International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp. 615622 Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_071

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON REGULAR &

IRREGULAR STRUCTURES USING EQUIVALENT
STATIC AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHODS
V. Rajendra Kumar
PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering
K L University, Vaddeswaram, A. P, India.

Ranga Rao.V
Professor, Civil Engineering Department,
K L University, Vaddeswaram, A. P, India.

ABSTRACT
Objective: This paper deals with the comparison between equivalent static technique
&response spectrum technique. The earthquake effect lead to the damage the property and
many people loss of life. So we have to know the structural performance under seismic load
before construction. Method of analysis: Adopt the equivalent static and response spectrum
techniques to analyze the model for the present study and observe the lateral displacement
of the structure in a regular and irregular structure in various zones. Finding: The major
parameters considered in this study to observe the seismic conduct of various zones i.e.
ZONE-II, Zone-III, ZONE-IV&ZONE-V and the base shear, lateral displacements in various
levels. According to IS-1893- 2002 seismic loads are calculated. The lateral forces are
calculated by using the STAAD Pro and the results are compared between two Zones in both
response spectrum and seismic coefficient technique. Applications: To analyze the building
as per code IS 1893-2002 part I criteria for earthquake resistant structure. Dynamic analysis
of the building using response spectrum method. Building with different lateral stiffness
systems. To get economical and efficient lateral stiffness system
Key words: Equivalent Static Analysis, Response Spectrum Analysis, SRSS.
Cite this Article: V. Rajendrakumar and Ranga Rao.V, Comparative Study On Regular &
Irregular Structures Using Equivalent Static and Response Spectrum Methods.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 615622.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1

1. INTRODUCTION
For the design of any structure, we have to consider the earthquake load for structural safety during
major earthquakes. In recent earthquakes so many reinforced concrete structures are damaged, it
indicates the assessment of the seismic behavior of structures is how important. So everyone must
have to design a satisfactory level of safety is a concern. The main objectives of this study are the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 615 editor@iaeme.com

 V. Rajendrakumar and Ranga Rao.V

seismic performance of RC frame building. Also, conduct static analysis and dynamic analysis has
been surveyed. A structural frame modeled as (G+10) storied residential building frame. The storey
plan changes for regular and irregular building in floors. The models are to be analyzed in both static
and dynamic methods based on IS codes: The storey displacements, base shear, and frequency, Time
period in the response spectrum analysis are compared. The study on 6 storied RC frame building
model and is analyzed using the software STAAD PRO.2006. The static analysis is then performed
for the modeled RC frame building using the computer software STAAD PRO. 2006. Five mockups
are generated with this plan of the building by presenting different variation and displacement, story
drift, base shear and story shear are the various considerations1. The study which involves earthquake
analysis of RC frame (ten stories) building with different models that include a bare frame,
incomplete frame and open first storey frame. The parameters such as base shear, time period, natural
frequency, storey drift and bending moments are studied, the building model was analyzed using
ETABS2. The seismic analysis of RC (Bare frame) structure leads to underestimation of base shear3.
In the case of an open first storey frame structure, the storey drift is very large than the upper stores,
which may cause the collapse of the structure during strong earthquake present masonry infilled RC
frames including soft storey buildings used in various multi-storied structures in our country4. In the
present study, masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames including the soft storey of with and
without opening. This analysis is to be carried out on the models such as a bare frame, strut frame,
strut frame with 15% center &corner opening, which is performed by using structure analysis and
design software from which different parameters are computed. Presented a parametric study on
reinforced concrete (RC) building using response spectrum method5. He considered the design
spectra recommended by Indian Standard Code IS 1893-2002 (part I), Uniform Building Code, and
Euro Code-8 for comparison. Seismic design approaches are stated, as the structure should be able
to ensure the minor and frequent shaking intensity without sustaining any damage, thus leaving the
structure serviceable after the event6. The structures withstand the moderate level of earthquake
ground motion without structural damage, but possibly with some structural as well as non-structural
damage7-9.

2. OBJECTIVE
This paper deals with the comparison between equivalent static technique & response spectrum
technique. The earthquake effect lead to the damage the property and many people loss of life. So
we have to know the structural performance under seismic load before construction.

3. METHODOLOGY
The (G+10) storey building is modeled in two different frames like regular and irregular. The
performance of equivalent static and response spectrum methods on both frames in various zones
i.e. ZONE-II, III, and IV&V and the base shear, lateral displacement values is compared in both
methods10.

3.1. EQUIVALENT STATIC METHOD

According to IS-1893 (part-I) 2002, the equivalent static analysis is performed as per the following
steps

Base shear: The design base shear (VB) along the height of the building.
VB=AhW
Where Ah = Horizontal seismic coefficient
W = Seismic weight of the building.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 616 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study On Regular & Irregular Structures Using Equivalent Static and Response Spectrum
Methods

Seismic Mass of Building: The seismic mass of each floor is a summation of its dead load and a
suitable quantity of imposed load as to be quantified. While the calculation of seismic mass, the mass
of column and walls in any storey shall be similarly concentrated to the floors above and below the
storey. The entire seismic mass is the quantity of seismic masses of all floors in the building.
Fundamental Natural Time Period: The fundamental natural time period (Ta) calculates from
Ta = . /

Distribution of Design Force: The design base shear, VBconsidered above shall be concentrated
along the height of the building as per the following formula.

i =VB
The total base shear and lateral force is calculation by STAAD Pro
3.2. RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD
It is an exact method for analysis. The design horizontal force at each floor in each mode is calculated
by STAAD Pro. The STAAD Pro delivers outcomes i.e. design values, storey base shear, and modal
masses.
The steps to produce the lateral loads
1. The program calculates the time period for the primary six modes.
2. The response acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) is calculated for each mode with respect to utilized time
period and damping.
3. The design horizontal acceleration spectrum Ak is calculated by STAAD Pro.
4. The program calculated the mode participation factor for various modes.
5. The highest earthquake force is to be calculated for each and every floor in each mode.
6. The response magnitudes for each mode are to be calculated.

3.3. MODELLING

3.3.1. INVESTIGATION DATA FOR THE ANALYSIS

Following data used in the analysis of the RC frame building model
Type of frame : RC frame (Regular and Irregular) in Fig-1,2and3.
Seismic zone : II, III, IV & V
Storey number : G+10
Height of floor : 3m
Two-way slab depth : 0.125m
Plinth beam Size : 0.23m X 0.30m
Size of beam in floor : 0.23m X 0.425m
Size of column : 0.60m X 0.60m
Live load on floors : 2.5KN/m2
Materials : M25 concrete, Fe415 steel, Brick Fill
Density of concrete : 25KN/m2
Response spectrum : IS-1893(part-1)2002
Damping of structure : 5%

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 617 editor@iaeme.com

 V. Rajendrakumar and Ranga Rao.V

Figure 1. Plan Figure 2. Elevation of Regular Frame

Figure 3. Elevation of Irregular Frame

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 618 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study On Regular & Irregular Structures Using Equivalent Static and Response Spectrum
Methods

4. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The results for equivalent static and response spectrum analyses represented for the load
combination of (0.9DL+1.5EQX) and (0.9DL+1.5RPX), calculated according to IS1893(Part1) :
2002. The results are given for Mode number & natural period, and lateral displacements of the RC
frames with regular, irregular and regular and irregular soft storey without for (G+10) storey RC
framed structure for seismic ZONES II, III, IV & V respectively.

4.1. Regular Frame

From the Table 1. in Linear Static Analysis there is an increase in lateral displacement in ZONE-III,
IV and V with respect to ZONE-II. The increase of lateral displacement variations in different zones
in Static Analysis. The Table 2. in Dynamic analysis there is an increase in lateral displacement in
ZONE-III, IV and V with respect to ZONE-II. The increase of lateral displacement variations in
different zones in Dynamic Analysis.

Table 1 Lateral displacements of Regular frame a long X Static Analysis

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
HEIGHT OF ZONES
BUILDING
(m) II III IV V

0 1.309 2.096 3.145 4.718

3 6.108 9.796 14.714 22.090
6 11.261 18.080 27.173 40.811
9 16.519 26.543 39.908 59.955
X`x`12 21.760 34.990 52.629 79.089
15 26.872 43.242 65.067 97.806
18 31.741 51.112 76.941 115.683
21 36.242 58.402 87.948 132.267
24 40.244 64.897 97.767 147.073
27 43.613 70.381 106.073 159.609
30 46.232 74.660 112.564 169.420
33 48.045 77.671 117.174 176.427

Table 2 Lateral displacements of Regular frame a long X Dynamic Analysis

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
HEIGHT OF
ZONES
BUILDING(m)
II III IV V
0 2.173 3.479 5.219 7.830
3 10.066 16.129 24.214 36.34
6 18.324 29.381 44.125 66.239
9 26.470 42.465 63.791 95.78
12 34.281 55.023 82.679 124.163
15 41.577 66.769 100.359 150.743
18 48.210 77.462 116.465 174.970
21 54.047 86.889 130.679 196.364
24 58.980 94.875 142.734 214.523
27 62.928 101.286 152.429 229.144
30 65.853 106.053 159.654 240.056
33 67.812 109.298 164.614 247.588

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 619 editor@iaeme.com

 V. Rajendrakumar and Ranga Rao.V

4.2. Irregular Frame

From the Table 3. in Linear Static Analysis there is an increase in lateral displacement in ZONE-III,
IV and V with respect to ZONE-II. The increase of lateral displacement variations in different zones
in Static Analysis. From the Table 4. In Dynamic analysis there is an increase in lateral displacement
in ZONE-III, IV and V with respect to ZONE-II. The increase of lateral displacement variations in
different zones in Dynamic Analysis.

Table 3 Lateral displacements of Irregular frame a long X Static analysis

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
HEIGHT OF
ZONES
BUILDING (M)
II III IV V
0 1.373 1.664 2.506 3.769
3 6.482 7.854 11.826 17.783
6 11.960 14.502 21.856 32.887
9 17.476 21.208 32.007 48.206
12 22.908 27.208 42.050 63.388
15 28.112 34.175 51.720 78.038
18 33.290 40.500 61.635 92.662
21 39.368 47.909 72.625 109.698
24 45.561 55.463 84.114 127.092
27 51.025 62.142 94.310 142.562
30 55.380 67.488 102.525 155.080
33 58.567 71.413 108.585 164.344

Table 4 Lateral displacements of Irregular frame a long X Dynamic Analysis

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (mm)
HEIGHT OF
ZONES
BUILDING (M)
II III IV V
0 1.952 2.364 4.711 7.076
3 9.135 11.059 22.031 33.084
6 16.620 20.129 40.140 60.300
9 23.857 28.911 57.734 86.771
12 30.652 37.169 74.329 111.765
15 36.879 44.747 89.612 134.810
18 42.877 52.046 104.332 157.005
21 49.842 60.488 121.193 182.350
24 56.893 69.025 138.208 207.906
27 63.075 76.517 153.164 230.380
30 67.992 82.488 165.147 248.420
33 71.606 86.880 173.971 261.709

4.3. Base shear

From the Table 5. We observe that there is an increase of base shear in ZONE-III, IV and V with
respect to ZONE-II, in both regular & irregular buildings.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 620 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparative Study On Regular & Irregular Structures Using Equivalent Static and Response Spectrum
Methods

Table 5 Details of Base Shear in Regular and Irregular Frame in various zones.
ZONES REGULAR IRREGULAR
ZONE-II 750 KN 815 KN
ZONE-III 1199 KN 985 KN
ZONE-IV 1800 KN 1956 KN
ZONE-V 2701 KN 2935 KN
5. CONCLUSION
7. From Linear Static Analysis observed that there is an increase of lateral displacement in REGULAR
FRAMEis an increase of 38%, 59% & 72% in ZONE-III, IV, and V respectively when
compared with ZONE-II.
8. From Linear Static Analysis observed that there is an increase of lateral displacement in
IRREGULAR FRAMEis an increase of 18%, 46% & 64% in ZONE-III, IV, and V respectively
when compared with ZONE-II.
9. From Linear Dynamic Analysis observed that there is an increase of lateral displacement in
REGULAR FRAMEis an increase of 38%, 59% & 72% in ZONE-III, IV, and V respectively
when compared with ZONE-II.
10. From Linear Dynamic Analysis observed that there is an increase of lateral displacement
IRREGULAR FRAMEis an increase of 17%, 59% & 73% in ZONE-III, IV, and V respectively
when compared with ZONE-II.
11. It was observed that there was an increase in Base shear 37%, 58% and 72% at respective seismic
Zones III, IV & V with compared to ZoneII respectively in the regular frame & the Base shear 17%,
58% and 72% at respective seismic Zones III, IV & V with compared to Zone II respectively in
Irregular frame.

REFERENCES
[1] Chandak N R. Response spectrum analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal Inst. of Eng.
2012 August; 93(2), 121-128.
[2] Haroon R T, Umesh N K. Seismic Analysis of RC Frame Structure with and without Masonry
Infill Walls. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. 2012 September; 3(14),
1137-1147.
[3] Nikhil A, Kulkarni P B, Raut P. Analysis of Masonry Infilled R.C. Frame with & without Opening
Including Soft Storey by using equivalent diagonal struts method. International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications. 2013 September; 3(9), 1-8.
[4] Raghavendra D S, Surekha B A. Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Building with Soft
First Storey. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. 2014 May; 5(5), 49-56.
[5] Saraswati S, Vineet S. Seismic Response of R.C.C Building with Soft Storey International
Journal of Applied Engineering Research. 2012; 7(11), 1-5.
[6] Patil S S, Ghadge S A, Konapure C G, Ghadge C A. Seismic Analysis of High-Rise Building by
Response Spectrum Method. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research. 2013
March; 3(3), 272-279.
[7] Pradeepa. S, Gokul Raj. D and Divya M.R, A Review On Cost Assessment of Conventional Steel
Structure and Square Tubular Sections Using Force Co-Efficient Method. International Journal
of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 2016, pp.242245.
[8] Subita Bhagat and Pardeep Kumar Verma, Analysis of Microstructure of Fumed Silica
Reinforced Polyester Composites. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering
and Technology, 6(7), 2015, pp. 32-38.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 621 editor@iaeme.com

 V. Rajendrakumar and Ranga Rao.V

[9] Rhrich, F., Benhadou, M., Bourzgui, F. and Haddout, A. Biocomposite with Polypropylene and
Alfa Fibers: Structure/Properties Relationship. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
and Technology, 6(10), 2015, pp. 145-153
[10] Duggal S K. Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, 2ed edition, Oxford University Press,
2007.
[11] Umesh P P, Suryanarayana M. Analysis of g+15 RCC and composite structure having a soft
storey at ground level by response spectrum and equivalent static methods using ETABS 2013.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2015 June; 2(3), 59-64.
[12] Umadevi R, Kavitha S, Sastri S. Seismic Performance of a RC Frame with Soft Storey Criteria.
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology. 2015 March; 4(3), 255-257.
[13] Zubair A S, Ramana K V, Pradeep K R. Seismic Response of RC Frame Structure with Soft
Storey. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology. 2014 September; 3(9),
180-186.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 622 editor@iaeme.com