ISET GOLDEN JUBILEE SYMPOSIUM

Indian Society of Earthquake Technology

Department of Earthquake Engineering Building
IIT Roorkee, Roorkee
October 20-21, 2012
Paper No. E012

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF RC

BUILDINGS WITH VERTICAL IRREGULARITY
C.M. Ravi Kumar1, K.S. Babu Narayan2 , M.H. Prashanth3, H.B Manjunatha4 and D. Venkat
Reddy5
1

Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Karnataka,
India, e-mail: sushil_cm@yahoo.com, cmravibdt@gmail.com
2, 3 &5
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, Karnataka, India,
e-mail: shrilalisuta@rediffmail.com, prashanth_mh@gmail.com, dvr1952@gmail.com
4
Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering, Vidyavardhaka College of Engineering, Mysore,
Karnataka, India, e-mail: manjuhb1980@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT
Reinforced concrete multi-storied buildings are very complex to model as structural systems for
analysis. The current version of the IS: 1893-2002 requires that practically all multistoried buildings
be analyzed as three-dimensional systems. This is due to the fact that the buildings have generally
irregularities in plan or elevation or in both and later that may have a detrimental influence and
effectiveness on seismic performance itself. The paper discusses the performance evaluation of RC
(Reinforced Concrete) Buildings with vertical irregularity. The study as a whole makes an effort to
evaluate the effect of vertical irregularity on RC buildings, in terms of dynamic characteristics and
identifies the influencing parameters which can regulate the effect on Base Shear, Time Period, Story
Displacement & Story Drift. Also, the analysis has been carried out for various zones of India and
soil conditions taken in to consideration.
Key words: Seismic Performance, RC Building, Vertical Irregularity

INTRODUCTION
It is a known fact that the Globe is facing a threat of natural disasters from time to time. With
particular records based on earthquake occurrence, the consequences are loss of human lives and
destruction of properties, which ultimately affects the natural economy. The occurrence of an
earthquake cannot be predicted and prevented but the preparedness of the structures to resist
earthquake forces become more important. However, more recently, several destructive earthquakes,
including the 1999 Athens (Greece) earthquake, the 1999 zmit and Dzce earthquakes (Turkey),
1999 Chi Chi (Taiwan) earthquake, 2001 Bhuj (India) earthquake, and the 2003 Boumerdes (Algeria)
earthquake, have given more insights to performance of RC frame constructions. These earthquakes
are a wake-up call to enforce building and seismic codes, making building insurance compulsory
along with the use of quality material and skilled workmanship.
India has experienced destructive earthquakes throughout its history. Most notable events of major
earthquakes in India since 1819 to 2001, in 1819 the epicenter was Kutch, Gujurat and later in 2001 it
was at Bhuj, Gujarat. In many respects, including seismological and geotechnical, the January 26,

2001 earthquake was a case of history repeating itself 182 years later and has made the engineering
community in India aware of the need of seismic evaluation and retrofitting of existing structures.
Bhuj earthquake of 26 January 2001 caused 14,000 casualties. Main reason for such huge casualties is
low earthquake awareness and poor construction practices, highlighting inherent earthquake -safe
character. Based on the technology advancement and knowledge gained after earthquake occurrences,
the seismic code is usually revised. Last revision of IS 1893 (Criteria for earthquake resistant design
of structures) was done in 2002 after a long gap of about 18 years. Some new clauses were included
and some old provisions were updated. Assuming that concerned authorities will take enough steps
for code compliance and the structures that are being constructed are earthquake resistant.
Keeping the view of constant revision of the seismic zones in India, lack of proper design and
detailing of structures against earthquake. Earthquake performance of RC bare frame has been well
documented in the past. Also, damage patterns in reinforced concrete frames during the past
earthquakes have been extensively studied. But now a days need and demand of the latest generation
and growing population has made the architects or engineers inevitable towards planning of irregular
configurations. Some of the poor planning and construction practices of multistoried buildings in
Peninsular India in particular, which lead to irregularities in plan and elevation of the buildings.
Hence earthquake engineering has developed the key issues in understanding the role of building
configurations.
VERTICAL GEOMETRIC IRREGULARITY
Vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exist where the horizontal dimension of the
lateral force resisting system in any storey is more than 150 percent of that in its adjacent storey
(Table 5, Page 18, IS 1893-2002 Part-1). Fig. 1 represents the vertical (elevation) irregularities with
abrupt change in geometry.

Fig.1 Elevation irregularities with abrupt change in geometry

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

Usage of Data for Analysis

1. Type of Structure

: Multi Storied RC Rigid jointed Plane Frame (Special Moment

Resisting Frame).

2. Number of Stories

: 10 Stories ( G+9)

3. Seismic Zone

: II, III, IV, V(Table 2, IS 1893 (Part-1):2002)

4. Floor Height

: 5m for Ground Floor & 4m for other Floors

5. Infill wall

: 230mm thick including plaster in longitudinal and transverse

direction.

6. Grade of Concrete

: M40 for Ground, First & Second Floor Columns.

M35 for Other Floor Columns,

M25 for Beams & Slabs.

7. Size of Columns

: 600mmX600mm

8. Size of Beams

: 600mmX300mm

9. Depth of Slab

: 150mm thick

10. Imposed Load

: 3.0KN/m2

11. Floor Finish & Partitions : 2.0 KN/m2

12. Specific Weight of RCC : 25 KN/m3
13. Specific Weight of Infill : 18 KN/m3
14. Type of Soil

: I & III as per IS 1893 (Part-1) 2002

15. Response Spectra

: As per IS 1893 (Part-1) 2002

16. Damping

: 5%

17. Importance Factor

: 1.5

18. Response reduction Factor : 5.0

Fig. (2a) Plan at tenth floor (2b) Plan at ground floor

Fig. (3a) Elevation of G+5 (3b) G+2 Models

Methodology for Analysis
For the case of G+5 Model, Soil type III and Zone V are considered. Also, for the same model up to
sixth floor, plan area = 30m*20m and above sixth floor, plan area = 20m*20m are considered. The
entire modeling, analysis and design were carried out by using ETABS 9.6 nonlinear version

software.
Equivalent Static Method
Plan and elevation of the illustrative example are as depicted in Fig.2 (a) & 2(b) and3 (a) & 3 (b).
Fig. 4, 5, 6 & 7 shows the 3D view structural model, story drift, story displacement and story shear
versus number of storey.

Fig. (4a) 3D view structural model (4b) 3D view structural model in mode-1

Fig. (5) Plot of story drift

Fig. (6): Plot of story displacement

Fig. (7) Plot of story shear

Response Spectrum Method (Dynamic Analysis)
Fig. 8, 9& 10 shows the plot story drift, story displacement and story shear versus number of storey.

Fig, (8) Plot of story drift

Fig. (9) Plot of story displacement

Fig. (10) Plot of story shear

Scale -up Factor
Dynamic analysis may be performed by the Time History Method or by the Response Spectrum
Method. However, in either method, the design base shear (VB') shall be compared with a base shear
(VB.) calculated using a fundamental period T. Where VB' < VB, all the response quantities (for
example member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears and base reactions) shall be
multiplied by VB' / VB (Refer, Page 25 of Clause 7.8.2 of IS 1893-2002 (Part-1)).
Case Studies
There are four distinct building models are considered namely, Model 1: G+2, Model 2: G+5, Model
3: G+8 & Model 4: G+9. The overall procedure of analysis as explained above remains same for
Model 3: G+8 &Model 4: G+9 (plan, elevation and 3D view not included in this paper (refer Fig.
2&3, same way that of Fig. 2 & 3)). Entire analysis has been carried out by considering ZONE- II,
III, IV & V, Soil Type -I & III of IS 1893-2002 (Part-1)). Modus of operandi for all models as
depicted in Fig. 11, 12, 13, 14&15.

Fig. (11)Time period versus different modes for soil type- I & III, and for zone- II, III, IV & V

Fig. (12) Base shear versus different modes for soil type -I & III, and for zone- II, III, and
IV & V

Fig. (13) Base shear versus different modes for soil type I & III, and for zone- II, III, IV & V

Fig. (14) Scale-up factor versus different modes for soil type III, and for zones II, III, IV & V

Fig. (15) Max story drift at tenth floor level versus different modes for soil type -I & III, and for zoneII, III, IV & V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study makes an effort to evaluate the effect of vertical irregularities of model G+9, G+8,
G+5 & G+2 respectively for zone II, III, and IV & V, soil type I & III, to study the various parameters
like base shear, time period, story displacement & story drift. The study leads to the following broad
conclusions:
1. Time period will not change, when the zones and soil stratum is changed for individual model
respectively.
2. Base shear will increase when the zones changes from II to V and soil stratum III to I in
Equivalent Static method as well as Response Spectrum (Dynamic Analysis) method.

3. Even though changing of models and change in zones, scale-up factor will remain same in
Response Spectrum method (Dynamic Analysis) along X & Y direction, but scale up factor
will change depending on the soil condition.
4. Maximum story displacement will increase for individual model as the zone increase from II
to V as well as soil type from I to III.
5. Maximum story drift will increase for individual model as the zone increase from II to V as
well as soil type from I to III.
6. Max story drift and story displacement will increase as the vertical irregularities increase in
models respectively.
The study as a whole identifies the influencing parameters, which can regulate the effect of
vertical irregularities on time period, base shear, drift and displacement of building frames. A
large number of curves exhibiting such variation for typical examples presented in this paper can
help the designer to get a primary idea about effect of vertical irregularities in high rise
Reinforced Concrete Buildings for different zones II to V and soil type I to III.
REFERENCES
1. Anand S Arya (2000). Recent Developments toward Earthquake Risk Reduction in India,
Current Science, 12702-12777, 9- 79.
2. Bungale S. Taranath S (2005). Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings- Structural
Analysis and Design,CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton.
3. Clotaire Michel, Philippe Gueguen & Pierre-Yves Bard (2008). Dynamic Parameters of
Structures Extracted from Ambient Vibration Measurements: An Aid for the Seismic
Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Buildings in Moderate Seismic Hazard Regions, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 593-604, 28.
4. C Rudra Srinivasa Reddy and Amlan K Senugupta (2010). Validation of Indices for
Assessing Seismic Vulnerability of Multi-Storeyed Buildings with Typical Vertical
Irregularities using Pushover Analysis, Journal of Structural Engineering, 256-262, 4.
5. G.M. Calvi, R. Pinho, G. Magenes, J.J. Bommer (2006). Development of Seismic
Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies over the past 30 years, ISET Journal of Earthquake
Technology, 75-104,3- 43, 472.
6. IS-1893(Part-1) 2002). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1
General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
7. Terala Srikant, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar, Ajay Pratap Singh, Bal Krishna Rastogi (2010).
Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Buildings in Gandhidham and Adipur
Cities Kachchh, Gujarat (India), European Journal of Scientific Research, 336-353, 3-41.
8. S.K Gosh (2004). Update on the NEHRP Provisions: The Resource Document for Seismic
Design, PCI Journal, 96-102.

9. S Ganzerli, C.P.Pantelides and L. D Reaveley (2000). Performance Based Design using

Structural Optimization, Earthquake Engineering of Structural Dynamics, 1677-1690, 29.
10. V K Manicka Selvam (2011). A Note on Preliminary Estimate of Member Dimensions of a
Short Multistory Building Frame based on Serviceability Criterion, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 358-363, 5-37.