A Dissertation Report Entitled

Seismic Behaviour of Square, C, L, & Cross

Shape RC Building with Oblique Column
Prepared By
Rathod Indravadansinh
Enrolment No: 221370720020

Under the Guidance of

Prof. Mridul Seth
Assistant Professor (GSET-GTU)
A Report Submitted to
Gujarat Technological University
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
Dissertation Phase II - 3740002
M.E. Civil (Structural Engineering)
Semester - 4
May-2024

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Academic Block – 5, Nr. Vishwakarma Government Engineering
College, Nr. Visat Three Roads, Visat – Gandhinagar Highway
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad – 3824
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE .................................................................................................................ii

COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE .................................................................................... iii

THESIS APPROVAL CERTIFICATE ........................................................................... iv

UNDERTAKING ABOUT ORIGINALITY OF WORK ................................................ v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................. vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi

Abstract ......................................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Advantages of Oblique Columns: ........................................................................... 2

1.3 Need of Study .......................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 3

1.5 Scope of work ......................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: LITRATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 5

2.1 Literature Review Paper .......................................................................................... 5

2.2 Summary of Literature Review ............................................................................. 10

2.3 Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER 3: PROBLEM VALIDATION .................................................................... 11

3.1 Research paper details ........................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 19

vii
 4.1 Seismic load Calculation ....................................................................................... 19

4.2 Equivalent Static Method ...................................................................................... 19

4.3 Response Spectrum Method .................................................................................. 21

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DEISGN OF RC FRAME BUILDING .................... 23

5.1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 23

5.2 Design of RC Elements ......................................................................................... 26

5.3 Perform Equivalent Static Method ........................................................................ 28

5.4 Perform Response Spectrum ................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................. 33

6.1 82o Model Results............................................................................................. 33

6.2 84o Model Results............................................................................................. 36

6.3 86o Model Results............................................................................................. 39

6.4 Regular Building Model Results ...................................................................... 42

6.5 Time Period Results ......................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 50

REFERENCE.................................................................................................................. 51

Appendix-A: Review Card ............................................................................................. 55

INTERNAL REVIEW - 1 ........................................................................................... 55

DESSERTATION PHASE - 1 .................................................................................... 56

INTERNAL REVIEW - 2 ........................................................................................... 55

Appendix - B: Plagiarism Report.................................................................................... 58

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1: PLAN LAYOUT SQUARE SHAPE ....................................................................... 4

FIGURE1.2: PLAN LAYOUT C SHAPE................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 1.3: PLAN LAYOUT CROSS SHAPE ......................................................................... 4
FIGURE1. 4 PLAN LAYOUT L SHAPE ................................................................................... 4

FIGURE 3. 1: RC MULTISTORIED BUILDING WITH VERTICAL COLUMN OF 90◦ ................... 12

FIGURE 3.2: RC MULTISTOREY BUILDING WITH VERTICAL COLUMN OF 80◦ ..................... 13
FIGURE 3.3: ELEVATION VIEW OF 80◦ OBLIQUE COLUMN ................................................. 13
FIGURE 3 .4: ELEVATION VIEW OF 90◦ OBLIQUE COLUMN ................................................ 14
FIGURE 3.5: PAPER - STORY DRIFT PLOT FOR 90◦ NORMAL COLUMN .............................. 14
FIGURE 3.6: VALIDATION - STORY DRIFT PLOT FOR 90◦ NORMAL COLUMN ..................... 15
FIGURE 3.7: PAPER - STORY DISPLACEMENT PLOT FOR 90◦ NORMAL COLUMN ............... 15
FIGURE 3.8 :VALIDATION - STORY DISPLACEMENT PLOT FOR 90◦ NORMAL COLUMN ...... 16
FIGURE 3.9: PAPER - STORY DRIFT PLOT FOR 80◦ OBLIQUE COLUMN .............................. 16
FIGURE 3.10: VALIDATION - STORY DRIFT PLOT FOR 80◦ OBLIQUE COLUMN ................... 17
FIGURE 3.11: PAPER - STORY DISPLACEMENT PLOT FOR 80◦ OBLIQUE COLUMN .............. 17
FIGURE 3.12: VALIDATION - STORY DISPLACEMENT PLOT FOR 80◦ OBLIQUE COLUMN .... 18

FIGURE 4.1: SPECTRA FOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD ............................................. 22

FIGURE 5.1:WALL LOAD ON SQUARE SHAPE................................................................... 24

FIGURE 5.2: WALL LOAD ON C SHAPE ............................................................................ 24
FIGURE 5.3: WALL LOAD ON CROSS SHAPE .................................................................... 24
FIGURE 5.4: WALL LOAD ON L SHAPE ............................................................................ 24
FIGURE 5.5: BASE SHEAR FROM ETABS ......................................................................... 30
FIGURE 5.6: DEFINE RS FUNCTION .................................................................................. 30
FIGURE 5.7: DEFINE MODAL CASES ................................................................................. 31

ix
FIGURE 5.8: RS LOAD CASE DATA ................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 5.9: BASE SHEAR (S.F – 1) .................................................................................. 31
FIGURE 5.10: BASE SHEAR OF RS .................................................................................... 32

x
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3 1: PROPERTIES OF 13 STORY RC FRAME BUILDING ............................................ 11

TABLE 5.1:SECTION PROPERTIES OF BUILDING ................................................................ 25

TABLE 5.2: SEISMIC PARAMETERS OF BUILDING ............................................................. 25
TABLE 5.3 WALL LOAD CALCULATION ............................................................................ 25
TABLE 5.4: LOAD COMBINATIONS ................................................................................... 26
TABLE 5.5: DETAILS OF PROVIDED REINFORCEMENT FOR 82O OBLIQUE COLUMNS ......... 26
TABLE 5.6 :DETAILS OF PROVIDED REINFORCEMENT FOR 84O OBLIQUE COLUMNS ......... 27
TABLE 5.7 DETAILS OF PROVIDED REINFORCEMENT FOR 86O OBLIQUE COLUMNS .......... 27
TABLE 5.8 DETAILS OF PROVIDED REINFORCEMENT FOR REGULAR BUILDING ................ 27
TABLE 5. 9: LOAD CASES ................................................................................................. 28
TABLE 5.10 SEISMIC WEIGHT CALCULATION ................................................................... 28
TABLE 5.11: SEISMIC WEIGHT CALCULATION .................................................................. 29
TABLE 5.12: MANUAL BASE SHEAR CALCULATION ......................................................... 29

TABLE 6.1: 82 DEGREE OBLIQUE COLUMN BASE SHEAR ................................................. 33

TABLE 6.2: 82 DEGREE OBLIQUE MAXIMUM STOREY DISPLACEMENT ............................ 34
TABLE 6.3: 82 DEGREE OBLIQUE MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFT ........................................... 35
TABLE 6.4: 84 DEGREE OBLIQUE COLUMN BASE SHEAR ................................................. 36
TABLE 6.5: 84 DEGREE OBLIQUE COLUMN MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT ............... 37
TABLE 6.6: 84 DEGREE OBLIQUE COLUMN MAXIMUM STORY DRIFT RATIO ................... 38
TABLE 6.7: 86 DEGREE OBLIQUE COLUMN BASE SHEAR ................................................. 39
TABLE 6.8:84 DEGREE OBLIQUE COLUMN MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT ................ 40
TABLE 6 9: 84 DEGREE OBLIQUE COLUMN MAXIMUM STORY DRIFT RATIO .................... 41
TABLE 6.10: BASE SHEAR FOR REGULAR BUILDING ........................................................ 42
TABLE 6.11: MAXIMUM STORY DISPLACEMENT FOR REGULAR BUILDING ...................... 43
TABLE 6.12: MAXIMUM STORY DRIFT RATIO FOR REGULAR BUILDING........................... 44

xi
TABLE 6.13: TIME PERIOD SQUARE SHAPE MODELS ........................................................ 46
TABLE 6.14: TIME PERIOD C- SHAPE MODELS .................................................................. 47
TABLE 6.15: TIME PERIOD CROSS- SHAPE MODELS .......................................................... 48
TABLE 6.16: TIME PERIOD L- SHAPE MODELS .................................................................. 49

xii
 Abstract

These days, buildings are intended to be partially or completely protected from

earthquakes using seismically resistant structures. Columns play an important role in the
behaviour of a structure. The use of oblique columns in building construction is a
relatively new and innovative approach that offers several potential benefits, including
improved structural performance, reduced material usage, and enhanced aesthetic
appearance. Oblique Columns are not conventionally parallel or at right angles to a
specified line means they're inclined or Rotated at an angle. Stiffness of RC frames
significantly depends on the distribution of oblique column within the frame. Providing
an effective structural system with a suitable height restriction is a smart way to address
this problem and carry the lateral loads and manage the excessive lateral deflection of
buildings. Analysing the behaviour of oblique columns is the main purpose of this study.
Response spectrum analysis was carried out by considering 820, 840, and 860 oblique
columns. Analysis of the building was done using ETABS software and the performance
will be analysed by same building with oblique columns replaced with normal vertical
columns. The results of the analysis on the building are compared in terms of story
displacement, story drift, base shear and time period.

Keywords: Oblique columns, ETABS, Storey displacement, Storey drift, Base shear
Response spectrum analysis, Time Period

xiii
221370720020 Introduction

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Oblique Column is the column, which neither parallel nor at right angles to a specified
line, means they are inclined or rotated at an angle.

Rapid urbanization in countries like as India has had an impact on tall structures,
necessitating a shift in viewpoint proportions. These constructions are frequently
ineffective against wind and seismic forces, and the angle proportion influences their
impact. Reinforced Concrete Multi-Storied Buildings (RCMS) are designed to meet
codes of practice and building bye-laws while also having sufficient in-built strength and
ductility to withstand earthquake intensity, even if seismic forces are not addressed.

Oblique columns in multi-story buildings present a challenge to structural engineering by

adding a new dimension to architectural and structural design, improving aesthetic
appeal, dispersing loads, and fulfilling spatial constraints.

The main objective of every structural system is to effectively transfer gravity loads.
Gravity generates the most prevalent loads: dead loads, live loads, and snow loads. Aside
from these vertical loads, buildings are exposed to lateral loads induced by wind, blasting,
or earthquake. High lateral loads can induce structural strains, sway movement, or
vibration. As a result, the structure should be strong enough to withstand vertical loads
while also being stiff enough to resist lateral stresses. Conventional seismic design aims
to prevent buildings from collapsing during earthquakes but may result in damage to non-
structural materials and structural members. This may make the building non-functional
Seismic resistant structures depend heavily on "weak beam and strong column" methods
to determine overall structural strength against seismic forces. Oblique columns are an
innovative strategy for improving earthquake resistance in high-rise buildings.

1
221370720020 Introduction

1.2 Advantages of Oblique Columns:

• Increased lateral stiffness: Oblique columns offer better rigidity against lateral loads
like wind and earthquakes. This is because inclined columns function as a shear wall,
transferring horizontal stresses into the foundation more effectively than vertical
columns.
• Reduced storey shear: Oblique columns in buildings tend to have lower story shear
forces than vertical columns. This results in decreased beam dimensions and better
material savings.
• Improved seismic performance: Oblique columns' fundamental stiffness improves
the building's ability to withstand seismic loads. This leads to less damage and better
occupant safety during earthquakes.
• Enhanced floor space: In certain scenarios, using oblique columns can result in
greater column-free floor spaces, which is helpful in open-plan offices, retail spaces,
and other uses.

Overall, multi-story buildings with oblique columns present a promising alternative

to traditional constructions. They offer a number of structural and aesthetic
advantages, but they also present some design, construction, and code compliance
issues. As technology and design approaches advance, we should expect a greater use
of oblique columns in future construction projects.

2
221370720020 Introduction

1.3 Need of Study

• Comparing the lateral stability of building with conventional buildings.

• Effect of inclination of column on high rise buildings.
• It would be useful in showing the importance of inclination of oblique columns on
lateral load resisting capacity of Highrise Structures.
• Checking the ability of Oblique columns to Sustain overturning moments.
• This study will ignite an interest on the use of oblique column in lateral load resistant
design of Highrise structures.

1.4 Objectives

• To study the effect on buildings with oblique columns with different angles of
inclination.
• To compare the performance of multi-story structural building with normal and
oblique column.
• To compare the seismic behavior of RC structures with different shape.

1.5 Scope of work

• To analyse and design of 15 story building with various shape. (Square shape, C
shape, L Shape, cross shape).
• RC frame building with Oblique column of 82, 84 and 86 degrees on Periphery of
the building.
• To Perform Response spectrum analysis to compare the parameters such as Base
shear, story drift and story displacement.

3
221370720020 Introduction

Figure 1.1: Plan Layout Square Shape Figure1.2: Plan Layout C shape

Figure 1.3: Plan Layout Cross Shape Figure1.4 Plan Layout L Shape

4
221370720020 Literature Review

CHAPTER 2: LITRATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review Paper

C. R. MENTE AND DR. S. N. TANDE (2023) [1]

Their focus is on high-rise structures with normal and oblique columns and their
nonlinear seismic behaviour. In this study, pushover analysis is used to and analyse a
building with normal and oblique columns at an inclination of 84°. The symmetry of the
building results in comparable capacity curves in both the X and Y dimensions. The
pushover curve's slope indicates stiffness, and it initially exhibits linearity. A building
with oblique columns has a larger pushover curve slope than one with regular columns.
Because to the column's inclination, there is a marked decrease in maximum displacement
capacity as well as an increase in stiffness and strength in both longitudinal and transverse
directions. Hence, the reinforced concrete frame building's inelastic deformation
capacity.

Sridhara K And G V Sowjanya (2021) [2]

They studied how multi-story buildings with slant columns responded to earthquakes.
The authors show through a variety of design studies that oblique columns have a major
impact on the seismic forces acting on buildings. Response spectrum analysis was used
to create six s of a 30-story building that took into account column angles of 80°, 82.5°,
85°, 87.5°, 90°, and 92.5°. Comparing structures with oblique columns to traditional
buildings with vertical columns, the former has a lower maximum story displacement and
story shear. For particular inclination angles, the paper reports reductions of up to 69%
in maximum displacement and 28% in story shear. Compared to vertical columns, oblique
columns with an 80-degree inclination result in 20% less story drift and 44% less top
story displacement.

5
221370720020 Literature Review

Navaneeth Krishna And Abhishek C (2020) [3]

They examine the seismic behaviour and height optimization of a multi-story building
with an angled column. Six s of 30-story buildings are created in this work by taking into
account column angles of 80°, 82.5°, 85°, 87.5°, 90°, and 92°. The analysis's findings
indicate that, when comparing the two, the structure with the oblique column—whose
angles are 80°, 82°, and 85°—shows a greater reduction in storey displacement and storey
drift than the structure with the standard columns. In comparison to a structure with a
normal column, the structure with an oblique column that is 80 degrees up to the whole
height of the structure exhibits a 68% decrease in storey displacement and a 96%
reduction in storey drift. A structure with an angled column 82 degrees up to its entire
height displays a 53% reduction in height.

Rohan Singh And Vikas Prabhakar (2020) [4]

They studied multistorey buildings with oblique columns, examining how these columns
behaved and how it affected the buildings' lateral stiffness. Consideration is given to
columns with 80°, 82°, 84°, 86°, 88°, and 90° degrees during the analysis process. The
Response Spectrum Method is used to analyse the performance of oblique columns. Up
to a particular degree of inclination, the multistorey buildings with oblique columns
exhibit 28% less story shear and 69% less maximum story displacement. The top story
displacement of buildings with oblique columns at 88, 86, 82, and 80 degrees is 16% to
19% less than that of conventional columns. The most efficient angle of inclination for a
building with oblique columns and a rectangular plan shape is 84 degrees, since it has a
maximum decrease of 69%.

Athira Nandakumar et al. (2020) [5]

They used ETABS 2016 to determine the seismic resistance of a Y-shaped oblique
column, taking into account characteristics such as story displacement, drift, and
stiffness. An oblique column with two inclined branches is called a Y-shaped oblique
column. In terms of these three parameters—storey displacement, storey drift, and storey
stiffness—the analysis's findings indicate that buildings with Y-shaped oblique columns
are more seismically resistant than those with conventional columns. However, a
structure with a shear wall has significantly superior earthquake resilience. When a
structure has a shear wall, the percentage of concrete increases significantly; however,

6
221370720020 Literature Review

when a Y-shaped oblique column is used, the rise is minimal. Therefore, Y-shaped oblique
columns can be employed to increase the structure's seismic resistance.

B.P. RADHA And Dr. VIJAYA G.S (2018) [6]

An RCC structure with inclined extra columns at the corner columns was subjected to a
seismic study. An 11-story, L-shaped 3D of the structure is made using commercial
loading in accordance with IS: 875-Part II. The dynamic study of the structure is done
using the Response Spectrum study Method. According to the findings, the addition of
inclined columns has significantly reduced the structure's overturning moments.
Therefore, this method of adding angled support columns works better with asymmetrical
layouts.

Kai Hu et al. (2012) [7]

An actual project with a high-rise building with oblique columns was analysed using
ETABS, SAP2000, MIDAS/gen, and SATWE, among other finite element applications.
For structures with oblique columns, all of the response spectrum analysis results
computed by various programs are essentially comparable. However, ETABS might
overlook the oblique column statistic, which should be taken into consideration in future
designs. The outcomes of SAP2000 and ETABS's time history analysis are essentially
comparable. Nevertheless, SAP2000 lacks the storey notion, which significantly
increased the post-processing complexity when analysing oblique columns. ETABS is
therefore advised for normal constructions, while SAP2000 offers unique benefits for
space truss systems. They analysed an RCC structure seismically.

Girish Kumar G.M and S M Maheswarappa (2018) [9]

They use ETABS to analyse the seismic performance study of multi storey buildings with
oblique columns. When evaluating an 8-story building, the 36 x 36-meter design is
examined from four distinct angles: 80, 84, 88, 90, 94, and 100. This is in contrast to
multi storey buildings with regular columns and multi storey buildings with oblique
columns. Story drift is 38% less in oblique columns than in regular columns. The top
story displacement of oblique columns with angles of 92, 96, and 100 degrees is 30% less
than that of conventional columns. Story shear and story stiffness are stronger in multi
storey buildings with oblique columns that are more than 90 degrees than in normal

7
221370720020 Literature Review

columns. Because of this, oblique columns are more earthquake-resistant than regular
columns.

Kona Narayana Reddy, Dr.E. Arunakanthi (2017) [10]

In their investigation, they analysed concrete diagrid structures and made comparisons
with traditional concrete buildings. According to their research, oblique structures
withstand lateral loads better than simple RC Frame buildings. Additionally, the top
storey displacement in an oblique structure is significantly smaller. The oblique column
building's structure offers higher resistance, which increases the structural system's
effectiveness. Overall, the findings indicated that oblique columns are a great way to
control seismic movement in symmetric high-rise buildings.

Geethu Krishna K V and Lakshmi L (2019) [11]

The seismic performance of a multistory building with oblique columns was studied. The
purpose of the tests was to evaluate the effectiveness of oblique columns in response
spectrum analysis utilizing ETABS software for parameter comparison. For this
investigation, they have used nine s in all. It is made up of the high-rise G+19 building,
the midrise G+9 building, and the low-rise G+3 building. These three s, which have
oblique columns at angles of 80, 85, and 90 degrees, have been put to use. According to
the findings, there is a 40% reduction in storey displacement for 80-degree columns. As
the angle of the oblique column grows, the storey drift will also increase. When there are
90° columns, the storey shear is reduced. If the column's angle is reduced, the stiffness
rises.

Muhammad Mostafijur Rahman et.al (2018) [12]

This paper compares seismic design provisions in Bangladesh (BNBC-1993), India (IS-
1893), and the United States (ASCE 7-10) for reinforced concrete buildings. It examines
allowable analysis procedures, zoning systems, site classification, fundamental vibration
period, response reduction factor, importance factor, minimum design lateral force, and
allowable story depth. Three commercial reinforced concrete structures in high seismic
locations (Bangladesh, India, and the United States) were planned and detailed according
to applicable codes. Three-dimensional nonlinear dynamic studies of the planned
structures were performed. Each structure was subjected to two orthogonally applied

8
221370720020 Literature Review

simulated ground motions that aligned with the design response spectrum for each
building code. Each building's structural performance was evaluated based on roof
displacements, inter-story drifts, beam and column load carrying capacity, and energy
dissipation characteristics. The comparisons analysed seismic performance discrepancies
between structures planned using ASCE 7-10, BNBC-1993, and IS-1893 codes. The
Indian code fared better when subjected to ground motion, which reflects the Indian
design response spectrum.

T.K. Datta (2010) [13]

The article "Seismic Analysis of Structures" provides an overview of dynamic analysis

methodologies for seismic design of structures. This article discusses how to determine
structural reaction using the equivalent static force and response spectrum methods.
Prashant Dhadve and Alok Rao evaluated the "P-Delta Effect on High Rise Buildings."
Increasing the stiffness of a structure, either by cross section or confinement, can improve
its responsiveness to acceptable limits.

Dr. V.R. Patel et al (2014) [14]

The study took into account various diagrid angles and building storey heights. A 36m x
36m design is evaluated with four various types of diagrid angles: 50.2°, 67.4°, 74.5°,
and 82.1°, as well as a comparative examination of 24-storey, 36-storey, 48-storey, and
60-storey buildings, and the results show that 67.4° and 74.5° provide optimal results.

N. R. Chandak (2012) [15]

This study uses the response spectrum method to conduct a parametric analysis of
reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls and moment-resisting frames in various
building types. This study compares the design spectra proposed by Indian Standard Code
to two other well-known codes (Uniform Building Code and Euro Code 8). This study
aims to examine how different codes affect the dynamic analysis of multistorey RC
buildings. Three distinct floor plans (symmetric (SB), monosymmetric (MB), and
unsymmetric (UB) with torsional irregularity were used as sample buildings. The
buildings' seismic sensitivity was evaluated using the response spectrum approach and
SAP2000 software. Periods, base shears, lateral displacement, interstory drift, and torque
are compared for code defined ground types. The comparison study shows that applying
the IS code results in increased base shear in all three buildings compared to other codes.

9
221370720020 Literature Review

2.2 Summary of Literature Review

• Oblique column is more effective in seismic forces and improve the stability then
normal columns.

• When it comes to the impact of seismic forces, rectangular oblique columns

perform better than circular columns.

2.3 Research Gap

• Investigate the impact of oblique columns on different shapes of structures.
• Investigate the Effect of different angles of inclination oblique columns to
determine the optimal angle for maximizing the structural performance.

10
221370720020 Problem Validation

CHAPTER 3: PROBLEM VALIDATION

3.1 Research paper details

• Title: Study of Multistorey Buildings with Oblique Columns
• Authors: Rohan Singh, Vikas Prabhakar
• Publisher: International journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
• Year of Publication: 2020

Table 3 1: Properties of 13 Story RC frame building

No of Story G+12
Shape of the Buildings Rectangular
Length of building 60.50m
Width of building 40.50m
Height of building 47.58m
Typical storey height 3.6M
Grade of concrete M40
Grade of steel HYSD500
Thickness of slab 200mm
Beams 350mm X 600mm
Lift Core Beam 300mm X 600mm
Internal Columns 800mm X 800mm
Lift Core column 1000mm X 1000mm
Response reduction factor R=5
Live load 5 kN/m2
Live load at top storey 3 kN/m2
Seismic zone IV

11
221370720020 Problem Validation

Importance factor I=1

Site type II II
Super imposed load (SDL) (including Typical - 4 kN/m2,
furnishings) Roof level - 2 kN/m2

Figure 3.1: RC Multistoried building with vertical column of 90◦

12
221370720020 Problem Validation

Figure 3.2: RC Multistorey building with vertical column of 80◦

Figure 3.3: Elevation view of 80◦ Oblique column

13
221370720020 Problem Validation

Figure 3.4: Elevation view of 90◦ Oblique column

Figure 3.5: Paper - Story Drift Plot for 90◦ Normal Column

14
221370720020 Problem Validation

Story13

Story11

Story9

Story7

Story5

Story3

Story1

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009

Story Drift

Figure 3.6: Validation - Story Drift Plot for 90◦ Normal Column

Figure 3.7: Paper - Story Displacement Plot for 90◦ Normal Column

15
221370720020 Problem Validation

Storey 13

Storey 11

Storey 9

Storey 7

Storey 5

Storey 3

Storey 1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Storey displacement (mm)

Figure 3.8 :Validation - Story Displacement Plot for 90◦ Normal Column

Figure 3.9: Paper - Story Drift Plot for 80◦ Oblique Column

16
221370720020 Problem Validation

Story 13

Story 11

Story 9

Story 7

Story 5

Story 3

Story 1

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01

Story Drift

Figure 3.10: Validation - Story Drift Plot for 80◦ Oblique Column

Figure 3.11: Paper - Story Displacement Plot for 80◦ Oblique Column

17
221370720020 Problem Validation

Story13

Story12

Story11

Story10

Story9

Story8

Story7

Story6

Story5

Story4

Story3

Story2

Story1

0 50 100 150 200 250

Storey Displacement (mm)

Figure 3.12: Validation - Story Displacement Plot for 80◦ Oblique Column

18
221370720020 Design Methodology

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN METHODOLOGY

4.1 Seismic load Calculation

The Indian standard code (IS-1893, 2016) proposes the Equivalent Static Approach
(ESA) and Response Spectrum Approach (RSA) for estimating seismic load during a
demand earthquake. ESA establishes a set of lateral forces acting on a building to simulate
the effects of earthquake ground motion, which is normally characterized by a seismic
design response spectrum. This approach assumes that the building responds in a single
mode that corresponds to its Fundamental Natural Period (FNP). However, FNP in this
approach is computed using empirical formulas specified by the code. The response is
then read from a design response spectrum, which corresponds to the building's estimated
FNP.

The dynamic analysis process, often known as RSA, considers multiple building reaction
modes. The equivalent design lateral force is determined by performing a computer-aided
modal analysis of the structure. Mode shapes, frequencies, and mode participation factors
were found by modal analysis. The design spectrum is used to extract a response for each
mode depending on frequency and mass. This is then combined to estimate the structure's
overall reaction.

4.2 Equivalent Static Method

The Equivalent static approach simplifies earthquake force computation by replacing
dynamic loading with a static force applied laterally to a structure. The design horizontal
base shear is determined using empirical formulas 4.1 and 4.2 as per (IS-1893, 2016)
code. The design base shear of a building is determined by factors such as its seismic
zone, functional use, response reduction factor, and spectral acceleration coefficient
(𝑆𝑎/𝑔). This spectral acceleration coefficient is calculated using the code's design
response spectrum (Figure 4.1), depending on the type of soil condition and the building's
FNP. To determine the spectral acceleration coefficient, use equation 4.5 from the code.
The FNP of the building is determined using equations 4.5 and 4.5 from the code. The

19
221370720020 Design Methodology

obtained FNP is based on the building's height and plan dimensions, but it does not take
into consideration the building's mass and stiffness characteristics.

Seismic Weight

To calculate design seismic force for different loading classes described in IS 875 (Part
2), use the complete dead load plus percentage of applied load formula from IS 1893 (Part
1): 2016, Table 10. According to IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016, clause 7.3, each floor's seismic
weight is equal to its full dead load plus an approximate amount of imposed load. The
weight of columns and walls in any storey must be apportioned to the floors above and
below the storey.

VB = Ah × W (4.1)
Z I Sa
Ah = (4.2)
2 R g

Where,

VB = Design Base Shear

W = Seismic weight of building

Ah = Design Horizontal Seismic Coefficient

Z = Zone Factor

I = Importance factor

R = Response Reduction factor

Sa/g = Design acceleration coefficient for different soil type given in clause 6.4.2.
Sa/g = 2.5 0 < T < 0.55S (4.3)
1.36/T 0.55S < T < 4 S
0.34 T>4S
Where,
T = Fundamental Natural Time Period
Fundamental natural time period for the frame shall be estimated as per IS 1893 (Part
1): 2016, clause 7.6.2(c)
0.09ℎ
T= (4.4)
√d

20
221370720020 Design Methodology

h = height of the building, in m

d = Base dimension of building, in m, along consider direction of lateral force.
𝑤 ℎ𝑖2
𝑄𝑖 = (∑𝑤𝑖 2 )𝑉𝐵 (4.5)
𝑖 ℎ𝑖

𝑄𝑖 = Design lateral force at floor I,

W𝑖 = Seismic weight of floor I,
ℎ𝑖 = height of floor I measured from base,
n = Number of stories in building;

VB = Design base shear.

4.3 Response Spectrum Method

Response Spectrum method may be performed for any building using the design
acceleration spectrum specified in cl. 6.4.2 (Is-1893, 2016), or by specific design
acceleration spectrum mentioned in cl. 6.4.7. (Is-1893, 2016).

In this approach, response is obtained by considering the different modes of vibration of

the building. The periods of vibration are obtained from free vibration analysis which
takes into account mass and stiffness of the building or a structure.

Additionally, mode shapes, frequencies and modal participation factors are obtained from
the analysis. Using the acceleration response spectrum as per code (IS-1893, 2016) for
demand earthquake, illustrated in Figure 14, an equivalent design lateral force is
estimated to get the same response as the maximum response obtained in each mode of
vibration.

The maximum modal responses obtained in each mode of vibration are generally
combined using any of the three different types of modal combination rules, namely (i)
ABSSUM, Absolute sum of maximum values of responses (ii) SRSS square root of sum
of squares, (iii) CQC, complete quadratic combination rule; to find the total response of
the structure.

The design base shear acquired by dynamic analysis is compared to that derived using
ESA (equation 4.1). If the design base shear (𝑉̅𝐵) derived from dynamic analysis is lower
than that obtained from ESA, the response values are scaled up in the ratio (𝑉𝐵/𝑉̅𝐵) as
per the code. If base shear obtained using RSA is more compared to ESA base shear, than
no scaling is carried out.

21
221370720020 Design Methodology

Figure 4.1: Spectra for Response Spectrum Method

22
221370720020 Analysis and Design

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DEISGN OF

RC FRAME BUILDING

In this chapter the analysis and design of s using equivalent static method and response
spectrum method id discussed. The analysis of s using equivalent static and response
spectrum method as per discussed in chapter 4. Analysis of s using ETABS. After analysis
of s by equivalent static method, design of the elements carried out as per IS-456: 2000.

5.1 Problem Statement

Analysis of a 15-story RC SMRF building with square, C, L, and cross shapes with
various column inclination angles (82 Degree, 84 Degree, 86 Degree) Oblique columns
using equivalent static analysis according to Is 1893 (Part-1): 2016. Also Carry out a
Response Spectrum analysis of the s.

RC Building Configuration
• Plan Dimension: 25m X 25m
• Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
• Storey height: 3.5 m. • Density of Concrete:25 kN/m3
• Grade Of Concrete: M25
• Density Of Brick Masonry: 20 kN/m3
• Grade Of Steel: Fe 500
• Live Load: 4 kN/m2
• Floor Finish load on floor: 1.0 kN/m2
• Thickness of External Wall: 230mm
• Thickness of Internal Wall: 115mm
• Thickness of Slab: 150 mm

23
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Figure 5.1:Wall Load On Square Shape Figure 5.2: Wall Load On C Shape

Figure 5.3: Wall Load On Cross Shape Figure 5.4: Wall Load On L Shape

24
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Table 5.1:Section Properties of Building

Members Properties
Beam 300m x 600m
Column (1-5) 750m x 750m
Column (5-10) 650m x 650m
Column (10-15) 450m x 450m
Thickness of Slab 150mm
Thickness of External Wall 230mm
Thickness of Internal Wall 115mm
Thickness of Parapet Wall 230mm
Height of Parapet Wall 1m
Table 5.2: Seismic Parameters of Building

Parameters Consideration
Seismic Zone III

Response reduction factor R=5

Importance factor I=1
Site type II (Medium)
Time Period 0.94
Sa/g 1.44
Damping 5%
Table 5.3 Wall load Calculation

Wall Load
Ext. Wall Load (0.23) x 20 x (3.5-0.6) 13.34 kN/m
Int. Wall Load (0.115) x 20 x (3.5-0.6) 6.67 kN/m
Parapet Wall Load (0.23) x 20 x 1 4.6 kN/m

25
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Table 5.4: Load Combinations

SR. NO Load Combination Details SR. NO Load Combination Details

1 1.5(DL+LL) 8 1.2(DL+LL+EQ Y)
2 1.5(DL-EQ Y) 9 1.2(DL+LL+EQ X)
3 1.5(DL+EQ Y) 10 0.9DL+1.5EQ Y
4 1.5(DL-EQ X) 11 0.9DL+1.5EQ X
5 1.5(DL+EQ X) 12 0.9DL-1.5EQ Y
6 1.2(DL+LL-EQ Y) 13 0.9DL-1.5EQ X
7 1.2(DL+LL-EQ X)

5.2 Design of RC Elements

The design of RC elements is based on the Limit State Method concept. The elements are
designed to resist maximum pressures, taking into account various load combinations as
per Indian Standards (IS 456-2000).

Table 5.5: Details of Provided Reinforcement for 82o Oblique Columns

Members Floors Width (mm) Depth (mm) Reinforcement Details

Columns 1-5 750 750 20-25#
5-10 650 650 16-20#
10-15 450 450 12-16#
Beam 1-7 300 600 4-20# (Top)
4-16# (Bottom)
8-15 300 600 5-16# (Top)
3-16# (Bottom)
Note- # Symbol indicate the diameter of rebar

26
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Table 5.6 :Details of Provided Reinforcement for 84o Oblique Columns

Members Floors Width (mm) Depth (mm) Reinforcement Details

Columns 1-5 750 750 20-25#
5-10 650 650 20-20#
10-15 450 450 14-16#
Beam 1-7 300 600 4-20# (Top)
4-16# (Bottom)
8-15 300 600 5-16# (Top)
3-16# (Bottom)
Note- # Symbol indicate the diameter of rebar

Table 5.7 Details of Provided Reinforcement for 86o Oblique Columns

Members Floors Width (mm) Depth (mm) Reinforcement Details

Columns 1-5 750 750 20-25#
5-10 650 650 18-20#
10-15 450 450 16-16#
Beam 1-7 300 600 4-20# (Top)
4-16# (Bottom)
8-15 300 600 5-16# (Top)
3-16# (Bottom)
Note- # Symbol indicate the diameter of rebar

Table 5.8 Details of Provided Reinforcement for Regular Building

Members Floors Width (mm) Depth (mm) Reinforcement Details

Columns 1-5 750 750 24-25#
5-10 650 650 20-20#
10-15 450 450 12-16#
Beam 1-7 300 600 4-20# (Top)
4-16# (Bottom)
8-15 300 600 5-16# (Top)
3-16# (Bottom)
Note- # Symbol indicate the diameter of rebar

27
221370720020 Analysis and Design

5.3 Perform Equivalent Static Method

The equivalent static approach is a seismic analysis technique used in structural

engineering to estimate the forces that act on a structure during an earthquake. It reduces
the dynamic response of a structure to a corresponding static load distribution. The
Equivalent Static Method is Performed According to IS 1893 (Part 1)-2016.
Table 5. 9: Load Cases

Load Case Name Load Case Type

Dead Linear Static
Live Linear Static
Wall load Linear Static
FF Linear Static
EQ x Linear Static
EQ Y Linear Static
RS X Response Spectrum
RS Y Response Spectrum

Table 5.10 Seismic Weight Calculation

Seismic Weight of a Floor

Weight of Slabs 2343.75 kN
Weight of beams 1125 kN
Weight of FF 625 kN
Weight of Column (1 to 5) 352 kN/m
Weight of Column (6 to 10) 265 kN/m
Weight of Column (11 to 15) 127kN/m
Weight of Ex. Wall 460 kN/m
Weight of Int. Wall 460 kN/m
Weight of Parapet Wall 460 kN/m
Live Load 468.75 kN

28
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Table 5.11: Seismic Weight Calculation

Column Size Column Size Column Size

Lumped weight
750 x 750 650 × 650 450 × 450

Lumped Weight at Floor Level 9380.22kN 9073.97kN 8592.72kN

Lumped Weight at Roof Level 6571.98 kN 6418.86kN 6178.23kN

Total Seismic Weight of Building 134419.8kN 130132.3kN 123394.8kN

Table 5.12: Manual Base Shear Calculation

Floor No. Wi (kN) hi (m) Wihi2 Qi-x(kN) Qi-y(kN)

1 9380.219 3.5 114907.68 2.82 2.82
2 9380.219 7 459630.72 11.27 11.27
3 9380.219 10.5 1034169.12 25.35 25.35
4 9380.219 14 1838522.88 45.07 45.07
5 9380.219 17.5 2872691.99 70.42 70.42
6 9073.969 21 4001620.22 94.96 94.96
7 9073.969 24.5 5446649.74 129.25 129.25
8 9073.969 28 7113991.5 168.82 168.82
9 9073.969 31.5 9003645.49 213.66 213.66
10 9073.969 35 11115611.7 263.78 263.78
11 8592.719 38.5 12736557.4 286.60 286.60
12 8592.719 42 15157555.9 341.08 341.08
13 8592.719 45.5 17789076 400.29 400.29
14 8592.719 49 20631117.7 464.24 464.24
Roof 6178.234 52.5 17028758.5 383.18 383.18
Total 126344507 2900.79 2900.79

29
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Figure 5.5: Base Shear From ETABS

• Base Shear from Manual calculation is 2900.79 kN and software Base shear is
2864.0332 kN.
• Error in manual and software base shear is 2.1%.

5.4 Perform Response Spectrum

It represents the maximum responses of a spectrum of idealized single degree of freedom
systems with varying natural periods but the same damping, all subjected to the same
earthquake ground motion at their bases. The reaction described here can be maximum
absolute acceleration, maximum relative velocity, or maximum relative displacement.
The structural s in ETABS 2018 is analyzed using the Response Spectrum Method.
According to IS 1893 (Part 1), 2016.

Define Response Spectrum Function:

Figure 5.6: Define RS Function

30
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Figure 5.7: Define Modal Cases

Figure 5.8: RS Load Case Data

Scale factor: After changing the scale factors for the response spectrum to obtain equal
values for static and dynamic base shear
= Vb/Vb = 1775.8951/ 1118 = 1.5881

Figure 5.9: Base Shear (S.F – 1)

31
221370720020 Analysis and Design

Figure 5.10: Base Shear of RS

32
221370720020 Result and Discussion

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 82o Model Results

82 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMN ESM RSM

2000
1800
BASE SHEAR (kN)

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
SQURE C-SHAPE L-SHAPE CROSS SHAPE

SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.1: 82 Degree Oblique Column Base Shear

Table 6.1: 82 Degree Oblique Column Base Shear

SHAPE OF Vb ESM (kN) Vb RSM (kN) SCALE FACTOR

BUILDING
Square - Shape 1775.9 1776.3432 1.5881
C- Shape 1440.93 1441.59 1.4858
L- Shape 1494.6624 1494.4201 1.5054
Cross- Shape 1232.14 1232.32 2.1033

33
221370720020 Result and Discussion

As observed in Fig. 6.1.1, the 82 Degree Building Base Shear results for the C, L, and
Cross shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 18%, 15%, and 30% less,
respectively.

ESM
82 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMNS RSM
35
MAX. STOREY DISPLACEMENT (mm)

30

25

20

15

10

0
SQUARE C CROSS L
SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.2: 82 Degree Oblique Maximum Storey Displacement

Table 6.2: 82 Degree Oblique Maximum Storey Displacement

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (mm) RSM (mm)

Square - Shape 20.795 14.19
C- Shape 17.441 11.959
Cross- Shape 31.883 28.472
L- Shape 19.579 14.62

As observed in Fig. 6.1.2, the 82 Degree Building Maximum Story Displacement results
for the C and Cross shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 16%, and 5%
less, respectively. And in L shape Maximum Story Displacement 34% more than square
shape.

34
221370720020 Result and Discussion

82 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMN

0.035
MAX STOREY DRIFT RATIO (%) ESM
0.03
RSM
0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
SQUARE C CROSS L
SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.3: 82 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Drift Ratio

Table 6.3: 82 Degree Oblique Maximum Storey Drift

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (%) RSM (%)

Square - Shape 0.0289 0.0169
C- Shape 0.017 0.0121
Cross- Shape 0.019 0.0234
L- Shape 0.0092 0.0123

As observed in Fig. 6.1.3, the 82 Degree Building Maximum Story Drift results for
the C and Cross shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 41%, and 68%
less, respectively. And in L shape Maximum Story Displacement 34% more than square
shape.

35
221370720020 Result and Discussion

6.2 84o Model Results

ESM
84 DEG. OBLIQUE COLUMN RSM
1800
1600
BASE SHEAR (kN)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
SQURE C-SHAPE L-SHAPE CROSS SHAPE

SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.4: 84 Degree Oblique Column Base Shear

Table 6.4: 84 Degree Oblique Column Base Shear

SHAPE OF Vb ESM (kN) Vb RSM (kN) SCALE FACTOR

BUILDING
Square - Shape 1185.5623 1186.008 1.2288
C- Shape 1001.5778 1001.0576 1.2356
L- Shape 1584.278 1584.0334 2.1103
Cross- Shape 1559.952 1559.658 2.9165

As shown in Fig. 6.2.1, the 84 Degree Building Base Shear findings for the C shape are
15% less than those for the square shape building. Furthermore, the base shear in L and
cross shapes is 25% and 24% higher than in square shapes, respectively.

36
221370720020 Result and Discussion

84 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMNS

70
MAX. STOREY DISPLACEMENT (mm)
ESM
60
RSM
50
40
30
20
10
0
SQUARE C CROSS L
SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.5: 84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Displacement

Table 6.5: 84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Displacement

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (mm) RSM (mm)

Square - Shape 23.278 17.014
C- Shape 20.005 14.723
Cross- Shape 61.85 56.068
L- Shape 38.606 30.852

As observed in Fig. 6.2.2, the 84 Degree Building Maximum Story Displacement results
for the C and Cross shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 14%, and
39% less, respectively. And in L shape Maximum Story Displacement 62% more than
square shape.

37
221370720020 Result and Discussion

84 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMN ESM

RSM
MAX STOREY DRIFT RATIO (%) 0.04

0.035

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
SQUARE C CROSS L
SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.6: 84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Drift Ratio

Table 6.6: 84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Drift Ratio

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (%) RSM (%)

Square - Shape 0.0176 0.0103
C- Shape 0.0174 0.0094
Cross- Shape 0.0352 0.0154
L- Shape 0.0364 0.0213

As shown in Fig. 6.2.3, the 84 Degree Building Maximum Story Drift Ratio findings for
the C shape are 1.36% less than those for the square shape building. Furthermore, the
Story drift Ratio in L and cross shapes is 50% and 51% higher than in square shapes,
respectively.

38
221370720020 Result and Discussion

6.3 86o Model Results

86 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMN ESM

RSM
2500

2000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

1500

1000

500

0
SQURE C-SHAPE L-SHAPE CROSS SHAPE

SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.7: 86 Degree Oblique Column Base Shear

Table 6.7: 86 Degree Oblique Column Base Shear

SHAPE OF Vb ESM (kN) Vb RSM (kN) SCALE FACTOR

BUILDING
Square - Shape 2286.92 2287.92 2.5889
C- Shape 1634.38 1634.78 2.2853
L- Shape 1799.57 1799.57 2.5934
Cross- Shape 2093.46 2093.48 3.0927

As observed in Fig. 6.3.1, the 86 Degree Building Base Shear results for the C, L, and
Cross shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 28%, 21%, and 8% less,
respectively.

39
221370720020 Result and Discussion

ESM
86 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMN
RSM
80
MAX. STOREY DISPLACEMENT (mm)
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
SQUARE C CROSS L
SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.8: 84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Displacement

Table 6.8:84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Displacement

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (mm) RSM (mm)

Square - Shape 68.98 48.548
C- Shape 51.096 36.481
Cross- Shape 74.17 66.445
L- Shape 68.46 51.887

Figure 6.3.2 shows that the Cross shape has a 7% greater Maximum Story Displacement
than the square shape. Furthermore, Story displacement for C Shape 26% less in
comparison with square shape.

40
221370720020 Result and Discussion

86 DEG OBLIQUE COLUMN

0.12
MAX STOREY DRIFT RATIO (%)
0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
SQUARE C CROSS L
SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.9: 84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Drift Ratio

Table 6 9: 84 Degree Oblique Column Maximum Story Drift Ratio

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (%) RSM (%)

Square - Shape 0.0968 0.0718
C- Shape 0.0587 0.044
Cross- Shape 0.0588 0.0436
L- Shape 0.0773 0.058

As observed in Fig. 6.3.3, the 86 Degree Building Maximum Drift ratio results for the C,
L, and Cross shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 40%, 39%, and 20%
less, respectively.

41
221370720020 Result and Discussion

6.4 Regular Building Model Results

ESM
Normal Building RSM
3500

3000
BASE SHEAR (kN)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
SQURE C-SHAPE L-SHAPE CROSS SHAPE

SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.10: Base Shear for Regular Building

Table 6.10: Base Shear for Regular Building

SHAPE OF Vb ESM (kN) Vb RSM (kN) SCALE FACTOR

BUILDING
Square - Shape 2864.50 2864.03 3.3505
C- Shape 2407.51 2408.02 3.3246
L- Shape 2223.04 2224.02 3.3315
Cross- Shape 1655.33 1654.92 3.072

As observed in Fig. 6.4.1, Regular Building Base Shear results for the C, L, and Cross
shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 15%, 22%, and 42% less,
respectively.

42
221370720020 Result and Discussion

ESM
NORMAL BUILDING RSM
120

MAX. STOREY DISPLACEMENT (mm)

100

80

60

40

20

0
SQUARE C CROSS L

SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.11: Maximum Story Displacement for Regular Building

Table 6.11: Maximum Story Displacement for Regular Building

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (mm) RSM (mm)

Square - Shape 98.64 75.67
C- Shape 91.57 70.24
Cross- Shape 78.37 60.22
L- Shape 93.05 73.82

As observed in Fig. 6.4.2, Regular Building Maximum Story Displacement results for the
C, L, and Cross shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 7%, 20%, and
5% less, respectively.

43
221370720020 Result and Discussion

ESM
NORMAL BUILDING
RSM
0.08
MAXIMUM DRIFT RATIO (%) 0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
SQUARE C CROSS L
SHAPE OF BUILDING

Figure 6.12: Maximum Story Drift Ratio for Regular Building

Table 6.12: Maximum Story Drift Ratio for Regular Building

SHAPE OF BUILDING ESM (%) RSM (%)

Square - Shape 0.0653 0.0441
C- Shape 0.0612 0.041
Cross- Shape 0.0621 0.0443
L- Shape 0.0703 0.0495

As observed in Fig. 6.4.2, Regular Building Maximum Story Drift Ratio results for the
C, and L shapes are, in comparison to the square shape building, 6% and 5% less,
respectively. Furthermore, For Cross Shape Story Drift is 7% more than square shape.

44
221370720020 Result and Discussion

6.5 Time Period Results

Square Shape
2.831
3

Time Period (Sec)

2.5 2.088
2 1.6
1.5 1.24
1
0.5
0
82° 84° 86° 90°

Inclination Of Column

Figure 6.13: Time period for square shape building

Figure 6.14 Mode Shape 82 Degree Square shape

45
221370720020 Result and Discussion

Table 6.13: Time Period Square Shape models

Modal Time period (Sec)

Shape of building Degree
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Square 820 1.24 1.24 1.077
840 1.6 1.583 1.354
860 2.088 2.088 1.764
900 2.831 2.831 2.585

C Shape
3.5 3.046
3
Time Period (Sec)

2.5
1.91
2
1.46
1.5 1.18
1
0.5
0
82° 84° 86° 90°
Inclination Of Column

Figure 6.15: Time period for C-shape building

Figure 6.16: Mode Shape 84 Degree C- shape

46
221370720020 Result and Discussion

Table 6.14: Time period C- Shape models

Modal Time period (Sec)

Shape of building Degree
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
C- Shape 820
1.18 1.16 1.031
0
84 1.46 1.439 1.216
0
86 1.91 1.803 1.555
0
90 3.046 2.773 2.666

Cross Shape
3
2.575
2.5 2.277
Time Period (Sec)

2.059
2
1.49
1.5

0.5

0
82° 84° 86° 90°
Inclination Of Column

Figure 6.17: Time period for Cross shape building:

Figure 6.18: Mode Shape 86 Degree Cross- shape

47
221370720020 Result and Discussion

Table 6.15: Time period Cross- Shape models

Modal Time period (Sec)

Shape of building Degree
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Cross- Shape 0
82 1.49 1.316 1.167
0
84 2.059 1.761 1.545
0
86 2.277 2.097 1.764
0
90 2.575 2.537 2.313

L Shape
3 2.769

2.5
Time Period (Sec)

2.085
2
1.6
1.5 1.16
1

0.5

0
82° 84° 86° 90°
Inclination Of Column

Figure 6.19: Time period for L-shape building

Figure 6.20 Mode Shape 90 Degree L- shape

48
221370720020 Result and Discussion

Table 6.16: Time period L- Shape models

Modal Time period (Sec)

Shape of building Degree
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
L- Shape 82 0
1.16 1.159 1.012
0
84 1.6 1.584 1.376
86 0
2.085 2.083 1.792
90 0
2.769 2.751 2.584

❖ Observations:

• All four building types (square, C-shape, cross-shape, and L-shape) show an increase
in time period as inclination increases (from 82° to 90°).
• The modal time periods of square and L-shaped buildings are almost similar in all
modes and periods.
• C-shape building have slightly lower modal time periods compared to Square and L-
shape.
• Cross-shape buildings have the highest modal time periods Compared to Square, C
and L Shape building.

49
221370720020 Conclusions

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS

The Purpose of this work is analysis of a 15-story RC SMRF building with square, C, L,
and cross shapes with various column inclination angles (82 Degree, 84 Degree, 86
Degree) Oblique columns. The Key findings of this study are as follows:

Square Shape buildings with an 820 Column inclination have greater base shear than C,
L, and cross-shaped buildings. Square and cross-shaped buildings have much higher story
displacement and drift than C and L-shaped buildings.
L-Shape Buildings with an 840 Column inclination have greater base shear than Square,
C, and cross-shaped buildings. Cross-shape and L-shape buildings have much higher
story displacement and drift than Square and C-shape buildings when Column inclination
is 840.
Square shape Regular Building and Square shape building with 860 columns have higher
base shear in comparison with other shapes. Story Displacement in cross shape building
is higher in comparison with Square, C and L shape building when column inclination is
860.
The max. storey displacement of 820, 840, 860 square shape building decreased by 78%,
75%, and 30% Respectively compare to Regular building.
Time period in Regular building is higher in comparison with oblique column building.
Time period increase with increase in inclination of column.

50
221370720020 Reference

REFERENCE

1. Sridhara K., G V Sowjanya., (2021) “Seismic Response of multi-story building

with oblique columns” International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology (IRJET) Volume: 08 Issue: 01
2. Navaneeth Krishna, Abhishek C V, “Seismic behaviour of multi-storeyed building
with oblique column and its height optimization”, Vol. 07, Issue 07, e-ISSN:
2395-0056, IRJET-2020
3. Rohan Singh, Vikas Prabhakar, “Study of multi-storeyed buildings with oblique
columns”, Vol. 09, Issue 08, ISSN: 2278-0181, IJERT-2020.
4. Nandakumar, F. Fisal, G. K. Kumar, And G. P. Thampi, “Analysis of Framed
Structures with Oblique Column Using Etabs,” Vol. 9, No. 7, Pp. 5297–5303,
2020
5. C. R. MENTE1& DR. S. N. TANDE, “Nonlinear Static Analysis of high rise
building with normal and oblique column” International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 08 Issue: 01
6. B P Radha Dr. Vijaya g.s “Seismic analysis of rcc structure with inclined
additional columns at corner columns” International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology (IJCIET)Volume 9, Issue 6, June 2018, pp. 382–387, Article ID:
IJCIET
7. Hu, K., Yang, Y., Mu, S. and Qu, G., 2012. Study on High-rise Structure with
Oblique Columns by ETABS, SAP2000, MIDAS/GEN and SATWE. Procedia
engineering, 31, pp.474-480.
8. (Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 97) Kaustubh Dasgupta, T. K. Sudheesh, K.
I. Praseeda, G. Unni Kartha, P. E. Kavitha, S. Jawahar Saud - Proceedings of
SECON 2020_ Structural Engineering and Construction management.
9. Sakarkar, Mr Purvesh R., and A. B. Pujari. "REVIEW ON EFFECT OF
SLANTED COLUMN IN BUILDING." International Journal of Progressive

51
221370720020 Reference

Research in Engineering Management and Science (IJPREMS) Vol. 03, Issue 01,
January 2023, pp: 38-41.

10. Shoaib Nawab Hussain and Prof. Sunil Kalyani. “Study of High-Rise Building
with Oblique Column using ETABS” International Journal of Advanced Research
in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT) Volume 2, Issue 1,
August 2022.
11. Harshada Ashok Targe, Utkarsha Dilip Bhadane2, Gauri Madhav Derle3, Sakshi
Sandip Mane, Sayali Satish Bhakkar “Comparative Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Oblique Columns and Y- Shaped Columns by Using ETABS”
International Journal of Modern Developments in Engineering and Science
Volume 1, Issue 6, June 2022.
12. Diya Kuriakose, Dr. Mathews M Paul “Seismic Performance of Multi-Story
Buildings with Oblique Columns of Different Shapes” International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume: 08 Issue: 07 | July 2021.
13. Geethu Krishna K V and Lakshmi L, “Study on Seismic Performance of Multi-
storeyed building with Oblique Columns”, Vol. 14, Issue 12, ISSN 0973-4562,
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research -2019.
14. Girish Kumar G. M and S.M Maheshwar Appa, “Seismic Performance Study of
Multi-storeyed Building with Oblique Columns by using ETABS”, Vol. 4, Issue
8, E-ISSN: 2454-6135, IJERAT- 2018.
15. Vivek Narayanan, Aiswarya S, “Effect of oblique column and viscous damper
on Podium structure using Etabs”, Vol. 04, Issue 05, e-ISSN: 2395-0056, IRJET-
2017.
16. Kona NarayanaReddy, Dr. E. Arunakanthi “A Study on Multi-Storeyed Building
with Oblique Columns by using Etabs”, Vol. 6, Issue 2, ISSN: 2319-8753,
IJIRS-2017.
17. Fragiadakis, M., 2013. Response spectrum analysis of structures subjected to
seismic actions. Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, pp.3-18.
18. Chandak, N.R., 2012. Response spectrum analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings. Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 93, pp.121-
128.

52
221370720020 Reference

19. KK Pathak, Ashish Mohan Shivhare, and S K Dubey, “Parametric Seismic

Analysis of Tall Buildings with Different Geometry and Constant Plan Area”,
Volume No.02, November 2016.

20. Belniak, S., Leśniak, A., Plebankiewicz, E. and Zima, K., 2013. The influence of
the building shape on the costs of its construction. Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction, 18(1), pp.90-102.

21. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
– 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 2, February (2015),
pp. 38-45 © IAEME.

22. Khushbu Jani and Paresh V. Patel, “Analysis and Design of Diagrid Structural
System for High Rise Steel Buildings”, Published by Elsevier Ltd.

23. Mir M. Ali and Kyoung S. Moon, “Structural Developments in Tall Buildings:
Current Trends and Future Prospects”, Architectural Science Review Vol 50.3, pp
205 223.

24. J. Kim, Y.Jun and Y.-Ho Lee, “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Diagrid
System Buildings”, 2nd Specially Conference on Disaster Mitigation, Manitoba.

25. Kyoung S. Moon, “Diagrid Structures for Complex Shaped Tall Building”,
Published by Elesevier Ltd.

26. Rahman, M.R., Ahmed, T. and Mony, A.A.U., 2020. Comparative study between
rectangular and specially shaped RC column on seismic response for multistoried
building. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Civil Engineering
for Sustainable Development. KUET Khulna, Bangladesh.

27. IS: 456-2000. Plain and Reinforced Concrete- Code of Practice (Fourth Revision),
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi.

28. IS: 875 (Part 1), “Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for
Building and Structures”, Bureau of Indian Standard, India, 2015.

53
221370720020 Reference

29. IS 875 (Part 2):2015, Code of Practice for design loads for buildings and
structures.
30. IS 1893:2016 (Part 1), Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures.

54
221370720020 Review Card

Appendix-A: Review Card

INTERNAL REVIEW - 1

55
221370720020 Review Card

DESSERTATION PHASE - 1

56
221370720020 Review Card

INTERNAL REVIEW - 2

55
221370720020 Review Card

Appendix - B: Plagiarism Report

58