“Seismic Analysis of High Rise RC Structure with Different

Plan Configuration”

Synopsis

Submitted for Registration as a research student for the degree of

Master of Structural Engineering

By
Chetan P. Agrawal
M-Tech Scholar

Under the guidance of

Prof. Amey R. Khedikar
Guide

Submitted to
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur
(Faculty of Engineering and Technology)
Title: Seismic Analysis of High Rise RC Structure with Different Plan
Configuration

1)Introduction:

Seismic analysis means determination of the behavior of a particular structure

when subjected to some action so that it will perform the function for which it is created.
ETABS (Extended Three dimensional Analysis of Building Systems) is the leading design
software in the market at present. Most of the design companies use ETABS for designing
purpose. ETABS software is generally used for both static and dynamic analysis for wide
range of loads.

At Present most of the buildings delineated by irregular in both plan and vertical
configuration. The irregularities is harmful to the structure as it increase the torsion
irregularity , shear force, bending moment, displacement, storey drift, and base shear.
These irregularities are one of the main major reasons of failures of the structures during
an earthquake.

The main objective in Seismic Resistant Design is that the buildings are to
ensure that it has enough ductility to withstand the seismic forces during an earthquake.
Therefore analysis of the buildings for various seismic zones and checking all multiple
criteria at each level becomes essential.

This project mainly contains analysis of a Rectangular, L and C shaped plan

using ETABS software for the Indian seismic zones (III, IV and V) and to evaluate lateral
forces, storey drift, overturning moment, deflections and base shear.

The methods for analysis of structure are:

 Linear Static Analysis (Seismic Coefficient Method)
 Linear Dynamic Analysis (Response Spectrum Method)
 Nonlinear Static Analysis (Time History Method)
 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (Push Over Analysis)

1
2) Brief Literature Survey

The research paper and literatures collected on the various topics is listed
below.
1) Abhay Guleria (May 2014)
2) Girum Mindaye, Dr. Shaik Yajdani (September 2016)
3) Arvindreddy, R. J. Fernandes (Aug 2015)
4) Dhananjay Shrivastava, Dr. Sudhir Singh Bhaduria (June 2017)
5) Mohammed Rizwan Sultan, D. Gouse Peera (August 2015)
6) Balaji.U. A, Mr. Selvarasan M.E. B (July-Aug 2016)
7) Mahesh N. Patil, Yogesh N. Sonawane (March 2015)
8) IS 875 (Part 1) – 1987, IS 875 (Part 2) – 1987, IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002, IS 456 :
2000

Summary of literature review:

1. Abhay Guleria (May 2014)

This paper mainly emphasizes on structural behavior of multi-storey
building for different plan configurations like rectangular, C, L and I-shape. Modeling of
15- storey R.C.C. framed building is done on the ETABS software for analysis. Post
analysis of the structure, maximum shear forces, bending moments, and maximum storey
displacement are computed and then compared for all the analyzed cases.
It was stated in paper that the analysis of the multi-storeyed building reflected that the
storey overturning moment varies inversely with storey height. Moreover, L-shape, I-
shape type buildings give almost similar response against the overturning moment. From
dynamic analysis, mode shapes are generated and it can be concluded that asymmetrical
plans undergo more deformation than symmetrical plans. Asymmetrical plans should be
adopted considering into gaps.

2. Girum Mindaye, Dr. Shaik Yajdani (September 2016)

In this paper seismic response of a residential G+10 RC frame building is
analysed by the linear analysis approaches of Equivalent Static Lateral Force and
Response Spectrum methods using ETABS Ultimate 2015 software as per the IS- 1893-
2002-Part-1. These analysis are carried out by considering different seismic zones,
medium soil type for all zones and for zone II & III using OMRF frame type and for those

2
of the rest zones using OMRF & SMRF frame types. Different response like lateral force,
overturning moment, story drift, displacements, base shear are plotted in order to compare
the results of the static and dynamic analysis. It was stated in paper that dynamic story
shear is less than static story shear; maximum story displacement, overturning moment
obtained from response spectrum method is lesser than those obtained by equivalent static
lateral force method; base shear, lateral force, story shear, maximum story displacement
and overturning moment are increased in both directions (i.e., X & Y) as the seismic zone
goes from II to V for the same frame type building in both methods.

3. Arvindreddy, R. J. Fernandes (Aug 2015)

In this paper an analytical study is made to find response of different
regular and irregular structures located in severe zone V. Analysis has been made by
taking 15 storey building by static and dynamic methods using ETABS 2013 and IS code
1893-2002 (Part-1). Linear Equivalent Static Analysis is performed for regular buildings
up to 90m height in zone I and II, Dynamic Analysis should be performed for regular and
irregular buildings in zone IV and V. Dynamic Analysis can take the form of a dynamic
Time History Analysis Or a linear Response Spectrum Analysis. Behavior of structures
will be found by comparing responses in the form of storey displacement for regular and
irregular structures. In this present work two types of structures considered are reinforced
concrete regular and irregular 15 storey buildings and are analyzed by static and dynamic
methods. For time history analysis past earthquake ground motion record is taken to study
response of all the structures.

4. Dhananjay Shrivastava, Dr. Sudhir Singh Bhaduria (June 2017)

This research paper mainly focuses on the structural behavior of multi-
storey building for different plan configuration such as regular building along with L-
shape and I- shape in accordance with the seismic provisions suggested in IS 1893:2002.
In this modeling of G+ 25 storey RCC framed building is studied for earthquake load
using STAAD PRO. These analysis are carried out by considering different seismic zones
(IV and V) and for each zone the behavior is assessed by taking three different types of
soil conditions. Post analysis of structure, various parameters like lateral displacement,
inter-storey drift, base shear and maximum bending moment are computed and compared
for all cases. The result indicates that, regular geometry shows less force and perform well
during the effect of earthquake. The analysis proves that irregularities are harmful for the

3
structures and it is important to have regular shapes of frames as well as uniform load
distribution around the building.

5. Mohammed Rizwan Sultan, D. Gouse Peera (August 2015)

The objective of this study is to grasp the behavior of the structure ion high
seismic zone and also to evaluate Storey overturning moment, Storey drift, Displacement,
Design lateral forces. In this paper 15 storey high building on four totally different shapes
like Rectangular, L- shape, H- shape, and C- shape are used as a comparison. The
complete models were analysed with the assistance of ETABS 9.7.1 version. In this study,
Comparative Dynamic Analysis for all four cases has been investigated to evaluate the
deformation of the structure. The result indicates that, building with severe irregularity
produces more deformation than those with less irregularity particularly in high seismic
zones and conjointly the storey overturning moment varies inversely with height of the
storey.

6. Mahesh N. Patil, Yogesh N. Sonawane (March 2015)

In this paper, the earthquake response of symmetric multistoried building
is studied by manual calculation and with the help of ETABS 9.7.1 software. The method
includes seismic coefficient method as recommended by IS 1893:2002. The responses
obtained by manual analysis as well as by soft computing are compared. This paper
provides complete guide line for manual as well as software analysis of seismic coefficient
method.

7. Balaji.U. A, Mr. Selvarasan M.E. B (July-Aug 2016)

In this paper a residential of G+13 multi-story building is studied for
earthquake loads using ETABS. Assuming that material property is linear static and
dynamic analysis are performed. These non-linear analysis are carried out by considering
severe seismic zones and the behavior is assessed by taking type II soil conditions.
Different response like, displacements, base shear are plotted.

8. Bureau of Indian Standards

i. IS 875 (Part 1) – 1987
This code covers unit weight/mass of materials, and parts or components in
a building that apply to the determination of dead loads in the design of buildings.

4
ii. IS 875 (Part 2) – 1987
This code covers imposed loads (live loads) to be assumed in the design of
the buildings. The imposed loads, specified herein, are minimum loads which should be
taken into consideration for the purpose of structural safety of buildings.

iii. IS 1893 (Part 1) – 2002

This code deals with assessment of seismic loads on various structures and
earthquake resistant design of buildings. Its basic provisions are applicable to buildings;
elevated structures; industrial and stack like structures; bridges; concrete masonry and
earth dams; embankments and retaining walls and other structures.

iv. IS 456 : 2000

This code deals with the general structural use of plain and reinforced
concrete. For the purpose of this standard, plain concrete structures are those where
reinforcement, if provided is ignored for determination of strength of the structure.

5
3) Problem Formulation
Research is currently underway. Analysis will be done by using ETABS model
for G+15 storey reinforced concrete symmetrical and asymmetrical building. The building
is considered as a commercial building. The structure is assumed to be in seismic zone III,
IV, and V on a site with medium soil condition and Special Moment Resisting Frame
(SMRF).

In this analysis, we have adopted three cases by assuming different shapes for
the same structure;
 Rectangular Plan,
 L-shape plan,
 C-shape plan.

The structure is acted on different loads such as Dead Load (IS 875 (Part 1)),
Live Load (IS 875 (Part 2)) and Seismic Load (IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002).

The method of analysis is used for the present work are;

 Time History Method
 Push Over Analysis

4) Objectives
The primary objectives of this project can be summarized as follows:
1) To study the different IS codes required for analysis and design of High Rise Buildings.
2) Analysis of G+15 storey building with symmetrical and asymmetrical configurations.
3) To study the effect of plan irregularity on the seismic behavior of the building.
4) To study the various parameters like lateral displacement, inter-storey drift, base shear
and maximum bending moments.
5) Computation and comparison of these results for all cases.

6
5) Research Methodology/Planning of Work
The proposed work is planned to be carried out in the following manner
1) Review of relevant literatures.
2) Study of codal provisions.
3) Study the ETABS and modeling of building
4) Analysis and Design of building with different configuration.
5) Results and comparison.
6) Discussion and conclusion on the basis of analysis and design.
7) Preparation of Thesis.
8) Future Scope.

Review of Relevant Literatures

Study of Codal Provisions

Study & Preparation of ETABS Models

Analysis and Design of Buildings

Results and Comparison

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion and Conclusion

Preparation of Thesis

Future Scope
Figure 1

6) Facilities required for proposed work:

i) Software – ETABS

7
7) Plan of Research:

Research Planning

July- Aug- Sept- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May-
17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18

Duration in Months

Literature Survey Verification of Design

Analysis & Detailed Study Intermediate Result & Final

Result Analysis
Implementation Thesis Writing & Submission

Paper Publications

Bibliography:
[1] Abhay Guleria, “Structural Analysis of a Multi-Storeyed Building using ETABS
for different Plan Configurations” International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT) Vol. 3 Issue 5, May- 2014, ISSN: 2278-0181.
[2] Girum Mindaye, Dr. Shaik Yajdani, “Seismic Analysis of a Multistorey RC
Frame Building in Different Seismic Zones” International Journal of Innovative
Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (IJIREST) Vol. 5 Issue 9,
September- 2016, ISSN: 2319-8753.
[3] Arvindreddy, R. J. Fernandes, “Seismic Analysis of RC Regular and Irregular
Frame Structures” International Research Journal of Engineering & Technology
(IRJET) Vol. 2 Issue 5, Aug – 2015, ISSN: 2395-0056.
[4] Dhananjay Shrivastava, Dr. Sudhir Singh Bhaduria, “Analysis of Multi-Storey
RCC Frames of Regular and Irregular Plan Confihuration Using Response
Spectrum Method” SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering (SSRG-
IJCDE) Vol. 4 Issue 6, June – 2017, ISSN: 2348-8352.
[5] Mohammed Rizwan Sultan, D. Gouse Peera, “Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Storey
Building For Different Shapes” International Journal of Innovative Research in
Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) Vol. 2 Issue 8, August- 2015, ISSN: 2349-2163.

8
[6] Mahesh N. Patil, Yogesh N. Sonawane, “Seismic Analysis of Multistoried
Building” International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology
(IJEIT) Vol. 4 Issue 9, March- 2015, ISSN: 2277-3754.
[7] Balaji.U. A, Mr. Selvarasan M.E. B, “Design and Analysis of Multi-Storeyed
Building Under Static and Dynamic Loading Conditions using ETABS”
International Journal of Technical Research and Applications (IJTRA) Vol. 4
Issue 4, July-Aug- 2016, ISSN: 2320-8163.
[8] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS 875 (Part 1) - 1987, Code of Practice for Design
Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 1 Dead
Loads, (Second Revision) New Delhi, India.
[9] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS 875 (Part 2) - 1987, Code of Practice for Design
Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures, Part 2 Imposed
Loads, (Second Revision) New Delhi, India.
[10] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings, (Fifth
Revision) New Delhi, India.
[11] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS 456 : 2000, Plain and Reinforcement Concrete –
Code of Practice, (Fourth Revision) New Delhi, India.
[12] Agarwal Pankaj, Shrikhande Manish, “Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures” PHI Private Limited, New Delhi, 2006.
[13] Duggal S. K., “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures” Oxford University
Press, 2007.
[14] ETABS Non Linear Version 9.7.1 and Design Manuals.

Chetan P. Agrawal Prof. Amey R. Khedikar

Research Scholar Guide

Head of M-Tech (SE)

Tulsiramji Gaikwad-Patil College of Engineering & Technology, Nagpur