled frames. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn.
2002; 2(3): 335–353.
[42] El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M,
Hamid AA. Three-strut model for concrete
masonry-infilled steel frames. ASCE J. Struct.
Eng. 2003; 129(2): 177–185.
[43] Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ. Proposed macro-
model for the analysis of infilled frame structures.
Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2007; 40(2): 69–77.
[44] Rodrigues H, Humberto V, Costa AB.
Simplified macro-model for infill masonry
panels. J. Earthq. Eng. 2010; 14(3): 390–416.
[45] Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 456: 2000.
Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete
Code of Practice. BIS: New Delhi, 2000.
[46] Mukhopadhyay P, Goswami K,
Chatterjee P, Mandal U, Bala S, Dutta SC. An
attempt towards modelling the behaviour of
masonry element under lateral loading with lim-
ited experimental verification. Bridge Struct.
Eng. 2010; 40(1): 1–23.
[47] Gazetas G. Analysis of machine founda-
tion vibrations: state of the art. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 1983; 2(1): 2–42.
[48] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impe-
dances of surface and embedded foundations.
J. Geotech. Eng. 1991; 117(9): 1363–1381.
[49] Haroun MA, Abou-Izzeddine W. Paramet-
ric study of seismic soil–tank interaction I:
horizontal excitation. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. Div.
1992; 118(3): 783–797.
[50] Johnson JJ. Soil structure interaction: The
status of current analysis methods and research.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL), UCRL-53011, NUREGICR-1780, pre-
pared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, Washington, DC, 1981.
[51] Johnson JJ, Asfura AP. Soil structure
interaction (SSI): observations, data and correl-
ative analysis. In Developments in Dynamic
Soil–Structure Interaction, Gulkan P,
Clough RW (eds) Kluwer Academic Publishers:
Dordrecht, 1993; 219–258.
[52] Johnson JJ, Chang C-Y. State of the art
review of seismic input and soil–structure inter-
action. In Appendix E in A Methodology for
Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic
Margin (Rev. 1), EERI NP-6041-SL Electric
Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, 1991.
[53] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC, Dasgupta S.
Effect of soil flexibility on dynamic behaviour
of building frames on raft foundation. J. Sound
Vib. 2004; 274: 111–135.
[54] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC. Assessing lat-
eral period of building frames incorporating
soil-flexibility. J. Sound Vib. 2004; 269: 795–821.
[55] Dutta SC, Bhattacharya K, Roy R.
Response of low-rise buildings under seismic
ground excitation incorporating soil–structure
interaction. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2004; 24:
893–914.
[56] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC, Roy R. Seismic
design aids for buildings incorporating soil-
flexibility effect. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.
2006; 5(2): 341–348.
[57] Dutta SC, Ghatak D. P–Δ effect in seismic
behaviour of elevated water tanks incorporating
foundation flexibility. Adv. Vib. Eng. 2010; 9(1):
85–104.
[58] Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK. Stress–
strain characteristics of clay brick masonry
under uniaxial compression. J. Mater. Civil Eng.
2007; 19(9): 728–739.
[59] Dutta SC, Nayak S, Dinakar P. Lateral
period and seismic vulnerability of masonry build-
ings. Struct. Build. 2014; 167(SB11): 633–645.
Scientific Paper 545