International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.

8, August 2018
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org

Structural Analysis of Multi-Storied Building for

Different Plan Configuration for Different Types of Soil
Considering Equivalent Strut Approach
Nilesh Sanjiv More1, P. A. Nikam2, B. R. Lagad3
1
PG Student (M.E. Structures),2Assistant Professor and guide, 3Assistant Prof.,1,2,3department of Civil
Engineering, 1,2S. N. D. C. O. E. & R. C. Yeola, Nasik, 3L. G. N. S. C. O. E, Nasik, Maharashtra, India.
1
nileshmore8114@gmail.com,2pravinnikam16@gmail.com,3balramlagad9124@gmail.com.

Abstract-In India, soil conditions are different in different regions which plays important role during earthquake shaking. Soil having
number of layers at various depths at different locations doesn’t show same response during earthquake. Infill walls are referred as
non-structural element during design but effect of infill walls on structure during earthquake is also considered which called as
equivalent strut method. Irregular building does not show same response in all directions during earthquake. In current study, analysis
of plan irregularity of building and consideration of soil structure interaction under seismic loading. Aimed with purpose, the plan
irregular building (G+20) is analyzed by using Etabs subjected to the combination of gravity load and seismic load under specific
zone. Compare the same building with equivalent strut approach and without equivalent strut approach consideration of different soil
condition structure interaction; it is analyzed by using the Etabs software.

Key words - Irregular buildings, Equivalent strut approach, Different soil conditions, E-tab

A building without infill walls cause serious structural

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Multi-storied buildings causes structural irregularity with
respect to stiffness. Unfortunately, lots of buildings in India
leads to collapse under lateral forces due to structural
irregularity. In current study analysis of plan irregularity of
building and consideration of soil structure interaction under
seismic loading is considered with equivalent strut approach.
1.2 Analysis of multistorey building with different soil
conditions
Soil has different properties at various locations and depths.
Testing of soil samples of various locations in laboratory does
not shows same properties. This changes in properties cause
serious effect on stability of multistoried building.
1.3 Analysis of multistorey building with different plan
configurations
Irregularities are of different types such as stiffness
irregularities, vertical geometric irregularities, Weight (mass)
irregularities, Discontinuity in capacity etc. In this study,
various buildings of different plan configurations are
considered for analysis.
1.4 Analysis of multistorey building with consideration of infill
walls by equivalent strut method.
problems during earthquake, infill walls doesn’t have any type
of loading except its own weight but it helps columns to be
stand against lateral loads i. e. earthquake forces.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Thupden Tashi Lachenpa Bhutia, Dr. Rajendra. S., Vijay. K.
(July 2016), have carried out a study on the seismic analysis of
RC frame structure by taking different soil types and
considering soil structure interaction with fixed and spring base
in different zones of India. Different soils types are considered
for soil structure interaction study. In this study they concluded
that the Deflection, Shear Force Bending Moment, Beam End
Forces, Displacement, Beam Stresses, Sectional Force and
Bending Moment were noticed maximum in Zone V for all
cases considered for this study. (1)
Akhil R, Aswathy S Kumar (June 2017) have carried out study
on Response spectrum analysis (RSA) of vertically irregular
RC building. In this study, they reported that the overall
performance of regular building is more strengthen than
irregular building Software. They also reported that the time
period require for H-shaped plan configuration is more as
compared to other considerations. In this study, they concluded
that maximum displacement for regular shapes and minimum
for irregular shapes. (6)

2170
 International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.8, August 2018
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org

Mamathashree K. S., Sanjay S. J. (November 2016) have 12 M4-3 L-Shape Hard Without
studied the effect of seismic evaluation of RC framed irregular 13 M5-1 T-Shape Soft Without
buildings with soil structure interaction. In this research, they 14 M5-2 T-Shape Medium Without
studied the RC special moment resisting frame buildings for 15 M5-3 T-Shape Hard Without
seismic response of 4, 8, 12 stories regular and irregular 16 M6-1 C-Shape Soft Without
structure with consideration of different types of soil by using 17 M6-2 C-Shape Medium Without
linear response spectrum analysis with and without soil 18 M6-3 C-Shape Hard Without
structure interaction effect.They also examined the regular and B)Table No 3.1:Details of Model:
irregular buildings for the effect of soil structure interaction for
Number of stories 21 no’s
different soil types. (7)
Storey height 3.0m
Veena S Ravi, SreedeviLekshmi (2015)have studied effect of
Size of column 700X700 mm
Shape and Plan Configuration on Seismic Response of
Structure (ZONE II & V). In this study, they concluded that the Size of beam 230X450 mm
building with regular square plan have the maximum base shear Thickness of Deck 150mm
value as compared with other irregular plan shapes and “L”
Density of concrete 25kN/m3
shaped plan configuration have least base shear value in IInd
and Vth zone. Stiffness of structure hence the structure Wall external 230mm
becomes more flexible due to this natural period increase. (8) Wall Internal 230mm
3. OBJECTIVES: Live load 2kN/m2
• To develop, design and analyze model of the High rise FF 1.5kN/m2
structure (G+20) in Etabs software. Importance factor (I) 1
• Comparison of results of earthquake load applied on the Seismic zone III
structure by software in Zone III for soft, medium and hard Response reduction factor 5
soil condition.
• To compare results of storey drift, Deflections, Stresses, C) MODELS
Shear force and Bending Moments.

A) MODEL DESCRIPTION

Sr. Model Shape of Type of Equivalent

No. Description model soil Strut
Approach
Part-I
1 M1-1 Square Soft Without
2 M1-2 Square Medium Without 3D Plan of M1
3 M1-3 Square Hard Without
4 M2-1 Rectangular Soft Without
5 M2-2 Rectangular Medium Without
6 M2-3 Rectangular Hard Without
7 M3-1 I-Shape Soft Without
8 M3-2 I-Shape Medium Without
9 M3-3 I-Shape Hard Without
10 M4-1 L-Shape Soft Without
11 M4-2 L-Shape Medium Without

2171
 International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.8, August 2018
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org

3D Plan of M2
Displacement in X dir. for medium soil
400

Displacement in mm
300 M1-2
200 M2-2
100
0 M3-2

Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15
Story13
Story11
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
M4-2
M5-2
Storey M6-2
3D Plan of M3

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Results for displacement Fig 3 Displacement in X direction for Medium soil

Displacement in X dir. for Soft soil Displacement in Y dir. for medium soil
250 300
Displacement in mm

Displacement in mm
200 250 M1-2
M1-1 200
150 150 M2-2
M2-1 100
100
M3-1 50 M3-2
50 0
M4-2

Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15
Story13
Story11
0 M4-1
Base
Story9
Story6
Story3
Story18
Story21

Story15
Story12

M5-1 M5-2

M6-1 M6-2
Storey
Storey

Fig 4 Displacement in Y direction for Medium soil

Fig 1 Displacement in X direction for Soft soil

Displacement in X dir. for Hard soil

Displacement in Y dir. for Soft soil
400
Displacement in mm

250 M1-3
M1-1 300
Displacement in mm

200
150 200 M2-3
100 M2-1
50 M3-1 100 M3-3
0
0
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story13
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15

Story11

M4-1 M4-3
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15
Story13
Story11

M5-1 M5-3
Storey M6-1 M6-3
Storey

Fig 2 Displacement in Y direction for Soft soil Fig 5 Displacement in X direction for Hard soil

2172
 International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.8, August 2018
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org

Displacement in Y dir. for Hard soil Drift in Y dir. for Soft soil
400 0.005
Displacement in mm

0.004 M1-1
300 M1-3
0.003

Drift
200 M2-3
M2-1
0.002
100 M3-3 0.001 M3-1
0
0 M4-3 M4-1

Story5
Story9
Story7

Story3
Story1
Story19
Story21

Story17
Story15
Story13
Story11
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story15
Story21
Story19
Story17

Story13
Story11

M5-3 M5-1
M6-3 Storey M6-1
Storey

Fig 8 Storey drift in Y direction for Soft soil

Fig 6 Displacement in Y direction for Hard soil

Drift in X dir. for Medium soil

B. Results for storey drift: 0.007
0.006
0.005 M1-2
Drift

0.004
0.003 M2-2
Drift in X dir. for Soft soil 0.002 M3-2
0.001
0.005 0 M4-2

Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story13
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15

Story11
0.004 M1-1 M5-2
0.003
Drift

M2-1 M6-2
0.002
M3-1 Storey
0.001
0 M4-1
Story1
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15
Story13
Story11

M5-1
Fig 9 Storey drift in X direction for Medium soil
M6-1
Storey

Drift in Y dir. for Medium soil

Fig 7 Storey drift in X direction for Soft soil 0.007
0.006
0.005 M1-2
Drift

0.004
0.003 M2-2
0.002 M3-2
0.001
0 M4-2
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story13
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15

Story11

M5-2
M6-2
Storey

2173
 International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.8, August 2018
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org

Fig 10 Storey drift in Y direction for Medium soil Base Reaction for models in Medium soil
M1-2
M2-2
Drift in X dir. for Hard soil M3-2
M4-2
0.01 M5-2
0.008 M1-3 M6-2
Drift

0.006
0.004 M2-3
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
0.002 EQX EQY
M3-3
0
M4-3 Fig 14 Base Reaction for models in Medium soil
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story11
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15
Story13

M5-3
M6-3
Base Reaction for models in Hard soil
Storey
M1-3
M2-3
M3-3
Fig 11 Storey drift in X direction for Hard soil M4-3
M5-3
M6-3
Drift in Y dir. for Hard soil
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
0.008 EQX EQY
0.006 M1-3
Fig 15 Base Reaction for models in Hard soil
Drift

0.004 M2-3
0.002 M3-3 D. Results of Axial Forces in Columns
0
M4-3
Story9
Story7
Story5
Story3
Story1
Story11
Story21
Story19
Story17
Story15
Story13

M5-3 Combine Axial Force In C1 in soft soil

M6-3 10000
Storey
5000

0
Fig 12 Storey drift in Y direction for Hard soil M1-1 M2-1 M3-1 M4-1 M5-1 M6-1
C. Results for base shear
Fig 16 Combined Axial Force in C1 in soft soil
Base Reaction for models in soft soil
M1-1
M2-1 Combine Axial Force In C2 in soft soil
M3-1
10000
M4-1
M5-1 5000
M6-1
0
0 10000 20000 30000 M1-1 M2-1 M3-1 M4-1 M5-1 M6-1
EQX EQY

Fig 13 Base Reaction for models in soft soil Fig 17 Combined Axial Force in C2 in soft soil

2174
 International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.8, August 2018
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org

Combined Axial Force In C3 in soft soil

Combined Bending moment In C3 in Soft
15000 soil
10000 3000
5000 2000
0 1000
M1-1 M2-1 M3-1 M4-1 M5-1 M6-1 0
M1-1 M2-1 M3-1 M4-1 M5-1 M6-1
Fig 18 Combined Axial Force in C3 in soft soil
Fig 21 Combined Bending moment In C3 in Soft soil
E Results for bending moment in columns:
5. CONCLUSION
Combined Bending moment In C1 in Soft  Storey drift is increased up to height of 9th storey
soil reaching to maximum value and then started decreasing.
3000  Displacement and storey drift is maximum for model-4 in
2000 X direction as compared to other models in all type of
soils.
1000
 Displacement and storey drift of model-6 is less than
0 other models in both direction in all types of soil.
M1-1 M2-1 M3-1 M4-1 M5-1 M6-1
 Displacement of all models in soft soil are less as
compare to displacement in hard and medium soil.
Fig 19 Combined Bending moment In C1 in Soft soil  Square, I-shape and T-shape type buildings give almost
similar response against the storey drift and displacement
Combined Bending moment In C2 in Soft in X- direction.
soil  Displacement of model M-4 is 220mm in soft soil,
3000 300mm in medium soil and 360mm in hard soil in X-
direction.
2000

1000
REFERENCES
0
M1-1 M2-1 M3-1 M4-1 M5-1 M6-1 [1] Thupden Tashi Lachenpa Bhutia, Dr. Rajendra .S.,
Vijay .K., “Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of
Fig 20 Combined Bending moment In C2 in Soft soil R.C Structure with Fixed and Spring Base in Different
Zones and Soil Types Considering Soil Structure
Interaction” International Journal on Recent and
Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication,
Vol- 4 Issue: 7, July2016.(1)
[2] Ankit Purohit, Lovish Pamecha, “Seismic Analysis of
G+12 Multistory Building Varying Zone and Soil
Type”, SSRG International Journal of Civil
Engineering (SSRG-IJCE), vol-D 4 Issue 6, June
2017(2)

2175
 International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.8, August 2018
E-ISSN: 2321-9637
Available online at www.ijrat.org

[3] Suman, Dr. Sunil, Kumar Tengali, “Soil structure Research in Science, Engineering and Technology,
interaction of R. C. building with different foundations (IJIRSET), Vol. 5, Issue 9, September 2016.(12)
and soil types”, International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol-04, Issue-
07, July-2017. (3)
[4] Mr. Rahul Sawant, Dr. M. N. Bajad, “Effect of Soil-
Structure Interaction on High Rise RC
Building”,Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), PP 85-91, (Feb 2016) (4)
[5] Ranu R. Akulwar, “Seismic Analysis of Structures
under Different Soil Conditions”, International Journal
of Engineering Research and Applications(IJERA),
Vol-5, Issue-1, Jan. 2015, pp.64-69(5)
[6] Akhil R, Aswathy S Kumar, “Seismic analysis of
regular and irregular buildings with vertical
irregularity using staad.pro”, International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol-
a. 04, Issue-06, June -2017(6)
[7] Mamathashree K. S., Sanjay S. J., “Seismic Evaluation
of RC Framed Irregular Buildings with Soil Structure
Interaction”, International Journal of Science and
Research (IJSR), Vol-5, Issue-6, June-2016(7)
[8] Veena S. Ravi, Sreedevi Lekshmi, “Effect of Shape
and Plan Configuration on Seismic Response of
Structure (ZONE II & V)”, International Journal of
Science and Research (IJSR), Paper ID:
ART2016452,(2015) (8)
[9] Milind V. Mohod, “Effect of Shape And Plan
Configuration On Seismic Response Of Structure”,
International Journal Of Scientific & Technology
ResearchVolume 4, Issue 09, September 2015. (9)
[10] Haroon Rasheed Tamboli, Umesh. N. Karadi,
“Seismic Analysis of R. C. Frame Structure with and
without Masonry Infill Walls”, Indian Journal Of
Natural Sciences, (IJONS), Vol-.3, issue-
14,oct.2012.(10)
[11] Ehsan Dehghani Sanij, Dr. Reza Alaghebandian,
“Nonlinear earthquake response analysis of R. C.
frames with masonry infills”, 15 WCEE-2012. (11)
[12] Girum Mindaye, Dr. Shaik Yajdani, “Seismic Analysis
of a Multistorey R. C. Frame Building in Different
Seismic Zones”, International Journal of Innovative

2176