PRESENTATION ON

“SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF MULTI-STOREY

STOREY BUILDING FOR DIFFERENT
SHAPES USING E-TABS
E ”

Presented By:-
MOHAMMED NAYAR (SG22SEC009)

Under the Guidance of

Asst.Prof. Vishwanath S Hiremath
 -:CONTENTS:-

1.Introduction

2.Literature Review

3.Objectives

4.Modeling

4.Methodology

5.Results and Discussions

6.Reference
1. Introduction:-
 Building multi-storey structures for both residential and
commercial purposes has become more required as people move
from rural regions to cities, where land is limited and costly,
especially in major cities like Mumbai and Kolkata.
 High-rise construction has been popular in developed cities, and
the current fad favors constructions that are both tall and slim.
 More and more attention is being paid to the effects of lateral
stresses, and designers are having difficulty ensuring enough
strength and stability.
 We cannot accurately anticipate the severity, location, and timing
of earthquakes because they occur so often.
 Earthquake loading may not be safe for structures meant to
withstand normal loads such as dead, live, wind, and so on.
1. Introduction:-
 For project design, a large number of design firms rely on this
program. In other words, the focus of this article is to compare the
zone-v with the same medium soil results for various building
geometries.
 Structures of up to 15 stories are simulated in this instance utilizing
the ETABS program. It stands at a total height of 48.5 meters, with
each storey measuring 3 meters in height.
 The structure is analyzed, and the software's conclusions are then
compared to those of several multistorey building designs.
1. Introduction:-
 With being said, let me explain why I've picked this particular
undertaking.
 Even in the most violent areas of our nation, such as Guwahati,
impal, and Srinagar, there remains a need for a safe haven. (we
considered Guwahati location Zone V with wind speed 50m/s for
different shapes are rectangular, L, C, I, hexagonal irregular in plan
building).
 2.Objectives:-

 To obtain and compare the seismic performance of RC

Multi storey structure for different shapes of structures (L
shape, C shape, I shape and hexagon shape)
 Response Spectrum performed upon critical zone v for
moderate soil kind by code – IS:1893 (part -1) : 2016
 For studying impact of storey displacement, storey
drifting, storey shear and time period.
 3.Literature Review:-
 Shehzad Choudhary, Syed Arfath,
Arfath & Nadeem Pasha et.al (2018)[1],
“Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of Multi Storey Building Having
Diaphragm Discontinuity Using Etabs” ETABS was used to compare the
seismic analysis of a multi-storey
storey structure with a Diaphragm discontinuity.
Including and excluding diaphragm discontinuity, RC structures with shear
walls of 15 and 20 stories were analyzed using response spectrum approach.
Models with slab openings were found to be more accurate. Reduces
displacement, drift, shear, and modal period in the slab compared to a standard
construction model. Buildings' earthquake performance is negatively impacted
by their thickness.
J.Sreenath Dr. H.Sudharsana Rao & Dr. Vaishali G. Ghorpade et.al (2018)[2]
“Impact of Diaphragm Discontinuity into Seismic Retort of multi- multi
storey”. A multi-storey
storey building's seismic reaction to diaphragm discontinuity
was explored. Seismic characteristics, such as maximal dead load, base shear, &
maximum storey drifts, were examined by comparing the response spectra of
several models with variable diaphragm openings. Buildings without diaphragm
discontinuities were found to have the highest shear force values compared to
those with varied slab openings.
3.Literature Review:-
 Reena Sahu and Ravi Dwivedi et.al (2017)[3] “ Seismic Analysis of RC Frame
with Diaphragm Discontinuity” An RC frame having diaphragm
discontinuities was explored for seismic analysis. Static & response spectrum
analysis have been performed using STAAD PRO, Seismic metrics such as base
shear, maximal storey displacement, applied load, bending moment, and axial
force were examined amongst models with varied percentages of diaphragm
openings. The static analysis base shear was greater than response spectrum
analysis.
 Suravase, M. S. and Pawar et.al (2017)[4] “Impact of Geometrical plan in
discretions upon RCC multi-framed framed Structure”. Researchers looked on the
impact of uneven geometrical plans on RCC multi-framed
multi structures In this
study, four models were considered: rectangle, L form, H form, & rectangular
with core form of G+10 storey R.C. frame building exposed to seismic stress..
ETABS software is used to do a displacement control pushover study. A
rectangular architectural model would topple after an L-shaped
L building model
has fallen. This is the author's conclusion.
 3.Literature Review:-
Ullas and Nimisha et.al (2017)[5] “Response of structures of diverse plan shapes
imperiled to wind load”. When exposed to wind vibrations, they studied the reaction
of buildings of various plan forms. Analyzed and modelled in ETABS 2016 are Y, plus,
and V-shaped
shaped buildings. It has been found that the storey force is the same regardless of
the form of the structure. Y-shaped
shaped buildings have the highest lateral displacement,
whereas Plus-shaped
shaped buildings have the least lateral displacement and storey drift,
making them the most stable of the chosen forms.
Hallale and SharadaBai et.al (2016)[6] “Seismic Behavior of Buildings with Plan
Irregularity with and Without Structural Infill Action” There was a focus upon that
Earthquake Performance of Structures having Plan Abnormality both with and without
Structural Infill. One structure in this research may have no axis of symmetry (L-shaped
(L
design) and two in it are mirror images of each other along the X axis, therefore the
seismic behavior of all three is examined. Buildings classified as regular or irregular are
believed to be in zone III. In ETABS 2013, response spectrum analysis is performed.
Uneven construction plans are observed to cause an increase in displacement and drift
and a decrease in base shear, as well as an increase in time period and member forces.
Increased lateral stiffness from infilled frame action reduces displacement, drift, storey
acceleration and time period while increasing base shear.
 3.Literature Review:-
 Jitendra Choubisa et.al (2020)[7] “Storey Drift of buildings with Various
shapes using ETABS Software”. ETABS is used to compare the storey drifting,
maximal BM, and maximal base reaction of four distinct building designs under
earthquake stress. Which he discovered that symmetric constructions function
fairly well during earthquakes. H and hollow shapes may be cost-effective
cost for
high-rise
rise buildings that are vulnerable to earthquakes, he also said. Box, on the
other hand, will get results that are almost identical. Following that, it is
imperative that a U-shape be avoided.
 METHODOLOGY
 Select a irregular Multi storey building models of different shapes with 15
storey with equal storey height of 3m i.e., Rectangle, L, C, I, Hexagon
shapes
 Modeling the considered structures in ETABS software and analyzing the
same by Response Spectrum Method. The seismic analysis is done as
according to the IS:1893(Part-1)-2016
2016 and wind load analysis is done using
IS:875 (part-3)-2016.
 Comparative studies done for displacement, storey share, storey drift,
base Share and time period for G+15 Multi storey building with different
shapes.
 Discussion on the results with the help of graphs and tablets for each
building models and reaching to conclusions.
METHODOLOGY
The process of Modeling the structure is depicts in following flow chart:
Preparation of Grid & Stories
↓
Defining the Material Properties
↓
Defining Members & their respective size
↓
Placing members on their respective places
↓
Applying Support Conditions
↓
Defining Load Pattern & Load Combination
↓
Applying Dead Loads on Beams & Floors
↓
Applying Live Loads on Floors
↓
Defining Diaphragm & Apply
↓
Model Checking
↓
Run the Model (Analyzing)
↓
Design the Structure
MODELING
Parameters
1 Building Dimension in X and Y direction 30m x 40m (30 in X and 40 in Y)
2 No. of bays in X-direction
direction @ 5m each 6
3 No. of bays in Y-direction
direction @ 5m each 8
4 Storey to Storey height 3m
5 Ground storey height 3.3 m
6 Total building height and number of storey 48.5 m and G+15
7 Depth of slab 120 mm
8 Support condition Fixed
9 Size of column (1-5) storey's 900 X 900 mm
10 Size of column (6-15) storey's 550 X 550 mm
11 Size of beam 450 X 450 mm

12 Thickness of wall 230 mm

13 Specific weight of concrete 24 KN/m3

14 Specific weight of brick wall 20 KN/m3

MODELING
Parameters

Grade of concrete

a. Column and slab M30

b. Beam M25

Grade of Rebar (Steel)

HYSD Fe 415

Live load IS 875 (Part 2)

a. Floor Live Load 3 KN/m²

(IS: 875 (Part 2) -1987, Table 1)

b. Roof Live Load 1.5 KN/m²

Dead Load IS 875 (Part1)

a. Wall dead load :

(Weight of brick masonry X thickness X height of the wall) (20 X 0.230 X 3)= 13.8 KN/m.

b. Slab dead load (0.12 X 24 X 1)= 2.88 KN/m

c. Floor finish load 1.4 KN/m²

Self-weight
weight of elements is automatically get calculated by ETABS
MODELING
Parameters
Wind Data

a. Wind Speed 50 m/s

b. Terrain category 4

c. Impact factor, Risk factor and Topography 1, 1 and 1 respectively

d. Wind Region Guwahati

e. Wind Load As per IS 875 part III:2015

Seismic Data

a. Seismic Zone V (0.36)

b. Region Guwahati

c. Type of soil II (Medium soil)

d. Impact factor 1

e. Response Reduction factor 5

f. Damping ratio 0.05

MODELLING OF BUILDING Plan & 3-D
3 view of
tructure

Rectangular Model (G+15Storey)

MODELLING OF BUILDING Plan & 3-D
3 view of
tructure

L Shaped Model (G+15 storey)

MODELLING OF BUILDING Plan & 3-D
3 view of
tructure

C Shape Model (G+15 Storey)

MODELLING OF BUILDING Plan & 3-D
3 view of
tructure

Rectangular Model (G+15Storey)

MODELLING OF BUILDING Plan & 3-D
3 view of
tructure

Rectangular Model (G+15Storey)

ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

Storey displacement in x-direction (mm) Storey displacement in y-direction (mm)

ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
Discussions on displacement results:
In X direction L-shaped
shaped structure has most displacement (4.917mm) when all models are
compared.
Model L has a maximum displacement of 4.478 millimeters in the Y direction at storey 16, when all
models are compared.
By analyzing the response spectrum of models in X direction, it can be observed that,
displacements are decreased 2.37%, 1.13% for I and shape building respectively and increased by
6%, 5.5% for L and hexagon shape building compared to rectangle shape building.
By analyzing the response spectrum of models in Y direction, it can be observed that,
displacement are Increased 9.64%, 1.72%, 5.92% and 1.36% for model L , I , C and hexagon shape
building respectively as compared to rectangle shape.
Finally, it’s clear from data that my form is experiencing lowest storey displacement in x-direction
x
and hexagon shape in y-direction,
direction, which are performing good as compared to rectangle shape
building.
In accordance with IS 1893-2002, displacement values are within acceptable ranges.
ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

Storey drift in x-direction (mm) Storey drift in y-direction (mm)

ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
Discussions on storey drift results:
Storey drift in the X direction was found to just be greatest in type L shape but was
determined to be 0.000152mm at storey seven.
Storey drifting in Y direction is determined to be greatest in model L shape as well as
being equivalent to 0.000140mm at storey 7 in this case.
As observed models with X direction by RSA drifting are decreased by 2.27%, 0.75%
for I and C shape building respectively and increased by 13.15%, 5.71% for L and
hexagon shape building compared to rectangle shape building.
As observed models with Y direction by RSA drifting are Increased by 7.14%, 1.51%,
4.4% and 0.76% for model L, I, C and hexagon shape building respectively as
compared to rectangle shape.
Now its obvious by outcomes as I shape gets low storey drifting into x-direction
x and
hexagon shape in y-direction,
direction, which are performing good as compared to rectangle
shape building.
According to IS 1893-2002,
2002, the storey drifting values are within acceptable limits.
ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

Storey shear in x-direction (mm) Storey shear in y-direction (mm)

ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
Discussions upon Storey shear outcomes:
Model rectangle form, 571.4886 KN is discovered to be greatest storey shear in X
direction at storey 1.
At storey 1, narrative shear in Y direction in model Rectangle form is 578.7772kN.
As observed for models with X direction with RSA storey share are decreased by
34.8%, 11.25%, 8.64% and 25.07% for model L , I , C and hexagon shape building
respectively as compared to rectangle shape.
Its observed for models along Y direction by response spectrum analysis storey
share are decreased by 33.8%, 13.78%, 10.77% and 23.13% for model L , I , C and
hexagon shape building respectively as compared to rectangle shape.
Finally, it's also clear from the data that I form is experiencing lowest storey
displacement in x-direction
direction and hexagon shape in y-direction,
y which are
performing good as compared to rectangle shape building
ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
SHAPES TIME PERIOD (Sec)

RECTANGLE 2.544 TIMEPERIOD

2.66
2.64
2.62
LSHAPE 2.577 2.6
2.58
2.56
ISHAPE 2.529 2.54
2.52 TIME PERIOD
2.5
2.48
CSHAPE 2.528 2.46

HEXAGON 2.633 RECTANGLE LSHAPE ISHAPE CSHAPE HEXAGON

ESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
Discussions on time period results:
In model L form, the maximum time period is determined to be 2.577 sec.
For I & C shape building models together with response spectrum analysis, it is
shown that the time period is lowered by 0.58% & raised by 1.2% and 3.56%
correspondingly for time period. hexagon shape building compared to rectangle
shape building.
It is now evident from results that I shape is getting lowest Time period, which are
performing good as compared to rectangle shape building.
ONCLUSION
Rectangle shape
It is showing lowest storey displacement, storey drift and time period and maximum storey
share are high as compared to all Shape.
So comparison is done to the remaining irregular shape building parameters.
Hexagon shape
Storey displacement in hexagon shape building is 5.5% more then that of rectangle shape.
Storey drift and time period for 15 storey is also high into hexagon Shape. Consequently, it is
not appropriate for a mentioned loading.
Storey shear are also quite high than other in hexagon shape.
Time period is 3.56% more then that of rectangle shape. So it is not good choice.
I Shape
Storey displacement of I shape is 2.37% less then compared to Rectangle shape.
Storey drifting is low amongst all shape and its even 2.27% less than that of rectangle shape.
Storey share even showing more among all but less then I shape.
Time period is 0.62% less than that of rectangle shape which is good.
It is best choice.
CONCLUSION
C Shape
C shape's performance is almost identical to that of the I shape.
Storey displacement & drift are lowest as I shape as compared to Rectangle shape
Storey share and time period is almost same as I shape, which almost shows same resu
of rectangle shape.
As a result, the I or C form may be employed depending upon available area.
L Shape
Storey displacement and Storey drifting are high amongst all shape and comparatively
16.05% and 13.15% more then that of rectangle shape building respectively.
Storey share and time period are 34.8% and 1.2% high as compared to Rectangle shape
So, It's not doing well in any of the viewpoints.
At last we conclude I and C shape could be economical for multi storey buildings in
irregular shape condition under the effect of seismic attacks.
And Hexagon shape would be specified precedence subsequently (i,e.( I & C shape)
L shape should be side stepped to construction.
Reference:-
 Md Shehzad Choudhary, Syed Arfath, Md Mansoor Ahmed and Nadeem Pasha,
“Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of Multi Storey Building Having Diaphragm
Discontinuity Using Etabs” Khaja Banda Nawaz College of Engineering, Gulbarga
International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, Vol.6, No.5, May 2018
 J. Sreenath, Dr. H. Sudharsana Rao and Dr. Vaishali G. Ghorpade, “Effect of Diaphragm
Discontinuity in the Seismic Response of multi-
multi storey building” International Journal o
Technical Innovation in Modern Engineering & Science (IJTIMES) | e-ISSN:2455-2585,
e
Volume 4, Issue 01, January-2018
 Reena Sahu and Ravi Dwivedi,, “ Seismic Analysis of RC Frame with Diaphragm
Discontinuity” IOSR Journal f Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)|
(IOSR e-
ISSN:2278-1684, p-ISSN:2320-334X,334X, Volume 14, Issue 4 ver. VI, 2017
 Suravase, M. S and Pawar,, “Effect of Geometrical plan irregularities on RCC multi-frame
multi
Structure”. Int. J. Research in Eng. Trends and Tech., 47, 314-317
314 (2017).
 Ullas and Nimisha,, “Response of buildings of different plan shapes subjected to wind
vibrations”. Int. Research J. Eng. And Tech., 4(5), 1625-1628
1625 (2017).
 Hallale and Sharada Bai,, “Seismic Behavior of Buildings with Plan Irregularity with and
Without Structural Infill Action”. Int. J. Recent Advances in Eng. & Tech., 4(4), 97-101
97
(2016)
 Jitendra Choubisa,, “Storey Drift of buildings with Various shapes using ETABS Software”
published In IJEAT, ISSN: 2249-8958,
8958, vol-9
vol Issue-3S, March, 2020.