Similarity Report ID: oid:28541:42448014

PAPER NAME AUTHOR

Research paper for dissertation 06-09-20 Shaikh Shujahat

23.docx

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

2924 Words 15255 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

12 Pages 2.4MB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Sep 6, 2023 11:59 AM GMT+5:30 Sep 6, 2023 12:00 PM GMT+5:30

7% Overall Similarity
The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
7% Internet database 2% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Bibliographic material Quoted material
Cited material Small Matches (Less then 10 words)

Summary
 SEISMIC CONTROL SYSTEM FOR VERTICALLY
IRREGULAR BUILDINGS
Shaikh Shujahta, Satish Deshmukhb,c
post graduate student, assistant professorb
GovtCollege of engineeringc, Aurangabad-431001
Abstract
Behavior of High rise building mainly depends on their structural planning. In this present study, a G+20
storey RCC building having vertical setback irregularity above tenth storey is considered. Due to such
irregular configuration building becomes more vulnerable to seismic vibration. To control these vibration
stiffeners are used at suitable positions, by going through trial & error method. The parameters considered
for comparison are fundamental time period, storey displacement and storey drift. The analysis is carried
by response spectrum method. It can be seen that adding the steel bracing at effective location reduces story
displacement, story drift, torsional displacement and it also helps in shifting the torsional mode from first
mode to third mode. The steel bracings are also be effectively used as retrofitting in vertically irregular
building by positioning suitably at the required bays of the building.

Keywords: vertically irregular building, torsional response, response spectrum method, bracing.

1. Introduction.
In recent high rise buildings, much importance is given to attain desired aesthetic features and functional
needs such as parking space, reception hall etc. While achieving these objectives, building may become
irregular either in horizontal or vertical direction. During earthquake loads, center of mass and center of
resistance do not coincide in the buildings having such irregular configuration. Due to this, torsional forces
are formed which may lead to the torsional displacement exceeding the permissible limit of codal provisions
[8].
For such irregular structures, bracings are incorporated to increase stiffness and stability of the structure
3
under dynamic loading and also to minimize lateral displacement significantly. Bracing is efficient because
the diagonals work as axial member and reduces the demand for minimum member sizes of structure
required to enhance the stiffness and strength against horizontal shear. The provision of bracings is of one
of the seismic control system which may be used either eccentrically or concentrically. Bracing are said to
be concentric if the diagonal member are joined at the beam column junction such that they intersect at one
point producing axial forces without moments, whereas eccentric bracing gets intersected some distance
away from beam column junction which enables it in resisting moments and shear with increasing ductility
3
[2]. In high-rise buildings, the location and number of bracings is an important limitation to the architectural
plan.
So far many researches have done the study on seismic responses of the irregular building. Khoure et al.
(2005) evaluated the response of nine-storey steel frames with setback irregularities and observed that the
higher torsion response at the upper portion of the setbacks. Gokdemi et al. (2013) ascertained the result of
2
torsional irregularity on structures. According to the author, torsion is caused due to the action of
eccentricity between center of mass and center of stiffness. The intensity of moment due to torsion was
found to be a function of eccentricity ratio. SCDutta et al. (2017) studied the high seismic vulnerability of
vertically irregular building due to sudden increase in the stresses of critical members of the building
6
buildings. J. Makavana. and V. Anand (2017) performed Comparative Study of Lateral Load Resisting
Systems for Irregular Shape of Building for Different Soils. Three soil types were considered with four
shapes each having five different lateral load resisting system. After analyzing effective system for a
particular soil type effective lateral load resisting were suggested.Many researches have focused about the
vulnerability of vertically irregular building during seismic events, however limited research has been
dedicated towards the seismic control of such buildings.
This study mainly aims to assess the seismic performance of vertically irregular building with and without
bracings and to compare their responses to achieve better seismic performance. Moreover, the suitable
locations of the bracings are also to be obtained.

2. Proposed problem:

A vertically irregular building consists of typical 21 storied which is analyzed and designed as per Indian
code IS 456: 2000 and IS 1893 2016 . The story height is 3.2m for all the stories and the overall building
7
height is 68m. The plan consists of seven bays in X-direction and five bays in Y-direction. Each bay width
is 4m. The cross section of all columns is 600 mm x 600 mm and the cross section of beams is 300 mm
x530 mm, same in all stories of the building. The depth of solid slab is 150 mm. The compressive strength
of concrete is taken as 30 Mpa and grade of steel is taken as Fe 500. The live load is taken as 5kN/m2 for
all the stories except for top floor it is 2kN/m2. The diagonal bracing member used is of ISMB 300. The
connection between bracings and RCC members is assumed to be pin jointed. Soil type considered is of
hard type, damping in the system is taken as 5 % and seismic zone considered is zone Iv. Response reduction
factor and importance factor is considered as 5 and 1.2, respectively.

3. Methodology: In this study response spectrum analysis is used to analyze the building by finite
element based ETABS software. The Diaphragm action of all the floor slabs and roof framing is taken as
rigid in the model. All the frames are taken as special moment resisting frames.
A basic structural model is G+20 storied RCC vertically irregular building another model consists of same
building with bracings. After going through the trial and error method most suitable position of bracings
are achieved. The bracings are provided across the height of the building at the backside of setback and on
the front side of setback from the eleventh storey onwards and above as shown in Figure 3&4.

Figure 1 plan layount of building

Figure .2.Model 1 without bracings
 Fig.3.Model 2 with bracings

Figure .4.Model 2 with bracings.

4. Result and Discussion: Analysis of models have been carried by response spectrum analysis using
ETABS and results are shown in Figure [5-10] and Table [1-6]. The parameters considered for comparison
are time period, modal mass participation, storey displacement, storey drift, storey shear and torsional
response.
4.1 Modal mass participation: The model analysis of any structure provides dynamic properties of
structures. Model time period and modal mass participation are two most significant parameters. The modal
time period is compared between two cases in the Table 1-2 which shows decrease of modal time period
when bracings are employed. These tables also shows the modal mass participation of building with and
without bracing up to 12 significant modes, respectively, in translational mode in x-direction and y-
direction i.e UX and UY respectively, and torsional mode, RZ. Table 1 shows, for model 1, the first mode is
translational mode coupled with torsional mode, second mode is translational mode, and third mode is
dominant torsional mode. From Table 2 it is clear that the provision of bracing in model 2 almost shifts the
torsional mode to third mode and first two modes become nearly translational, when compared to modes of
model 1.
Table 1 Dynamic properties of building without bracing

1 Period
Mode UX UY Sum UX Sum UY RZ
sec
1 2.555 0 0.5588 0 0.5588 0.2269
2 2.268 0.728 0 0.728 0.5588 0
3 1.768 0 0.1716 0.728 0.7304 0.4585
4 0.944 0 0.1012 0.728 0.8316 0.0935
5 0.907 0.1398 0 0.8678 0.8316 0
6 0.853 0 0.0382 0.8678 0.8698 0.0727
7 0.478 0 0.0336 0.8678 .9034 0.0053
8 0.472 0.0429 0 0.9107 0.9034 0
9 0.427 0 0.0098 0.9107 0.9132 0.0426
10 0.334 0 0.023 0.9107 0.9362 0.0068
11 0.331 0.0271 0 0.9378 0.9362 0
12 0.314 0 0.0023 0.9378 0.9384 0.0224
Table 2 Dynamic properties of building with bracing

Period 4
Mode UX UY Sum UX Sum UY RZ
sec
1 2.278 0.7285 0 0.7285 0 0
2 1.768 0 0.7623 0.7285 0.7623 0.0013
3 1.522 0 0.0011 0.7285 0.7634 0.7168
4 0.909 0.1396 0 0.8681 0.7634 0
5 0.722 0 0.0454 0.8681 0.8087 0.0528
6 0.493 0 0.0796 0.8681 0.8884 0.0981
7 0.474 0.0428 0 0.9109 0.8884 0
8 0.383 0 0.035 0.9109 0.9234 0.032
9 0.332 0.0271 0 0.938 0.9234 0
10 0.246 0 0.0184 0.938 0.9417 0.0332
 11 0.231 0.0157 0 0.9537 0.9417 0
12 0.224 0 0.0154 0.9537 0.9571 0.0129
5
4.2 Maximum Displacements Response: The story displacements of the irregular structures subjected to
lateral loadings are an important parameter for buildings design. As per code, the maximum limit on the
storey displacement of the building should is less than H/250 under seismic forces.
Figure5& Figure 6 shows the variation of lateral displacement at each floor of building in X-direction &
Y-direction. The maximum displacement occuring at top floor is 411.68mm and 509.33mm for earthquake
in x and y-direction, respectively. These values are exceeding allowable value of code. However it is found
that the displacements for model 2 are 183.50 mm, 147.15 mm in x and y-direction respectively, which is
within permissible limit [7]. The decrease in displacement is nearly 55 %, 71 % in both direction when
compared to model 1.

450
9 400
Storey Displacement in mm

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Storey

Without Bracing With Bracing

Figure 5 Storey displacement in X-direction

600
Storey Displacement in mm

500

400

300

200

100

Story

Without Bracing With Bracing

10
Figure 6 Storey Displacement in Y-direction.
 4.3 Maximum storey drift: Figure 7& Figure 8 illustrates the storey drift along the both the direction , it
is observed that maximum value of storey drift is taking near the location of vertical irregularity (12th and
13th storey) in case of model 1. However, it is found that drift values are decreased by nearly 30% along
both directions when compared to model 1 achieving the seismic limit given by the code.

0.012

0.01

0.008
Story Drift

0.006

0.004

0.002

Story

Without Bracing With Bracing

Figure 7 Storey drift of the building with and without bracing in X-direction

0.014
0.012
8 0.01
Storey Drift

0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0

Storey

Without Bracing With Bracing

Figure 8 Storey drift of the building with and without bracing in Y-direction
4.4 Storey Shear: Figure 9 & Figure 10 shows the comparison of maximum storey shear between model 1
and model 2 along both the direction. It is found that base shear values in x and y-direction are 1581.15 KN
and 2768 KN respectively in case of model 1. But after adding the bracings, these base shear values are
increased to 3103.52 KN and 5430 KN, respectively .The increase in base shear values are nearly about 50
% for model 2 when compared to model 1. This is due to increase in the stiffness of the building caused by
the provision of bracings.
 3500
3000
Storey shear KN

2500
2000
1500
Without Bracing
1000
With Bracing
500
0

Storey

Fig 9 Storey Shear in X-direction

6000

5000
Storey Shear in KN

4000

3000
Without Bracing
2000
With Bracing
1000

Storey

Fig 10 Storey Shear in Y-direction

4.5. Torsional response for earthquake in X- direction: Table 3 and Table 4 shows the comparison of
maximum / minimum displacement ratios of building with and without bracing for X-direction. From Table
3, it is observed that maximum/minimum displacement ratios from 1st story to 10th story are in the range of
1.609mm to 1.717 mm which exceed the permissible limit of 1.5. However From 11th storey to 20th storey
these are ratios are in the range of 1.13 to 1.039, which are within recommended limit.
Table 4 shows that when bracings are provided the maximum/minimum displacement ratios reduces to
around 1.13 to 1.19 for the first ten stories bringing it well within the permissible limits and slightly
increases these ratios from story11 to story 20 which also lie well within the permissible limit.

Table 3.Torsional ratios for model 1 Table 4.Torsional ratios for model 2

Max Min Max Min

Story disp disp Ratio Story disp disp Ratio
mm mm mm mm
Story1 2.964 1.726 1.717 Story1 3.617 1.12
2.897
Story2 4.35 2.706 1.607 Story2 4.538 1.183
3.837
Story3 4.98 3.125 1.594 Story3 5.2 1.19
4.352
Story4 5.257 3.298 1.594 Story4 5.643 1.198
4.706
Story5 5.371 3.36 1.599 Story5 5.641 1.151
4.911
Story6 5.401 3.364 1.605 Story6 5.532 1.111
4.981
Story7 5.381 3.334 1.614 Story7 5.318 1.077
4.938
Story8 5.323 3.281 1.622 Story8 5 1.04
4.806
Story9 5.232 3.217 1.626 Story9 5.054 1.061
4.762
Story10 5.11 3.177 1.609 Story10 5.058 1.146
4.414
Story11 4.857 4.298 1.13 Story11 4.959 1.169
4.242
Story12 4.605 4.317 1.067 Story12 4.929 1.17
4.213
Story13 4.465 4.233 1.055 Story13 4.867 1.157
4.208
Story14 4.192 3.997 1.049 Story14 4.764 1.146
4.157
Story15 3.83 3.663 1.046 Story15 4.627 1.139
4.064
Story16 3.397 3.255 1.044 Story16 4.463 1.134
3.936
Story17 2.906 2.788 1.042 Story17 4.275 1.132
3.777
Story18 2.374 2.28 1.041 Story18 4.071 1.133
3.594
Story19 1.837 1.766 1.04 Story19 3.854 1.136
3.394
Story20 1.377 1.326 1.039 Story20 3.558 1.139
3.123
Table 5.Torsional ratios for model 1 Table 6.Torsional ratios for model 2

Max Min Max min

Story disp disp Ratio Story disp disp Ratio
mm mm mm mm
Story1 2.975 1.74 1.709 Story1 3.179 2.379 1.336

Story2 4.4 2.71 1.623 Story2 3.525 3.136 1.124

Story3 4.98 3.125 1.593 Story3 4.225 3.555 1.188

Story4 5.245 3.3 1.589 Story4 4.398 3.846 1.144

Story5 5.37 3.35 1.602 Story5 4.379 4.015 1.091

Story6 5.401 3.364 1.611 Story6 4.397 4.168 1.055

Story7 5.386 3.324 1.62 Story7 4.494 4.284 1.049

Story8 5.327 3.278 1.622 Story8 4.52 4.158 1.087

Story9 5.232 3.217 1.626 Story9 4.457 3.919 1.137

Story10 5.11 3.177 1.609 Story10 4.427 3.564 1.242

Story11 4.859 4.31 1.127 Story11 4.275 3.67 1.165

Story12 4.608 4.319 1.066 Story12 4.227 3.607 1.172

Story13 4.465 4.233 1.055 Story13 4.171 3.6 1.159

Story14 4.197 3.992 1.051 Story14 4.083 3.557 1.148

Story15 3.83 3.663 1.046 Story15 3.967 3.481 1.14

Story16 3.399 3.252 1.045 Story16 3.829 3.375 1.135

Story17 2.906 2.788 1.042 Story17 3.672 3.244 1.132

Story18 2.374 2.28 1.041 Story18 3.503 3.093 1.132

Story19 1.837 1.766 1.04 Story19 3.323 2.929 1.135

Story20 1.377 1.326 1.039 Story20 3.076 2.704 1.138

4.6. Torsional response for earthquake in Y- direction: Table 5 and Table 4 shows the comparison of
maximum / minimum displacement ratios of building with and without bracing for Y-direction. From table
5 it is found that maximum/minimum displacement ratio from 1st story to 10th story are in the range of 1.609
to 1.709 which exceeds the permissible limit of 1.5. However from 11th storey to 20th storey these ratio are
1.127 to 1.039 are within given limit10. Table 6 shows that when bracings are provided these
maximum/minimum displacement ratios reduces to around 1.13 to 1.19 for the first ten stories and slightly
increases for top ten stories. However, mostly closer to the values for the building without bracings.

5. Conclusion

In this paper the seismic performance of G+20 building with and without bracings of vertically irregular
building subjected to earthquake loading is studied. Vertical irregularity considered in the building consists
of setbacks from 11th storey and above where three bays were reduced in x-direction. The bracings are
provided to improve the seismic performance of the building. The most suitable locations of bracings are
obtained by trial and error method. The response spectrum analysis is carried out by using ETABS software.
Based on the results following conclusions are made.
1. Modal mass participation shows that the first mode is translational mode coupled with torsional mode,
second mode is translational and third one is dominant torsional mode when no bracings are provided.
However, it is found that with provision of bracings the torsional mode shifts to the third mode and
first two modes becomes nearly translational modes.
2. The maximum / minimum displacement ratios related to torsion lies in the range of 1.609 to 1.709 for
the first ten stories of the building without bracings which exceeds the permissible limit and for
remaining ten stories these values are well within limit. The provision of bracing at suitable locations
in the building (model 2) reduces these ratios to the range of 1.13 to 1.19 which are well below the
limits of codal provision and for remaining top stories torsion response is similar to building without
bracings.
3. The storey displacement values were exceeding the permissible limit when no bracings were used.
However, with the incorporation of bracings these displacement values are reduced as much as 55%
and 77% for earthquake in x and y-direction respectively which are well below the allowable limits.
4. When compared to model 1, in case of model 2 the storey drifts across the height of the building get
reduced up to 30% in both the direction due to provision of bracings.
5. It is observed that the time period values in different modes are decreased due to the increased stiffness
of the building when bracing were employed.
Thus, the provision of bracings in considered vertically irregular building at suitable positions efficiently
reduces the seismic response and shifts the torsional mode entirely to the third mode.

6. References
[1] Khoure, W., Rutenberg, A., Levy, R., 2005. On the Seismic Response of Asymmetric Setback
Perimeter-Frame Structures. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behavior of
Irregular and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki.
[2]. Manohar, S. and Madhekar, S., 2015. “Seismic design of RC building : Theory and practice.” Springer
Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering ISBN: 978- 81-322-2319-1
{3] Gokdemi, H., Ozbasaran, H., Dogan, M., Unluoglu, E., Albayrak, U., 2013. Effects of Torsional
Irregularity to Structures during Earthquakes. Engineering Failure Analysis 35, 713-717.
[4] Sekhar Chandra Dutta ,Pranab Kumar Das &PiyaliSengupta (2017) Seismic Behaviour of Irregular
Structures, Structural Engineering International, 27:4, 526-545
[5]. Rakshith K L and Smitha. “Effect of Bracings on Multistored RCC Frame Structure under Dynamic
Loading.” International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology 3.4 (2017).
[6]. J. Makavana. and V. Anand. “Comparative Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems for Irregular
Shape of Building for Different Soils.” International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research
Development 4.3 (2017).
[7] IS 456:2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforce Concrete- Code of Practice. New Delhi, bureau of
Indian standard, 2000
[8] Code IS 1893 (part 1), criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian
Standards, 2016; New Delhi, India.
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28541:42448014

7% Overall Similarity
Top sources found in the following databases:
7% Internet database 2% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

repositorio.unesum.edu.ec
1 1%
Internet

fis.cld.bz
2 1%
Internet

ijert.org
3 <1%
Internet

acikbilim.yok.gov.tr
4 <1%
Internet

oaji.net
5 <1%
Internet

ijaerd.com
6 <1%
Internet

"Sustainability Trends and Challenges in Civil Engineering", Springer Sc...

7 <1%
Crossref

irjet.net
8 <1%
Internet

jetir.org
9 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28541:42448014

ijaerd.co.in
10 <1%
Internet

Sources overview