Accelerat ing t he world's research.

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT AND
STOREY DRIFT OF FLAT SLAB
AND CONVENTIONAL SLAB
STRUCTURES IN DIFF...
IAEME Publication

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

ANALYSIS OF MULT I ST PRE-CAST LOAD BEARING WA WIT HOUT OPENINGS

IAEME Publicat ion

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF MULT I-ST ORY ST RUCT URE WIT H DIFFERENT T YPES OF SLABS
IAEME Publicat ion

ST UDY ON SEISMIC EFF BUILDING SHEAR WALL

IAEME Publicat ion
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 7, July 2017, pp. 567–580, Article ID: IJCIET_08_07_061
Available online at http:// http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LATERAL

DISPLACEMENT AND STOREY DRIFT OF
FLAT SLAB AND CONVENTIONAL SLAB
STRUCTURES IN DIFFERENT SEISMIC ZONES
Sandeep G S
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, India

Gururaj Patil
Post Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering,
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, India

ABSTRACT
In the present era, flat slab buildings are commonly used for construction as it has
many advantages over conventional slab buildings in terms of architectural flexibility,
use of space, easier formwork and shorter construction time. As due to this old
traditional construction net height of room is reduced. Hence to improve aesthetical
and structural aspect of multi storey, shopping mall ,offices, warehouses , public
community hall, hospitals etc. are constructed in such a way were slab are directly on
columns. This types of slab directly supported on column is termed as flat slab. The
main objective of the present work is to compare the lateral displacement and storey
drift of solid flat and conventional slab structures in seismic zone II, III, IV and V with
type II medium soil and to study the effect of height of buildings on the performance of
these buildings under seismic forces. For this purpose 5, 10 and 15 multistoried
buildings of fixed structural and material properties having flat slab with and without
drop panel and conventional slab have been considered. Linear dynamic response
spectrum analysis was performed on the structure to get the seismic behavior.
Key words: Conventional slab building, Flat slab with drop panel, Flat slab without drop
panel, Response spectrum analysis, Lateral displacement, Storey drift.
Cite this Article: Sandeep G S and Gururaj Patil, Comparative Study of Lateral
Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab Structures In Different
Seismic Zones, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(7), 2017,
pp. 567–580.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=7

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 567 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab
Structures In Different Seismic Zones

1. INTRODUCTION
In this modern industrial era we can see large constructional activities happening everywhere;
hence there will be a shortage of land space. So construction of tall structures has been initiated
up to overcome this problem. There are numerous elements which are modified to make work
faster and economical like adoption of pre-cast technology which reduces construction time,
adoption of alternative building materials and introduction of various types of flat slab
construction which reduce dead weight and effective storey height makes beams invisible and
enhances floor area. Seismic performance of buildings should be assessed properly to safeguard
a structure against devastating effects of earthquakes. We can’t avoid earthquakes, but
awareness and safe building construction practices can certainly reduce the extent of damage
and failure. The lateral loads are the premier ones because in contrast to vertical load that may
be assumed to increase rapidly with height. The lateral loads are considerably higher in the top
storey rather than the bottom storey due to which building tends to act as cantilever. In many
of the seismic prone areas there are several instances of failure of buildings which have not
been designed for seismic loads. All these reaction makes the study of the effect of lateral loads
very important. In the present study the response of multi storey commercial conventional slab
building and flat slab buildings to the lateral loads have been done.

1.1. Method of Evaluation of Seismic Performance

1.1.1. Response spectrum analysis

Response-spectrum analysis (RSA) is a linear-dynamic statistical analysis method which
measures the contribution from each natural mode of vibration to indicate the likely maximum
seismic response of an essentially elastic structure. 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.
This work deals with response spectrum method and its application to various types of the
structures. The codal provisions as per IS: 1893 (Part 1)-2002 code for response spectrum
analysis of multi-story building is also summarized.

2. METHODOLOGY
The present objective of this work is to study the seismic behavior of conventional slab and flat
slab buildings. The parametric studies comprise of storey drift and lateral displacement
generated in the frames for all seismic zones in India.
Methodology adopted is as below.
1. ETAB models of flat slab with and without drop panels and conventional slab buildings are
created consisting of 5, 10 and 15 storey with fixed structural and material properties.
2. Response spectrum analysis is performed using ETAB software.
3. Lateral stability of flat slab with and without drop panels and conventional slab buildings is
assessed for lateral displacement and storey drift for all seismic zones.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 568 editor@iaeme.com

 Sandeep G S and Gururaj Patil

4. Lateral stability results of flat slab with and without drop panels and conventional slab building
are compared to check the suitability of structures in different seismic zones.

2.1. Modeling and Analysis

Analysis of 3D models of the 5,10 and 15 storey building located in all four seismic zones has
been performed and overall seismic evaluation of the structures were carried out using response
spectrum analysis using the ETABS software for the cases given below:
Case1: 5 Storey flat slabs with drop panel and flat slab without drop panel buildings and
conventional slab building.
Case 2: 10 Storey flat slabs with drop panel and flat without drop panel buildings and
conventional slab buildings.
Case3: 15 Storey flat slabs with drop panel and without drop panel buildings and conventional
slab buildings.

2.2. Structural Properties and Material Properties Considered

3In the present study, 5, 10 and 15 storey building with plan area 30m x 25m and 6 no. of bays
in x direction and 5 no of bays in y direction are considered. The typical floor height is taken
as 3m and ground floor being 3m from the base giving a total height of the structure 15m, 30m
and 45m. Geometric properties and material properties are given in the table 1.

Table 1 Geometric properties and Material properties assigned to the ETAB models
Column to column spacing in X-direction 6m
Column to column spacing in Y-direction 5m
No of bays In X-direction 5nos
No of bays In Y direction 6nos
Floor height 3m
Ground floor height 3m
Flat slab thickness 200mm
Drop thickness 300mm
Conventional slab thickness 200mm
Column size, 5 storey building 900mm*300mm ,Fy500, M40
grade of steel & 10 storey building 900mm*600mm,Fy500, M40
grade of concrete 15 storey building 1500mm*1200m,Fy500, M40
Beam size, grade 5 storey building 600mm*300mm,Fy500,M40
of steel & grade 10 storey building 750mm*300mm,Fy500,M40
of concrete 15 storey building 900mm*300mm,Fy500,M40

Table 1.1 Structural properties and Model details

Type of structure OMRF
Damping ratio 5%
Zone factor 0.10, 0.16, 0.24, 0.36
Importance factor 1
Type of soil Type 2(medium)
Reduction factor 3

2.3. Plan and 3D View of Buildings

The plan and 3D view of models with flat slab with and without drop panels and conventional
slab are shown in figure 1, figure 2 and figure 3.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 569 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab
Structures In Different Seismic Zones

Figure 1. Flat slab with drop panel building plan and 3D view

Figure 2. Flat slab without drop panel building plan and 3D view

Figure 3. Conventional slab building plan and 3D view

2.4. Loads Considered

Loads are the basic parameters affecting the design of a structure. The dead load is estimated
based on materials used in the structure as per IS 875-1987(Part I). The live load is estimated
based on the occupancy of the building as per IS 875-1987 (Part II). The seismic loads are
computed as per IS 1893-2002.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 570 editor@iaeme.com

 Sandeep G S and Gururaj Patil

Dead load
The following type of dead load is applied in the structure.
• Self weight of the building: computed by ETABS
• Floor finished load = 1.00kN/m2

Live load
The live load on the building is considered as 3kN/m2.

Seismic load
The effect of these loads is considered along both the axes of the building. The loads are
computed based on clauses of IS 1893-2002 (Part I). The structural system is designed as
ordinary moment resisting frame. The damping is assumed as 5% in the structure. The soil
condition at the site is assumed as type II medium soil.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Dynamic analysis for conventional slab buildings, flat slab with and without drop panel
buildings is performed using response spectrum analysis for seismic zones II, III, IV and V as
per Indian standard code. The effect of height of the building on these buildings is evaluated.
Significant variation in seismic parameters like storey displacement and storey drift with respect
to zones and height of buildings is noticed and discussed below.

3.1. Displacement
Lateral displacement is important when structures are subjected to lateral loads like earthquake
and wind loads. Lateral displacement depends on height of structure and slenderness of the
structure because structures are more vulnerable as height of building increases by becoming
more flexible to lateral loads. The following are the lateral displacements of flat slab with and
without drop panel buildings and conventional slab building obtained from response spectrum
analysis for all seismic zones.

3.1.1 5 Storey Results

Table 2 5 Storey lateral displacement of flat slab with and without drop panels building and
conventional slab building
Zone factor Flat slab without drop Flat slab with drop Conventional slab
panel building panel building building displacement
displacement (mm) displacement (mm) (mm)
0.10 16.3 12.3 11
0.16 26.1 19.7 17.5
0.24 39.2 29.6 26.3
0.36 58.8 44.4 39.5

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 571 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab
Structures In Different Seismic Zones

70
60
Displacement(mm) 50 Flat slab without drop panel
40 displacement (mm)
30 Flat slab with drop panel
20 displacement (mm)
10
0 Conventional building(mm)
0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
Zone factor

Figure 4. 5 Storey lateral displacement

The lateral displacement of 5 storey conventional building and flat slab with drop panel
building is within the limit (30mm) for zone II, zone III and zone IV except zone V. The lateral
displacement of 5 storey flat slab without drop panel building is within the limiting value for
zone II, zone III except zone IV and zone V.

3.1.2 10 Storey Results

Table 3 10 Storey lateral displacement of flat slab with drop and without drop panel buildings and
conventional slab building
Flat slab without drop Flat slab with drop Conventional slab
Zone factor panel building panel building building displacement
displacement (mm) displacement (mm) (mm)
0.10 34.6 26 12.3
0.16 55.3 41.6 19.7
0.24 82.9 62.5 29.5
0.36 124.4 93.7 44.3

150
Displacement(mm)

120 Flat slab without drop panel

90 displacement(mm)
60 Flat slab with drop panel
30 displacement(mm)
0
Conventional building(mm)
0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36

Zone factor

Figure 5 0 Storey lateral displacement

The lateral displacement of 10 storey conventional slab building is within the limit (60mm)
for zone II, zone III, zone IV and zone V. The lateral displacement of 10 storey flat slab without
drop panel and flat slab with drop panel building is within the limiting value for zone II, zone
III except zone IV and zone V.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 572 editor@iaeme.com

 Sandeep G S and Gururaj Patil

3.1.3 15 Storey Results

Table 4 15 Storey lateral displacement of flat slab with drop and without drop panel building and
conventional slab building
Flat slab without drop Flat slab with drop Conventional slab
Zone factor
panel building panel building building displacement
displacement (mm) displacement (mm) (mm)
0.10 53.3 40.7 15.6
0.16 85.3 65.2 25
0.24 128 97.8 37.5
0.36 192 146.6 56.3

210
Displacement(mm)

180
150 Flat slab without drop panel
120 displacement(mm)
90
Flat slab with drop panel
60
displacement(mm)
30
0 Conventional building(mm)
0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
Zone factor

Figure 6. 15 Storey lateral displacement

The lateral displacement of 15 storey conventional slab building is within the limiting value
for zone II, zone III, zone IV and zone V. The lateral displacement of 15 storey flat slab without
drop panel and flat slab with drop panel building is within the limiting value for zone II, zone
III except zone IV and zone V.
From this it is clear that lateral stability of conventional slab buildings is higher than other
2 types of buildings with respect to lateral displacement.

3.2. Storey Drift

Total storey drift is the absolute displacement of any storey relative to the base. As per IS.1893-
2002 clause 7.11.1 the storey drift in any storey due to the minimum specified design lateral
force with partial load factor 1.00 shall not be exceeding 0.004 times the storey height. Storey
drifts for all models are obtained by performing response spectrum analysis and evaluating
performance of flat slab with and without drop panel buildings and conventional slab buildings
with different storey height for zone II, III, IV and V. The following are the storey drift results
of 5, 10 and 15 storey buildings considered under study.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 573 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab
Structures In Different Seismic Zones

3.2.1 5. Storey Drift Results

3.2.1.1 Flat slab without drop panel building

Table 5 5 Storey drift of flat slab without drop panel building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000862 0.001378 0.002068 0.003101
Storey 2 0.001394 0.00223 0.003345 0.005018
Storey 3 0.001365 0.002184 0.003276 0.004914
Storey 4 0.001114 0.001783 0.002675 0.004012
Storey 5 0.000709 0.001135 0.001702 0.002553

0.006
0.005
Storey drift

0.004
ZONE V
0.003
ZONE IV
0.002
0.001 ZONE III
0 ZONE II
1 2 3 4 5
No of storeys

Figure 7. 5 Storey drift of flat slab without drop panel building

3.2.1.2 Flat slab with drop panel building

Table 6 5 Storey drift of flat slab with drop panel building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000776 0.001242 0.001863 0.002794
Storey 2 0.00105 0.001679 0.002519 0.003779
Storey 3 0.000989 0.001582 0.002374 0.00356
Storey 4 0.000805 0.001288 0.001932 0.002897
Storey 5 0.000494 0.00079 0.001185 0.001777

0.004
0.0035
0.003
Storey drift

0.0025
ZONE V
0.002
ZONE IV
0.0015
0.001 ZONEIII
0.0005 ZONE II
0
1 2 3 4 5
No of storeys

Figure 8. 5 Storey drift of flat slab with drop panel building

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 574 editor@iaeme.com

 Sandeep G S and Gururaj Patil

3.2.1.3 Conventional slab building

Table 7 5 Storey drift of conventional slab building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000644 0.001031 0.001546 0.002319
Storey 2 0.000989 0.001026 0.001788 0.003012
Storey 3 0.000541 0.000866 0.001299 0.001949
Storey 4 0.000438 0.0007 0.00105 0.001575
Storey 5 0.000263 0.000421 0.000631 0.000947

0.0035
0.003
0.0025
Storey drift

0.002 ZONE V
0.0015 ZONE IV
0.001 ZONE III
0.0005 ZONE II
0
1 2 3 4 5
No of storeys

Figure 9. 5 Storey drift of conventional slab building

3.2.2 10 Storey Drift Results

3.2.2.1 Flat slab without drop panel building

Table 8 10 Storey drift of flat slab without drop panel building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000859 0.001374 0.002061 0.003091
Storey 2 0.00143 0.002289 0.003433 0.00515
Storey 3 0.001522 0.002436 0.003654 0.005481
Storey 4 0.001508 0.002413 0.003619 0.005429
Storey 5 0.001448 0.002317 0.003476 0.005214
Storey 6 0.001348 0.002157 0.003235 0.004853
Storey 7 0.001201 0.001922 0.002883 0.004325
Storey 8 0.001002 0.001603 0.002404 0.003606
Storey 9 0.000748 0.001197 0.001795 0.002693
Storey 10 0.000459 0.000735 0.001103 0.001654

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 575 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab
Structures In Different Seismic Zones

0.006
0.005
Storey drift 0.004
ZONE V
0.003
ZONE IV
0.002
0.001 ZONE III
0 ZONE II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No of storeys

Figure 10. 10 Storey drift of flat slab without drop panel building

3.2.2.2 Flat slab with drop panel building

Table 9 10 Storey drift of flat slab with drop panel building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000786 0.001258 0.001886 0.00283
Storey 2 0.001091 0.001745 0.002618 0.003927
Storey 3 0.001113 0.00178 0.00267 0.004005
Storey 4 0.001096 0.001754 0.002631 0.003947
Storey 5 0.001056 0.00169 0.002535 0.003802
Storey 6 0.00099 0.001584 0.002376 0.003563
Storey 7 0.00089 0.001424 0.002136 0.003204
Storey 8 0.000751 0.001202 0.001803 0.002705
Storey 9 0.000569 0.000911 0.001366 0.002049
Storey 10 0.000347 0.000556 0.000834 0.001251

0.005
0.004
Storey drift

0.003 ZONE V
0.002 ZONEIV
0.001 ZONE III

0 ZONE II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No of storeys

Figure 11. 10 Storey drift of flat slab with drop panel building

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 576 editor@iaeme.com

 Sandeep G S and Gururaj Patil

3.2.2.3 Conventional slab building

Table 10 10 Storey drift of conventional slab building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000452 0.000724 0.001086 0.001628
Storey 2 0.000519 0.00083 0.001245 0.001868
Storey 3 0.000899 0.001439 0.002158 0.003238
Storey 4 0.000434 0.000695 0.001042 0.001563
Storey 5 0.000416 0.000665 0.000998 0.001497
Storey 6 0.000388 0.00062 0.000931 0.001396
Storey 7 0.000347 0.000555 0.000832 0.001248
Storey 8 0.00029 0.000464 0.000697 0.001045
Storey 9 0.000219 0.00035 0.000525 0.000787
Storey 10 0.000149 0.000238 0.000357 0.000536

0.004

0.003
Storey drift

ZONE V
0.002
ZONEIV
0.001 ZONE III
0 ZONE II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No of storeys

Figure 12. 10 Storey drift of conventional slab building

3.2.3 15 Storey Drift Results

3.2.3.1 Flat slab without drop panel building

Table 11 15 Storey drift of flat slab without drop panel building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000852 0.001362 0.00137 0.002814
Storey 2 0.001425 0.002281 0.003421 0.003929
Storey 3 0.001534 0.002454 0.003681 0.004055
Storey 4 0.001551 0.002481 0.003722 0.004082
Storey 5 0.001542 0.002468 0.003702 0.004077
Storey 6 0.001519 0.00243 0.003645 0.004042
Storey 7 0.00148 0.002367 0.003551 0.003964
Storey 8 0.001423 0.002277 0.003415 0.003839
Storey 9 0.001347 0.002156 0.003234 0.003659
Storey 10 0.001251 0.002002 0.003002 0.00342
Storey 11 0.00113 0.001808 0.002712 0.003116
Storey 12 0.000983 0.001572 0.002358 0.002741
Storey 13 0.000807 0.001291 0.001936 0.00229
Storey 14 0.000603 0.000965 0.001448 0.001759
Storey 15 0.000389 0.000622 0.000933 0.001169

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 577 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab
Structures In Different Seismic Zones

0.005
0.004
Storey drift
0.003 ZONE V
0.002 ZONEIV

0.001 ZONE III

ZONE II
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No of storeys

Figure 13. 15 Storey drift of flat slab without drop panel building

3.2.3.2 Flat slab with drop panel building

Table 12 15 Storey drift of flat slab with drop panel building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000782 0.00125 0.001876 0.003066
Storey 2 0.001091 0.001746 0.002619 0.005132
Storey 3 0.001126 0.001802 0.002703 0.005521
Storey 4 0.001134 0.001814 0.002721 0.005583
Storey 5 0.001133 0.001812 0.002718 0.005553
Storey 6 0.001123 0.001796 0.002695 0.005468
Storey 7 0.001101 0.001762 0.002643 0.005327
Storey 8 0.001066 0.001706 0.002559 0.005123
Storey 9 0.001016 0.001626 0.002439 0.004851
Storey 10 0.00095 0.00152 0.00228 0.004503
Storey 11 0.000865 0.001385 0.002077 0.004068
Storey 12 0.000761 0.001218 0.001827 0.003537
Storey 13 0.000636 0.001018 0.001527 0.002904
Storey 14 0.000489 0.000782 0.001173 0.002172
Storey 15 0.000325 0.00052 0.000779 0.001399

0.006
0.005
Storey drift

0.004
ZONE V
0.003
ZONE IV
0.002
ZONE III
0.001
ZONE II
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No of storeys

Figure 14. 15 Storey drift of flat slab with drop panel building

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 578 editor@iaeme.com

 Sandeep G S and Gururaj Patil

3.2.3.3 Conventional slab building

Table 13 15 Storey drift of conventional slab building

Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Storey Drift Drift Drift Drift
Storey 1 0.000414 0.000663 0.001026 0.001538
Storey 2 0.000445 0.000755 0.001067 0.001601
Storey 3 0.000472 0.000711 0.001133 0.0017
Storey 4 0.000543 0.000868 0.001302 0.001954
Storey 5 0.000427 0.000684 0.000994 0.001492
Storey 6 0.000402 0.000643 0.000965 0.001447
Storey 7 0.000388 0.000621 0.000931 0.001396
Storey 8 0.000371 0.000593 0.00089 0.001334
Storey 9 0.000349 0.000559 0.000838 0.001257
Storey 10 0.000323 0.000517 0.000776 0.001163
Storey 11 0.000292 0.000468 0.000702 0.001052
Storey 12 0.000257 0.000412 0.000617 0.000926
Storey 13 0.000219 0.000351 0.000527 0.00079
Storey 14 0.000182 0.000291 0.000437 0.000656
Storey 15 0.000151 0.000201 0.000364 0.000545

0.0025

0.002
Storey drift

0.0015 ZONE V
0.001 ZONE IV
ZONE III
0.0005
ZONE II
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No of storeys

Figure 15 15 Storey drift of conventional slab building

The storey drift of conventional slab building, flat slab with drop panel building and without
drop panel building are within the specified limit 0.012 (i.e. 0.004 times the storey height) as
per the IS codes. The storey drift is maximum at storey 2 for the 5 storey buildings, at storey 3
for 10 storey buildings and at storey 4 for 15 storey buildings of conventional slab building, flat
slab with/without drop panel buildings.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The following are the major conclusions drawn from the analysis of seismic behavior of three
types of buildings (i.e. Conventional slab buildings, flat slab with and without drop panels
buildings) for all seismic zones as per IS code.
• From top storey lateral displacement for 5 storey building, we can conclude that buildings with
flat slab without drop panel building are not suitable for zone IV and zone V. Also conventional
slab buildings and buildings with flat slab with drop panel building are not suitable for zone V
with respect to lateral displacement. 10 storey and 15 storey buildings with flat slab with drop
and without drop panel buildings are not suitable for zone IV and zone V with respect to lateral

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 579 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study of Lateral Displacement and Storey Drift of Flat Slab and Conventional Slab
Structures In Different Seismic Zones

displacement. So to control lateral displacement of the storey, introduction of shear walls,

bracings or retrofitting of buildings are suggested.
• Storey drift follows a parabolic path along the storey height with maximum value lying
somewhere near storey three. From the storey drift plots it is clear that 5, 10 and 15 storey
buildings with flat slab with and without drop panel are as suitable as conventional slab
buildings with respect to storey drift in all the seismic zones. And so flat slab can be adopted
wherever required instead of conventional slab in any seismic zone.
• Conventional slab building has highest lateral stiffness compared to flat slab with or without
drop panel where as flat with drop panel has more lateral stiffness than flat slab without drop
panel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors would like to express their gratitude towards Manipal University, Maipal for providing
necessary support for the present work.

REFERENCES
[1] Dr. U. Gupta, S. Ratnaparkhe, P. Gome, Seismic behavior of buildings having flat slabs
with drops, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
(IJETAE) Vol. 2, Issue 10, October 2012.
[2] S.Pahwa, V. Tiwari. M. Prajapati, Comparative Study of Flat Slab with Old Traditional Two
Way Slab, Internatinal Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology (IJLTET),
Vol. 4, Issue 2, pp. 252-260, July 2014.
[3] 2015, Basavaraj H S, Rashmi B A, Seismic Performance of RC Flat Slab Building Structural
Systems.
[4] 2015, Gouramma G, Dr. Jagadish Kori G, Seismic Performance of Different RC Slab
Systems For Tall Building.
[5] Poluraju, P and Nageswara Rao, P.V.S, 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,2012, pp 684-690.
[6] E. Hassaballa , M. A. Ismaeil , A. N. Alzead, Fathelrahman M. Adam, Pushover Analysis
of Existing 4 Storey RC Flat Slab Building, International Journal of Sciences: Basic and
Applied Research Volume 16, No 2,2014.
[7] I. Jaswanth Reddy and S. Kesavan, Lateral Load Behaviour of Interlocking Block Masonry
Wall. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(3), 2017, pp. 831–841.
[8] V. Mani Deep and P. Polu Raju, Pushover Analysis of RC Building: Comparative Study On
Seismic Zones of India. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(4),
2017, pp. 567–578.
[9] Kiran S. Patil, N.G. Gore, P.J. Salunke, Optimum design of reinforced concrete flat slab
with drop panel, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE),
Vol.2, Issue 4, pp. 37-39, September 2013.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 580 editor@iaeme.com