Seismic Behaviour of Tall Building Having In-Plan & Vertical Irregularity

R. Sharma1, K. K. Yadav2, N. Binnani3, & R. K. Khare4

1. M.E. Scholar, Civil Engg. & Applied Mechanics Dept., Shri G. S. Institute of Technology & Science,
Indore (M.P.), India. Email id: rsms246830@gmail.com
2. Assistant Professor, Civil Engg. & Applied Mechanics Dept., Shri G. S. Institute of Technology &
Science, Indore (M.P.), India. Email id: kanha.yadav1993@gmail.com
3. Assistant Professor, Civil Engg. & Applied Mechanics Dept., Shri G. S. Institute of Technology &
Science, Indore (M.P.), India. Email id: nikunjbinnani@gmail.com
4. Professor, Civil Engg. & Applied Mechanics Dept., Shri G. S. Institute of Technology & Science,
Indore (M.P.), India. Email id: rakeshkhare@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT:
Flat slab buildings using shear wall have become common due to significant contribution in lateral stiffness.
Especially for taller buildings, the structural configuration using combination of flat slab and shear wall is
generally used in multi-storey building. Many researchers have investigated the behaviour of irregular
building, but tall structure having floors with imparted angular rotation have not been sufficiently studied yet,
especially flat slab systems having twisted floors with re-entrant corners have not been researched over much.
Seismic behaviour of the flat slab tall structure having rotated floors at certain angles for different storey with
re-entrant corners with different locations of shear walls were studied over various parameters like drift, lateral
displacement, contribution factor & drift reduction percentage. The best fit configuration of shear walls over
these parameters was analysed. Shear walls when placed at core & re-entrant corners simultaneously
performed much better.

INTRODUCTION
Earthquake force is an internal force (i.e. force is equal to mass times acceleration), most of the earthquake
force is generated at the floors. Structure’s response to the ground motion is directly related to the lateral
stiffness of the structure. Hence to increase this lateral stiffness a special lateral load resisting system is to be
designed specifically for the structure. Most commonly used lateral load resisting systems are:
1. Moment Resisting Frame: Moment resisting frames are made up of beams and columns that resist
lateral loads through flexure of members and through stiffness of rigid joints connecting the beams
and columns. It provides flexibility for architectural design and layout but at the same time produces
greater deflection and drift compared to that of braced frames or shear walls
2. Braced Frames: Braced frames resist loads through a series of trusses made of steel members. The
diagonal members of the trusses resist lateral loads in the form of axial stresses, either by tension or
compression. They more workable for steel structures as compared to reinforced concrete structures
3. Shear Walls: Shear walls also provide resistance to lateral forces by cantilever action through shear
and bending. The slab connected to the shear wall must function as a horizontal diaphragm. They
have large stiffness and strength for resistance shear walls need to be placed symmetrically in both
directions to the plane of loading so that no torsional effect would be produced.
A flat slab is a reinforced concrete slab supported directly by concrete columns without the use of beams.
Reinforced concrete flat slabs are one of the most popular floor systems used in residential buildings, car parks
and many other structures. They represent elegant and easy-to-construct floor systems. But flat slabs as
compared to the regular solid slabs have much lesser stiffness and hence are more susceptible to higher lateral
displacement and drift values due to lack of resistance offered against the lateral load.
Also, the structure should possess simple and regular configuration, adequate lateral strength, stiffness and
ductility to perform well under the effect of earthquake. Those structures with simple regular geometry and
uniformly distributed mass and stiffness in plan as well as in elevation are considered to suffer much lesser
damage than structures with irregular forms. But nowadays, irregular buildings are preferred due to their
functional and aesthetic considerations are evident from examples of realistic existing irregular buildings.
Torsional Irregularity
Torsional irregularity to be considered to exist when the maximum story drift, computed with design eccentricity,
at one end of the structures transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the average of the storey drifts at the ends
of the structure. The reason behind this irregularity is shift in the location of centre of rigidity of the horizontal
system from position of centre of mass. The point of action of load is centre of mass and the point or line along
which the applied external load is resisted is centre of rigidity. This leads to generation of eccentric moment
equal to the product of storey lateral force and the eccentricity. This induces a twisting moment along the vertical
axis of the structure.
Re-Entrant Corners
Plan configuration of a structure and its lateral forces resisting system contain re-entrant corners, where both
projection of the structure beyond the re-entrant corner are greater than 15% of its plan dimension in the
given direction. This leads to irregular behaviour of the structure and stress concentration at such locations
in the structures.

METHODOLOGY:
To draw a comparative study & analyse between the structural effectiveness of the shear walls, various
configurations of the multi storey structure were so chosen which had in plan irregularities along with
vertical irregularities along the height of the structure. The floors of the building were rotated by certain
degrees along their vertical axis. The structure so chosen had re-entrant corners as well. The structure was
modelled in ETABS 18 software.
Hence, the structure was modelled with different configurations of the shear walls which were terminated at
different heights. Also, the location of the shear walls that were modelled was different for different cases.

The following cases & configurations were so chosen:

1. Bare frame (Case 1)
2. Frame with core shear wall (Case 2)
3. Frame with corner shear wall (Case 3)
4. Frame with combination of core and corner shear wall (Case 4)

General Model Details:

 Storey height: 3.658m

 Number of Storey: 11 including base
 Base Storey Height: 4m
 Grid size: 5m X 5m
 Thickness of Flat Slab: 200mm
 Thickness of Shear Wall: 250mm
 Grade of Concrete: M30
 Grade of Steel: Fe500D
 Grade of Steel for Stirrups: Fe415
 STOREY LEVEL ANGLE OF TWIST
Storey 1 to Storey 3 0°
Storey 4 to Storey 7 5° Anticlockwise
Storey 8 to Storey 11 5° Clockwise

STOREY LEVEL SLAB AREA

Storey 1 to Storey 3 95mx100m – 4x(20mx20m) = 7900m2
Storey 4 to Storey 7 4200m2
Storey 8 to Storey 11 2025m2

Section Modifiers:

1. For Column Section:

a. Moment of Inertia about 2-Axis = 0.7
b. Moment of Inertia about 3-Axis = 0.7

2. For Wall Sections:

a. Moment of Inertia about 2-Axis = 0.7
b. Moment of Inertia about 3-Axis = 0.7

Loadings Details:

 Self-weight of members that were modelled in the software

 Floor Finish Load: 1.5kN/m2
 Live load – 3.5kN/m2 as specified in IS 875 Part (II)
 Earthquake load as per IS 1893 (Part-I):2016.
a. Earthquake Zone: Zone V
b. Zone Factor: 0.36
c. Importance Factor: 1.5
d. Response Reduction Factor: 3
e. Site Type: I
f. Time Period: As calculated for EQ-X & EQ-Y
Parameters selected for study are displacements, contribution factors, drifts, drift reduction factor

Fig. 1: Bare Frame Fig. 2: Frame with Core Shear Wall

 Fig 3: Frame with Corner Shear Wall Fig. 4: Frame With Combination Of Core And Corner Shear Wall

CONCLUSIONS
The graphs have been plotted between the following parameters and results have been compared for variation
of following

a. Displacement vs. Storey height

b. Drift vs. Storey height
c. Drift Reduction Percentage vs. Storey Height
d. Contribution Factor vs. Storey Height

The following observations have been drawn:

1. The values of various parameters as obtained by performing static analysis over different models were
little more as compared to those obtained by performing dynamic analysis on the same configurations.
2. The lateral displacement values significantly reduced when shear walls were placed at the core and at
core along with re-entrant corners. The performance of configuration having walls only at the re-entrant
corners wasn’t satisfactory.
3. The values of displacement & drift are observed to increase with increase in storey levels in general
4. The contribution of shear walls was effective at the lower storeys as compared to the upper storeys. Still,
shear walls were very much active in reducing the displacement values by over 95% & inter storey drifts
by over 97% when the walls were placed at the core along with the re-entrant corners.
5. The shear walls when placed only at the re-entrant corners adversely affected the performance of the
building under lateral loads. The negative values of contribution factor and drift reduction factor are
suggestive of the same.
6. Overall values of all the parameters suggest that shear walls significantly reduced displacement & drift
when shear walls were placed at the core and re-entrant corners.
STOREY LEVEL V/S LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT X
1500

1000

500

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 1- Static Analysis - Displacement V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DISPLACEMENT Y
1500
1000

500
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 2- Static Analysis - Displacement V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

DISPLACEMENT X
200
150
100
50
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 3- Dynamic Analysis - Displacement V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

DISPLACEMENT Y
10000

5000

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

WITHOUT CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 4- Dynamic Analysis - Displacement V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

STOREY LEVEL V/S CONTRIBUTION FACTOR

CONTRIBUTION RATIO X
1.5

0.5

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 5- Static Analysis – Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

CONTRIBUTION RATIO Y
1.5

0.5

0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 6- Static Analysis - Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

CONTRIBUTION RATIO X
1.5
1
0.5
0
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
-0.5

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 7- Dynamic Analysis - Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: X DIRECTION

CONTRIBUTION RATIO Y
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 8- Dynamic Analysis - Contribution Factor V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

STOREY LEVEL V/S STOREY DRIFT

DRIFT X DRIFT Y
0.05 0.04
0.04 0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -0.01

WITHOUT CORNER WITHOUT CORNER

CORE CORE+CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 9- Static Analysis - Drift V/S Storey Height: X Graph 10- Static Analysis - Drift V/S Storey Height: Y
DIRECTION DIRECTION

DRIFT X DRIFT Y
0.01 1.2
0.008 1
0.8
0.006
0.6
0.004
0.4
0.002 0.2
0 0
-0.002 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

WITHOUT CORE WITHOUT CORE

CORNER CORE+CORNER CORNER CORE+CORNER

Graph 11- Dynamic Analysis - Drift V/S Storey Height: X Graph 12- Dynamic Analysis - Drift V/S Storey
DIRECTION Height: Y DIRECTION
STOREY LEVEL V/S DRIFT REDUCTION FACTOR

DRIFT RATIO X DRIFT RATIO Y

1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
-0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER CORNER CORE CORE+CORNER

Graph 13- Static Analysis – Drift Reduction Factor V/S Graph 14- Static Analysis – Drift Reduction Factor V/S
Storey Height: X DIRECTION Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

DRIFT RATIO X DRIFT RATIO Y

1.20E+00 1.20E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00
8.00E-01 8.00E-01
6.00E-01 6.00E-01
4.00E-01 4.00E-01
2.00E-01 2.00E-01
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
-2.00E-01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -2.00E-01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-4.00E-01 -4.00E-01
-6.00E-01 -6.00E-01

CORE CORNER CORE+CORNER CORE CORNER CORE+CORNER

Graph 15- Dynamic Analysis - – Drift Reduction Factor V/S Graph 16- Dynamic Analysis - – Drift Reduction Factor
Storey Height: X DIRECTION V/S Storey Height: Y DIRECTION

REFERENCES
 IS 1893 Part 1 (2016), “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (sixth revision)”, New Delhi, India.
 IS 875 (Part I, II), “Code of Practice of Design Loads (other than earthquake) for Building and Structures”, New Delhi, India
 IS 456 (2000), “Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice”, New Delhi, India.
 IS 13920 (2016), “Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces- Code of
Practice”, New Delhi, India.