M.Jeelani et al.

, International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,

Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 35-39

Study of Response Spectrum and Time

History analysis of an RC Structure for
Different Soil Strata using SAP
M.Jeelani1 and B.Venkatrao 2
1
(Master's Student, V R Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada, India )
2
(Assistant Professor, V R Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada, India)
Abstract: Most of the structures in urban India are made up of RCC which are to be seismically analyzed
because of frequent earthquakes. Structures subjected to dynamic forces such as wind and earthquake can be
analyzed by different methods of seismic analysis. Generally flexibility of soil is not considered while analyzing
the structures in seismic, adopting the base as fixed one. In this paper different buildings with different soil
conditions is considered and analysis is carried out based on time history analysis. Different conditions taken in
this analysis are zone , soil conditions and number of storey’s of buildings. In this paper, G+2, G+4, G+6,
G+8, G+10 buildings with a plan dimensions of 12mX12m, each storey having a height of 3m. SAP
2000(Structural Analysis Programme) is used for analysis and various parameters has been taken from IS
1893-2002 part 1 for zone 3, 4, 5. The base shears, time period, displacement, responses with respect to change
in storey level and soil conditions of the structure compared in both Response Spectrum and Time History
Analysis.
Keywords: Response spectrums, time history, sap 2000.

I. INTRODUCTION
Due to rapid urbanisation and increase in population the necessity in construction of multi storied
building is increasing. In addition to this, new structural systems, design concepts, high strength materials,
modern construction methods have made possible to construct sky scrapers by RCC. To ensure a performance
based design it is obligatory to know the performance objectives associated with severeness of earthquake. It is
necessary to study the response of structures, Time period is an significant entity to assess the structural
response of the structure subjected to earth quake excitation.
Rigid Structures when subjected to earthquake excitation moves to and fro with respect to ground in a
rig id body motion. At the same time the motion of flexib le structure due to ground motion is contrary to that of
rig id structures. The lateral response of the system may alter considerably due to change in natural period’s
.Thus the change in natural periods due to effect of soil structure interaction should be taken care of, as it is very
important fro m analysis and design point of view.
During seismic excitation the nature of any structure is not only influenced by the response of the
superstructure, but also by the response of the soil underneath it. The interaction among the structure, soil
med iu m and foundation differs the absolute seismic behaviour of the structure noticeably as found by examin ing
the structure alone.
The process in which independent response of the soil and structure influences each other is indicated
as Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI). Indication of soil-structure interaction effects helps the designer to assess the
inertial forces and real displacements of the soil-foundation structure system exactly under the influence of free
field motion.
The effects of soil flexib ility are mostly ignored in seismic design of buildings leading to unnecessarily
costly or unsafe design. The design in general is carried out based on the results of dynamic analysis
considering fixed-base condition of structure.
Significance of the study
India having different soil conditions and different earthquake intensity places with more than 60%
area is prone to earthquakes, should develop earthquake resistant structures in consideration to IS:1893(part:
I):2002. India classified into 4 seismic zones namely zone II, III, IV, V, having different types of soils which
increases the importance of understanding of effect of base shear in consideration to various types of soils in
same zone also. Response of structures to earth’s surface vibrations is a function of type of soil available at site
conditions. Response acceleration coefficient (Sa/g) for 5% damp ing is calculated for rock, med iu m, soft soils.
Zone factor value indicates expected intensity of earthquake in different seismic zones.

www.indusedu.org Page 35
M.Jeelani et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 35-39

II. PROCEDURE
In this study various multi storey buildings are modelled, and analysis has been carried out in civil
engineering software SAP 2000. Multi storied buildings were analysed under different soil conditions such as
hard, mediu m, soft. These buildings with different soil strata are taken and their correspond ing responses are
determined for 3 d ifferent zones such as zone 3, zone 4, and zone 5.
This work involves selection of different build ing models and assigning material properties to frame
sections and boundary conditions to structure. Analysis of these structures with different storey height by
response spectra and time history methods.

III. SEISMIC ANALYSIS

Response spectrum
A response spectrum is simply a plot of the peak or steady-state response (displacement, velocity or
acceleration) of a series of oscillators of varying natural frequency that are forced into motion by the same
base vibration or shock. The resulting plot can then be used to pick off the response of any linear system, given
its natural frequency of oscillat ion. One such use is in assessing the peak response of buildings to earthquakes.
Ti me history analysis
Time-History analysis is not used frequently as compared to other conventional methods like response
spectrum or modal analysis method because of lack of knowledge and availability of the actual ground motion
data. However this is most accurate of all the methods. In this method structures response history is evaluated b y
subjecting it to a designed earthquake.

Particul ars of Structure in Software

Details G+2 G+4 G+6 G+8 G+10
Plan (m2 ) 12 X 12 12 X 12 12 X 12 12 X 12 12 X 12
Height of Storey (m) 3m 3m 3m 3m 3m
Grade of Concrete & Steel M 20 & M 20 & M 30 & M 30 & M 35 &
Fe 415 Fe 415 Fe 415 Fe 415 Fe 415
Imposed Load (KN/ m2) 3 3 3 3 3
Slab thickness(mm) 100 100 100 100 100
Beam size (m) 0.23 X 0.23 X 0.3 X 0.4 0.4 X 0.45 0.45 X 0.5
0.3 0.3
Beam Reinforcement(mm) 12 16 20 25 28
Cover for Beam (mm) 30 30 30 30 30
Beam Lateral Reinf. (mm) 8 10 10 10 10
Spacing of beam lateral reinf. 150 150 150 150 150
(mm)
Colu mn size (m) 0.3 X 0.3 0.3 X 0.3 0.4 X 0.4 0.45 X 0.45 0.5 X 0.5
Colu mn Reinforcement(mm) 12 16 20 25 28
Cover for colu mn (mm) 30 30 30 30 30
Colu mn Lateral Reinf. (mm) 8 10 10 10 10
Spacing of colu mn lateral 150 150 150 150 150
reinf. (mm)
Damping factor(0.05), Importance factor(I=1), Response Reduction factor(R=5) as per IS 1893 (Part
1)-2002.
Zone factor and type of soil is as per IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002

Properties of Soil

Type of Poisson’s Mass Elastic

Soil Ratio Density Modulus
(KN/ m3 ) (KN/ m2 )
Hard 0.25 21 6750
Medium 0.33 18.5 1200
Soft 0.48 17 250

www.indusedu.org Page 36
M.Jeelani et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 35-39

PLAN AND EL EVATION OF MODEL

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ti me Periods & Natural Frequency
STOREY MODE 1 & 2 MODE 1& 2 MODE 3 TIM E MODE 3 NATURAL
LEVEL TIM E PERIOD NATURA L PERIOD FREQUENCY (rad/sec)
(sec) FREQUENCY rad/sec) (sec)
G+2 0.326804 19.226 0.294357 21.345
G+4 0.53136 9.9518 0.566976 11.082
G+6 0.654818 9.5953 0.59928 10.485
G+8 0.855871 7.3413 0.77017 8.1582
G+10 0.91065 6.8997 0.796486 7.8886

Response S pectrum
Base Shear (KN) for Zone 3
STOREY LEVEL SOIL 1 SOIL 2 SOIL 3
G+2 44.902 44.902 44.902
G+4 62.858 86.742 99.903
G+6 121.314 167.819 186.893
G+8 132.728 177.221 215.984
G+10 185.819 247.193 300.79

Base Shear (KN) for Zone 4

STOREY LEVEL SOIL 1 SOIL 2 SOIL 3
G+2 67.353 67.353 67.353
G+4 94.287 130.113 149.855
G+6 181.971 251.728 280.339
G+8 199.091 265.832 323.975
G+10 278.729 370.789 451.184

Base Shear (KN) for Zone 5

STOREY LEVEL SOIL 1 SOIL 2 SOIL 3
G+2 101.029 101.029 101.029
G+4 141.431 195.17 224.782
G+6 272.957 377.592 420.509
G+8 298.637 398.748 485.963
G+10 418.093 556.184 676.777

www.indusedu.org Page 37
M.Jeelani et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 35-39

Ti me history
Base shear zone 3, (KN)
STOREY LEVEL SOIL1 SOIL2 SOIL2
G+2 64.20986 64.20986 64.20986
G+4 93.02984 128.2456 128.2456
G+6 183.1841 255.0849 255.0849
G+8 204.4011 276.4648 276.4648
G+10 295.4522 373.56 405.76

Base shear zone 4, (KN)

STOREY LEVEL SOIL1 SOIL2 SOIL3
G+2 107.09127 107.09127 107.09127
G+4 134.358975 183.45933 212.7941
G+6 269.31708 380.10928 416.303415
G+8 300.62741 404.06464 494.38585
G+10 429.24266 562.17084 618.1200592

Base shear zone 5, (KN)

STOREY LEVEL SOIL1 SOIL2 SOIL3
G+2 149.52292 152.55379 150.028065
G+4 213.56081 296.6584 343.017332
G+6 420.35378 589.04352 657.255567
G+8 474.83283 634.00932 772.68117
G+10 595.782525 784.21944 933.02334

Displacements
Response S pectrum displ acements
Lateral Deflection (mm) of Build ings for SOIL 1(HA RD)
STOREY LEVEL Z-3 Z-4 Z-5
G+2 13.13 19.61 29.54
G+4 33.25 49.87 74.81
G+6 39.65 58.3 86.32
G+8 45.31 67.97 95.67
G+10 52.71 75.24 105.51

Lateral Deflection (mm) of Build ings for SOIL 2(M EDIUM)

STOREY LEVEL Z-3 Z-4 Z-5
G+2 13.13 19.59 29.53
G+4 46.67 69.7 83.6
G+6 55.23 78.32 92.25
G+8 64.67 87.31 103.49
G+10 74.26 95.56 115.82

Lateral Deflection (mm) of Build ings for SOIL 3 (SOFT)

STOREY LEVEL Z-3 Z-4 Z-5
G+2 13.13 19.96 32.5
G+4 51.8 77.7 97.52
G+6 65.23 92.16 114.85
G+8 79.5 108.59 131.26
G+10 93.65 124.21 149.68

Ti me History Displ acements

Lateral Deflection (mm) of Build ings for SOIL 1(HA RD)
STOREY LEVEL Z-3 Z-4 Z-5
G+2 19.94 24.9 27.24
G+4 39.9 60.34 89.67
G+6 47.97 69.96 105.31
G+8 55.27 82.24 115.76

www.indusedu.org Page 38
M.Jeelani et al., International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, ISSN 2249-1619,
Impact Factor: 6.123, Vo lu me 06 Issue 09, September 2016, Page 35-39

G+10 64.3 91.79 129.77

Lateral Deflection (mm) of Build ings for SOIL 2 (M EDIUM )

STOREY LEVEL Z-3 Z-4 Z-5
G+2 20.93 26.14 30.42
G+4 56.93 85.03 101.98
G+6 66.82 95.55 112.54
G+8 79.54 107.39 127.29
G+10 91.33 117.53 142.45

Lateral Deflection (mm) of Build ings for SOIL 3 (SOFT)

STOREY LEVEL Z-3 Z-4 Z-5
G+2 21.97 28.6 31.79
G+4 63.19 95.57 119.94
G+6 79.58 113.35 141.83
G+8 97.78 134.1 162.76
G+10 116.12 153.39 186.35

V. DISCUSSIONS
The analysis of the models was carried out in response spectrum and time h istory analysis and results
are compared. All buildings are analyzed in the software SAP-2000 and results are discussed with respect to the
base shear.
Building is modelled in SAP-2000 having different foundation corresponding to different soil
properties. Different soil strata are taken and corresponding base shear is determined with variation in floors as
G+2, G+4 G+6, G+10 and zone as 3, 4 and 5.
IS 1893: 2002 “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures” gives response spectrum for
different types of soil such as hard, mediu m and soft.
The time period and natural frequency increases with increase in height of storey level and mode
number.
The base shear in Time History Analysis in comparison with response spectrum has increased about
35%-38% with change in zone conditions. With change in soil conditions the variation is about 50%.
The displacement in Time History Analysis on comparison with response spectrum has increase about
40% with change in zone conditions. With change in soil condition the variation is about 21%-24.5%.

VI. CONCLUSION
It is thus concluded that seismic response of structures is influenced greatly by soil supporting its base
and nature of earthquake excitations striking the base. Ignoring any one of them, can significantly affect the
performance during earthquake and lead to devastating effects. So one should take care of these effects during
the analysis and design stage to avoid future damages and destruction.

VII. REFERENCES
[1] Dynamic Analysis of Multistoried Regular Building- Mohit Sharma, Dr. Savita Maru
[2] Response of Buildings with Soil-Structure Interaction with Varying Soil Types- Shreya Thusoo, Karan Modi, Rajesh Kumar,
Hitesh Madahar
[3] BIS, IS 456:2000, - Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice‖ Bureau of Indian Standards, Fourth revision.
[4] BIS, IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, - Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures Part-I General Provisions and Buildings‖ ,
Bureau of Indian Standards, Fifth revision.
[5] I.S-13920."Ductile detailing of reinforced structures subjected to seismic force" code of practice Bureau of Indian Standards.IS -
456-1978
[6] IS-875-1987.".Indian standard code of practice for structural safety loadings standards Part-1, 2" Bureau of Indian Standards
[7] SP-16-1980- Design Aids for Reinforced concrete to IS-456-1978-Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
[8] Mario Paz, WilliamLeigh (2004): Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation, Fifth ed. Springer Science & Business Media.
[9] Effect of Soil Structure Interaction in Seismic Loads of Framed Structures- Shiji P.V, Suresh S, Glory Joseph.
[10] Seismic Analysis of Symmetric RC Frame Using Response Method And Time History Method - Harshitha R, A.Soundarya,
Krishnareddygari Prathima, Y Gurupras.

www.indusedu.org Page 39