CHAPTER - 1

INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes are one of the0most destructive of natural hazards. Earthquake occurs due to
sudden transient4motion of the ground as a result of release of elastic energy in a matter of few
seconds. The impact of the event is most traumatic because it affects large area, occurs all on a
sudden and unpredictable. They can affect more loss of life and property and many important
services like water supply, sewerage systems, communication and power, transport etc. Earthquake
not only damages the villages it also towns and cities but also leads to economic and social system
of a country. The vibration can affects settlement. Some of the soil types like, alluvial or sandy,
silts get fail during earthquake when compare to other soils. Obtained the recording data of motions
on seismograms by earthquake can be measured through Magnitude (M). But shaking of the
ground surface for same magnitude will have different intensities at different locations. This can be
measured by MMI scale (Modified Mercalie Intensity). [1]
To overcome this issue several countries over the world started monitoring the records of
ground motions in their regions and converting these data into seismic zone maps to PGA
(Peak ground accelerations). These maps are regularly updated in order to predict future
earthquakes, which will be helpful for creation of safe and economical earthquake resistant
structures. [2]
When an earthquake does occur, there can be considerable variation in the levels of
performance experienced by different buildings located on the same site. This variability can result
from a number of factors, including random variations in the levels of workmanship, material
strength, and condition of each structure, the amount and distribution of live load acting at
the time of the earthquake, the influence of mass and stiffness of structural and nonstructural
components, the response of the soil, and relatively. Minor changes in the character of the ground
motion transmitted to the structures. Many of these factors are trying to identified or quantified at
our current level of research works. There is a need to assess the seismic vulnerability of buildings
in urban areas of India as an essential component of a comprehensive earthquake disaster risk
management policy. [3]
 Fig 1.1: Earthquake behavior of building

As per IS 1893:
Building structures given with different mass distributions along the height will cause irregularities
and when such buildings are constructed at the zones which are highly intense there will be
variation in strength and stiffness of those buildings along the height. The complications occur
when these buildings are raised at such intense zones. The design process needs to be done with
complications. The irregularities are of two type -
1. verticular irregularities.
2. Plan Irregularities.
There are 5 types of vertical irregularities
a) Stiffness Irregularity — Soft Storey-when the lateral stiffness of a storey is lesser than 70% of
the above storey or does not exceed 80% of average lateral stiffness of above three storey, such
storey are called soft storey
b) Stiffness Irregularity — Extreme Soft Storey- when the lateral stiffness of a storey is lesser than
60% of the above storey or does not exceed 70% of average lateral stiffness of above three storey,
such storey are called soft storey
 ii) Mass Irregularity-a structure is said to be mass irregular by mass when there is difference of
200% seismic weight between adjacent storeys. Roof irregularities shall be considered in these
cases.
ii) Vertical Geometric Irregularity-When the lateral force resisting system differs with 150% of
horizontal dimensions with adjacent storeys then it is said to be geometrically irregular along
vertical height.

The evaluation of seismic vulnerability in detail is quite expensive and tedious procedu
re which can be applied only for certain buildings. Thus it is required to apply simple
methods for evaluating profile of vulnerability in faster ways for various types of structures by
limiting the complicated procedures for certain critical structures. [4]
The structural configuration explained in earthquake codes are usually for buildings with
regular shape and size, structural and non-structural arrangements of elements within the structure,
mass distribution of the building and so on. It is assumed that a regular structure has the mass
distributed uniformly along with the stiffness, strength and the structural form. If the mentioned
properties are not distributed evenly then the structure is said to be irregular.

There are many reasons for irregularities. Some irregularities are planned architecturally the following
are examples for irregularity.
 In industries massive machinery equipments have to be placed which requires heavy mass
structures than usual one. At educational institutions some particular floors demand the library
which requires unusual kind of structures with irregular mass distribution.
 Residential buildings with car parking at the cellar makes the above floor more flexible with lesser
storey mass.
 The setbacks accommodated with boundry offset requirements in commercial buildings.
 Structures with varying rigidity at different storey levels having unusual structural plan with
resisting system for lateral loads that causes torsion.
 FLOOR MASS IRREGULARITY

Nowadays buildings are constructed with multipurpose. Similarities do not exist with each floor
when there is change in requirement .it can be seen that parking lots are not only constructed at
cellars. They are also raised at intermediate storeys due to the requirement conditions of the
building. In such cases those storeys cannot be constructed with similar structural geometries as of
usual storeys. This causes mass irregularities and the building gets unsymmetrical along the height.
the limitations and constrains of irregularity in mass have been described in several codes but yet
certain parameters are not studied in detail. Usually in some codes similar expressions of time
period for building frames are specified. when it comes to irregular structural frame time period
varies.

When the floor with larger mass exists between the usual floors then it said to be irregular
by mass. e.g., massive structures with heavy machinery, intermediate storey installed
with a swimming pool. Some situations unavoidably demand the equal mass ratios between the
floors. Dynamic response occurs and increases the demand for ductility due to mass irregularities at
some locations causing higher mode effects unexpectedly.
This usually happens when there is drastic increase in weight for a member at particular
level than the adjacent members. This situation generally occurs at industrial structures with the
equipments of heavy mass placed at particular levels. the buildings with massive storage rooms
also come across with same irregularities.
 Figure 1.1 Mass Irregularities

Design codes perspective regarding mass irregulairy

Indian code IS 1893 2002 specifies the limits of irregularity in mass. The code specifies the
existence of irregularity for a storey when the mass of adjacent storey exceeds by 200%.Some
codes like EC 8:2004 and UBC 97 mentions 150% as limit. For different types of irregular building
dynamic analysis is suggested by the codes. The time period expression proposed by code is as
follows,

T=0.075H0.075

In empirical relation suggested by IS 1893:2002, the basic time phase is dependent of entire
structure height and this does not include the differences in building mass along the structure
height. The analysis showed that irregular mass distributions would vary the fundamental basic
time phase irrespective of same building parameters. Hence, the natural time phase of the structure
will be different for regular and for irregular structural buildings. Though it is the case, varying
codes of practice suggest similar expression for all varieties of structures. Adding to this, natural
time period of the structure is a function of extent and place of irregularity. Hence, the expression
suggested by the codes for estimation of basic time period is required to be changed for varying or
irregular in shape structures and correspondingly with variation in natural time period of irregular
structures, the spectral acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) will change which will change the value of
base shear.

SCOPE OF WORK
Considering the observations a project study was undertaken with a view to determine the
extent of possible changes in the seismic performance of low, medium and high rise RC framed
buildings. For the seismic performance of a different height RC framed building has been
considered with mass irregularity G+10 building with increase in floor mass.
Regular configurations of such buildings taken for study are provided. The effect mass
irregularity in the buildings is studied in terms of variations in storey drift, base shears, top roof
displacements and performance point. The entire process of modeling, analysis and design of all
the primary elements for all the models are carried by using Etabs V15 nonlinear version software.
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
Assessment of structural performances during past earthquakes demonstrated that,
Buildings without any lateral load resisting system has gone regular brutal damage. In past
years, large research efforts have been devoted to the study of seismic response of buildings with
and without lateral load resisting systems, both in the elastic and inelastic range of behavior. In
most of the researches, inelastic behavior is of great interest since the ability of structures to resist
strong earthquakes depends upon their demands and capacity for energy dissipation. Some of the
available literatures related to these aspects are reviewed and reported.
D’Ambrisi, et al (2008): Presented seismic performance of an irregular mass-eccentric 3D
reinforced concrete framed structure subjected to seismic actions. The structure having three
double-span and six-storey plane frames and it is stiffness-regular both in plan and in elevation.
The model has been set through the computer code Zeus NL, which will have considered all the
most important characteristics of inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures. The seismic
input has given by considering seven ground motions reproducing the design spectrum provided by
EC8 and scaled in order to impose different values of PGA .Seismic response of the structure has
been analyzed by performing a nonlinear dynamic analysis. Here the analyses, the mass center
have been shifted from stiffness center at a distance going from 0 to 15% of the relevant building
plan dimension. Seismic responses expressed in terms of top displacement and inter storey drift,
have been evaluated for each selected value of PGA and eccentricity.
Andreas.J.Kappos and Georgios Panagopoulos (2004): Presented a performance-
based design procedure for a realistic 3 Dimensional reinforced concrete building is presented, that
includes the use of modern and more advanced analytical tools. Depending on the building
configuration, use of two alternative tools is suggested, i.e. either time-history analysis for
appropriately scaled input motions, or inelastic static pushover analysis, for two different levels
of earthquake loadings. The critical issues of defining appropriate input for inelastic dynamic
analysis, setting up the analytical model that should account for post-yield behavior of the plastic
hinge zones, defining loading in two directions and target displacement for the pushover analysis
and detailing in a way consistent with the deformations derived from the advanced analysis, are
discussed. Then the proposed method is applied to a regular reinforced concrete multistory 3D
frame building and is found to lead to better seismic performance than the standard code (Euro
code 8) procedure, and with that leads more economic design of transverse reinforcement in the
members that creates very little inelastic behavior even for very strong earthquakes.
Applied Technology Council (ATC-40) (1996): Prepared a report on Seismic evaluation
and retrofit of concrete buildings sponsored by California Safety Commission. Although the
procedures recommended in this document are for concrete buildings, they are applicable to most
building types. This document provides a practical guide to the entire evaluation and different
retrofit process using performance-based objectives. It initiates with selection of performance goal,
seismic hazard, and capacity of the buildings and converts the entire thing into a single ADRS
format in order to predict the performance of various structural and non structural elements.
Although it is not intended for the design of new buildings, the analytical procedures described in
this document are certainly applicable.
Devesh P. Soni and Bharat B. Mistry (2006): Studied state-of-the-art knowledge in the
seismic response of vertically irregular building frames. Criteria defining vertical irregularity as
per the current building codes have been discussed. A review of studies on the seismic behavior of
vertically irregular structures along with their findings has been presented. It is observed that
building codes provide criteria to classify the vertically irregular structures and suggest dynamic
analysis to arrive at design lateral forces. Most of the studies agree on the increase in drift demand
in the tower portion of set-back structures and on the increase in seismic demand for buildings with
discontinuous distributions in mass, stiffness, and strength. The largest seismic demand is found
for the combined-stiffness-and-strength irregularity.
Vinod K. Sadashiva, et al (2009): Experimentally studied in detail that structures may be
irregular due to non-uniform distributions of mass, stiffness, strength or due to their structural
form. For regular structures, Equivalent Static Method which is simple computation technique has
been used instead of Inelastic Dynamic Time-History Analysis which is non-conventional
technique. Most used codes permit only easy analysis methods to be utilized only for structure
which matches regularity limits. As of now, such limits are grounded on engineering decision
and deprived of appropriate calibration. In this paper a simple and efficient method for measuring
irregularity limits is experimentally explored. The method is showed on three, five, nine and
fifteen storey models of shear-type structures, expected to be situated in New York, Texas and
California. They were designed in accordance with the Equivalent Static Method of NZS 1170.5.
Regular structures were defined to have constant mass at every floor level and were either
designed to produce constant inter-storey drift ratio at all the floors simultaneously or to have a
uniform stiffness distribution over their height. Design structural ductility factors of 1, 2, 4 and 6,
and target (design) inter-storey drift ratios ranging between 0.5% and 3% were used in this study.
Inelastic dynamic time-history analysis was carried out by subjecting these structures to a suite of
code design level earthquake records. Irregular structures were created with floor masses of
magnitude 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 5 times the regular floor mass. These increased masses were
considered separately at the first floor level, mid-height and at the roof. The effect of increased
mass at the top or bottom of the structure tended to increase the median peak drift demands
compared to regular structures for the record suite considered. When the increased mass was
present at the mid-height, the structures generally tended to produce lesser drift demands than the
corresponding regular structures. A simple equation was developed to estimate the increase in
inter-storey drift due to mass irregularity. This can be used to set irregularity limits.
Mayuri D. Bhagwat et.al (2014) studied analytically the G+12 multistoried practiced RCC
structure assuming Bhuj and Koyna earthquake by time history examination and response spectrum
examination and seismic responses. Furthermore, the study is carried out with the ETABS
software. Koyna and Bhuj time histories have been used to formulate varying criteria (storey
displacement, base shear and storey drifts)[9]

Himanshu Bansal et al (2012) analyzed the storey shear force that is present in the building. The
storey shear force was obtained to be highest for the first storey and is found to be decreased in the
topmost storey for all the studied cases. The mass irregular building frames was found to
experience higher base shear compared to similar regular building frames. Furthermore, it is found
that the stiffness irregular building experience lower base shear and has higher inter storey drifts.[10]

Mohit Sharma et al (2014) analytically analyzed the G+30 storied regular building. In computer,
the dynamic and static analysis is carried out with the help of STAAD-Pro software by taking
variables for the design as per the code suggested by IS-1893- 2002-Part-1 for the zones- 2 and
3.[11]
 2.1 OBJECTIVES OF PRESENT WORK
 To study the seismic performance of building without mass irregularity.

 To study the seismic performance of building with mass irregularity.

 To compare the behavior of building without mass irregularity and with mass irregularity.
CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The present study is carried out for the effect of mass irregularity in regular and irregular buildings
of 33 m building height using 3D space frame model, which consists of assemblage of slab, beam,
and column elements. Any tensional effects are automatically considered in this model. The
buildings will be designed for gravity loads and evaluated for seismic forces. Equivalent static
method of analysis will be used for seismic analysis. Mass irregularity are introduced in different
forms such as mass irregularity in odd floor, mass irregularity in even floor, mass irregularity in
top 5 floors, mass irregularity in bottom 5 floors, etc. by changing the slab thickness in the
building.

3.1 DISCRIPTION OF BUILDING MODEL

General details of building
Number of Storeyes: G+10
Bottom storey height: 3.0 m
Storey height: 3.0 m
Building frame system: Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) Building use: Commercial
Seismic zone: Zone ІѴ
Soil type: Medium soil
Material Properties
Grade of Concrete for column: M25
Grade of Concrete for beam: M25
Grade of Steel: Fe 500
Density of Concrete: 25 kN/m3
Load Intensities
Floor finish: 1 kN/m2
Live Load at Floor: 3.5 kN/m2
Beam size: 250x400mm
Column size: 350x750
Slab thickness: 125mm (for regular building), 250(for mass irregular building)
 Figure 3.1: Plan of Model

Figure 3.2: Elevation of the model

Figure 3.3: 3D MODEL
 Figure 3.4: Bottom 5 storey and even floor mass irregular

Figure 3.5: Odd floor and top 5 mass irregular

In the present study reinforced concrete moment resisting frame building of G+ 10 storeys
is considered. The considered five models which are having different loading criteria in which four
having mass irregularity criteria and one having regular building, the plan layout, elevations and
3D as depicted below for buildings with and without floor mass irregularity are as shown in the
below Figures. The different configurations of buildings are modeled by considering only by
varying the slab thickness and nonlinear behavior of seismic demands. The first model comes up
 with G+10 and the difference is that the first 5 storey‘s having slab thickness 250mm and all
remaining storey‘s having 125mm thick slab. Second model comes with top 5 floor slab thickness
with 250mm thick and remaining floors having 125mm thick slab. Third model is having slab
thickness has been varied in even floors only means in 2, 4, 6, 8,10th floors slab having 250mm
thick. Fourth model is having slab thickness has been varied in odd floors that is in 3, 5, 7, 9,11th
floors the slab is having 250mm thick. And the last model that is the regular building with uniform
slab thickness 125mm through. Each storey height has kept to 3m and is same for all kind of
building models. The building is considered to be located in the seismic zone IV and intended for
commercial purpose.
 Model-I –Building with floor mass irregularity i.e., increase the slab thickness for first 5 bottom
floors in building.
 Model-II-Building with floor mass irregularity i.e., increase the slab thickness for top 5 floors in
building.
 Model-III-Building with floor mass irregularity i.e., increase of slab thickness in even floors only
and in other floors it will be kept to 125mm thickness.
 Model-IV-Building with floor mass irregularity i.e., increase of slab thickness in odd floors and in
other floors it will be 125mm thick.
 Model-V – Building without mass irregularity i.e., building assemblage of regular.

3.2. METHODOLOGY
The majority of buildings in which floor diaphragms are sufficiently rigid in their planes, the
dynamic analysis can be carried out by using reduced 3D model. This is based on the following
assumptions:
 The floors are rigid in their planes having 3 DOF‟s, to horizontal translations and a single rotation
about a vertical axis.
 The mass of building and mass moment of inertia are lumped at the floor levels at the
corresponding degrees of freedom.
The entire analysis has done for all the 3D models using ETABS Nonlinear version
software. The results are tabulated in order to focus the parameters such as time period, base shear,
story drift, lateral displacements and torsion in linear analysis. The Nonlinear identification of
plastic hinges at various performance levels Performance point and capacity of various models
were studied.
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter the results obtained for different building models considered for different
types of analysis carried out namely gravity load analysis, equivalent static analysis, response
spectrum analysis and pushover analysis are presented.
An effort in made to study the behavior of regular RC buildings in comparison with RC
buildings having mass irregularity at different floor levels. Here in the present study, the
behavior of each models are captured and the results are tabulated in the form of Base shear, top
displacements and inter storey drifts in linear analysis.

4.1. DISPLACEMENT
4.1.1 DISPLACEMENT IN X – DIRECTION

Table 4.1 below shows the displacement in X-direction for different model.
Table 4.1: Displacement in X - direction

Height of
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
the
Displacement Displacement Displacement Displacement Displacement
Building
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(m)
33 106.9 110.9 109.11 114.3 100.8
30 102.6 106.1 104.725 109.4 96.6
27 96.8 99.7 98.7903 103 91.1
24 89.5 91.6 91.1548 94.8 84
21 80.6 81.7 81.8256 85 75.4
18 70.3 70.3 70.9606 73.7 65.4
15 58.6 57.7 58.6798 60.9 54.1
12 45.6 44.1 45.2577 47 41.7
9 31.6 30.1 31.0965 32.3 28.6
6 17.6 16.5 17.1753 17.8 15.8
3 5.6 5.2 5.47238 5.7 5
 35
Height of building in m 30

25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 50 100 150
Displacement in mm

Figure 4.1: Displacement in X – direction

Figure 4.1 shows that the displacement in x direction of model V is smaller compared to
that of others irregular buildings. That means the serviceability of regular building (model V) is
better. Maximum displacement was found to be 114.3 mm for building with floor mass
irregularity in odd floor (model IV) and maximum displacement was found to be 100.8 mm for
regular building (model V).
4.1.2 DISPLACEMENT IN Y – DIRECTION
Table 4.2: Displacement in Y - direction

Height
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
of the
Displacement Displacement Displacement Displacement Displacement
Building
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(m)
33 128.1 133.2 130.318 131 120.5
30 124.6 129.1 126.818 126.9 117.2
27 119 122.7 120.955 120.8 111.7
24 111.3 113.9 112.886 112.3 104.2
21 101.6 102.9 102.659 101.9 94.7
18 90.2 90 90.5944 89.8 83.5
15 77.1 75.6 76.7337 76.1 70.8
12 62.2 60 61.3752 60.8 56.6
9 45.6 43.3 44.5654 44.2 41.1
6 27.6 25.9 26.8421 26.6 24.7
3 10.1 9.4 9.76189 9.7 9

35

30
Height of building in m

25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 50 100 150
Displacement in mm

Figure 4.2: Displacement in Y - direction

Displacement in Y-direction is shown in table 4.2 for different model with respect to storey
height and the same is plotted in figure 4.2. It is observed that the displacement increases with
increase in floor height and also with the increase in mass irregularity. Maximum displacement
in Y-direction is found to be 133.2 mm in top storey for model II and minimum is found to be
120.5 mm in top storey for model V.

4.2 STOREY DRIFTS

Inter Storey drifts for different models are obtained from the analysis are shown in Table below.
Inter Storey drifts profile can also be observed in Figure.
According to IS 1893(Part 1):2002 clause 7.11.1 Storey drifts limitations are explained that the
Storey drifts in any storey due to the minimum specified design lateral force, with partial load
factor of 1.0 shall not exceed 0.004,(0.004h) times the storey height.

4.2.1 DRIFT IN X – DIRECTION

Table 4.3: Storey drift in X - direction

Height
of the Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
Building Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift
(m)
33 0.00186 0.00205 0.00187 0.00209 0.00177
30 0.00245 0.00265 0.0025 0.00268 0.00233
27 0.00303 0.00322 0.0031 0.00328 0.00287
24 0.00351 0.0037 0.0036 0.00377 0.00333
21 0.0039 0.00411 0.00401 0.00418 0.0037
18 0.00424 0.00443 0.00437 0.00451 0.00402
15 0.00454 0.00465 0.00464 0.0048 0.00427
12 0.00475 0.00473 0.00479 0.00496 0.00441
9 0.0047 0.00455 0.00466 0.00484 0.00429
6 0.00398 0.00376 0.0039 0.00405 0.00359
3 0.00188 0.00175 0.00182 0.0019 0.00168
 35
Height of building in m 30

25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Drift

Figure 4.3: Storey drift in X - direction

Storey drift is the difference in displacement between the consecutive storeys. Variation of storey
drift with building height for different modeling X-direction is shown in Table 4.3 and figure 4.3.
It is seen that the storey drift is maximum for model IV and minimum for model V. Storey drift
is increasing continuously with the increase in building height up to 12 m and started to attenuate
up to 33 m of building height for all model except for model V, in which it started to attenuate
from building height of 9m.
4.2.2 DRIFT IN Y – DIRECTION
Table 4.4: Storey drift in Y - direction

Height
of the Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
Building Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift
(m)
33 0.00169 0.00194 0.00166 0.00198 0.0016
30 0.00262 0.00289 0.00271 0.00284 0.00247
27 0.00336 0.00364 0.00346 0.00357 0.00319
24 0.00394 0.00424 0.00408 0.00412 0.00376
21 0.00444 0.00476 0.00458 0.0046 0.00423
18 0.00489 0.00516 0.00506 0.00502 0.00465
15 0.00535 0.00547 0.00544 0.00541 0.00501
12 0.00578 0.00571 0.00578 0.00573 0.00532
9 0.00608 0.00585 0.00598 0.00594 0.00552
6 0.00585 0.00551 0.0057 0.00565 0.00524
3 0.00337 0.00312 0.00325 0.00323 0.00299

35

30
Height of building in m

25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Drift

Figure 4.4: Storey drift in Y - direction

 Variation of storey drift with building height for different modeling Y-direction is shown
in Table 4.4 and figure 4.4. It is seen that the storey drift is maximum for model I and minimum
for model V. Storey drift is increasing continuously with the increase in building height up to 9
m and started to attenuate up to 33 m of building height for all model.

4.3 STOREY SHEAR

4.3.1 STOREY SHEAR IN X – DIRECTION
Table 4.5: Storey shear in X - direction

Height
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
of the
Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear
Building
(KN) (KN) (KN) (KN) (KN)
(m)
33 304.273 371.755 277.013 397.607 292.18
30 608.565 678.718 652.057 641.053 580.164
27 798.175 849.044 812.711 839.808 756.655
24 915.166 958.723 947.278 933.42 865.797
21 1009.71 1069.02 1031.08 1032.02 955.681
18 1094.71 1143.68 1142.55 1108.56 1040.08
15 1199.64 1207.9 1213.85 1205.59 1118.94
12 1315.17 1283.14 1321.74 1284.83 1208.38
9 1458.28 1375.09 1418.99 1417.58 1314.53
6 1586.77 1452.54 1536.09 1501.1 1404.07
3 1640.57 1483.54 1571.58 1547.33 1440.17
 35

30
Height of building in m
25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Storey shear KN

Figure 4.5: Storey shear in X-direction

Storey shear of different model with respect to building height is shown in table 4.5 and
figure 4.5. It is observed that the storey shear for each floor is less of regular building (model V)
compared to that of irregular buildings (model I, II, III, IV). Maximum base shear is found to be
1640.57 kN for model I and minimum 1440.17 kN for model V.

4.3.2 STOREY SHEAR IN Y – DIRECTION

Table 4.6: Storey shear in Y - direction

Height of Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V

the Building Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear
(m) (KN) (KN) (KN) (KN) (KN)
33 266.281 326.697 239.089 352.823 251.249
30 499.544 557.035 533.124 532.415 469.551
27 634.764 690.174 648.914 681.983 601.634
24 737.241 793.419 770.239 767.08 701.618
21 825.508 892.398 847.564 857.167 785.919
18 908.776 960.672 952.239 932.001 866.815
15 1009.89 1016.42 1016.95 1018.96 936.74
12 1100.54 1071.8 1097.56 1077.76 1003.72
9 1188.49 1130.4 1158.22 1160.44 1072.02
6 1287.65 1197.27 1252.72 1230.62 1145.12
3 1356.93 1238.61 1298.7 1293.17 1190.98
 35

30
Height of building in m
25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 500 1000 1500
Storey shear KN

Figure 4.6: Storey shear in Y - direction

Storey shear of different model with respect to building height is shown in table 4.6 and
figure 4.6. It is observed that the storey shear for each floor is less of regular building (model V)
compared to that of irregular buildings (model I, II, III, IV). Maximum base shear is found to be
1356.93 kN for model I and minimum 1190.98 kN for model V.
4.4 OVERTURNING MOMENT
4.4.1 OVERTURNING MOMENT ABOUT X – DIRECTION

Table 4.7: Overturning moment about X – direction

Height Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V

of the Overturning Overturning Overturning Overturning Overturning
Building moment moment moment moment moment
(m) (KN-m) (KN-m) (KN-m) (KN-m) (KN-m)
33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30 912.82 1115.26 831.04 1192.82 876.54
27 2732.36 3140.99 2778.87 3108.80 2610.50
24 5089.88 5623.97 5184.09 5558.34 4841.53
21 7711.87 8295.93 7856.08 8206.60 7311.73
18 10474.68 11103.04 10666.12 10978.27 9911.60
15 13355.57 14080.35 13593.50 13881.47 12627.12
12 16345.26 17209.78 16691.99 16903.59 15470.56
9 19506.74 20496.62 19952.95 20110.13 18473.25
6 22938.31 23981.17 23458.58 23544.57 21695.85
3 26724.43 27692.69 27252.04 27263.88 25181.37
0 30831.74 31598.03 31297.76 31232.87 28894.56

35

30
Height of buildings in m

25

Model I
20
Model II
15 Model III

10 Model IV
Model V
5

0
0.00 5000.00 10000.00 15000.00 20000.00 25000.00 30000.00 35000.00
Overturning Moment kN-m

Figure 4.7: Overturning moment about X – direction

4.4.2 OVERTURNING MOMENT ABOUT Y - DIRECTION

Table 4.8: Overturning moment about Y - direction

Height Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V

of the Overturning Overturning Overturning Overturning Overturning
Building moment moment moment moment moment
(m) (KN-m) (KN-m) (KN-m) (KN-m) (KN-m)
33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30 798.84 980.09 717.27 1058.47 753.75
27 2279.39 2618.88 2295.82 2633.50 2142.66
24 4089.21 4545.80 4169.95 4510.53 3853.43
21 6094.16 6659.72 6228.65 6582.36 5769.79
18 8268.17 8956.95 8468.87 8809.31 7856.03
15 10618.48 11457.82 10888.89 11218.05 10112.71
12 13160.90 14129.84 13514.77 13804.13 12539.04
9 15912.96 16950.69 16319.34 16573.65 15127.21
6 18880.36 19915.37 19306.51 19515.64 17880.08
3 22079.25 23034.11 22483.59 22649.52 20809.02
0 25515.50 26304.47 25851.97 25976.68 23908.94

35

30
Height of buildings in m

25

20 Model I
Model II
15 Model III
Model IV
10
Model V
5

0
0.00 5000.00 10000.00 15000.00 20000.00 25000.00 30000.00
Overturning Moment kN-m

Figure 4.8: Overturning moment about Y - direction

 Overturning moment in X-direction with respect to floor height is shown in table 4.7 and
figure 4.7. It is observed that the overturning moment is continuously decreasing with increase in
building height and reach 0 at height of 33 m for all model. It is clearly observed that the
overturning moment is maximum for model II (31598.03 kN-m) and minimum for model V
(28894.56kN-m) at height of 0 m.

Overturning moment in Y-direction with respect to floor height is shown in table 4.8 and figure
4.8. It is observed that the overturning moment is continuously decreasing with increase in
building height and reach 0 at height of 33 m for all model. It is clearly observed that the
overturning moment is maximum for model II (26304.47 kN-m) and minimum for model V
(23908.94 kN-m) at height of 0 m.

4.5 STOREY STIFFNESS

4.5.1 STOREY STIFFNESS IN X- DIRECTION
Table 4.9: Storey stiffness in X - direction

Height of
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
the
Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness
Building
(KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m)
(m)
33 54606.2 60490.4 49482.8 64540.3 55154.9
30 82796.2 85407 86782.7 81728.7 83161.6
27 87778.3 87962 87421.3 88302 87811.8
24 86921.1 86444.9 87736.3 85918.6 86806.7
21 86197.8 86769.5 85703.8 85966.5 86089.6
18 86033.8 86120.5 87227.2 85504.1 86289.2
15 88048.1 86674.1 87243.8 87657.2 87353.5
12 92270.1 90410 91971.9 90626.6 91334.1
9 103536 100822 101491 102621 102062
6 132915 128663 131179 129905 130388
3 291702 283321 287184 286553 286560
 35

30
Height of building in m
25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Stiffness KN/m

Figure 4.9: Storey stiffness in x direction

Table 4.9 and figure 4.9 shows the variation of storey stiffness in X-direction with
building height for different model. It is observed that the storey stiffness is minimum for top
floor and maximum for bottom floor in each model. However, the variation of storey stiffness is
significant from building height of 3 m to 6 m and building height of 30 m to 33 m.

4.5.2 STOREY STIFFNESS IN Y – DIRECTION

Table 4.10 and figure 4.10 shows the variation of storey stiffness in Y-direction with
building height for different model. It is observed that the storey stiffness is minimum for top
floor and maximum for bottom floor in each model. However, the variation of storey stiffness is
significant from building height of 3 m to 6 m and building height of 30 m to 33 m.
 Table 4.10: Storey stiffness in Y - direction

Height of
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
the
Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness
Building
(KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m)
(m)
33 52471.3 56206.8 47937.3 59354.7 52476
30 63611.4 64193.3 65693 62610.1 63306.4
27 62896.9 63127.9 62495.9 63626.4 62799.1
24 62306.2 62354 62979.6 62000.4 62263.7
21 62036.6 62469.2 61722.5 62142.9 61972.6
18 61985.3 62011 62778.4 61934.9 62187.9
15 62922 61980.9 62275.4 62777.5 62327.6
12 63497.7 62538.1 63266.1 62741.3 62872.2
9 65214.9 64416.2 64533.4 65071 64742.8
6 73372.6 72470.3 73227.7 72613 72801.8
3 134298 132367 133038 133578 132965

35

30
Height of building in m

25
Model I
20
Model II
15
Model III
10
Model IV
5 Model V
0
0 50000 100000 150000
Stiffness KN/m

Figure 4.10: Storey stiffness in Y - direction

 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION
RCC structures with irregular masses, different stiffness and irregular vertical geometry are been
studied and analyzed in this project. The analysis for five different models has been carried out
and various results are obtained. The different parameters are studied in detail for each building,
such parameters include displacement, storey drift, overturning moment, stiffness, base shear and
effective time period. After the study we come up with following conclusions,
 When the models are imposed with loads they tend to displace. The displacements are different
for each storeys and each model. Model IV possess more displacements compare to Model V in
X direction and the displacement in Y direction model II have displaced more than all other
models. The model provided with irregular masses floors shows more displacements whereas
regular models have minimum displacements.
 Storey drifts vary with the floors irregularly the drift value is more for the models where thicker
slabs are provided for odd floors and it can be seen that minimum storey drifts occur in regular
building in both axes.
 Shear forces occur more in model IV compare to other models and,irregular models have more
shear values compared to regular model and the regular model have minimum shear value in
both the axes.
 Overturning moment does not occur at top floor and it maximum at bottom floors and model IV
have got more overturning moment, irregular buildings they get more overturning moment and
the regular buildings have lesser overturning moments than rest of the models in both the axes.
 Considering all the parameters, regular building exhibit better performance with lesser failure
values than the mass irregular models.
 Among the mass irregular models the models provided with thicker slabs at odd floors that is
model IV finds to be more inefficient.
 SCOPE FOR FUTURE STUDY
This dissertation work is limited to vertical mass irregularity of regular and irregular RCC
building this work can be further extended for following cases,

 The present study is based on the RCC buildings of equally storey height. This study can
be extended for buildings of varying storey height.
 The mass irregularity in this present study is considered only due to change in slab
thickness (weight) this study can be further extended by varying size of beam, column,
etc.
 This study is limited only to linear static analysis which can be further studied by using
non- linear methods (non- linear static analysis, non-linear dynamic analysis) of analysis.
 REFERENCES

1. A.D‘Ambrisi,M.DeStefano,S.Viti ―Seismic Performance of irregular 3D RC Frames‖-The 14th

world conference on Earthquake Engineering October12-17,2008,Beijing,China.

2. PankajAgrawal and Manish Shrikhande,Earthquake and vibration effect on Structure: Basic

element of Earthquake Resistant Design, ‗Earthquake resistant design of structures, PHI
Learning private limited, New Delhi

3. Andreas.J.Kappos,Georgios Panagopoulos (2004) ―Performance-based seismic design of 3D R/C

buildings using static and dynamic analysis procedures‖,ISET journal of Earthquake
technology,paper no.444,vol.41,no.1,pp.141-158.

4. ATC-40(1996)‖Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of concrete Buildings‖,Applied Technology

council,Seismic safety commission, Redwood city,California,volume 1&2.

5. VinodK.Sadashiva ,Gregory A.MacRae& Bruce L.Deam.‖Determination of structural

Irregularity Limits-Mass irregularity Example‖Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering,Vol.42 No.4 December 2009.

6. FarzadNaeimPh.D, ―Performance Based seismic Engineering‖,The seismic design Handbook,

Research and development Los Angeles,California,pg.no. 757-792.

7. IS 1983-2002(Part-1),‖criteria for Earthquake resistant design of structures‖,General provisions

and buildings,Bureau of Indian Standards,New Delhi.

8. IS 456:2000,‖Plain and Reinforced concrete‖-Code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards,New

Delhi.
9. Mayuri D. Bhagwat, Dr.P.S.Patil, ―Comparative Study of Performance of Rcc Multistory
Building For Koyna and Bhuj Earthquakes‖ ,International Journal of Advanced Technology in
Engineering and Science.
10. Himanshu Bansal, Gagandeep, ―Seismic Analysis and Design of Vertically Irregular RC
Building Frames‖ International Journal of Science and Research.

11. Mohit Sharma, Dr. Savita Maru, ― Dynamic Analysis of Multistoried Regular Building‖ IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering.