Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 General

Many urban multi-storey buildings in India today have open first storey as an unavoidable
feature. This is primarily being adopted to accommodate parking or reception lobbies in the first
storey. Whereas the total seismic base shear as experienced by a building during an earthquake is
dependent on its natural period, the seismic force distribution is dependent on the distribution of
stiffness and mass along the height. The behavior of a building during earthquakes depends
critically on its overall shape, size and geometry, in addition to how the earthquake forces are
carried to the ground. The earthquake forces developed at different floor levels in a building need
to be brought down along the height to the ground by the shortest path; any deviation or
discontinuity in this load transfer path results in poor performance of the building. Buildings with
vertical setbacks (like the hotel buildings with a few storey wider than the rest) cause a sudden
jump in earthquake forces at the level of discontinuity. Buildings that have fewer columns or
walls in a particular storey or with unusually tall storey tend to damage or collapse which is

1
initiated in that storey. Many buildings with an open ground storey intended for parking collapsed
or were severely damaged in Gujarat during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. During an earthquake,
buildings with regular geometry and uniformly distributed mass and stiffness in plan as well as in
elevation suffer much less damage compared to irregular configurations. But in present days,
need and demand of the latest generation according to growing population has made the
architects or engineers inescapable towards planning of irregular configurations.

1.2 Methods of Seismic Analysis

For seismic performance evaluation, a structural analysis of the mathematical model of the
structure is required to determine force and displacement demands in various components of the
structure. Several analysis methods, both elastic and inelastic, are available to predict the seis- mic
performance of the structures.
 EQUIVALENT STATIC ANALYSIS
This approach defines a series of forces acting on a build- ing to represent the effect of earthquake ground
motion, typically defined by a seismic design response spectrum. It assumes that the building responds in its
fundamental mode. For this to be true, the building must be low-rise and must not twist significantly when the
ground moves. The response is read from a design response spectrum, given the natural frequency of the
building (either calcu- lated or defined by the building code). The applicability of this method is extended in many
building codes by ap- plying factors to account for higher buildings with some higher modes, and for low levels
of twisting. To account for effects due to "yielding" of the structure, many codes apply modification factors that
reduce the design forces (e.g. force reduction factors). 

 ESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD

Static procedures are appropriate when higher mode ef- fects are not significant. This is generally true for short,
regular buildings. Therefore, for tall buildings, buildings with torsional irregularities, or non-orthogonal systems,
a dynamic procedure is required. In the linear dynamic procedure, the building is modelled as a multi-degree-of-
freedom (MDOF) system with a linear elastic stiffness ma- trix and an equivalent viscous damping matrix.

 NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

In general, linear procedures are applicable when the structure is expected to remain nearly elastic for the level
of ground motion or when the design results in nearly uniform distribution of nonlinear response throughout the
structure. As the performance objective of the struc- ture implies greater inelastic demands, the uncertainty with
linear procedures increases to a point that requires a high level of conservatism in demand assumptions and
acceptability criteria to avoid unintended performance. Therefore, procedures incorporating inelastic analysis
can reduce the uncertainty and conservatism.

 CAPACITY CURVE
The overall capacity of a structure depends on the strength and deformation capacity of the individual
components of the structure . In order to determine capacity beyond the elastic limits , some form of nonlinear
analysis of the structure is required. A capacity curve is converted into capacity spectrum by using a set of
equation from ATC 40 which is known as ADRS format. Initially the curve is obtained between base shear and
roof displacement which is converted into a curve between Spectral acceleration and spectral dis- placement, an
example of capacity curve is shown in fig.

 DEMAND CURVE
Ground motion during an earthquake produces complex horizontal displacement patterns which may vary with
time. Tracking this motion at every time step to deter- mine structural design requirement is judge impractical .
Demand curve is a representation of earthquake ground motion .It is given by spectral acceleration vs time
period

 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The pushover analysis is an effective tool for the perfor- mance evaluation of a structural system, by estimating
2
 its strength and deformation demand induced during a seismic event , by means of a static nonlinear analysis
the demands are then compared to available capacities at the performance levels of interest. The evaluation is
based on assessment of important performance parameters such as global drift, inter storey drift and inelastic
element de- formations .

 NON LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes the combination of ground motion records with a detailed structural model,
therefore is capable of producing results with relatively low uncertainty. In nonlinear dynamic analyses, the de-
tailed structural model subjected to a ground-motion re- cord produces estimates of component deformations
for each degree of freedom in the model and the modal re- sponses are combined using schemes such as the
square- root-sum-of-squares.

1.3 Irregularities in Structures

 Due to the growing demands of aesthetic appearance of the buildings engineers are bound to construct structures with
irregularities. Sometimes, due to the functionality of the building the irregularities might have to be provided i.e. for buildings
which may have unusual purposes. How- ever, it is undeniable that such type of irregularities in- creases the vulnerability of the
structures to earthquake or any dynamic event. As
per IS 1893:2002(part I), the structural irregularity can be
broadly classified as, 1) Vertical irregularity and 2) Plan irregularity

Plan Irregularity: Is the even inconsistency in the design of vertical parallel drive opposing
components, in this way creating a differential between the focal point of mass and focus of
Inflexibility, that ordinarily result in huge torsional requests on structure. In other word the state of
being no uniform, or quickly fluctuating, rather than steady.

Vertical irregularities include mass, stiffness and vertical geometric irregularities whereas
horizontal irregularities include re-entrant corner and torsional irregularities. Various irregularities
are as follows:

 Mass irregularity (MI) Irregularity is introduced by increasing the mass of a particular storey. Mass
irregularity shall be considered to exist where the seismic weight of any storey is more than 200 percent of that of its adjacent
3
storeys. The irregularity need not be considered in case of roofs.

 Stiffness Irregularity (SI) Irregularity is introduced by reducing the number of columns,

increasing the length of the columns or changing the cross section area of the columns. A soft storey is
one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent of that in the storey above or less than 80 percent of the average lateral
stiffness of the three storeys above. A extreme soft storey is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 60 percent of that in
the storey above or less than 70 percent of the average stiffness of the three sto- reys above. For example buildings with
STILTS will fall under this category.

 Vertical Geometric Irregularity (VGI) Irregularity is introduced by varying vertical configuration

along the height. Vertical geometrical irregularity shall be considered to ex- ist where the horizontal dimension of the lateral
force re- sisting system in any storey is more than 150 percent of that in its adjacent storey.

4
  In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Elements resisting Lateral Force A in-plane offset of the lateral force resisting
elements greater than the length of those elements.
 Discontinuity in Capacity – Weak Storey A weak storey is one in which the storey lateral strength is less than 80
percent of that in the storey above. The storey lateral strength is the total strength of all seismic force resisting
elements sharing the storey shear in the considered direction. 

1.4 Vertical Geometric Irregularity (VGI)

Earthquake means the sudden vibration of earth which is caused by naturally or manually. We
know that different type of vertical irregularities buildings are used in modern infrastructure.
During an earthquake, the building tends to collapse. This is mainly due to discontinuity in
geometry, mass and stiffness. This discontinuity is termed as Irregular structures. So vertical
irregularities are one of the major reasons of failures of structures during earthquakes. In planning
stage of vertical irregularity due to some architectural and functional reasons. The irregular building
can’t be avoided during the construction may due to space requirement in construction field so the
tall structure has more demand.In the recent days the tall structure has more demand for the
construction. The structural must withstand against lateral force acting on the structure due to the
wind load another natural calamities so in this project the comparative studies is done for the zone
V by providing the required size of the columns and beams by following Indian standards. If this
analysis is not proper means the effect of earthquake may cause the structural collapse and life of
people may spoil. So it may cause homeless to common people. So structure should be design in a
proper way. The structure which performs against the earthquake means a structure must possess
the simple, regular configuration and minimum lateral strength and also stiffness of the structure.
5
 Geometric irregularity introduces discontinuity in the distribution of mass, stiffness and
strength along the vertical direction.. The behaviour of these types of building is something
different. There is a need of more work to be done in this regard. So this research work is an
attempt to reach on more accurate conclusion to reduce their effect on the structure.

1.5 Different Seismic Zones of India

The Indian subcontinent has a history of devastating earthquakes. The major reason for the high frequency and
intensity of the earthquakes is that the Indian plate. Geographical statistics of India show that almost 54% of the land
is vulnerable to earthquakes. A World Bank & United Nations report shows estimates that around 200 million city
dwellers in India will be exposed to storms and earthquakes by 2050. The latest version of seismic zoning map of
India given in the earthquake resistant de- sign code of India [IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002] assigns four levels of seismicity
for India in terms of zone factors. In other words, the earthquake zoning map of India divides India into 4 seismic
zones (Zone 2, 3, 4 and 5) unlike its previous version which consisted of five or six zones for the country. According
to the present zoning map, Zone 5 expects the highest level of seismicity whereas Zone 2 is associated with the
lowest level of seismicity. Center for Seismology, IMD under Ministry of Earth Sci- ences is nodal agency of
Government of India dealing with various activities in the field of seismology and al- lied disciplines. The major
activities currently being pur- sued by the Center for Seismology include
 a) Earthquake monitoring on 24X7 basis, including real time seismic monitoring for early warning of
tsunamis
 b) Operation and maintenance of national seismological network and local networks

 c) Seismological data centre and information services

 d) Seismic hazard and risk related studies

 e) Field studies for aftershock / swarm monitoring, site response studies f) Earthquake processes and
modeling, etc.
 f) Earthquake processes and modeling, etc.

The IS code follows a dual design philosophy: (a) under low probability or extreme
6
earthquake events (MCE) the structure damage should not result in total collapse, and (b) under
more frequently occurring earthquake events, the structure should suffer only minor or moderate
structural damage. The specifications given in the design code (IS 1893: 2002) are not based on
detailed assessment of maximum ground acceleration in each zone using a de- terministic or
probabilistic approach. Instead, each zone factor represents the effective period peak ground
accelerations that may be generated during the maximum considered earthquake ground motion in
that zone.
 Zone 5
Zone 5 covers the areas with the highest risks zone that suffers earthquakes of greater Intensity. The IS code as- signs zone
factor of 0.36 for Zone 5. Structural designers use this factor for earthquake resistant design of struc- tures in Zone 5. The zone
factor of 0.36 is indicative of effective (zero period) level earthquake in this zone. It is referred to as the Very High Damage Risk
Zone. The region of Kashmir, the western and central Himalayas, North Bihar, the North-East Indian region and the Rann of
Kutch fall in this zone. Generally, the areas having trap rock or basaltic rock are prone to earthquakes.

 Zone 4
This zone is called the High Damage Risk Zone. The IS code assigns zone factor of 0.24 for Zone 4. The Indo- Gangetic basin
and the capital of the country (Delhi), Jammu and Kashmir fall in Zone 4. In Maharashtra, the Faltan area (Koyananager) is also
in zone no-4. In Bihar the northern part of the state like- Raksaul, Near the border of India and Nepal, is also in zone no-4.

 Zone 3
The Andaman and Nicobar Islands, parts of Kashmir, Western Himalayas fall under this zone. This zone is clas- sified as
Moderate Damage Risk Zone and also 7.8 The IS code assigns zone factor of 0.16 for Zone 3.

 Zone 2

This region is liable to have less intensity and is classified as the Low Damage Risk Zone. The IS code assigns zone factor of
0.10 (maximum horizontal acceleration that can be experienced by a structure in this zone is 10% of gravi- tational acceleration)

7
1.6 Advantages and disadvantages of irregular buildings

Advantages
8
 The only but very important advantage of irregular buildings, especially in this age and time,
because of the dense population and lack of development area is that, they can be modelled in
different shapes based on area available.

Disadvantages

There is always a downside to anything new or different but in case of irregular plan buildings
the advantage far outweighs it disadvantage because of the necessity. But for the sake of being
aware some of these disadvantages are listed below.

1. It becomes compulsory to perform dynamic analysis instead of static analysis for

highly irregular buildings.
2. Irregular buildings are more prone to damages due to ground motion.
3. Irregularities in building models makes analysis more complex.

Many urban multi-storey buildings in India today have open first storey as
an unavoidable feature. This is primarily being adopted to accommodate
parking or reception lobbies in the first storey. Whereas the total seismic base
shear as experienced by a building during an earthquake is dependent on its
natural period, the seismic force distribution is dependent on the distribution of
stiffness and mass along the height. The behavior of a building during
earthquakes depends critically on its overall shape, size and geometry, in
addition to how the earthquake forces are carried to the ground. The
earthquake forces developed at different floor levels in a building need to be
brought down along the height to the ground by the shortest path; any
deviation or discontinuity in this load transfer path results in poor performance
9
of the building. Buildings with vertical setbacks (like the hotel buildings with a
few storey wider than the rest) cause a sudden jump in earthquake forces at the
level of discontinuity. Buildings that have fewer columns or

10
 1.7 Irregularities in Buildings

Nowadays, the modern urban infrastructure demands uniqueness, which is often leading
to irregular buildings. These irregular buildings are more often prone to earthquakes hence it is
very essential to consider earthquake loads while designing these buildings. The IS 1893 (part 1)
2002 for earthquake resistant design of structures classifies the irregularities into 2 types namely:
A) Plan Irregularity
B) Vertical Irregularity

A. Plan Irregularity:
Plan Irregularity refers to asymmetrical plan shapes or discontinuities in horizontal
resisting elements such as cutouts, large openings etc., resulting to torsion, diaphragm
deformation and stress concentration. Plan irregularity is further classified as torsional
irregularity, re-entrant corner, diaphragm discontinuity, out of plane offsets and non-parallel
systems.

B. Vertical Irregularity:
Vertical irregularity is the vertical discontinuities in the distribution of mass, stiffness and
strength. Vertical irregularity is further divided into stiffness irregularity, mass irregularity and
vertical geometric irregularity.

1. Torsional Irregularity:
Torsional Irregularity is defined to exist where the maximum storey drift computed
including accidental torsion, at one end of the transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the
average storey drifts at the two ends of the structure (Fig. 1.1).
Torsional irregularity shall be considered when the floor diaphragm is rigid in their own
plan in relation to the vertical structural elements that resist lateral forces.
i) Inherent Torsion
For diaphragms that are not flexible, the distribution of lateral force at each level can be
considered the effect of Inherent Torsional Moment Mt, resulting from eccentricity between the
locations of centre of mass and centre of rigidity.

11
ii) Accidental Torsion
Where the diaphragms are not flexible. Accidental Torsional Moment (Mta) caused by the
assumed displacement of the centre of mass each way from its actual location by a distance equal
to 5 percent of the dimension of the structure perpendicular to the direction of applied force is
considered.

Fig 1.1 Torsional Irregularity

(Source:https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springerstatic/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs40091-
014-0070-5/MediaObjects/40091_2014_70_Fig1_HTML.gif)

2. Re-Entrant corner Irregularity

Re-Entrant corner irregularity is defined to exist where both plan projections of a building
beyond a re-entrant corner is greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the building in given
direction (Fig. 1.2.) Presence of Re-Entrant corner in a building mainly causes torsion and stress
concentration in the corners of the building.

12
 Fig 1.2 Re-entrant corner Irregularity
(Source:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yanuar_Haryanto/publication/320134816/figure/
fig1/AS:566229502042112@1512011041217/Figure-2-Re-entrant-corner-irregularity-12.png)

3. Diaphragm discontinuity
According to IS-1893:2002: Discontinuous diaphragms are those with abrupt
discontinuities or variations in stiffness, which includes those having cut-out or open areas greater
than 50 percent of the gross enclosed diaphragm area, or changes in effective diaphragm stiffness
of more than 50 percent from one storey to the next (Fig 1.3.)

Fig 1.3 Diaphragm discontinuity

(Source:https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fethesis.nitrkl.ac.in)

13
4. Out-of-plane Offsets:
Out-of-plane offset irregularity is defined to exist where there is a discontinuity in a lateral
force-resistance path, such as an out-of-plane offset of at least one of the vertical elements (Fig
1.4.)

Fig 1.4 Out-of-plane Offsets Irregularity

(Source:https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijmter.com%2Fpapers
%2Fvolume-2%2Fissue-4%2Feffect-of-irregularity-on-buildings-and-their-
consequences.pdf&psig )

14
5. Non-parallel Systems:
The vertical lateral load-resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the major
orthogonal axes of the lateral force resisting system (Fig 1.5.)

Fig 1.5 Non-parallel systems Irregularity

(Source:https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2Farticle
%2F10.1088%2F1755-1315%2F99%2F1%2F012004%2Fpdf&psig)

15
 1.8 Seismic Analysis

Seismic analysis is a branch of structural analysis and is the calculation of the response of a

building (or nonbuilding) structure to earthquakes. It is part of the process of structural
design, earthquake engineering or structural assessment and retrofit in regions where earthquakes
are prevalent.

A building has the potential to 'wave' back and forth during an earthquake (or even a
severe wind storm). This is called the 'fundamental mode', and is the lowest frequency of building
response. Most buildings, however, have higher modes of response, which are uniquely activated
during earthquakes. Although, the first and second modes tend to cause the most damage in most
cases.

The University of California, Berkeley was an early base for computer-based seismic

analysis of structures, led by Professor Ray Clough (who coined the term finite element[2]). Students
included Ed Wilson, who went on to write the program SAP in 1970,[3] an early "finite element
analysis" program.

Earthquake engineering has developed a lot since the early days, and some of the more
complex designs now use special earthquake protective elements either just in the foundation (base
isolation) or distributed throughout the structure. Analysing these types of structures requires
specialized explicit finite element computer code, which divides time into very small slices and
models the actual physics, much like common video games often have "physics engines". Very
large and complex buildings can be modelled in this way (such as the Osaka International
Convention Center).

Structural analysis methods can be divided into the following five categories.
1. Equivalent static analysis
2. Response spectrum analysis
3. Linear dynamic analysis
4. Nonlinear static analysis
5. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

16
1. Equivalent static analysis
This approach defines a series of forces acting on a building to represent the effect of
earthquake ground motion, typically defined by a seismic design response spectrum. It assumes
that the building responds in its fundamental mode. For this to be true, the building must be low-
rise and must not twist significantly when the ground moves. The response is read from a
design response spectrum, given the natural frequency of the building (either calculated or defined
by the building code). The applicability of this method is extended in many building codes by
applying factors to account for higher buildings with some higher modes, and for low levels of
twisting. To account for effects due to "yielding" of the structure, many codes apply modification
factors that reduce the design forces (e.g. force reduction factors).

2. Response spectrum analysis

A response spectrum is 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 oscillation. One such use is in assessing the peak
response of buildings to earthquakes. This approach permits the multiple modes of response of a
building to be taken into account (in the frequency domain). This is required in many building
codes for all except very simple or very complex structures. The response of a structure can be
defined as a combination of many special shapes (modes) that in a vibrating string correspond to
the "harmonics". Computer analysis can be used to determine these modes for a structure. For each
mode, a response is read from the design spectrum, based on the modal frequency and the modal
mass, and they are then combined to provide an estimate of the total response of the structure. In
this we have to calculate the magnitude of forces in all directions i.e. X, Y & Z and then see the
effects on the building.

Combination methods include the following:

1. absolute – peak values are added together

17
 2. square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS)
3. complete quadratic combination (CQC) – a method that is an improvement on SRSS for
closely spaced modes

The result of a response spectrum analysis using the response spectrum from a ground
motion is typically different from that which would be calculated directly from a linear dynamic
analysis using that ground motion directly, since phase information is lost in the process of
generating the response spectrum. In cases where structures are either too irregular, too tall or of
significance to a community in disaster response, the response spectrum approach is no longer
appropriate, and more complex analysis is often required, such as non-linear static analysis or
dynamic analysis.

3. Linear dynamic analysis

Static procedures are appropriate when higher mode effects are not significant. This is
generally true for short, regular buildings. Therefore, for tall buildings, buildings with torsional
irregularities, or non-orthogonal systems, a dynamic procedure is required. In the linear dynamic
procedure, the building is modelled as a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system with a linear
elastic stiffness matrix and an equivalent viscous damping matrix.

The seismic input is modelled using either modal spectral analysis or time historey analysis
but in both the cases, the corresponding internal forces and displacements are determined using
linear elastic analysis. The advantage of these linear dynamic procedures with respect to linear
static procedures is that higher modes can be considered. However, they are based on linear elastic
response and hence the applicability decreases with increasing nonlinear behaviour, which is
approximated by global force reduction factors.

In linear dynamic analysis, the response of the structure to ground motion is calculated in
the time domain, and all phase information is therefore maintained. Only linear properties are
assumed. The analytical method can use modal decomposition as a means of reducing the degrees
of freedom in the analysis.

4. Nonlinear static analysis

In general, linear procedures are applicable when the structure is expected to remain nearly
elastic for the level of ground motion or when the design results in nearly uniform distribution of
nonlinear response throughout the structure. As the performance objective of the structure implies
greater inelastic demands, the uncertainty with linear procedures increases to a point that requires a
high level of conservatism in demand assumptions and acceptability criteria to avoid unintended
performance. Therefore, procedures incorporating inelastic analysis can reduce the uncertainty and
conservatism.

18
 This approach is also known as "pushover" analysis. A pattern of forces is applied to a
structural model that includes non-linear properties (such as steel yield), and the total force is
plotted against a reference displacement to define a capacity curve. This can then be combined with
a demand curve (typically in the form of an acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS)).
This essentially reduces the problem to a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system.
Nonlinear static procedures use equivalent SDOF structural models and represent seismic
ground motion with response spectra. Storey drifts and component actions are related subsequently
to the global demand parameter by the pushover or capacity curves that are the basis of the non-
linear static procedures.

5. Nonlinear dynamic analysis

Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes the combination of ground motion records with a
detailed structural model, therefore is capable of producing results with relatively low uncertainty.
In nonlinear dynamic analyses, the detailed structural model subjected to a ground-motion record
produces estimates of component deformations for each degree of freedom in the model and the
modal responses are combined using schemes such as the square-root-sum-of-squares.

In non-linear dynamic analysis, the non-linear properties of the structure are considered as
part of a time domain analysis. This approach is the most rigorous, and is required by some building
codes for buildings of unusual configuration or of special importance. However, the calculated
response can be very sensitive to the characteristics of the individual ground motion used as seismic
input; therefore, several analyses are required using different ground motion records to achieve a
reliable estimation of the probabilistic distribution of structural response. Since the properties of the
seismic response depend on the intensity, or severity, of the seismic shaking, a comprehensive
assessment calls for numerous nonlinear dynamic analyses at various levels of intensity to represent
different possible earthquake scenarios. This has led to the emergence of methods like
the incremental dynamic analysis.

19
 1.9 Advantages and disadvantages of irregular buildings

Advantages

The only but very important advantage of irregular buildings, especially in this age and time,
because of the dense population and lack of development area is that, they can be modelled in
different shapes based on area available.

Disadvantages

There is always a downside to anything new or different but in case of irregular plan buildings
the advantage far outweighs it disadvantage because of the necessity. But for the sake of being
aware some of these disadvantages are listed below.

4. It becomes compulsory to perform dynamic analysis instead of static analysis for

highly irregular buildings.
5. Irregular buildings are more prone to damages due to ground motion.
6. Irregularities in building models makes analysis more complex.

1.10 Aim and objective

1. The main objective is to model irregular plan buildings of varying heights using ETABS.
2. To analyze the seismic behavior of irregular plan buildings using ETABS for different
zones and heights.
3. To analyze and compare seismic parameters such as storey drift, base shear, displacement,
etc.
4. To identify the use of irregular plan buildings of varying heights in different zones.

20
 Chapter 2

Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction

The present work is aimed at comparative study of analysis of irregular plan buildings.
Nowadays, especially in a densely populated country like India, buildings have to be constructed
in relatively tighter spaces and area. This requires the building to be generally modelled in a
shape that is irregular in plan. This however does not necessarily create an advantage but is
unavoidable because of the requirement. Also, since most buildings are high rise they need to be
designed conforming to the seismic code. Hence an analytical study becomes important to
understand the requirement and use of such buildings in various seismic zones.

A literature review is carried out on various studies of such types of irregular plan
buildings. A review of the work is presented in the following paragraphs

21
2.2 Literature review

Vardharajan et al. (2013) studied different criteria of irregularities as defined by

different codes (IS 1893:2002, EC8:2004, etc.) and found the limitations of types of irregularities
prescribed by the standard codes. In vertical irregularity they found that, strength irregularity had
more impact than mass irregularity on seismic response. Also, during analysis it was learned that
dynamic analysis was more accurate than pushover analysis even after the improvement.

Arvind Reddy & R. J. Fernandes (2015) carried out investigation on response of regular
and irregular structures under zone V. Static and dynamic analysis were conducted using ETABS.
Comparative study of displacements of both regular and irregular models was conducted for
different methods. The results concluded that static method gave higher displacement values
compared to that of dynamic method.

Priyanka S V (2019) carried out seismic analysis of plan regular and irregular buildings
of G+14 storey of 7 bays x 9 bays. The building was analyzed considering earthquake zone Ⅳ
and medium soil using equivalent static analysis and response spectrum analysis. The parameters
considered for comparison were storey drift, storey displacement and base shear. The conclusions
drawn were that, storey drift and storey displacement were maximum for irregular plan building
while base shear was maximum for regular plan building. In regular building the reduction in
storey displacement and storey drift was due to the infill action because of lateral stiffness of
frame. Plan irregularity increases both storey displacement and storey drift while plan regularity
increases base shear.

P A Krishnan & N. Thasleen (2020) carried out seismic analysis of plan irregular RC
building frames by pushover analysis and the tools used are, ETABS v 16.2.0 software and
SeismoMatch 2018. 10 re-entrant corner models are analyzed and the parameters considered for
this are, storey displacement, stress concentration and performance levels. The conclusions drawn
after analysis showed that, storey displacement increases with increase in the amount of
projection provided. High stress concentration is observed at re-entrant corners. The members at
the vicinity of re-entrant corners are observed to fail. L-Shaped models are observed to have large

22
top storey displacement but less stress concentration while it’s the opposite in case of P-Shaped
models.

Siva Naveen et al. (2018) conducted analysis of irregular structures under earthquake
loads using ETABS. A nine-storied regular frame is modified by incorporating irregularities in
both plan and elevation to form 34 configurations with single irregularity and 20 cases with
combination of irregularities. After analysis and comparison of the regular configuration and all
54 irregular cases the results concluded that, out of the various cases of single irregularities
analyzed, stiffness irregularity is found to have maximum influence on the response. Among the
cases having multiple irregularities the configuration with mass, stiffness and vertical geometric
irregularities have shown maximum response.

Akshay Ahirwal et al. (2019) studied effect of irregular plan on seismic vulnerability of
RC buildings. Seismic response is compared by carrying out linear static and dynamic analysis
using CSI SAP200 software for existing G+3building with diaphragm discontinuity and that
without diaphragm discontinuity. The comparisons were done for the parameters such as modal
time period, base shear storey drift and joint displacement. The results drawn were that, base
shear for regular diaphragm building was more than irregular diaphragm building while joint
displacement is also more than 15% for regular building. Due to the decrease in floor area there is
an increase in dead load in irregular buildings which in turn increases base shear.

Imranullah Khan & S. S. Sanyasi Rao (2017) performed seismic analysis of irregular L-
Shape buildings in various zones. A 10 storied L-Shaped building is modeled in ETABS and
response spectrum analysis is done for different zones. After comparing results from static and
dynamic analysis, storey drift response along the height of the building shows that, the middle
stories are more effected than the lower and upper stories. Displacements gradually increases
from ground storey to top storey. In y-direction the comparison of displacement in various zones
is 59.18%, 9.656% and 49.78%. in x-direction the comparison of displacement in different zones
is 59.79%,50.32% and 50.21%. the analysis demonstrates that plan irregularity has a significant
effect on seismic response of the building.

23
 M. R. Sultan & D. G. Peera (2015) carried out research by conducting dynamic analysis
on multi storied structure for different shapes. They used ETABS 9.7.1 version to conduct
research on different shapes like Rectangular, L-shape, H-shape and C-shape in order to
understand their behavior in high seismic zones. They also evaluated parameters such as storey
overturning moment, storey drift, displacement and design lateral forces. The results concluded
that, building with severe irregularity produces more deformation particularly in high seismic
zones. The storey overturning moment varies inversely with height of storey. Also, the storey
base shear for regular building was higher compared to that of irregular buildings.

Gaurav Kumar et al. (2018) analyzed the behavior of different irregular plan buildings
during seismic excitation. Most common shape of buildings such as square shape, L-Shape, C-
Shape and T-Shape which conform as per clause 7.1 of IS Code 1893:2002 (part 1), are modelled
using ETABS software. Comparison of seismic performance of different models was done after
using linear time historey method considering parameters such as storey drift, storey
displacement and torsion (ratio of maximum storey drift to average storey drift). The building
plans, which have eccentricity between center of mass and center of rigidity are subjected to more
severe damages in comparison to buildings having zero eccentricity. Buildings having zero
eccentricity perform well during earthquake.

Amarnath K. et al. (2019) studied a G+12 existing RCC building asymmetric in plan in
order to assess the effect of irregularities present in it as defined by the seismic codes, IS
1893:2002 and IS 1893:2016 with the help of ETABS (2017) software. The analysis of the lateral
load is carried out using time history of past earthquake i.e. EL-CENTRO (May 1940) and BHUJ
(Jan 2001) on four different models. From the analysis it was found that the base shear in the
model 1 is the largest and the lateral sway was more than the allowable limit in all the models.
All the models undergo torsional irregularity. After comparing the results from both the codes it
is seen that the latest edition of the code is stringent towards structural irregularity.

Jagadeesh Bommisetty et al. (2019) studied seismic response of building having regular
and irregular plan configurations. They conducted the analysis on ETABS software using linear

24
static dynamic analysis on regular and irregular buildings of height G+6, G+9 and G+14 having
re-entrant corners. After comparing response for different heights and zones they concluded that,
maximum displacement and storey drift was occurring in irregular shape buildings while
maximum storey shear was observed in regular plan buildings.

Md Shehzad Choudhary et al. (2018) presented a paper addressing the difference

between a building without diaphragm discontinuity and a building with diaphragm discontinuity.
Regular 15 and 20 storied RC buildings with shear wall were modelled with and without
diaphragm discontinuity on ETABS (2013). After analysis it was observed that, for 15 and 20
storied buildings, when there is an increase in percentage area of slab openings it is found that
there is a decrease in storey displacement, storey drift, storey shear and modal period in both x
and y directions. The study shows that variation in slab thickness reduces the performance of the
building during earthquake. It was also found that, slab openings in a building having shear wall
gives better performance during earthquakes.

B.K. Raghu Prasad et al. (2016) have studied the response of buildings symmetric and
asymmetric in plan. In order to study the response a G+11 structure was taken in which columns
were modeled as fixed as well as with spring supports. In both the cases it was found that, the
asymmetric structure was subjected to more lateral force and torsion because of the eccentricity
between the center of mass and center of rigidity.

Pradeep Pujar & Amaresh (2017) presented seismic analysis of plan irregular multi-
storied building with and without shear walls using equivalent static technique with the assistance
of ETABS software. The parameters considered for comparing I-Shape, L-Shape and C-Shape
models with and without shear walls are storey displacement, storey drift and base shear. The
results obtained showed that, L-Shape and C-Shape structures with shear walls have better
outcomes in base shear, storey drift and displacement. L-Shaped model had lees displacement in
X-direction while I-Shaped model had lesser displacement in Y-direction. From the results it is
learned that, utilizing shear walls the building will oppose seismic tremor proficiently with our
Indian atmosphere.

25
 A. Sukumaran & S. G. Ponnachen (2013) did comparison on seismic performance of
solid and hollow reinforced concrete members in RCC framed building with plan irregularity
using ETABS software. Analysis was conducted for G+6 and G+13 models and comparison of
maximum storey shear and maximum storey drift was done. The results obtained revealed that,
particularly in higher seismic zones there was reduction in maximum storey drift and base shear
due to hollow members in RCC framed building. Maximum storey shear amd storey drift
increases as number of storey increases in both solid and hollow membered buildings.

Anju Nayas & Minu Antony (2019) performed pushover analysis of plan irregular RC
buildings with special columns using ETABS 2015 software for modelling and analysis. The
study was also conducted to learn which irregular building is the most effective in resisting lateral
loads. The results of the study revealed that, base shear was maximum for H shaped building with
L shaped columns compared to cross and Tee columns. Base shear values will be least for L
shaped buildings and hence they should be avoided in earthquake prone areas. Base shear
capacity of Tee shaped building can be increased by providing Tee columns in the reentrant
corners as they have more capacity than cross and L shaped columns.

Laxmi Chandran (2019) carried out research on the effect of floating columns in
buildings of regular and irregular plan. Equivalent static analysis was carried out on a model of
G+14 building of regular and irregular plan using SAP2000 software. Thus, the analysis
concluded that, among the buildings considered with floating columns at different levels, it is
safer to provide floating columns in the outer region at higher levels. For those which require
floating columns in the inner regions are to be provided at lower levels.

Mohammed Akif Uddin & M. A. Azeem (2020) did a comparative study of a composite
structure with concrete filled tubular columns, composite structure with concrete incased I section
columns and a RCC structure. All models considered are G+15 storey and irregular in plan are
satisfied as per IS 1893:2002 resulting in T shape and Plus shaped models. After performing
response spectrum analysis, it was observed that, the stiffness is less in composite structures
when compared to RCC structures. The displacements and drifts are less in RCC structures
26
because of larger stiffness values but are within permissible limits. Base shear and base moments
are less in composite structures due to their dead weight being lesser than RCC building. There
was no significant difference in the response parameters of the two composite structures.

Sohail Shaikh & Shilpa Kewate (2015) conducted a study on behavior of concrete
encased columns in irregular buildings under seismic conditions. A detailed analysis of multi-
storey G+20 building having various irregularities with concrete encased columns is been carried
out against RCC columns in mass and stiffness irregularity. Base shear was found out to be
reduced in concrete incased columns in both the irregularities. Time periods and displacements
were found to be higher in composite structure. He concluded that concrete encased columns are
suitable for stiffness irregularity building due to its high stiffness property which enables the
structure to resist.

Prathamesh Musale et al. (2018) studied seismic analysis of plan and vertical
irregularity of building with and without infill action using ETABS. A G+7 building, where
height of each storey is 3.2m and has irregular plan and elevation is considered. Building is
located in zone Ⅲ and cases such as, bare frame, boundary infill, complete infill and soft storey
at ground floor are considered. Response spectrum analysis is carried out using ETABS 2016
software considering mainly three irregularities i.e. mass, stiffness and geometric irregularity.
Behavioral parameters considered for study are eccentricity, maximum storey displacement, time
period, maximum storey acceleration and storey shear. The results show that, more the regular
model, lesser will be the maximum storey displacement and hence complete infill model has the
least. Complete infill frames have maximum base shear value. Eccentricity is zero in regular
model while it varies in irregular models because of boundary infill, soft storey, etc. modal time
period is more for regular building compared to irregular. Regular models have less storey
acceleration than irregular models in both X and Y directions.

2.3 Summary of Literature Review

From all the above papers which I referred and mentioned above following is the
summary of literature which will be useful for the further progress of my work.

27
 1. Construction of irregular pan buildings although not required everywhere, does become
unavoidable in tight areas where a regular plan building is not possible.
2. Most researchers have carried out comparative analysis of irregular plan multi storied
buildings of various shapes.
3. Few people conducted research for different heights for such irregular plan buildings.
4. Some researchers conducted analysis in different seismic zones.
5. Most papers presented study on re-entrant type irregularity.
6. Generally irregular plan buildings show higher storey drift and displacement values while,
regular building have higher base shear.
7. Dynamic analysis values have more accurate values than static analysis for irregular
buildings.

2.4 Gaps in Literature

After studying the literature summarized above, I learned there were some topics that
could be studied more to increase the research in the chosen field. Some of these pointers are as
mentioned below:

1. More comparative analysis can be carried out for different irregular plan buildings.

2. Comparative analysis for high rise building is done only up to 20 storied buildings.

3. Most researchers have not considered seismic zones for more detailed results.

4. Comparative analysis for different irregular plan buildings having varying height can be
performed.

2.5 Concluding Remark

Reading previous research papers, summarizing the literature work and finding the gaps
in them has given me a good idea about irregular buildings. This will help me in conducting my
study that follows the research conducted by my predecessors in the respective topic.
Summarizing the literature has given me an insight of what more can be done in the study of
irregular buildings. A detailed explanation of my study will be provided in the following chapter

28
where, the formulation of problem will be done and the methodology will be discussed.

29
 Chapter 3

Problem Formulation

3.1 Problem Findings

1. Due to requirement of construction of irregular buildings, there is a scope of comparative

analysis of such irregular plan buildings.
2. Comparative analysis of irregular buildings for different heights and shapes are carried
out by only a few researches.
3. Dynamic analysis was found to be more accurate than static analysis.
4. Most researches used ETABS software as tool for conducting analysis.
5. This study aims to analyze and compare irregular buildings of varying heights and different
shapes.
6. The research is conducted to understand requirement of such buildings in various seismic
zones.

30
3.2Problem formulation

3.2.1 Problem statement

In this study a comparative analysis of irregular plan buildings of different shapes for
different heights and seismic zones is done by using ETABS. The result of this analysis will
include base shear, displacement and storey drift. Comparative analysis of the results for various
cases will be done. Comparison of the results will lead us to a conclusion for the requirement of
such buildings in different seismic zones.

3.2.2 Methodology of project

The study to be conducted for this project will mostly be done using ETABS software.
Modelling the building in the software and carrying out subsequent analysis for obtaining results
will be done. A detailed step by step procedure of the methodology is given below.

1. In present research we have used different models of irregular plan multi-storied

buildings.
2. Model the structures in ETABS.
3. Seismic analysis is done as per IS 1893-2016.
4. Running the models in ETABS.
5. Obtaining seismic parameters like base shear, storey drift and displacement.
6. Comparing results of above parameters.
7. Conclusion.

3.2.3 Structural Modeling

In this study a comparative analysis of irregular plan buildings of C, L, I and T shape with
G+10, G+20 and G+30 storeys is done using ETABS. The modeling is done to obtain seismic
parameters such as base shear, storey drift and displacement. The study has been carried out for
different zones as specified in IS 1893-2016.

31
3.2.4 Preliminary Data

Model
Shapes: C, L, I and T
Length in X direction = 20m
Length in Y direction = 20m
Typical storey height = 3m
Ground storey height = 3.5m
No of stories: 10, 20 and 30
Height of buildings = 30.5m, 60.5m and 90.5m
Bay spacing in X direction = 4m
Bay spacing in Y direction = 4m

Load calculations:
Dead load

1. Selfweight of the member

2. Super imposed dead load = 2KN/m2

Live load = 2KN/m2

Seismic load (IS 1893:2016)

1. Zone factor (z) (table 2)

2. 0.16 for zone Ⅲ

3. 0.24 for zone Ⅳ

4. 0.36 for zone Ⅴ
5. Importance factor (I) = 1 (table 6)
6. Response reduction factor (R) = 5 (table 7)
7. Soil type Ⅰ

32
Wind load
Building is located in Mumbai, category 3 and class B
Basic wind speed (Vb) = 44 m/s

Load combinations
Design load combination
1. 1.5(DL+LL)
2. 1.5(DL+WX/-WY)
3. 1.5(DL+EQX/-EQY)
4. 1.2(DL+LL+WX/-WY)
5. 1.2(DL+LL+EQX/-EQY)
6. 0.9DL+1.5(WX/-WY)
7. 0.9DL+1.5(EQX/-EQY)

Service load combination

1. DL+LL
2. DL+WX/WY
3. DL+EQX/EQY
4. DL+0.8LL+EQX/EQY
5. DL+0.8LL+WX/WY
6. 0.9DL+WX/WY
7. 0.9DL+EQX/EQY
where,
DL=Dead Load, LL= Live Load,
WX=Wind Load in X direction,
WY=Wind Load in Y direction,
EQX=Earthquake Load in X direction,
EQY=Earthquake Load in Y direction

33
 3.3 Future Scope of Work
 Stage 1.
In this stage after review of literature and selecting preliminary data for the project,
software validation of structure to be done in ETABS will be performed in order to determine the
proficiency of the software in this project.
 Stage 2.
In this stage the structure will be modeled in software and analysis of the structure as per
different cases will be done. After this analysis results will be compared and a meaningful
conclusion will be made.

34
 References

1. Akshay Ahirwal, Kriti Gupta and Vaibhav Singh “Effect of Irregular Plan on Seismic
Vulnerability of Reinforced Concrete Building” AIP Conference Proceedings, 2019, 2158,
020012.
2. Anju Nayas and Minu Antony “Pushover Analysis of Plan Irregular RC Buildings with
Special Columns” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 6,
Issue 5, May 2017.
3. Arvind Reddy, R. J. Fernandes, “Seismic Analysis of RC Regular and Irregular Frame
Structures”, IJERT, Vol.2, Issue: 5, Aug-2015.
4. B. K. Raghu Prasad, Vinay S. and Amarnath K., “Seismic Analysis of Buildings
Symmetric and Asymmetric in Plan” SSRG-IJCE, Vol. 3, Isuue 5, May 2016, 2248-8352.
5. Davda Karan Kishorbai, Prof. B. K. Raghu Prasad and Prof. Amarnath K “Response of
RCC Asymmetric Building Subjected to Earthquake Ground Motions” International
Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 8, Issue 7, July 2019.
6. Gaurav Kumar and V. R. Singh, “Effect of Irregular Configurations on Seismic Behavior of
RC Buildings” International Journal of Engineering Research in Mechanical and Civil
Engineering, 2018, 3(4), 2456-1290.
7. Imranullah Khan and Shri Satya Eswar Sanayasi Rao “Seismic Analysis of Irregular L-
Shape Building in Various Zones” International Journal of Innovative Research in
Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 6, Issue 8, Aug 2017, 2319-8753, 2347-6710.
8. Laxmi Chandran “Effect of Floating Columns in Multi-Storey building of Regular and
Irregular Plan” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Special
Issue, July 2019.
9. Md Shehzad Choudhary, Syed Arfath, Md Mansoor Ahmed and Nadeem Pasha,
“Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of Building Having Diaphragm Discontinuity
using ETABS” International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, 2018, 6(5).
10. Mohammed Abdul Aquib Farhan, Jagadeesh Bommisetty “Seismic Analysis of
Multistoried RCC Building Regular and Irregular in Plan” International Journal of
Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 8, Issue 11, Nov 2019.

35
11. Mohammed Akif Uddin and M. A. Azeem “Comparative Study on Seismic Behavior of
Composite and RCC Plan Irregular Structures” International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology, Vol. 9, Issue 1, Jan 2020.
12. Mohammed Rizwan Sultan and D. Gouse Peera “Dynamic Analysis Of Multi-Storey
Building For Different Shapes” International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced
Engineering (IJIRAE), Issue 8, Vol. 2, Aug-2015, ISSN:2349-2163.
13. P. A. Krishnan and N. Thasleen “Seismic Analysis of Plan Irregular RC Building
Frames” IOP Conference Series, Earth and Environmental Science, 2020, Sci. 491-
012021.
14. Pradeep Pujar and Amaresh “Seismic Analysis of Plan Irregular Multi-Storied Building
with and without Shear Walls” International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 8, Aug 2017, 2395-0056, 2395-0072.
15. Prathamesh Musale, Shivkumar Hallale,Vaishnavi Mahajan, Tanushri Mahajan, Snehal
Baraparte and Rohan Shinde “Seismic Analysis of Plan and Vertical Irregularity of
Building with and without Infill Action using ETABS” International Journal of Advance
Research, Ideas in Technology, Vol. 4, Issue 3, 2018, 2454-132X.
16. Prof. Sujeet Patil, Pooja Matnalli, Priyanka S. V., Rooparani and Rajamma “Seismic
Analysis of Plan Regular and Irregular Buildings” International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, Issue 5, May 2019, 2395-0056, 2395-0072.
17. Sherin G. Ponnachen and Archana Sukumaran “Comparison of Seismic Performance of Solid
and Hollow Reinforced Concrete Members in RCC Framed Building with Plan Irregularity”
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 6, Issue 6, June 2017.
18. Siva Naveen E., Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S. D. “Analysis of Irregular
Structures under Earthquake Loads” 2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity
and Exhibition, 2018, 14, 806-809.
19. Sohail Shaikh and Shilpa Kewate “Behaviour of Concrete Encased Columns in Irregular
Buildings under Seismic Conditions” International Journal of Engineering Science
Invention, 2018, 7(6), 92-96.
20. Vardharajan, S. Sehgal, V. K. and Babita Saini, “Review of Different Structural
Irregularities in Building” Journal of Structural Engineering, 2013, 39(05), 538-563.

36