See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]
net/publication/326626085
Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storey Building Resting On Flat Ground and Sloping
Ground
Article · June 2016
DOI: 10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038
CITATION READS
1 2,304
3 authors, including:
Sanjith Jayanna
Adichunchanagiri Institute of Technology
3 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
civil engineering View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjith Jayanna on 26 July 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storey Building
Resting On Flat Ground and Sloping Ground
Likhitharadhya Y R1, Praveen J V2, Sanjith J3, Ranjith A4
1
P.G. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka, India1
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SSIT, Tumkur, Karnataka, India2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, AIT, Chikamagalur, Karnataka, India3&4
ABSTRACT: The structures are generally constructed on level ground; however, due to scarcity of level grounds the
construction activities have been started on sloping grounds. There are two types of configuration of building on
sloping ground, the one is step back and the other is step back setback. In this study, G+ 10 storeys RCC building and
the ground slope varying from 100 to 300 have been considered for the analysis. A comparison has been made with the
building resting on level ground. The modelling and analysis of the building has been done by using structure analysis
tool ETAB 2015, to study the effect of varying height of the column in bottom storey at different position during the
earthquake. The seismic analysis was done by the response spectrum analyses have been carried out as per IS:1893
(part 1): 2002. The results were obtained in the form of top storey displacement, Storey Acceleration, Base shear and
Mode period. It is observed that short column is affected more during the earthquake.
KEYWORDS: ETABS, Sloping ground, Step-back building, Response spectrum analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
The term earthquake may be wont to describe any quite unstable waves which can be either natural or initiated by
humans that generate unstable waves. Earthquakes are caused normally by rupture of geologic faults. Associate in
nursing earthquake unharness of energy within the layer that creates unstable waves results Associate in nursing
earthquake. The frequency, sort and magnitude of earthquakes fully fledged over a amount of your time outline the
seismicity (seismic activity) of that space. The observations from a seismometer ar} wont to measure earthquake.
Earthquakes larger than some five ar principally reportable on the size of moment magnitude. Those smaller than
magnitude five, that are additional in variety, as reportable by the national geophysical science observatories are
principally measured on the native magnitude scale, that is additionally referred to as the scale.
At present time the methods of seismic evaluation for the seismic damage or earthquake damaged structures are not
yet fully developed. The buildings which do not fulfil the requirements of seismic design, may suffer extensive damage
or collapse if shaken by a severe ground motion or earthquake.
Earthquake is the major reason for the issue of safety for the construction of multi storey buildings. The buildings
which are present now are designed and constructed according to as per older code provisions, are not satisfying.
Therefore it is need to construct different types of buildings which have the capacity to resist the forces, like Flat Slab
and R.C Framed structure buildings are more suitable for now a day, because of increased in population and the land
value.
Buildings are present in hilly areas are very different from those in plain ground; in hilly areas they are very irregular
and unsymmetrical. Hence, they tend to severe damage to the structure when affected by earthquake, because in hilly
areas the structure is constructed with different column heights, the short column will affects more damage then the
long column during earth quake. The recent earthquake at Utharkhand- India (2015) it has been seen that buildings
located near the edges have undergone severe damages. Hence, the structures should be designed on the basis of
strength and stiffness criteria.
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9786
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
II. HISTORICAL REVIEW
Nagargoje and .Sable 2 (2012) Studied unstable performance of buildings on hill slope. They applied 3D house frame
analysis to check dynamic response of the buildings, in terms of base shear and prime floor displacement. A constant
quantity study was applied on thirty six buildings with 3 configurations as step back, step back set back and set back
buildings settled in unstable zone III. [Link] and [Link] (2004) studied unstable performance of hill
buildings by considering story level up to eleven, but during this paper the study is applied by
considering construction level starting from four to fifteen (15.2 m to 52.6m). They found that
the construction displacement of step back buildings is sort of high as compared to step back –set back buildings,.
They discovered that the bottom shear elicited in step back set back buildings is higher within they vary of sixty and
260% than set back building. They urged step back set back buildings could also be favoured on sloping ground.
Prashant D and JagadishKori G 5 (2013) Studied seismic response of 1 method slope RC frame building with
soft structure. During this paper study is concentrated on the behaviour of buildings set on sloping ground with
and while not infill wall, the influence of infill wall on buildings set on sloping ground is given. Non linear static
pushover analysis is dispensed on ten structurebuildings that embrace clean frame while not infill wall
and alternative model with infill wall together with a soft structure building on sloping ground.
All buildings include five bays on slope direction set at a slope of twenty seven degree with the horizontal, set in
seismal zone III. Building frame system thought-about is SMRF. They determined that the period of clean frame model
is found to be one.975 sec that is nearly 96-135% over alternative models with presence of infill wall. Therefore they
conclude, this higher price of natural amount in clean frame compared to infill frame ultimately leads
to underestimate of style base shear in clean frame model on sloping ground. The abrupt changes within the slope
profile indicates stiffness irregularity, they determined that the displacement in clean frame model is found to be a lot
of thanks to reduced stiffness compared to alternative models with infill wall. They found that the bottom shear of infill
models is nearly 250% a lot of compared to reveal frame. It’s over that the formation of plastic hinges is a lot
of in clean frame model and soft structure building compared to completely in filled fames. During this paper study
is focused on variation of stiffness as a result of presence of infill wall and soft structure on sloping ground.
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9787
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
JitendraBabu et al 7 (2012) carried out pushover analysis of various symmetric and asymmetric structures constructed
on plain as well as sloping ground subjected to various kinds of loads. They considered various structures in plan
symmetry and also asymmetry with different in bay sizes in mutual direction. On sloping ground they considered a 4
storey building in which they have taken one storey above ground level which is situated at a slope of 30 degree with
the horizontal. They found that the short column lies in the severity level beyond collapse prevention (CP) from
pushover analysis, they obtained displacement and base shear for asymmetric sloping ground as 104X10-3 m and 2.77
x 103 kN respectively. Based on results they developed pushover curves with displacement on X-axis and Base shear
on Y-axis and have given comparison between various cases they considered. They observed that the Base shear
resisted for maximum displacement up to failure limit by symmetric structure is 70% and by asymmetric sloped
building is 24% more than base shear resisted by asymmetric building on plain ground. They conclude that the
structure with vertical irregularity is more critical than a structure with plain irregularity.
III. OBJECTIVES
The objective of study is as follows:
To study the effectiveness of configuration of building frames such as step back frames.
To study the variation of base shear with respect to variation in hill slope angle for different configurations of
building frames.
To study the variation of mode period with respect to variation in hill slopeangle for different configurations
of building frames.
To study the variation of storey displacement with respect to variation in hill slope angle for different
configurations of building frames.
To study the variation of storey acceleration with respect to variation in hill slope angle for different
configurations of building frames.
IV. MODELING DESCRIPTION
4.1.1 Geometric parameters
In the present study, one building configurations are considered, which include buildings situated on plain
ground. Number of storey considered for each type of configurations is 10 storeys. Plan layout is kept same for all
configurations of building frame. The columns are taken to be square to avoid the issues like orientation.
4.1.2 Geometric Properties
Floorheight :3.1m
SpacinginXdirection :7.0m
SpacinginYdirection :5m
BeamSizes :300X500mm
Columnsizes :600X600mm
SlabThickness :150mm
Number of bays in x- direction : 7 bays
Number of bays in y- direction : 4 bays
Number of stories : G+10
4.1.3 Material Properties
Concrete Grade : M30
Compressive strength of Concrete : 30000 KN/m3
Steel: Fe500
Charctersticks strength of reinforcing steel fy= 50000 KN/m3
Density of concrete = 25000KN/m3
4.1.4 Gravity Loads
(i) Dead load:
Self-Weight: Self weight is calculated by the software based on material constants and section properties provided
Super imposed dead load (water Proofing’s or Floor finishes)=1 KN/m2
(ii) Live Load:
Live load on Slab = 3 Kn/m3
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9788
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
4.1.5 Lateral loads
Response Spectrum Method:
The response spectrum analysis is carried out using the spectra for medium soil as per IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002 for seismic
zone V, medium soil and 5% damping.
The spectral acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) values are calculated as follows.
For medium soil sites,
Sa/g = 1 + 15T, (0.00 ≤ T ≤ 0.10), (T= time period in seconds)
= 2.50, (0.10 ≤ T ≤ 0.55)
= 1.36/T, (0.55 ≤ T ≤ 4.00)
FIGURE 4.1: RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR ROCK AND SOIL SITES FOR 5% DAMPING AS PER IS1893 (PART1):2002 (FIG.2 OF
CODE)
4.2 Models considered for the study
Model 1: Building model on plain ground
(b)
(a)
Fig 4.2.1 (a) plan of a model, (b) elevation of mode on flat ground
Model 2: Building model on 100 sloping ground
(b)
(a)
Fig 4.2.1 (a) elevation of a model, (b) plan of 3d model
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9789
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
Model 3: Building model on 200 sloping ground
(a) (b)
Fig 4.2.1 (a) elevation of a model, (b) plan of 3d model
Model 3: Building model on 300sloping ground
(a) Fig 4.2.1 (a) elevation of a model, (b) plan of 3d model (b)
V. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Mode Period
Fig 5.1 comparisonof Mode Period
Table 5.1 Comparison ofMode Period for different for different Models
Models
Model Mode period(sec)
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Model 1 1.744 1.612 1.476
Model 2 1.258 1.441 1.058
Model 3 1.135 0.867 0.737
5.2Model 4
Base shear 0.599 0.375 0.270 Fig 5.1 comparisonof Mode Period
for different Models
Table 5.2 Comparison of
Base shearfor different Models
Base shear in KN
Model
X-direction Y-direction
Model 1 3158.890 3383.09
Model 2 2911.412 2795.066
Model 3 3161.907 2414.386
Fig 5.2 Comparison of Base Shear for
Model 4 2178.99 1724.39 different Models
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9790
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
5.3Story Displacement
TABLE 5.4.1 Story displacement of TABLE 5.4.2 Story displacement of Model 2
Model 1 TABLE: Storey Displacements
TABLE: Story Displacements Story RX RY
Story RX RY mm mm
mm mm Story11 30.5 40.2
Story11 41.4 38.3 Story10 29.1 38.6
Story10 40.2 37.1 Story9 26.8 36.1
Story9 38.2 35.2 Story8 23.6 32.8
Story8 35.5 32.7 Story7 19.7 28.6
Story7 32.2 29.7 Story6 15.2 23.7
Story6 28.3 26 Story5 10.2 18.1
Story5 23.8 21.9 Story4 5.3 12.3
Story4 18.8 17.4 Story3 1.9 6.7
Story3 13.4 12.4 Story2 0.7 2.5
Story2 7.8 7.3 Story1 0.2 0.4
Story1 2.7 2.5 Base 0 0
Base 0 0 1
Fig 5.3 Story displacement for Model Fig 5.4 Storey displacement for Model 2
TABLE 5.4.4Storey displacement of
TABLE 5.4.3 Story displacement of Model 4
Model 3 TABLE: Joint Displacements
TABLE: Joint Displacements
Story RX RY
Story RX RY mm mm
mm mm Story11 7.5 21.5
Story11 22.4 37.7 Story10 5.5 18.4
Story10 20.1 35.7 Story9 3.7 14.1
Story9 16.8 32.6 Story8 2.5 9.7
Story8 12.4 28.4 Story7 1.9 6.5
Story7 7.7 23.2 Story6 1.5 4.3
Story6 3.8 17.5 Story5 1 2.3
Story5 1.6 12
Story4 0.3 0.7
Story4 1.1 7.3
Story3 0.2 0.3
Story3 0.9 3.4
Story2 0.4 0.9 Story2 0.2 0.3
Story1 0.04152 0.1 Story1 0.1 0.1
Base 0 0
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9791
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
Fig 5.2.3 Storey displacement for Model 3 Fig 5.2.4 Storey displacement for Model 4
5.4 Storey Acceleration
TABLE 5.5.1 Storey Acceleration of Model 1 TABLE 5.5.2 Storey Acceleration of Model 2
TABLE: Story Accelerations TABLE: Story Accelerations
Story RX RY Story RX RY
m/sec² m/sec² m/sec² m/sec²
Story11 0.9259 0.9515 Story11 1.4544 1.6209
Story10 0.7121 0.7479 Story10 1.1117 1.2835
Story9 0.6171 0.6492 Story9 1.1016 1.1514
Story8 0.603 0.6304 Story8 0.9314 1.1344
Story7 0.5977 0.6212 Story7 0.9606 1.1181
Story6 0.6536 0.6727 Story6 1.009 1.0799
Story5 0.6891 0.7072 Story5 1.216 0.9367
Story4 0.6804 0.6952 Story4 1.2694 0.8272
Story3 0.6732 0.6849 Story3 0.787 0.6497
Story2 0.5466 0.5596 Story2 0.2356 0.2845
Story1 0.2373 0.2472 Story1 0.0202 0.0313
Base 0 0 Base 0 0
TABLE 5.5.3 Storey Acceleration of Model 3 TABLE 5.5.1 Storey Acceleration of Model 4
TABLE: Story Accelerations TABLE: Story Accelerations
Story RX RY Story RX RY
m/sec² m/sec² m/sec² m/sec²
Story11 0.9259 0.9515 Story11 0.9259 0.9515
Story10 0.7121 0.7479 Story10 0.7121 0.7479
Story9 0.6171 0.6492 Story9 0.6171 0.6492
Story8 0.603 0.6304 Story8 0.603 0.6304
Story7 0.5977 0.6212 Story7 0.5977 0.6212
Story6 0.6536 0.6727 Story6 0.6536 0.6727
Story5 0.6891 0.7072 Story5 0.6891 0.7072
Story4 0.6804 0.6952 Story4 0.6804 0.6952
Story3 0.6732 0.6849 Story3 0.6732 0.6849
Story2 0.5466 0.5596 Story2 0.5466 0.5596
Story1 0.2373 0.2472 Story1 0.2373 0.2472
Base 0 0 Base 0 0
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9792
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
Fig 5.2.2 Storey Acceleration for Model 2
Fig 5.2.1 Storey Acceleration for Model 1
Fig 5.2.3 Storey Acceleration for Model 3
Fig 5.2.4 Storey Acceleration for Model 4
[Link]
Following conclusions can be made from the analysis
1. The sloping ground buildings possess relatively more maximum displacement and shear forces which may
give to critical situations than the flat ground.
2. Base shear is maximum at 200 slope compared to other models.
3. Base shear is maximum in X-direction compared to Y-direction for sloping ground building.
4. From the analysis, Mode Period is decrease with increase in slope angle.
5. Mode period is directly proportion to the mass of the structure, the mass of the structure increases, the mode
period also increases.
6. From the analysis, Storey displacement is decrease with increase in slope angle.
7. Displacement is maximum at the top story when compared with bottom storeys in all other models along x and
y-direction..
8. From the analysis, Storey Acceleration is decrease with increase in slope angle.
Acceleration is maximum in storey-11 when compared to storey-1 in all other models along x and y-direction
REFERENCES
1. Hemal J shah, Dr.S and S.S Gandhy (2014) “Seismic Time History Analysis Of Building On Sloping Ground Considering Near/Far field
Earthquake” (2014)
2. Pandey A.D , Prabhat Kumar , Sharad Sharma3 “Seismic soil structure interaction of buildings on hill slopes” Volume 2, No 2, 2011
3. K.S.L Nikhila, Dr. B Pandunangrao “Static Linear and Nonlinear analysis of R.C Building on Sloping Ground with Varying Hill Slope”
American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) e-ISSN:2320-0847 p-ISSN :2320-0936 Volume-03. Issue-11 (2014).
4. Shivanand.B, H.S Vidyadhara “Design of 3D RC Frame on Sloping Ground” International Journal of Research in Engineering &
Technology eISSN-2319-1163 pISSN :2312-7308 Volume 3 Issue:08 Aug 2014.
5. Ravikumar C M, Babu Narayan K S “Effect of Irregular Configurations on Seismic Vulnerability of RC Buildings” Architecture Research
2012,2(3):20-26DOI: 10.5923/[Link].20120203.01.
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9793
ISSN(Online): 2319-8753
ISSN (Print): 2347-6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology
(An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization)
Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 2016
6. Y. Singh &PhaniRoorkee Seismic Behavior of Buildings Located on Slopes – An Analytical Study and Some Observations From
Sikkim Earthquake of September 18, 2011 - India D.H. Lang & E. Erduran NORSAR.
7. H. S. Vidyadhara ,Seismic Analysis of Earthquake Resistant Multi Bay Multi Storeyed 3D - RC Frame Rayyan-Ul-HasanSiddiqui 1,
8. Dr. R. B. Khadiranaikar1 and Arif Masali2 Seismic performance of buildings resting on sloping ground
9. [Link] and [Link] A review Seismic performance of multi-storeyed building on sloping ground
10. Pushover Analysis of Existing 3 Stories RC Flat slab Building M. A. Ismaeil
11. Dr. S. A. Halkude et al “Seismic Analysis of Buildings Resting on Sloping Ground With Varying Number of Bays and Hill Slopes”
International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology ISSN:2278-0181,Vol.2 Issue 12, December-2013.
Copyright to IJIRSET DOI:10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0506038 9794
View publication stats
