LATERAL LOAD RESPONSE EVALUATION OF

MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS WITH VARIED PLANS

AND SETBACK IRREGULARITIES

Presented by : Taqiuddin (161019741005)

Under the Guidance of : MR.IMTIYAZ QURESHI
Nawabshahalam khan College of Engineering and Technology
 INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
NEED OF THE WORK
OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK
PRESENTATION
OUTLINE SCOPE OF THE WORK
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 INTRODUCTION
 In general the behaviour of a building during earthquakes depends critically on its
overall geometry, shape, structural system and load path. So the buildings with
irregular plans and setback irregularities are not much efficient in transferring the
earthquake forces from plinth level to top floor levels.
 Shear walls gives higher stiffness to the structure so as the structure will be stable.
 As the tower of the building is positioned at the centre of the podium, high torsional
demands and high shear forces induced can be minimize on the tower shear walls
when subject to severe earthquake ground shaking.
 Keeping the importance of vertical geometry and plan irregularity an attempt is
made to study the dynamic behaviour of multi-storied buildings with irregular plans
and setback irregularities with the influence of shear wall in seismic zone IV.
Paramount building
IRREGULARITIES
• A structure is said to be irregular, when certain structural parameters exceed the limits specified by
standards.
Type of irregularity Classification Limits
Mass (M) Vertical irregularity Mi < 1.5Ma
Stiffness (S) Vertical irregularity Si< Si+1
Vertical geometry(VG) Vertical irregularity VG<1.25VGa
Re-entrant Corner(R) Horizontal irregularity Ri <= 15%
Torsion(T) Horizontal irregularity Δmax<=1.5 Δavg

• Irregularity limits prescribed by IS1893-2016(Part-1) (i = storey number, a = adjacent storey number, Δmax =
maximum deformation and Δavg = average deformation)
• PLAN IRREGULARITY
Plan irregularity is due to asymmetric distributions of mass, stiffness, strength, geometric
discontinuity and diaphragm discontinuity.
• TYPE OF PLAN IRREGULARITY STUDIED

• TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY
The maximum horizontal displacement of any floor in that direction of the lateral force at
one end of the same floor in that direction, and the natural period corresponding to the fundamental
torsional mode of oscillation is more than those of the first two translational modes of oscillation
along each principal plan directions

•
• VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
In a vertically irregular structure, failure of structure starts at points of weakness. This weakness arises
due to discontinuity in mass, stiffness and geometry of structure.
• TYPE OF VERTICAL IRREGULARITY STUDIED

– Vertical Geometric Irregularity

As per IS 1893:2016, A structure is considered to be Vertical geometric irregular when the
horizontal dimension of the lateral force resisting system in any story is more than 150 percent of that
in its adjacent story.
• IMPORTANCE OF SHEAR WALL IN TALL BUILDING
Lateral forces caused by wind, earthquake, and uneven settlement loads, in addition to the
weight of structure and occupants, create powerful twisting (torsion) forces. These forces can literally
tear (shear) a building apart, Reinforcing a frame by attaching or placing a rigid wall inside it maintains
the shape of the frame and prevents rotation at the joints.
LITERATURE REVIEW
 AUTHOR PUBLICATION YEAR TITLE DESCRIPTION

In this work they studied the seismic response of RC structures having

various individual and combined complicated geometric irregularities.
Zabihullah Effect of (Vertical & Together with a regular configuration, six number of irregular
Priyanka Singh
IRJET Horizontal) Geometric configurations are analyzed and compared by performing Modal analysis
Mohammad ISSN N0. 2249- 2020 Irregularities on the and Response Spectrum Method as per IS-1893 (Part-1): 2016. finally
Zamir Aryan 3255 Seismic Response of concluded that Out of building models with individual irregularity, the
RC Structures” horizontally irregular model is verified as the most susceptible during the
considered earthquake. Oppositely, the vertically irregular model is
recognized to have a superior seismic performance.

Investigated the structural behavior of a 20- storey building with vertical

Vishal N, IRJET Seismic Analysis of setback irregularies by performing responsespectrum method considering
Ramesh Multi-Storey Irregular with and without Construction Sequence Analysis (CSA) using different
Kannan M, ISSN: 2277-3878 2020
Volume-8 ,Issue-6, Building with Different structural systems based on timeperiod storey displacement,storey drift it
Keerthika L Structural Systems was concluded that duel core structural system has performed well
compared to bracings and moment resisting frame
 AUTHOR​ PUBLICATION YEAR​ TITLE​ DESCRIPTION​

Dynamic studied the dynamic analysis of multi storey framed structure with
analysis of different plan configurations. Six models of G+14 storey
RCC multi- (Rectangular, Hexagonal, Circular, Elliptical, Sector and Y-shape)
IRJET storey have been taken. The Plan area for each structure is
Mohammed structure
Mohi Uddin e-ISSN : 2455- 2018 same(720m2).Response Spectrum analysis carried out through
et al 2585 Volume 4, with
Different ETABS, finally based on parameters like displacement, drift base
Issue 09.
Plan shear indicated that Y-shape model found to be stable and sector
Configuratio shape
Click to add text found to be critical, but torsion irregularity exists in all
ns shapes.

Huanjun Seismic investigates on Seismic performance of 20 storied RC frame-shear

Jiang a,b , , performanc wall structures with vertical setback through time history analysis
Youlu Huang Elsevier e of RC on three groups of models under different levels of earthquakes
a,b , Liusheng Volume 33 2021 frame-shear excitation. concluded stated that in the vertical direction, setback
He a,b, , Tian Procedia structural wall at the middle height gives larger inter-storey drift ratio and seismic
Huang a,b , integrity 14 structures force. And setback at the lower height will produce more
Shaojing with vertical prominent influence on the variation of inter-storey drift ratio.
Zhang c setback
Overall, setback at the middle height should be avoided.
 CRITICAL APPRAISAL

• Previous studies have been majorly focused on the seismic performance of RC

building with irregular plans, few works were also carried on considering vertical
geometric irregularities with fixed setback ratio by performing modal analysis,
response spectrum analysis & time history analysis.
• These studies were limited to lower heights when setbacks and regular plans were
considered, only few research was based on regular setback model for tall building.
There was no consideration of setbacks for tall buildings with irregular plans.
• In the present study tall buildings with nine varied plan configuration i.e rectangular,
circle, oval, equilateral triangle, Y, hexagonal, right angle triangle and quatrifoil
shape with and without set back irregularities are considered to investigate the
modal analysis, equivalent static analysis and response spectrum analysis.
 NEED OF THE STUDY

• Now a days need and demand of the latest generation and growing population has
made the architects or engineers inevitable towards planning of irregular
configurations. If building is irregular, then excessive stresses or forces get
developed in certain portion and they cause serious damages, this has made the
engineers to study the behavior of buildings
• The resistance of this structures is on lower side due to irregularities, use of shear
wall and SMRF frame is higher in these cases due to higher stiffness resulting from
additional Confining Reinforcement. .
• To develop a new type of plan configuration that can be effectively adopted by
practicing engineers in terms of aesthetic and structural stability.
 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

• To study the modal free vibration behavior of buildings with the influence of shear
wall in different plan configuration with and without setbacks.
• To study the forced vibration behavior (like lateral displacement, inter-story drift
ratios, lateral story shear force, eccentricity and maximum drift/average drift ratio)
by performing linear dynamic analysis to all building models with irregular plans
and set-back irregularities.
• To determine the more suitable irregular plan configuration building with and
without setback to be stable and critical in higher seismic zone.
 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
• The present work aims to study the behavior of irregular plan configuration buildings with the
influence of shear wall at the center and ends, Nine irregular plans are considered i.e rectangular,
circular(beams connected radially), oval, equilateral triangle, Y, hexagonal, right angle triangular
quatrefoil and circular shape (beams connected straight ), Each irregular plan of the 20 storied
building has two models one model having equivalent floor area 1500sq.m and other model having
three setback areas 1500sq.m,700sq.m,300sq.m through out the height at an interval of
21meters,42meters,60 meters.
• The buildings studied in this work is in seismic zone IV with ductile R.C structural walls and special
moment resisting frames(SMRF). The following codes IS875-part-1,part-2,part-3, IS-16700-2017,
IS1893-2016(part-1) have being used for validation and bench marking.
• Modal analysis, Equivalent static analysis and response spectrum analysis are carried out using
ETABS 2019 software. The primary goal of this work is to provide valuable insights into the behavior
of various plan configuration tall buildings with shear walls subjected to seismic loads. This study
can be reference for practicing engineers in designing R.C building with irregular plans in high
seismic zone.
METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
 Steps Involved In Work
Review of Literature

Critical appraisal

Methodology

Modeling of Structure

Irregular plan G+19

Equilateral
Rectangular Circular with Oval Y- Hexagonal Right angle Quatrif oil
Triangular
with Core Core Shear with Core with Core Shear with Core Shear with Core with Core
with Core
Shear wall wall Shear wall wall wall Shear wall Shear wall
Shear wall

Rectangular Rectangular Circular Oval Hexagonal Hexagonal

with Core Equilateral with Hexagonal with
with Core with Core with Core with Core with Core
Shear wall & Core Shear wall Core Shear wall
Shear wall & Shear wall Shear wall & Shear wall & Shear wall &
Set back & Set back & Set back
Set back & Set back Set back Set back Set back
Irregularity Irregularity Irregularity
Irregularity Irregularity Irregularity Irregularity Irregularity

Analysis Carried out by

• Response Spectrum Analysis through ETABS 2019

Defining material properties, section properties and Pier labels

Assigning Support Conditions, member properties and Pier labels

Defining Diaphragm, Dead loads(wall loads & floor finishes), Live

loads, & Seismic loads

Defining mass source , Spectrum load cases

Assigning diaphragm , Live loads, wall loads, floor finishes

Calculation of Storey displacement

Calculation of Storey Drift

Calculation of Storey Shear

Results and Discussions

Conclusions
• BUILDING MODELS CONSIDERED IN STUDY
• The Layout of all the plans having equal area 1500sq.m and core shear wall area
100m2.and set-back irregular models having 3 equivalent floor areas at 900,300sq.m.
Model Configuration Model Configuration
Number With No Setback Number With Setback

1 Rectangle 1A Rectangular with Setbacks

2 Circular 2A Circular with Setbacks
(beams connected radially) (beams connected radially)

3 Oval 3A Oval with Setbacks

4 Equilateral triangle 4A Equilateral triangle with Setbacks

5 Y 5A Y- with Setbacks
6 Hexagonal 6A Hexagonal with Setbacks

7 Right angle triangle 7A Right angle triangle with Setbacks

8 Quatrifoil 8A Quatrifoil with Setbacks

9 Circular 9A Circular with Setbacks
(Beams connected straight) (Beams connected straight)
• Plan View (RECTANGLE) (M1) Plan View CIRCLE (M2) Plan View (OVAL) (M3)
• (Beams Connected Radially to Core)

•
•
•

• Plan View (EQUILATERAL TRIANGLE) (M4) Plan View (Y) (M5) Plan View (HEXAGONAL) (M6)
Plan View (RIGHT ANGLE TRIANGLE) (M7)
Plan View (QUATRIFOIL) (M8)

Plan View CIRCULAR PLAN(beams connected straight to core) (M9)

 Isometric View (Rectangle-shape) Isometric View (Circular-shape) Isometric View (Oval-shape)
(M1) (M2) (M3)

Isometric View (Equilateral Triangular-shape) Isometric View (Y-shape) Isometric View (Hexagonal-shape)
(M4) (M5) (M6)
Isometric View (RIGHT ANGLE TRIANGLE-shape) Isometric View (QUATRIFOIL-shape)
(M7) (M8)

Isometric View (RIGHT ANGLE TRIANGLE-Setback irregular) Isometric View (QUATRIFOIL-Setback irregular)
(M-7A) (M-8A)
 Isometric View (Rectangle-set back irregular) Isometric View (Circular-set back) Isometric View (Oval-set back irregular)
(M-1A) (M-2A) (M-3A)

Isometric View (Equilateral Triangle- set back irregular) Isometric View (Y-set back irregular)
Isometric View (Hexagonal - set back irregular)
(M-4A) (M-5A)
(M-6A)
MODAL ANALYSIS
 Modal Analysis or mode-superposition method was done to get an overview about the global behaviour of
the structure and locate the problems in the model. The mode shapes and frequencies were studied, and
appropriate modifications were made in the structure to get satisfactory contribution of mass in the
fundamental modes.
• RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
 Response-spectrum analysis provides insight into dynamic behavior by measuring pseudo-spectral acceleration,
velocity, or displacement as a function of structural period for a given and level of damping.
 The Design base shear obtained for dynamic analysis should not be less than the base shear obtained using the
calculated time period, As ETABS takes the time period for response spectrum analysis from the modal analysis
results we get less base shear for response spectrum case, to make it equal we multiply it by the scale factor.


 Geometry and Loading Details Of Building
S. No Variables Data
Type of Structure Special Moment resisting
1 frame and RC Shear Wall
Number of stories 20 S.No Variables Data
2
Floor Height 3m 9 Zone IV
3
Live Load 2.0KN/SQ.M 10 Importance Factor(I) 1.2
4
Dead Load 11 Response Reduction Factor(R) 5
Self weight Program calculated 12 Type of Soil Medium
5 Wall Load 11KN/SQ.M
Floor Finish 1.2KN/SQ.M 13 Seismic Zone Factor 0.24
14 Live Load reduction Factor 0.25
Materials Concrete M40 and reinforced
6 with HYSD bars Fe(500) 15 Plan area 1500sq.m

7 Thickness of Slab 125mm 16 Set back plan areas

a)1to7 stories 1500sq.m
Density of RCC 25KN/SQ.M b)8to14 stories 900sq.m
8 Density of PCC 24KN/SQ.M c)15to20stories 300sq.m
Density of Brick 20 to 22KN/SQ.M

9 Shear Wall 300mm

 Model Details of Building
S.NO TYPE OF CONFIGURATION VARIABLES DATA
1 Rectangle Beams 300x600mm
Columns 600x900mm
2 Circular with Beams Connected Radially & Beams 300x600mm, 450x600mm
Straight Columns 600x900mm

3 Oval Beams 300x600mm, 450x600mm

Columns 600x900mm
4 Equilateral Triangle Beams 300x600mm, 450x600mm
Columns 600x900mm
5 Y Beams 300x600mm,450x600mm
Columns 600x900mm,750x1200mm
6 Hexagonal Beams 300x600mm
Columns 600x900mm
7 Right Angle Triangle Beams 300x600mm,450x600mm
Columns 600x900mm, 650x900mm
8 QuatrifOil Beams 300x600mm, 350x600mm
Columns 600x900mm, 650x900mm
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 Time
Time Mode
Period
UX UY RZ
Mode Period UX UY RZ
1 1.151 0 55.84 0.
2 1.12 56.86 0 0
1 1.739 0 67.56 0
2 1.733 67.67 0 0 3 0.932 0 0 78.34
4 0.391 0 0.000359 10.65
3 1.615 0 0.000215 82.04
4 0.536 0 0 9.19 0.00011
5 0.411 19.21 0 0 5 0.344 0 27.94 2
6 0.411 0 19.21 0 6 0.341 27.35 0 0
7 0.318 0 0 3.32 7 0.219 0 0 4.65
8 0.169 0 0.01 1.64
8 0.224 0 0.00E+00 1.71
0.00280
9 0.189 6.24 0 0 9 0.167 0 7.31 2
10 0.189 0 6.22 0
10 0.167 7.22 0 0
11 0.172 0 0 1.04
11 0.127 0 0 1.4
12 0.138 0 0 0.7 12 0.106 0 0.01 1.08
Total Summation 93.12 92.99 98.0
Total Summation 91.43 91.1103 97.76
Mode 1 Mode 1

Mode 2
Mode 3 Mode 2 Mode 3
 Time Time
Mode UX UY RZ Mode UX UY RZ
Period Period

1 1.366 66.21 0.47 0.24

1 1.286 22.76 26.01 1.18
2 1.253 0.48 65.61 0.39
2 1.179 31.5 24.09 0.62
3 0.851 0.2 0.48 65.36 3 0.802 2.62 5.16 66.57
4 0.314 17.53 0.63 0.05 4 0.425 6.43 9.25 3.29
5 0.28 0.73 18.27 0.04 5 0.338 14.53 9.42 0.17
6 0.184 0.04 0.06 19.12 6 0.286 2.19 4.54 13.88
7 0.224 1.42 2.43 2.04
7 0.138 6.16 0.3 0.02
8 0.165 2.74 1.18 1.23
8 0.123 0.34 6.24 0.01
9 0.16 3.68 4.23 0.01
9 0.084 2.99 0.16 0.01
10 0.13 0.51 0.95 4.18
10 0.08 0.004823 0.01 6.66 11 0.103 1.74 1.33 0.23
11 0.076 0.14 2.87 0.02 12 0.095 2.45 1.87 0.01
12 0.069 0.0010280.000722 0
TotalSummation 92.57 90.46 93.41
Mode 1 Mode 1
Total Summation 94.825 95.10 91.92

Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 2 Mode 3

 Time
Time Mode UX UY RZ
Mode UX UY RZ Period
Period
1 1.021 0 62.42 0.01
1 1.77 0 74.76 0
2 0.944 69.54 0 0
2 1.543 72.42 0 0
3 0.766 0 0 61.98
3 1.415 0 0 71.68
4 0.369 0 19.96 19.56
4 0.521 0 11.62 0
5 0.338 19.51 0 0.01
5 0.428 12.65 0 0
6 0.335 0.01 0.01 0
6 0.389 0 0 12.92
7 0.224 0 0 4.89
7 0.263 0 0.478 0
8 0.197 0 5.64 0
8 0.203 0.543 0 0
9 0.18 0 9 0.184 5.93 0 0
0 5.73
10 0.162 0 0.273 0 10 0.133 0 0 4.9

11 0.119 0.307 0 0 11 0.122 0 4.1 0

12 0.111 0 0.174 0 12 0.111 3.84 0 0

Total Summation 93.6 95.6 90.03 Total Summation 98.8 92.13 91.2
Mode 1 Mode 1

Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode 3
Mode 2
 Time Time
Mode UX UY RZ
Period Mode UX UY RZ
Period
1 0.928 0 68.05 0
1 0.796 57.93 0 2.6
2 0.674 58.59 0 9.32
2 0.779 0 59.75 0.01
3 0.515 9.15 0 69.63
3 0.657 1.59 0 74.36
4 0.226 0 18.33 0
4 0.299 1.65 4.6E-03 9.26
5 0.164 14.82 0.005 4.2
5 0.271 24.12 0.05 1
6 0.135 4.4 0 14.11
6 0.268 0.04 25.32 0.01
7 0.104 0 6.03 0
7 0.17 0.31 2E-04 5.23
8 0.077 4 0 1.69
8 0.147 5.18 6E-04 0.45
9 0.065 1.76 0 3.48
9 0.142 0 5.78 0.0011
10 0.065 0 2.82 0.01
10 0.133 0.36 0 0.94
11 0.049 1.65 0 0.98
11 0.108 1.1 1.4E-03 0.68
12 0.047 0 1.55 0
12 0.105 2.56 0.01 0.12 Mode 1
Total Summation 94.4 96.78 94.40 Mode 1
Total Summation 94.84 90.09 94.66

Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 3
 Time
Time Mode UX UY RZ
Mode UX UY RZ Period
Period
1 0.572 0.06 34 3
1 0.825 0.03 67.34 0.01
2 0.547 25 17 0.02
2 0.704 36.45 0.04 31.29
3 0.527 31.02 2.4 38
3 0.5 34.25 0 36.33
4 0.209 0.49 0 16.7
4 0.207 0.01 18.26 0.01
5 0.187 24.35 2.04 0.11
5 0.182 11.67 0.02 6.18
6 0.184 1.57 25.98 0.03
6 0.139 4.87 0 12.97
7 0.119 0.04 0.01 31.68
7 0.095 0.01 6.12 0
8 0.104 2.57 11.29 0.08
8 0.087 4.35 0.01 1.46
9 0.068 0.97 0 4.51 9 0.1 8.65 2.71 0.28

10 0.059 0.02 2.97 0 10 0.078 0 0.01 6.53

11 0.056 2.26 0.02 0.57 11 0.06 0.55 2.94 0

12 0.045 0.34 0 2.16 12 0.056 3.57 0.57 0.02

Total Summation 95.23 94.78 95.49 Mode 1

Mode 1
TotalSummation 98.87 98.95 96.45

Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 2 Mode 3

 Time
Time Mode UX UY RZ
Mode UX UY RZ Period
Period
1 0.889 61.17 0 0
1 1.441 71.55 1E-04 0
2 0.818 0 62.98 0
2 1.354 0 72.27 0
3 0.65 0 5E-04 74.74
3 1.304 0 0 80.72
4 0.302 23.16 6E-04 0
4 0.431 0 0 9.35
5 0.285 0 21.66 0.01
5 0.4 16.03 8E-05 0
6 0.281 0 0.03 12.18
6 0.384 0 15.44 0
7 0.157 0.04 0 3.63
7 0.254 0 0 3.42
8 0.156 6.54 1E-04 0.02
8 0.198 5.45 6E-05 0
9 0.193 0 5.22 0 9 0.15 0 6.11 0.0002
10 0.178 0 0 1.8 10 0.126 0 0.001 2.88
11 0.135 0 0 1.13 11 0.099 4 0.03 0
12 0.128 2.51 0 0 12 0.096 0 3.16 0.17
Mode 1
Total Summation 95.54 92.9 96.42 Mode 1 93.3
Total Summation 94.71 93.94 6

Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 2 Mode 3

 Time Time
Mode UX UY RZ Mode UX UY RZ
Period Period
1 1.277 0.8 55.14 12.3 1 0.704 8.88 41.76 0
2 1.15 53.67 0.49 14.01 2 0.651 39.49 9.08 1.36
3 0.829 12.52 11.61 43.67 3 0.415 0.15 0.11 52.73
4 0.321 0.79 9.74 6.1
4 0.233 0.27 20.51 4.68
5 0.271 12.5 5.12 1.23
5 0.223 21.37 3.53 3.91
6 0.196 5.73 3.89 9.44
6 0.186 7.64 3.47 24.53
7 0.15 0.47 3.02 2.51
7 0.121 0 4.53 2.24
8 0.123 3.88 1.96 0.43
8 0.113 0.38 3.83 0.87
9 0.094 0.03 0.9 2.09
9 0.11 8.08 0 0.37
10 0.089 2.19 1.85 21
10 0.083 0 0.54 1.09
11 0.076 1.81 0.87 0.24
11 0.077 0.36 3.06 4.73
12 0.067 0.07 0.7 0.85
12 0.067 4.5 1.1 0.46
Total Summation 94.46 95.29 94.97 Mode 1 Mode 1
Total Summation 91.12 91.52 97.01

Mode 2 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 3
 Time
Mode UX UY RZ Time
Period Mode UX UY RZ
Period
1 0.838 55.52 2.78 0.01
1 0.704 8.88 41.76 0
2 0.82 2.88 54.61 0
2 0.651 39.49 9.08 1.36
3 0.605 0 5E-04 75.69
4 0.274 25.23 0.23 0.04 3 0.415 0.15 0.11 52.73

5 0.27 0.21 25.06 0 4 0.233 0.27 20.51 4.68

6 0.26 0.08 0 11.67 5 0.223 21.37 3.53 3.91

7 0.228 0.06 0.96 0.05 6 0.186 7.64 3.47 24.53

8 0.153 0 6.78 0.02 7 0.121 0 4.53 2.24

9 0.143 0 0 4.35 8 0.113 0.38 3.83 0.87
10 0.138 6.81 4.08 0 9 0.11 8.08 0 0.37
11 0.136 0 1.69 0 10 0.083 0 0.54 1.09
12 0.114 0 0 2.12 11 0.077 0.36 3.06 4.73

Total Summation 90.80 96.19 93.95 12 0.067 4.5 1.1 0.46

Mode 1
Mode 1
Total Summation 91.12 91.52 97.01

Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 2 Mode 3

 Time Time
Mode UX UY RZ Mode UX UY RZ
Period Period

1 1.042 0.2 66.86 0.000125 1 0.827 0.06 49.93 0.000185

2 1.037 66.97 0.2 0.000893 2 0.822 50.01 0.06 0.000541
3 0.613 0.001017 0.00024 68.01 3 0.425 0.002037 0.001189 37.34
4 0.244 14.73 4.7 0.00017 4 0.251 26.67 0.37 0.000374
5 0.243 4.68 14.83 0 5 0.25 0.38 26.83 5.4E-05
6 0.151 7.03E-05 0 18.8 6 0.167 0.000361 9E-05 23.69
7 0.12 5.84 0.07 5.07E-05 7 0.138 10.25 0.19 0.01
8 0.119 0.07 5.89 0 8 0.138 0.19 10.26 6.04E-05
9 0.084 2.29 0.000499 0 9 0.13 0.002509 0 21.39
10 0.084 0.000493 2.32 0 10 0.109 5.75E-05 0 9.63

11 0.073 0 0 6.04 11 0.089 0.09 2.87 0

12 0.068 0.000796 1.03 0 12 0.089 2.98 0.09 0

94.7823 95.9007 92.851 Mode 1 90.6349 92.061
Total Summation 8 4 24 Total Summation 690.60128 21 Mode 1

Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 2 Mode 3

 2.5 2
Model-1 Model-1A
1.8
2 Model-2 Model-2A
1.6
Model-3 1.4 Model-3A
Time Period in sec's

Time Period in sec's

1.5 Model-4 1.2 Model-4A

Model-5 1
Model-5A
1 0.8
Model-6 Model-6A
0.6
Model-7 Model-7A
0.5
0.4
Model-8
Model-8A
0.2
0 Model-9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 Model-9A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No of Modes
No of Modes
Chart No 1 : Represents the Time period for buildings with and without setback.
 Max drift /Avg drift Ratio

Max Average Max

Drift Drift (mm) drift /
Centre of Mass and Centre of Rigidity of Building Models (mm) Avg
drift
MODELS XCM(m) YCM(m) XCR(m) YCR(m) EX(mm) EY(mm) Ratio
M-1 30.734 16.903 30.73 16.9 0 0
M-1A 30.734 16.903 30.734 16.9 0 0
MODELS
M-2 25.825 27.355 25.825 27.355 0 0
M-1 2.27 2.27 1
M-2A 25.838 27.43 25.838 27.43 0 0 M-1A 1.56 1.56 1
M-3 43.75 26.55 43.69 26.54 53 0.4 M-2 0.894 0.684 1.2
M-3A 44.11 26.55 43.7 26.55 410 0 M-2A 4.164 4.146 1.005
M-4 29.5119 17.2669 29.5119 14.46 0 4255 M-3 1.35 1.338 1.008
M-4A 29.5119 17.0179 29.5119 15.4598 0 1557.2 M-3A 1.782 1.77 1.007
M-4 0.574 0.394 1.457
M-5 47.77 37.26 47.64 27.6 130 9660 M-4A 0.485 0.298 1.629
M-5 0.0201 0.105 1.934
M-5A 48.03 36.255 48.192 35.82 -162 435
M-5A 0.0285 0.0177 1.525
M-6 29.457 29.59 29.457 29.59 0 0
M-6 1.245 1.245 1
M-6A 29.0821 30.28 29.46 29.61 -377 670 M-6A 1.227 1.227 1
M-7 22.042 16.509 14.0405 11 8000 5500 M-7 1.014 0.588 1.723

M-7A 17.59 15.67 19.38 14.73 -1790 940 M-7A 0.912 0.486 1.875
M-8 0.456 0.449 1.017
M-8 32.5847 32.3586 32.643 32.0763 -58 282.3 M-8A 0.353 0.352 1.002
M-8A 32.5666 32.361 32.5492 32.5307 17.4 -169.7 M-9 0.85 0.85 1
M-9A 1.67 1.67 1
M-9 28.8275 26.3844 28.8513 26.3081 -23.8 76.3
M-9A 28.8275 26.3844 28.8514 26.3084 -23.64 76
 Results obtained from response spectrum analysis
45
41mm
40 37mm

35
35mm
30mm 29mm 29mm 29mm
30 29mm
26mm
25
24mm 25mm 24mm
22mm 22mm 22mm 22mm
20
17mm 18mm
15

10

0
M-1 M-1A M-2 M-2A M-3 M-3A M-4 M-4A M-5 M-5A M-6 M-6A M-7 M-7A M-8 M-8A M-9 M-9A
X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT IN X-DIRECTION

As the height of the structure is 60m, the overall displacement shall be limited to H/500 (120mm).
45
40mm 39mm
40
36mm
35 32mm
30mm 30mm
30
28mm
26mm 25mm 25mm
25mm 24mm
25 22mm23mm 23mm 22mm
20mm 20mm
20

15

10

0
M-1 M-1A M-2 M-2A M-3 M-3A M-4 M-4A M-5 M-5A M-6 M-6A M-7 M-7A M-8 M-8A M-9 M-9A
Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT IN Y-DIRECTION

 MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFT

0.004
0.00371

0.0035

0.003

0.027
0.0025

0.002 0.00248

0.001351
0.0015

0.001
0.00191 0.00089

0.00047 0.00066 0.0008 0.0022 0.000647000000000005

0.00170.000657000000000004
0.0004 0.00423 0.000463 0.000418 0.000504000000000002
0.0005

0
M-1 M-1A M-2 M-2A M-3 M-3A M-4 M-4A M-5 M-5A M-6 M-6A M-7 M-7A M-8 M-8A M-9 M-9A
X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir

STOREYDRIFT IN X-DIRECTION

As per IS 16700:2017, Maximum inter-storey drift ratio under working loads shall be limited to H/500. For a single
storey, the drift limit may be relaxed to hi/400. For earthquake load (factored) combinations the drift shall be limited to hi/250. The
observed values are lesser than the allowable value. The structure is considered as safe in drifts.
 MAXIMUM STOREY DRIFT

0.0035

0.0028
0.003

0.0024
0.0025

0.002

0.0015 0.001344
0.0035
0.0012

0.001
0.0072 0.000840000000000006
0.00088
0.00048 0.0004
0.00053 0.0044 0.000404 0.000508000000000002
0.0004960.000407000000000003
0.00047
0.0005 0.0034

0
M-1 M-1A M-2 M-2A M-3 M-3A M-4 M-4A M-5 M-5A M-6 M-6A M-7 M-7A M-8 M-8A M-9 M-9A
Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir Y-Dir

STOREYDRIFT IN Y-DIRECTION
 MAXIMUM STOREY SHEAR KN

25000
23072

20000

16815
15945 16214
15790 15315
15000 13895 13740 14261
12690 11968 1302413142
11120 12081
10117 11122
9983
10000

5000

0
M-1 M-1A M-2 M-2A M-3 M-3A M-4 M-4A M-5 M-5A M-6 M-6A M-7 M-7A M-8 M-8A M-9 M-9A
X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir X-Dir

STOREY SHEAR IN X-DIRECTION

 20
19 20
18 18
17
16 16
15
14 14
13 Model-1 Model-1A
12 Model-2 12 Model-2A

Storey No's
Storey No's

11 Model-3 Model-3A
10 Model-4 10
Model-4A
9 Model-5
8 8 Model-5A
Model-6 Model-6A
7
6 Model-7 6 Model-7A
5 Model-8 Model-8A
Model-9 4
4 Model-9A
3 2
2
1 0
0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Storey Shear in X mm
Storey Shear in X mm

STOREY SHEAR IN X-DIRECTION WITH AND WITHOUT SETBACK

 20
20 19
18
18
17
16 16
15
14 14
Model-1 13 Model-1A
12 Model-2 12 Model-2A

Storey Nos's
Storey Nos's

11
Model-3 10 Model-3A
10
Model-4 9 Model-4A
8 Model-5 8 Model-5A
Model-6 7 Model-6A
6 Model-7 6 Model-7A
Model-8 5 Model-8A
4 4
Model-9 3 Model-9A
2 2
1
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Storey Shear in Ymm Storey Shear in Ymm

STOREY SHEAR IN Y-DIRECTION WITH AND WITHOUT SETBACK

 20 20
19 19
18 18
17 17
16 16
15 Model-2 15
14 14
Model-2A Model-2
13 13
12 Model-3 12 Model-2A

Storey Nos's
Storey No's

11 11 Model-3
10 Model-3A 10 Model-3A
9 9
8 Model-5 Model-5
8
7 7 Model-5A
Model-5A
6 6 Model-7
5 Model-7 5 Model-7A
4 4
3 Model-7A 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Storey Shear in X mm Storey Shear in Ymm
 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the observations and the results obtained during the course of this study, the following
conclusions are arrived:
• The coupled mode of oscillation have being observed in following geometrics, Y-shape building 36% in X-
translation and 34% in Z-rotation of second mode, Equilateral triangular shape building,58% in X-
translation and 9.32% in Z-rotation of second mode and Right angle triangle shape building,55% in Y-
translation and 12% in Z-rotation of first mode,55% in X-translation and 14% in Z-rotation. However for
rectangular, circular, oval, hexagonal & quatrefoil shape buildings with and without setbacks coupled
modes are not dominant.
• Higher value of eccentricity is noticed in Y-direction in the case of buildings with equilateral triangle and Y-
shape plans. However in the case of building with right angle triangle shape eccentricity is noticed in both
X and Y-directions. As the maximum drift/average drift ratio exceeds 1.2 for the above building plan shapes
they are called as torsionally irregular structures.
• In Circular shape building with and without setback base shear values are found to be less 10117KN, and
also displacement, drift, max drift/avg drift values are within the permissible limit. In Y-shape building with
and without setback time period 0.825sec, displacement 17mm and drift values 0.000375 are found to be
less compared to other buildings with and without setback, but the base shear values13894KN are found
to be more.
• Circular shape building with beams connected radial to core found to be more stable and Right angle
triangle shape building found to be more critical.
 – Scope for further study

• As the various researchers are getting attracted towards the Study on tall buildings, the scope of the studies
under the particular topic can be stretched to wide horizons..
• Linear dynamic analysis could also be performed for base rotation loading to study the behavior of
rotational loading on the structure with irregularities
• The dynamic behavior of building with irregular plans can be studied with combination of core shear wall
and base isolation etc.
• The dynamic behavior of building with irregular plans can be studied with combination of core shear wall
and dampers etc.
• The dynamic behavior of building with irregular plans can be studied with placing core shear wall and base
isolation,dampers at different locations
 REFERENCES
• Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D “Analysis of Irregular Structures under Earthquake Loads”,
Published on Elsevier – 2019.
• Huanjun Jiang a,b , Youlu Huang a,b , Liusheng He a,b, , Tian Huang a,b , Shaojing Zhang c “Seismic performance of RC frame-
shear wall structures with vertical setback”, Published on Elsevier – 2021
• Mohamed Mouhine, ElmokhtarHilali “Seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings with setback irregularity”, Published on
Elsevier – 2021
• Zabihullah Priyanka Singh Mohammad Zamir Aryan “Effect of (Vertical & Horizontal) Geometric Irregularities on the Seismic
Response of RC Structures” Published on IJET – 2020.
• Vishal N, Ramesh Kannan M, Keerthika L“Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storey Irregular Building with Different Structural
Systems” Published on IJRTE – 2020.
• Mohammed Mohi uddin “Dynamic Analysis of RCC Multi-Storey Framed Structure with Different Plan Configurations”
• Published on IJTIMES– 2018.
• ResmiVinod,NimiyaRoseJoshuva “Parametric Study on Seismic Behaviour of Setback Buildings”,Published on IJERT– 2018
• More Amol R Prof. Dr. Kale R.S. “Study of seismic responses of multi-storied RCC building with mass irregularity & column
stiffness variation” Published on IJET – 2017.
• Anagha s, Nimiya Rose Joshuva “ Seismic Response Modification Of Stiffness Irregular Buildings Using Steel Strips”
Published on IJIET – 2018.
• A.Rajendra, Divya Anusha Naidu, Dr.D.Venkateswarlu “COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF A, E SHAPED BUILDINGS USING
STAAD.Pro” Published on IJRAR – 2018.
• Mohd Abdul Aqib Farhan, Jagadeesh Bommisetty “Seismic Analysis of Multistoried RCC Buildings Regular and Irregular in
Plan” Published on IJRAR – 2019.
• S K Shanawaz, S. Amaresh Babu “Effect Of Combined Plan, Vertical And Mass Irregularity On Torsional Performance Of High
Raised Buildings” Published on IJEDR – 2019.
THANK YOU