Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems at Variable Heights

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/296537920
Study Of Lateral Load Resisting Systems At Variable Heights
Thesis · October 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34590.64320
CITATIONS READS
0 2,755
1 author:
Abhijeet Baikerikar
Visvesvaraya Technological University
7 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Abhijeet Baikerikar on 04 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The content and euphoria that entails the successful completion of any task
be incomplete without applauding and thanking the people who made it possible,
because success is the epitome of hard work, perseverance, undeterred missionary
zeal, steadfast determination and paramount of all “encouraging guidance”.
On this occasion, I would like to thank Almighty. I would like to take this
opportunity to express my Honor, Respect, Deepest Gratitude, and Genuine regards
to my guide Prof. Mrs. Kanchan Kanagali for giving me all guidance and valuable
suggestions required for my dissertation work apart from being a constant source of
inspiration and motivation
I express my sincere gratitude to my institution Gogte Institute of Technology,

Belgaum and our beloved Principal Dr. A. S. Deshpande for providing us means of
attaining my most cherished goals
I have a great pleasure to express our deep sense of gratitude towards Head
of Department Dr. G. S. Manjunath for his sterling efforts amenable assistance and
inspiration in all phases of my seminar work.
We are grateful to all the teaching and non teaching staff of Civil Engineering
Department.
I would like to express appreciation to all My Friends for their moral support
and warm wishes which helped me to complete this dissertation successfully
Finally I attribute all my success in life to My Parents for their moral and
intellectual support in carrying out the PG programme in Structural Engineering. It
is my greatest pleasure to dedicate this achievement to My Parents.
ABHIJEEET BAIKERIKAR
ABSTRACT
A natural hazard like Earthquake causes damage to or collapse of buildings if not

designed for lateral loads resulting due to Earthquake. Hence for seismic resistance for high
rise structures it is important to provide exclusive Lateral Load Resisting System (LLRS)
which will supplement the behavior of moment resisting frames in resisting the lateral load.
The dual structural system consisting of special moment resisting frame (SMRF) and
concrete shear wall has better seismic performance due to improved lateral stiffness and
lateral strength. A well designed system of shear walls in a building frame improves its
seismic performance significantly. Steel bracings are also one of the successful lateral load
resisting system. The use of steel bracing systems for strengthening or retrofitting seismically
inadequate reinforced concrete frames is a viable solution for enhancing earthquake
resistance.
In the present study, we have used square grid of 20m in each direction of 5m bay in
each direction, software used for the analysis is ETABS 7.0, and the work has been carried
out for the different cases using shear wall and bracings for the different heights, maximum
height considered for the present study is 75m. The modeling is done to examine the effect of
different cases along with different heights on seismic parameters like base shear, lateral
displacements and lateral drifts.
The study also has been carried out for the different zones and different soil as specified in IS
1893-2002. Response of buildings with different heights is presented in table and graphs.
Such a study may help to provide guidelines to assess more accurately the seismic
vulnerability of building frames and may be useful for seismic design.
CONTENTS
Declaration
Acknowledgement
Abstract
List of Tables
List of Figures
1. Introduction
1.1 General 1
1.2 Objectives of Study 2
2. Literature Review 3
3. Methods for Determination of Lateral Loads 9
3.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Method 9
3.1.1 Design Lateral Force 10
3.1.2 Seismic Weight 10
3.1.3 Fundamental Natural Period 10
3.1.4 Distribution of Design Force 11
3.2 Response Spectrum Method 11
3.2.1 General Codal Provisions 11
3.2.2 Modes to be Considered 12
3.2.3 Computation of Dynamic Quantities 12
3.3 Time History Method 13
4. Dynamic Characteristics of Buildings 15
4.1 Introduction 15
4.2 Natural Period 15
4.2.1 Factors Affecting Natural Period 15
4.2.1.1 Effect of Stiffness 15
4.2.1.2 Effect of Mass 16
4.2.1.3 Effect of Building Height 16
4.2.1.4 Effect of Column Orientation 16
4.2.1.5 Effect of Unreinforced Masonry walls in R.C. Frames 16
4.3 Mode shape 17
4.3.1 Factors Influencing Mode Shapes 18
4.3.1.1 Effect of Flexural Stiffness of Structural Elements 18
4.3.1.2 Effect of Axial Stiffness of Vertical Members 18
4.3.1.3 Effect of Degree of Fixity at Member Ends 18
4.3.1.4 Effect of Building Height 19
4.4 Damping 20
5. Lateral Load Resisting Systems 21
5.1 Introduction 21
5.2 Moment Resisting Frames 21
5.3 Shear Walls 22
5.4 Bracings 23
5.5 Dual Systems 24
6. Problem Defination 26
6.1 Plan of the Building 26
6.2 Details of the Problem 27
6.3 Different Cases of Study 28
6.4 3-D Views of Different Cases 28
7. Results 31
7.1 Zone 2 Results 31
7.1.1 Zone 2 Hard Soil 31
7.1.2 Zone 2 Medium Soil 34
7.1.3 Zone 2 Soft Soil 37
8. Conclusions and Scope for Further Study 67
8.1 Conclusions 67
8.2 Scope for Further Study 68
References 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Name Page No.
3.1 Zone Factor, Z 13
7.1 Results of Zone 2 Hard Soil 32
7.2 Results of Zone 2 Medium Soil 35
7.3 Results of Zone 2 Soft Soil 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Name Page No.
3.1 Response Spectra for Rock and Soil Sites for 5% Damping 13
4.1 Hinged Base 19
4.2 Fixed Base 19
5.1 Moment Resisting Frame 22
5.2 Shear Walls 23
5.3 Bracings 24
5.4 Dual Systems 25
6.1 Plan of the Building 26
6.2 Case 1 (Bare Frame) 28
6.3 Case 2 (Shear Wall in Middle) 29
6.4 Case 3 (Shear Wall at Corners) 29
6.5 Case 4 (Bracings in Middle) 30
6.6 Case 5 (Bracings at Corners) 30
7.1 Height v/s Base Shear for Zone 2 Hard Soil 32
7.2 Displacement Graph for Zone 2 Hard Soil 33
7.3 Drift Graph for Zone 2 Hard Soil 33
7.4 Height v/s Base Shear for Zone 2 Medium Soil 35
7.5 Displacement Graph for Zone 2 Medium Soil 36
7.6 Drift Graph for Zone 2 Medium Soil 36
7.7 Height v/s Base Shear for Zone 2 Soft Soil 38
7.8 Displacement Graph for Zone 2 Soft Soil 39
7.9 Drift Graph for Zone 2 Soft Soil 39
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
In many respects concrete is an ideal building material, combining economy,

versatility of form and function, and noteworthy resistance to fire and the ravages of time.
The raw materials are available in practically every country, and the manufacturing of
cement is relatively simple. It is little wonder that in this century it has become a universal
building material. Tall buildings are the most complex built structures since there are many
conflicting requirements and complex building systems to integrate. Today’s tall buildings
are becoming more and more slender, leading to the possibility of more sway in comparison
with earlier high-rise buildings. From the first high rise buildings constructed in the late 19 th
century until the modern day skyscrapers, the structure has played an important role in the
overall design. Increasing height and slenderness brought about a change in the structural
engineers focus from static gravity loads to horizontal dynamic loads generated by wind and
earthquakes. Thus the impact of wind and seismic forces acting on them becomes an
important aspect of the design. Improving the structural systems of tall buildings can control
their dynamic response. With more appropriate structural forms such as shear walls and
braced structures, and improved material properties, the maximum height of concrete
buildings has increased in recent decades. Therefore, the time dependency of concrete has
become another important factor that should be considered in analyses to have a more
reasonable and economical design.
Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 1

1.2 Objectives of study
 Determinations of lateral displacements, drifts, base shear, at variable heights for bare
frame using response spectrum method.
 Determination of lateral displacements, drifts, base shear, at variable heights for
frame with shear wall and with different locations of shear wall using response
spectrum method.
 Determinations of lateral displacements, drifts, base shear, at variable heights for
frame with bracings using response spectrum method.
 To study the behavior of structure in different seismic zones and on different types of
soils.
 Comparing the above three frames at variable heights.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
 Seismic Performance Evaluation of Multistoried RC framed buildings with

Shear wall (Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam, Vinod Hosur)[1]
The dual structural system consisting of special moment resisting frame (SMRF) and
concrete shear wall has better seismic performance due to improved lateral stiffness and
lateral strength. A well designed system of shear walls in a building frame improves its
seismic performance significantly. The configurations of RC moment resisting framed
building structure with different arrangements of shear walls are considered for evaluation of
seismic performance, so as to arrive at the suitable arrangement of shear wall in the structural
framing system for better seismic resistance. A comparison of structural behavior in terms of
strength, stiffness and damping characteristics is done by arranging shear walls at different
locations/configurations in the structural framing system. The elastic (response spectrum
analysis) as well as in-elastic (nonlinear static pushover analysis) analyses are carried out for
the evaluation of seismic performance. The results of the study indicate that the provision of
shear walls symmetrically in the outermost moment resisting frames of the building and
preferably interconnected in mutually perpendicular directions forming a core will lead to
better seismic performance.
Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls, conventionally known as shear walls are
effective in resisting lateral loads imposed by wind or earthquakes. They provide substantial
strength and stiffness as well as the deformation capacity (capacity to dissipate energy)
needed for tall structures to meet seismic demand. It has become increasingly common to
combine the moment resisting framed structure for resisting gravity loads and the RC shear
walls for resisting lateral loads in tall building structures.

 Earthquake Analysis of Building Configuration with Different Position of Shear

Wall (Anuj Chandiwala)[2]
From the past records of earthquake, there is increase in the demand of earthquake
resisting building which can be fulfilled by providing the shear wall systems in the buildings.
For achieving economy in reinforced concrete building structures, design of critical section is
carefully done to get reasonable concrete sizes and optimum steel consumption in members.
In the present paper the researcher, had tried to get moment occur at a particular column
including the seismic load, by taking different lateral load resisting structural systems,
different number of floors, with various positions of shear wall for earthquake zone III in
India has been found.
Among different location of shear wall (F- shear wall at end of “L” section) gives
best result. Main reason is end portion of flange always oscillate more during earthquake.
Here shear wall directly obstruct this end oscillation, hence reduce overall bending moment
of building.
 Seismic Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames (Viswanath K.G,

Prakash K.B., Anant Desai)[3]
Steel braced frame is one of the structural systems used to resist earthquake loads in
multistoried buildings. Many existing reinforced concrete buildings need retrofit to overcome
deficiencies to resist seismic loads. The use of steel bracing systems for strengthening or
retrofitting seismically inadequate reinforced concrete frames is a viable solution for
enhancing earthquake resistance. Steel bracing is economical, easy to erect, occupies less
space and has flexibility to design for meeting the required strength and stiffness. In the
present study, the seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings rehabilitated
using concentric steel bracing is investigated. The bracing is provided for peripheral
columns. A four storey building is analyzed for seismic zone IV as per IS 1893: 2002. The
effectiveness of various types of steel bracing in rehabilitating a four storey building is
examined. The effect of the distribution of the steel bracing along the height of the RC frame
on the seismic performance of the rehabilitated building is studied. The performance of the
building is evaluated in terms of global and story drifts. The study is extended to eight

storied, twelve storied and sixteen storied building. The percentage reduction in lateral
displacement is found out. It is found that the X type of steel bracing significantly contributes
to the structural stiffness and reduces the maximum interstorey drift of the frames.
The concept of using steel bracing is one of the advantageous concepts which can be used to
strengthen or retrofit the existing structures. Steel bracings can be used as an alternative to
the other strengthening or retrofitting techniques available as the total weight on the existing
building will not change significantly. Steel bracings reduce flexure and shear demands on
beams and columns and transfer the lateral loads through axial load mechanism. The lateral
displacements of the building studied are reduced by the use of X type of bracing systems.
The building frames with X bracing system will have minimum possible bending moments in
comparison to other types of bracing systems.
 Response of a 3-Dimensional 2 X 3 Bays Ten Storey RC Frame with Steel

Bracings as Lateral Load Resisting Systems Subjected To Seismic Load
(Venkatesh S.V., H. Sharada Bai., Divya S.P.)[4]
A natural hazard like Earthquake causes damage to or collapse of buildings if not

designed for lateral loads resulting due to Earthquake. Hence for seismic resistance for high
rise structures it is important to provide exclusive Lateral Load Resisting System (LLRS)
which will supplement the behavior of moment resisting frames in resisting the lateral load.
Some of the LLRS commonly used are shear walls, infill frames and steel bracings. In the
present study, an attempt is made to study the difference in structural behavior of 3-
dimensional (3D) two-bays - three-bays, 10 storey basic moment resisting RC frames when
provided with steel bracings as LLRS. The detailed investigations are carried out for zone V
of Seismic zone of India, considering primary loads and their combinations. Three models
are analyzed consisting of one basic moment resisting RC frame and other two include basic
moment resisting RC frame with external and internal steel bracings. The results obtained
from the linear dynamic analysis are thoroughly investigated for maximum values of joint
displacements, support reactions, beam forces and forces in steel bracings. The results
indicate better resistance to lateral load of the frames in the presence of steel bracings.

It is necessary to consider gravity and seismic loads as well as all the load
combinations during analysis of the structure. Provision of both ESB and ISB effectively
reduce large joint displacements found in bare frame. The best performing LLRS among the
two LLRS considered is ISB as all the parameters considered reduce in this case when
compared with bare frame. When these LLRS considered in the study are employed in field
for upgrading or retrofitting a structure, it is necessary to ensure proper connections between
existing structure and LLRS provided.
 Effect of Internal and External Shear Wall on Performance of Building Frame

subjected to Lateral load (S.V.Venkatesh, H.Sharada Bai)[5]
Seismic loads are occasional forces that may occur during the life time of a building.
Buildings should be able to withstand seismic loads due to minor earthquake without any
structural damage and major earthquake without total collapse. Therefore, it is important to
know the behavior of buildings for different Lateral (earthquake) Load Resisting Structural
systems (LLRS). In the present study, an attempt is made to study the difference in structural
behavior of 3-dimensional (3D) single-bay three- bays 10 storey basic moment resisting RC
frames when provided with two different types of shear wall as LLRS. The detailed
investigations are carried out for zone V of Seismic zones of India as per IS 1893 (part
1):2002, considering primary loads (dead, live and seismic loads) and their combinations
with appropriate load factor. Altogether 15 models are analyzed which consist of one basic
moment resisting RC frame (Bare frame) with three different size / orientation of column and
other two include basic moment resisting RC frame with the same sizes / orientation of
columns as in bare frame with internal shear walls and external shear wall of two different
thicknesses. The results obtained from the linear static analysis are thoroughly investigated
for maximum values of joint displacements, support reactions, column forces and beam
forces. Along with these parameters, the study on the principal and shear stresses in shear
walls is carried out. The results indicate better resistance to lateral load in the presence of
shear walls with square columns.

It is necessary to consider gravity and seismic loads as well as all the load combinations
during analysis of the structure. Provision of both external shear wall and internal shear wall
effectively reduce large joint displacements found in bare frame. Change in column size /
orientation gives rise to varying forces in support reaction and forces in structural members.
Performance of square columns adopted in the present study is better than rectangular
columns of different orientations under lateral (earthquake) load. Provision of external and
internal shear walls in general results in reducing support reactions and member forces, but
may give rise to additional forces such as shear force and torsion moment in columns and
beams which need to be accounted for during design. Thickness of shear wall does not have
much influence on the member forces or stresses of the structure. For the shear wall
thicknesses considered in this study, the magnitudes of Maximum or Minimum principal
stresses and maximum shear stresses are very small. Even though the performance of internal
shear walls is better that external shear walls, External shear walls serve as an alternative to
internal shear walls in retrofitting seismically deficient structures, particularly when it is not
possible to vacate the building during retrofitting.
 Seismic Behaviour of RCC Shear Wall Under Different Soil Conditions (Anand,
N. Mightraj, C., Prince Arulraj, G)[6]
Shear wall is a wall composed of braced panels with hard concrete surrounding it to
counter the effects of lateral loads acting on a structure. Although structures are supported on
soil, most of the designers do not consider the soil structure interaction and its subsequent
effect on structures during an earthquake. When a structure is subjected to an earthquake
excitation, it interacts with the foundation and the soil, and thus changes the motion of the
ground. This means that the movement of the whole ground-structure system is influenced by
the type of soil as well as by the type of structure. Understanding of soil structure interaction
will enable the designer to design structures that will behave better during an earthquake. An
attempt has been made during the present study to understand the behavior of RCC shear
wall subjected to seismic forces in building frames for different soil conditions given in the
response spectrum of the code IS 1893(Part I):2002. One to fifteen storey building space

frames with and without shear wall were analyzed and designed using the software ETABS
and the results from the study are presented in this paper.
One to fifteen storied space frames with and without shear wall were analyzed and
designed as per the codal provisions and the results are compared in various aspects. It is
found that up to three storeys, the base shear values were same for all the three types of soils.
Above three storey’s, the base shear values increases when the soil type changes from hard to
medium three storey’s, the base shear values increases when the soil type changes from hard
to medium and medium to soft. The lateral displacement value increases when the type of
soil changes from hard to medium and medium to soft for all the building frames. The Axial
force and Moment in the column increases when the type of soil changes from hard to
medium and medium to soft. Since the base shear, axial force, column moment and lateral
displacements increase as the soil type changes, soil structure interaction must be suitably
considered while designing frames for seismic forces.

CHAPTER 3
METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF
DESIGN LATERAL LOADS
Earthquake and its occurrence, measurements and its vibrations effect and structural response
have been studied for past many years. Since then structural engineers have tried procedures
with an aim to counter the complex dynamic effect of seismically induced forces in
structures, for designing of earthquake resistant structures in a refined and easy manner.
Various approaches to seismic analysis have been developed to determine the lateral forces.
However according to IS 1893(Part 1):2002[16] following methods have been recommended
to determine design lateral loads,
1. Equivalent Lateral Force Method

2. Response Spectrum Method
3. Time History Method
3.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Method [13] [15] [16]

For the purpose of determining the design seismic forces, the country (India) is classified into
four seismic zones (II, III, IV, and V). Previously, there were five zones, of which Zone I and
II are merged into Zone II in fifth revision of code. The design horizontal seismic forces
coefficient Ah for a structure shall be determined by following expression
Ah =
Z = zone factor for the maximum considerable earthquake (MCE) and service life of the
structure in a zone. Factor 2 in denominator is to reduce the MCE to design basis earthquake
(DBE).
I = importance factor , depending on the functional purpose of the building, characterized by

hazardous consequences of its failure , post earthquake functional needs, historical value , or
economic importance.

R = response reduction factor, depending upon the perceived seismic damage performance of
the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations however the ratio I/R shall not
be greater than 1. Sa /g = average response acceleration coefficient (refer. IS 1893 (part 1):
2002)
3.1.1 Design Lateral Force

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (Vb) along any principal
direction of the building shall be determined by the following expression
Vb=Ah*W
where Ah is the horizontal seismic forces coefficient and W is the seismic weight of building.
3.1.2 Seismic Weight

The seismic weight of each floor is its full dead load plus appropriate amount of
imposed load as specified. While computing the seismic weight of each floor, the weight of
columns and walls in any storey shall be equally distributed to the floors above and below the
storey. The seismic weight of the whole building is the sum of the seismic weights of all the
floors. Any weight supported in between the storey shall be distributed to the floors above
and below in inverse proportion to its distance from the floors.
3.1.3 Fundamental Natural Period

The fundamental natural time period as mentioned in clause 7.6 IS 1893 (part 1):
2002 for moment resisting RC frame building without brick infill walls and moment resisting
steel frame building without brick infill walls, respectively is given by
Ta = 0.075h0.75
Ta = 0.085h0.75
where, h = height of the building in ‘m’ excluding basement storey, if it is connected with the
ground floor decks or fitted in between the building column.
If there is brick filling, then the fundamental natural period of vibration, may be taken as
Ta =0.09h/√d
Where, h = height of the building in m, as defined above, and d = base dimension of the
building at the plinth level, in meter, along the considered direction of the lateral force.

3.1.4 Distribution of Design Force:
The design base shear, Vb computed above shall be distributed along the height of the
building as per the following expression,
ℎ²
=
∑ ℎ²
Where,
Qi = design lateral force at ith floor
Wi= seismic weight of ith floor
hi = height of ith floor measured from base, and
n = numbers of storey in the building is the number of the levels at which the masses are
located.
3.2 Response Spectrum Method [13] [15] [16]

3.2.1 General Codal Provisions
Dynamic analysis should be performed to obtain the design seismic force, and its
distribution to different levels along the height of the building and to various lateral load
resisting elements, for the following buildings:
• Regular buildings- Those are greater than 40 m in height in zone IV, V and those are
greater than 90 m height in zones II,III, and
• Irregular buildings-All framed buildings higher than 12 m in zone IV and V, and those are
greater than 40 m in height in zone II and III.
Dynamic analysis may be performed either by time history method or by the response
spectrum method. However in either method, the design base shear Vb shall be compared
with a base shear Vb’ calculated using a fundamental period Ta. When Vb is less than all the
response quantities shall be multiplied by Vb’/ Vb

The values of damping for a building may be taken as 2 and 5 percent of the critical,
for the purpose of dynamic analysis of steel and reinforced concrete buildings, respectively.
3.2.2 Modes to be considered
The number of modes to be considered in the analysis should be such that the sum of the total
modal masses of all modes considered is at least 90% of the total seismic mass and the
missing mass correction beyond 33%.If modes with natural frequency beyond 33 Hz are to
be considered, modal combination shall be carried out only for modes up to 33 Hz.
3.2.3 Computation of Dynamic Quantities

Buildings with regular ,or nominally irregular plan configuration may be modeled as a
system of masses lumped at the floor levels with each mass having one degree of freedom,
that of lateral displacement in the direction of consideration. In such a case, the following
expressions shall hold in computations of various quantities.
a) Modal mass
[∑ ]²
Mk= ∑ ( )²
Where,
g = acceleration due to gravity
Mode shape coefficient of floor, i in mode, k, and =ikφ
Wi = seismic weight of floor, i
b) Modal Participation Factor: The factor is given by
∑
=
∑ ( )²
c) Design lateral force at each floor in each Mode: The peak lateral force at floor i in kth
mode is given by
Qik=Ak* ik*pk*Wi
Where,

Ak = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum values using the natural period of vibration.
d) Storey shear force in each mode: The storey peak shear force at ith storey in mode k is
given by
Vik=∑
Seismic zone II III IV V

Seismic intensity Low Moderate Severe Very severe
Z 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36
Table 3.1 Zone Factor, Z [16]
Figure 3.1: Response Spectra for Rock and Soil Sites for 5% Damping [16]
3.3 Time History Method [14]
This method involves the development of a complex mathematical model of the

building considering the non linear behavior of material and structure at both local
(individual member) and global (entire structure) levels. The model is than subjected to time
histories of earthquake ground acceleration that may be either historical records or synthetic
design spectrum compatible records. In either case, the endeavour is to capture the full time
history of the non linear structural response. Non linear dynamics involves enormous

computational time and also difficulties in modeling the structure and its components for the
non linear behavior to a reasonable extent. There are also difficulties in interpreting the
results of response. The procedure is as follows:
1. Selection of the seismic records such as the time histories of earthquake ground
acceleration.
2. Digitization of the record at series of small time intervals.
3. Preparation of the appropriate mathematical model of the materials and the structural
elements.
4. Application of the time histories of earthquake ground acceleration to the structural
model.
5. Computation of the response (displacements, drifts, forces, number and locations of
plastic hinges, collapse mechanisms, etc) of the structure at both local (individual
member) and global (entire structure) levels.

CHAPTER 4
DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDINGS
4.1 Introduction
Buildings oscillate during earthquake shaking. The oscillation causes inertia force to
be induced in the building. The intensity and duration of oscillation, and the amount of
inertia force induced in a building depend on features of buildings, called their dynamic
characteristics, in addition to the characteristics of the earthquake shaking itself. The
important dynamic characteristics of buildings are modes of oscillation and damping. A
mode of oscillation of a building is defined by associated Natural Period and Deformed
Shape in which it oscillates.
4.2 Natural Period [7]

Natural Period Tn of a building is the time taken by it to undergo one complete cycle
of oscillation. It is an inherent property of a building controlled by its mass ‘m’ and stiffness
‘k’. These three quantities are related by
m
= 2Π
k
Its units are seconds (s). Thus, buildings those are heavy (with larger mass m) and flexible
(with smaller stiffness k) have larger natural period than light and stiff buildings. Buildings
oscillate by translating along X, Y or Z directions, or by rotating about X, Y or Z axes, or by
a combination of the above.
4.2.1 Factors affecting Natural Period
4.2.1.1 Effect of Stiffness
Increasing the column size increases both stiffness and mass of buildings. But, when
the percentage increase in stiffness as a result of increase in column size is larger than the

percentage increase in mass, the natural period reduces. Hence, the usual discussion that
increase in column
size reduces the natural period of buildings (motivated by above equation), does not consider
the simultaneous increase in mass; in that context, buildings are said to have shorter natural
periods
with increase in column size.
4.2.1.2 Effect of Mass
Mass of a building that is effective in lateral oscillation during earthquake shaking is

called the seismic mass of the building. It is the sum of its seismic masses at different floor
levels. Seismic mass at each floor level is equal to full dead load plus appropriate fraction of
live load. The fraction of live load depends on the intensity of the live load and how it is
connected to the floor slab. Seismic design codes of each country/region provide fractions of
live loads to be considered for design of buildings to be built in that country/region. An
increase in mass of a building increases its natural period.
4.2.1.3 Effect of Building Height

As the height of building increases, its mass increases but its overall stiffness
decreases. Hence, the natural period of a building increases with increase in height. Taller
buildings have larger fundamental natural period than shorter ones.
4.2.1.4 Effect of Column Orientation

Orientation of rectangular columns influences lateral stiffness of buildings along two
horizontal directions. Hence, changing the orientation of columns changes the translational
natural period of buildings. Natural period of buildings along the longer direction of column
cross-section is smaller than that along the shorter direction. Buildings with larger column
dimension oriented in the direction reduce the translational natural period of oscillation in
that direction.
4.2.1.5 Effect of Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls in RC Frames

In many countries, the space between the beams and columns of building are filled
with unreinforced masonry (URM) infills. These infills participate in the lateral response of
buildings and as a consequence alter the lateral stiffness of buildings. Hence, natural periods

(and modes of oscillation) of the building are affected in the presence of URM. In
conventional design practice, the masses of the infill walls are considered, but their lateral
stiffness are not. Modeling the infill wall along with the frame elements (i.e., beams and
columns) is necessary to incorporate additional lateral stiffness offered by URM infill walls.
Natural period of a building is lower, when stiffness of URM infill is considered, than when
it is not considered. The extent of stiffness enhancement and change in natural period due to
URM infills depends on the extent and spatial distribution of URM infills. Seismic behavior
of shorter buildings is affected significantly as compared to that of taller buildings, when
stiffness enhancement due to URM is considered.
4.3 Mode Shape [7]

Mode shape of oscillation associated with a natural period of a building is the
deformed shape of the building when shaken at the natural period. Hence, a building has as
many mode shapes as the number of natural periods. For a building, there are infinite
numbers of natural period. But, in the mathematical modeling of building, usually the
building is discretised into a number of elements. The junctions of these elements are called
nodes. Each node is free to translate in all the three Cartesian directions and rotate about the
three Cartesian axes. Hence, if the number of nodes of discretisation is N, then there would
be 6N modes of oscillation, and associated with these are 6N natural periods and mode
shapes of oscillation. The deformed shape of the building associated with oscillation at
fundamental natural period is termed its first mode shape. Similarly, the deformed shapes
associated with oscillations at second, third, and other higher natural periods are called
second mode shape, third mode shape and so on, respectively. There are three basic modes
of oscillation namely, pure translational along X-direction, pure translational along Y-
direction and pure rotation about Z-axis. Regular buildings have these pure mode shapes.
Irregular buildings (i.e., buildings that have irregular geometry, non uniform distribution of
mass and stiffness in plan and along the height) have mode shapes that are a mixture of these
pure mode shapes. Each of these mode shapes is independent, implying, it cannot be obtained
by combining any or all of the other mode shapes.

4.3.1 Factors influencing Mode Shapes

4.3.1.1 Effect of Flexural Stiffness of Structural Elements
The overall lateral translational mode shapes depend on flexural stiffness of beams
relative to that of adjoining columns. The fundamental mode shape of buildings changes
from flexural-type to shear-type as beam flexural stiffness increases relative to that of
column. On one hand, in pure flexural response (when flexural stiffness of beams is small
compared to that of the adjoining columns), column deformation is predominantly in single
curvature bending leading to overall flexure-type deformation behavior of (the cantilever)
building. And, on the other hand, in pure shear-type deformation behavior (when flexural
stiffness of beams is large compared to that of the adjoining columns), column deformation is
predominantly in double curvature bending within each storey leading to overall shear-type
deformation behavior of building. But, increasing the flexural stiffness of a beam also
increases its strength; this is not desirable when strengths of beams exceed that of columns
into which they frame in, especially when beam strengths exceed those of the columns
adjoining.
4.3.1.2 Effect of Axial Stiffness of Vertical Members

Mode shapes depend on axial stiffness of vertical members in a building (i.e., of
columns or structural walls). Small axial stiffness causes significant axial compressive and
tensile deformations in columns in addition to single or double curvature flexural
deformations. Additional axial deformation changes the fundamental mode shape from shear
type to flexural type, particularly in tall buildings. This can happen primarily in two
circumstances; firstly, when the axial load level is large, and secondly, when the axial cross-
sectional area is small of vertical members. Pure flexural response is not desirable because of
large lateral sway, particularly at higher floors. Hence, designers ensure that the axial areas
are large of building columns and structural walls.
4.3.1.3 Effect of Degree of Fixity at Member Ends

Two conditions determine the rotational flexibility of columns at the base of the
building. The first condition is when the structural design and detailing deliberately creates
rotational flexibility at those locations. And, the second is when the flexibility of soil

underneath the footings of columns allows rotation of the columns; this happens when
individual footings are used. Highly flexible soils make column bases as good as hinged, and
rocky layers below as good as fixed. The extent of fixity at column bases controls overall
behavior of buildings. Lack of rotational fixity at column base (hinged condition) increases
the lateral sway in the lower storeys than in higher storeys, and the overall response of the
building is more of shear-type (Figure 5.1). On the other hand, full rotational fixity at column
base restricts the lateral sway at the first storey and thus, induces initial flexural behavior
near the base (Figure 5.2). The overall response of the building is still of shear-type due to
flexural stiffness of beams. The problem is aggravated in buildings with structural walls.
When the base of a structural wall alone rests on a mat foundation, the wall experiences
rotational flexibility if the soil is flexible. This can lead to unduly large lateral displacement
of the building. Also, the lateral force attracted by such walls is significantly reduced.
Figure 4.1: Hinged Base Figure 4.2: Fixed Base
4.3.1.4 Effect of Building Height
In well-designed low height moment frame buildings, the fundamental translational

mode of oscillation is of shear-type. Buildings become laterally flexible as their height
increases. As a result, the natural period of buildings increase with increase in height.
However, the fundamental mode shape does not change significantly (from shear type to
flexure type). Flexural type behavior is exhibited only near the lower storeys where the axial
deformation in the columns could be significant, particularly in tall buildings. However at
higher floor levels, the response changes to shear type as the axial load level lowers.
Fundamental translational mode shape of oscillation does not change significantly with

increase in building height, unlike the fundamental translational natural period, which does
change.
4.4 Damping [7]

Buildings set to oscillation by earthquake shaking eventually come back to rest with
time. This is due to dissipation of the oscillatory energy through conversion to other forms of
energy, like heat and sound. The mechanism of this conversion is called damping. In normal
ambient shaking of building, many factors impede its motion, e.g., drag from air resistance
around the building, micro cracking of concrete in the structural members, and friction
between various interfaces in the building (like masonry infill walls and RC beams and
columns). This damping is called structural damping. But, under strong earthquake shaking,
buildings are damaged. Here, reinforcement bars and concrete of the RC buildings enter
nonlinear range of material behaviour. The damping that arises from these inelastic actions is
called hysteretic damping; this further dampens oscillations of the building. Another form of
damping is associated with soil. This damping occurs when the soil strata underneath the
building is flexible and absorbs energy input to the building during earthquake shaking, and
sends it to far off distances in the soil medium. This is called radiation damping. Modeling
damping mathematically is a major challenge; many models were proposed, e.g., friction
damping, viscous damping and hysteretic damping. Of these, design practice uses the
mathematically simplest of them, namely viscous damping. Damping is expressed as a
fraction of the critical damping (which is the minimum value of damping at which the
building gradually comes to rest from any one side of its neutral position without undergoing
any oscillation). Seismic codes recommend the use of 5% damping for all natural modes of
oscillation of reinforced concrete buildings, and 2% for steel structures.

CHAPTER 5
LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEMS
5.1 Introduction
Using an appropriate structural system is critical to good seismic performance of
buildings. While moment-frame is the most commonly used lateral load resisting structural
system, other structural systems also are commonly used like structural walls, frame-wall
system, and braced-frame system. Sometimes, even more redundant structural systems are
necessary, e.g., Tube, Tube-in-Tube and Bundled Tube systems are required in many
buildings to improve their earthquake behaviour. These structural systems are used
depending on the size, loading, and other design requirements of the building. One structural
system commonly used poses special challenges in ensuring good seismic performance of
buildings; this is the Flat slab-column system. The system makes the building flexible in the
lateral direction and hence the building deforms significantly even under small levels of
shaking. Further, it has relatively low lateral strength, and therefore ductility demand during
strong earthquake shaking tends to be large; many times, such levels of ductility cannot be
incorporated in buildings with flat slab-column system. This structural system should not be
used without introducing in the building stiff and strong lateral force resisting elements, like
structural walls and braces.
5.2 Moment Resisting Frames

Moment frames consist of a grid of vertical (i.e., columns) and horizontal (i.e.,
beams) members (Figure 5.1). They resist lateral loads through axial forces, bending moment
and shear force generated in both beams and columns. Beam and column sections should be
designed as under-reinforced sections, and thereby, can be expected to undergo ductile
behaviour; brittle shear failure must be prevented through capacity design procedures. While
deciding the structural configuration of the building, predominant flexural behaviour in
beams and columns should be facilitated. This can be achieved by using relatively long frame

members; short beams and columns attract large forces and are susceptible to fail in a brittle
manner.
[18]
Figure 5.1: Moment Resisting Frame
5.3 Shear Walls

Earthquake resistant buildings should possess, at least a minimum lateral stiffness, so
that they do not swing too much during small levels of shaking. Moment frame buildings
may not be able to offer this always. When lateral displacement is large in a building with
moment frames only, structural walls, often commonly called shear walls, can be introduced
to help reduce overall displacement of buildings, because these vertical plate-like structural
elements have large in-plane stiffness and strength. Therefore, the structural system of the
building consists of moment frames with specific bays in each direction having structural
walls. Structural walls resist lateral forces through combined axial-flexure-shear action. Also,
structural walls help reduce shear and moment demands on beams and columns in the
moment frames of the building, when provided along with moment frames as lateral load
resisting system. Structural walls should be provided throughout the height of buildings for
best earthquake performance. Also, walls offer best performance when rested on hard soil
strata. But, it is not sufficient to provide structural walls in buildings; their location in a
building governs the overall response of the building. While introduction of structural walls

cause reduction in lateral displacement, and natural periods of oscillation. Structural walls are
most effective when placed at the periphery of buildings.
[18]
Figure 5.2: Shear Walls
5.4 Bracings
The structural system consists of moment frames with specific bays provided with
braces throughout the height of the building. Braces are provided in both plan directions such
that no twisting is induced in the building owing to unsymmetrical stiffness in plan.
Bracing is a structural system which is designed primarily to resist wind and earthquake
forces. Members in a braced frame are designed to work in tension and compression similar
to a truss. Braces help in reducing overall lateral displacement of buildings, and in reducing
bending moment and shear force demands on beams and columns in buildings. The
earthquake force is transferred as axial force in the brace members. Various types of bracings
can be used including global bracing along the building height. Consider the five-storey
benchmark building with three types of local bracing systems namely, X-, Chevron and K-
bracing systems. X- and Chevron braces effectively reduce bending moment, shear force and
axial force demands on the beams and columns of the original frame and are commonly used.
But, K-braces increases shear demand on columns and can cause brittle shear failure. Thus,
some design codes prohibit use of K-braces in earthquake resistant design. Braced frames are
simple to erect on site, and bracing elements can be orientated to accommodate horizontal
movement across the floor plate. Although braced frame systems can be incorporated within

concrete framed structures, they are better suited to steel framed buildings incorporating
diagonal bracing and/or eccentrically braced frames.
[18]
Figure 5.3: Bracings
5.5 Dual Systems

 This system consist of shear wall or bracing and moment resisting frame such that
1. The two systems are designed to resist the total design force in proportion to their
lateral stiffness considering the interaction of the dual system at all floor levels.
2. The moment resisting frames are designed to independently resist at least 25% of
design seismic base shear.
 It is common to have more than one framing type used in medium or high-rise
reinforced concrete structure.

[18]
Figure 5.4: Dual Systems

CHAPTER 6
PROBLEM DEFINATION
1. Square grid of 20m each in both X and Y direction.

2. Grid contains 4 bays of 5m each in both X and Y direction.
3. Height of each story 3m.
4. Height of building is varied from 15m, 30m, 45m, 60m and 75m.
5. Software used for analysis is ETABS 9.7.0
6.1 Plan of the Building
Figure 6.1: Plan of the Building

6.2 Details of the Problem
 Materials used :
1. M50 grade of concrete.
2. Fe 415 steel.
 Frame properties :
1. Beams 0.3m X 0.6m.
2. Columns 0.5m X 0.9m.(Story 1 to 10)
0.5m X 0.75m. (Story 11 to 20)
0.5m X 0.6m. (Story 21 to 25)
3. Slabs 0.125m.
4. Shear wall thickness 0.3m.
5. Bracings ISMB 500.
 Live load: 3.5 kN/m2
 Dead load of wall as UDL: 14 kN/m2
 Damping: 5%
 The study has been carried out for all the seismic zones and all types of soils.

6.3 Different Cases of Study
 Case 1: Bare Frame.
 Case 2: Shear Wall in the Middle.
 Case 3: Shear Wall at the Corners.
 Case 4: Bracings in the Middle.
 Case 5: Bracings at the Corners.
6.4 3-D views of Different cases
Figure 6.2: Case 1 (Bare Frame)

Figure 6.3: Case 2 (Shear Wall in Middle)
Figure 6.4: Case 3 (Shear Wall at Corners)

Figure 6.5: Case 4 (Bracings in Middle)
Figure 6.6: Case 5 (Bracings at Corners)

CHAPTER 7
RESULTS
7.1 Zone 2 Results
7.1.1 Zone 2 Hard Soil
BARE FRAME RESULTS
HEIGHT BASE TIME MAX. STOREY MAX. STOREY

SHEAR PERIOD DISPLACEMENTS DRIFT
(m) (kN) (sec) (mm) (mm)
15 505 0.4113 1.44 0.199
30 555 0.8538 3.06 0.226
45 548 1.2990 4.78 0.242
60 537 1.7703 6.60 0.266
75 525 2.2544 8.67 0.272
SHEAR WALL IN THE MIDDLE
HEIGHT BASE TIME MAX. STORY MAX. STORY

15 558 0.1156 0.12 0.014
30 1077 0.3249 1.00 0.061
45 1126 0.5989 2.33 0.097
60 1067 0.9216 3.68 0.115
75 1054 1.2759 5.13 0.129
SHEAR WALL AT CORNERS

15 553 0.1340 0.16 0.019
30 1072 0.3853 1.38 0.087
45 992 0.7061 2.78 0.116
60 955 1.0728 4.23 0.133
75 949 1.4653 5.86 0.148

BRACINGS IN THE MIDDLE

15 535 0.2402 0.49 0.065
30 858 0.5208 1.92 0.118
45 775 0.8367 3.11 0.125
60 770 1.1953 4.54 0.137
75 757 1.5864 6.13 0.150
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 527 0.2528 0.55 0.069
30 776 0.5702 2.10 0.126
45 714 0.9326 3.52 0.141
60 712 1.3411 5.15 0.158
75 685 1.7806 6.95 0.171
Table 7.1: Results of Zone 2 Hard Soil
CASE 1
1400 CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
1200
BASE SHEAR (kN)
1000
800
600
400
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
HEIGHT ( m)
Figure 7.1: Height v/s Base Shear for Zone 2 Hard Soil

CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
8
DISPLACEM ENTS (mm)
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
Figure 7.2: Displacement Graph for Zone 2 Hard Soil
C A SE 1
C A SE 2
C A SE 3
C A SE 4
C A SE 5
0.25
0.20
DRIFT (mm)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
Figure 7.3: Drift Graph for Zone 2 Hard Soil

7.1.2 Zone 2 Medium Soil
BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 515 0.4113 1.46 0.203
30 749 0.8538 4.10 0.303
45 718 1.2990 6.41 0.319
60 716 1.7703 8.92 0.330
75 705 2.2544 11.71 0.336

15 558 0.1156 0.12 0.014
30 1077 0.3249 1.00 0.061
45 1505 0.5989 3.25 0.135
60 1350 0.9216 4.96 0.154
75 1282 1.2759 6.83 0.172

15 553 0.1340 0.16 0.019
30 1072 0.3853 1.38 0.087
45 1319 0.7061 3.81 0.159
60 1196 1.0728 5.72 0.178
75 1141 1.4653 7.87 0.196


15 535 0.2402 0.49 0.065
30 1030 0.5208 2.41 0.148
45 1021 0.8367 4.20 0.169
60 980 1.1953 6.03 0.182
75 964 1.5864 8.24 0.200
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 527 0.2528 0.55 0.069
30 996 0.5702 2.85 0.170
45 931 0.9326 4.76 0.191
60 893 1.3411 6.88 0.210
75 889 1.7806 9.36 0.260
Table 7.2: Results of Zone 2 Medium Soil
CASE 1
CASE 2
1600 CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
1400
1200
B A SE SH E A R (kN )
1000
800
600
400
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E I G H T (m )
Figure 7.4: Height v/s Base Shear for Zone 2 Medium Soil

CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
12 CASE 4
CASE 5
10
DISPLACEM ENTS (mm)
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
Figure 7.5: Displacement Graph for Zone 2 Medium Soil
C A SE 1
C A SE 2
0.35 C A SE 3
C A SE 4
C A SE 5
0.30
0.25
DRIFT (mm)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
Figure 7.6: Drift Graph for Zone 2 Medium Soil

7.1.3 Zone 2 Soft Soil
BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 515 0.4113 1.46 0.203
30 898 0.8538 5.00 0.370
45 868 1.2990 7.80 0.384
60 854 1.7703 10.88 0.410
75 840 2.2544 14.22 0.490

15 558 0.1156 0.12 0.014
30 1077 0.3249 1.00 0.061
45 1578 0.5989 3.76 0.143
60 1606 0.9216 6.06 0.188
75 1496 1.2759 8.40 0.209

15 553 0.1340 0.16 0.019
30 1072 0.3853 1.38 0.087
45 1542 0.7061 4.56 0.190
60 1415 1.0728 7.00 0.210
75 1348 1.4653 9.58 0.239


15 535 0.2402 0.49 0.065
30 1030 0.5208 2.41 0.148
45 1237 0.8367 5.14 0.207
60 1169 1.1953 7.40 0.222
75 1125 1.5864 10.20 0.260
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 527 0.2528 0.55 0.069
30 1010 0.5702 2.92 0.175
45 1123 0.9326 5.80 0.233
60 1058 1.3411 8.43 0.255
75 1029 1.7806 11.40 0.278
Table 7.3: Results of Zone 2 Soft Soil
C A SE 1
C A SE 2
C A SE 3
1600 C A SE 4
C A SE 5
1400
1200
BASE SHEAR (kN)
1000
800
600
400
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
H E IG H T (m )
Figure 7.7: Height v/s Base Shear for Zone 2 Soft Soil

C A SE 1
C A SE 2
C A SE 3
14 C A SE 4
C A SE 5
12
DISPLACEM ENTS (mm)
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
Figure 7.8: Displacement Graph for Zone 2 Soft Soil
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
0 .5 CASE 4
CASE 5
0 .4
0 .3
D R IF T (m m )
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
Figure 7.9: Drift Graph for Zone 2 Soft Soil

7.2 Zone 3 Results
BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 809 0.4113 2.31 0.318
30 888 0.8538 4.89 0.362
45 877 1.2990 7.67 0.388
60 860 1.7703 10.54 0.393
75 840 2.2544 13.92 0.410

15 894 0.1156 0.19 0.022
30 1723 0.3249 1.59 0.098
45 1801 0.5989 3.73 0.154
60 1707 0.9216 5.86 0.184
75 1683 1.2759 8.20 0.206

15 886 0.1340 0.25 0.029
30 1716 0.3853 2.33 0.139
45 1588 0.7061 4.44 0.185
60 1528 1.0728 6.76 0.213
75 1518 1.4653 9.40 0.237


15 856 0.2402 0.78 0.104
30 1373 0.5208 3.09 0.190
45 1240 0.8367 5.00 0.210
60 1232 1.1953 7.26 0.229
75 1212 1.5864 9.79 0.240
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 843 0.2528 0.88 0.111
30 1241 0.5702 3.38 0.201
45 1142 0.9326 5.66 0.226
60 1140 1.3411 8.28 0.253
75 1096 1.7806 11.14 0.274
CASE 1
CASE 2
2000
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
1800
1600
BASE SHEAR (kN)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
HEIGHT (m)

CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
14 CASE 4
CASE 5
12
10
D ISPLA C EM EN TS (m m )
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
0.40 CASE 5
0.35
0.30
0.25
DRIFT (mm)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 824 0.4113 2.34 0.324
30 1198 0.8538 6.58 0.485
45 1149 1.2990 10.54 0.510
60 1147 1.7703 14.35 0.529
75 1129 2.2544 18.81 0.540

15 889 0.1156 0.20 0.025
30 1723 0.3249 1.62 0.105
45 2408 0.5989 5.20 0.215
60 2160 0.9216 7.91 0.247
75 2051 1.2759 11.10 0.275

15 886 0.1340 0.31 0.030
30 1716 0.3853 2.67 0.145
45 2110 0.7061 6.13 0.254
60 1913 1.0728 9.15 0.285
75 1856 1.4653 12.62 0.314


15 856 0.2402 0.81 0.110
30 1649 0.5208 3.85 0.237
45 1634 0.8367 6.34 0.270
60 1568 1.1953 9.74 0.292
75 1543 1.5864 13.18 0.320
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 843 0.2528 0.92 0.121
30 1593 0.5702 4.56 0.272
45 1490 0.9326 7.62 0.305
60 1429 1.3411 11.10 0.336
75 1423 1.7806 15.09 0.368
CASE 1
CASE 2
2600
CASE 3
CASE 4
2400 CASE 5
2200
2000
BASE SHEAR (kN)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
HEIGHT (m)

CASE 1
CASE 2
20 CASE 3
CASE 4
18 CASE 5
16
14
D ISPL A C E M E N T S (m m )
12
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E I G H T (m )
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
0 .5
0 .4
D R IF T (m m )
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E I G H T (m )

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 824 0.4113 2.34 0.324
30 1438 0.8538 8.10 0.592
45 1389 1.2990 12.44 0.615
60 1366 1.7703 17.40 0.632
75 1352 2.2544 22.69 0.652

15 894 0.1156 0.22 0.028
30 1723 0.3249 1.73 0.135
45 2525 0.5989 5.55 0.229
60 2569 0.9216 9.70 0.301
75 2393 1.2759 13.62 0.334

15 886 0.1340 0.40 0.042
30 1716 0.3853 3.20 0.185
45 2468 0.7061 7.30 0.303
60 2264 1.0728 11.23 0.346
75 2156 1.4653 15.31 0.382


15 856 0.2402 0.85 0.115
30 1649 0.5208 4.35 0.260
45 1980 0.8367 8.18 0.331
60 1871 1.1953 11.92 0.355
75 1801 1.5864 16.10 0.388
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 843 0.2528 0.98 0.130
30 1617 0.5702 4.68 0.290
45 1798 0.9326 9.31 0.373
60 1693 1.3411 13.62 0.398
75 1647 1.7806 18.10 0.419
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
2600 CASE 4
CASE 5
2400
2200
2000
BASE SHEAR (kN)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
H EIG H T (m)

CASE 1
CASE 2
24
CASE 3
22 CASE 4
CASE 5
20
18
16
D ISPL A C E M E N T S (m m )
14
12
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E I G H T (m )
CASE 1
CASE 2
0 .7 CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
0 .6
0 .5
0 .4
D R IFT (m m )
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )

7.3 Zone 4 Results

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 1214 0.4113 3.45 0.478
30 1332 0.8538 7.33 0.543
45 1316 1.2990 11.58 0.581
60 1291 1.7703 15.88 0.592
75 1261 2.2544 20.86 0.610

15 1341 0.1156 0.28 0.032
30 2585 0.3249 2.40 0.147
45 2702 0.5989 5.60 0.232
60 2561 0.9216 8.84 0.275
75 2524 1.2759 12.40 0.310

15 1329 0.1340 0.38 0.045
30 2574 0.3853 3.35 0.208
45 2383 0.7061 6.66 0.277
60 2292 1.0728 10.05 0.319
75 2272 1.4653 14.18 0.355


15 1284 0.2402 1.18 0.156
30 2060 0.5208 4.63 0.285
45 1860 0.8367 7.48 0.301
60 1848 1.1953 10.84 0.328
75 1818 1.5864 14.83 0.360
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 1265 0.2528 1.31 0.167
30 1862 0.5702 5.03 0.302
45 1713 0.9326 8.46 0.339
60 1710 1.3411 12.50 0.380
75 1645 1.7806 16.70 0.441
CASE 1
CASE 2
3000
CASE 3
CASE 4
2800 CASE 5
2600
2400
BASE SHEAR (kN)
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
HEIGHT (m)

CASE 1
CASE 2
24 CASE 3
CASE 4
22 CASE 5
20
18
16
DISPLACEM ENTS (mm)
14
12
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
0 .6 CASE 4
CASE 5
0 .5
0 .4
D R IF T (m m )
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 1236 0.4113 3.52 0.487
30 1798 0.8538 9.87 0.728
45 1724 1.2990 15.39 0.765
60 1720 1.7703 21.49 0.793
75 1693 2.2544 28.13 0.806

15 1341 0.1156 0.30 0.038
30 2585 0.3249 3.20 0.185
45 3612 0.5989 7.81 0.322
60 3240 0.9216 11.98 0.370
75 3077 1.2759 16.70 0.412

15 1329 0.1340 0.42 0.065
30 2574 0.3853 4.35 0.260
45 3165 0.7061 9.20 0.381
60 2870 1.0728 13.79 0.427
75 2785 1.4653 18.95 0.471


15 1284 0.2402 1.32 0.180
30 2473 0.5208 5.78 0.356
45 2451 0.8367 10.10 0.406
60 2353 1.1953 14.61 0.438
75 2314 1.5864 19.89 0.480
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 1265 0.2528 1.92 0.250
30 2390 0.5702 6.84 0.409
45 2235 0.9326 11.49 0.457
60 2144 1.3411 17.65 0.505
75 2135 1.7806 22.25 0.552
C A SE 1
4000 C A SE 2
C A SE 3
C A SE 4
C A SE 5
3500
3000
BASE SHEAR (kN)
2500
2000
1500
1000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
H E IG H T (m )

CASE 1
CASE 2
32 CASE 3
30 CASE 4
28 CASE 5
26
24
22
D IS P L A C E M E N T S (m m )
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
0 .8 CASE 4
CASE 5
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
D R IFT (m m )
0 .4
0 .3
0 .2
0 .1
0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 1236 0.4113 3.52 0.487
30 2157 0.8538 12.10 0.888
45 2084 1.2990 18.81 0.922
60 2049 1.7703 26.00 0.947
75 2036 2.2544 34.34 0.978

15 1341 0.1156 0.30 0.038
30 2585 0.3249 3.20 0.185
45 3788 0.5989 8.32 0.344
60 3854 0.9216 14.66 0.452
75 3590 1.2759 20.95 0.501

15 1329 0.1340 0.42 0.065
30 2574 0.3853 5.95 0.260
45 3702 0.7061 11.02 0.454
60 3397 1.0728 16.91 0.521
75 3235 1.4653 23.04 0.573


15 1284 0.2402 1.32 0.180
30 2473 0.5208 6.59 0.356
45 2970 0.8367 12.31 0.494
60 2806 1.1953 17.78 0.534
75 2701 1.5864 24.10 0.583
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 1265 0.2528 1.92 0.250
30 2390 0.5702 7.38 0.409
45 2697 0.9326 14.10 0.559
60 2539 1.3411 20.15 0.613
75 2471 1.7806 27.32 0.668
CASE 1
CASE 2
4200 CASE 3
CASE 4
3900 CASE 5
3600
3300
3000
BASE SHEAR (kN)
2700
2400
2100
1800
1500
1200
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
HEIGHT (m)

CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
35 CASE 4
CASE 5
30
25
DISPLACEM ENTS (mm)
20
15
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
C A SE 1
C A SE 2
C A SE 3
1.0
C A SE 4
C A SE 5
0.8
0.6
DRIFT (mm)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )

7.4 Zone 5 Results

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 1821 0.4113 5.15 0.620
30 1998 0.8538 11.10 0.815
45 1975 1.2990 17.34 0.872
60 1936 1.7703 23.75 0.885
75 1891 2.2544 31.41 0.903

15 2011 0.1156 0.42 0.049
30 3878 0.3249 3.56 0.221
45 4053 0.5989 8.37 0.348
60 3842 0.9216 13.31 0.413
75 3787 1.2759 18.60 0.464

15 1956 0.1340 0.57 0.068
30 3861 0.3853 5.02 0.312
45 3574 0.7061 10.00 0.417
60 3438 1.0728 15.31 0.498
75 3425 1.4653 21.35 0.533


15 1926 0.2402 1.77 0.234
30 3090 0.5208 6.94 0.427
45 2791 0.8367 11.27 0.451
60 2773 1.1953 16.37 0.493
75 2727 1.5864 22.27 0.541
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 1898 0.2528 2.02 0.250
30 2793 0.5702 7.55 0.453
45 2570 0.9326 12.75 0.509
60 2565 1.3411 18.70 0.570
75 2468 1.7806 25.15 0.617
CASE 1
4500 CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
4000
3500
BASE SHEAR (kN)
3000
2500
2000
1500
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
HEIGHT (m)

CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
30 CASE 5
25
D ISP L A C E M E N T S (m m )
20
15
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E I G H T (m )
C A SE 1
C A SE 2
C A SE 3
C A SE 4
C A SE 5
0.8
0.6
DRIFT (mm)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H EIG H T (m)

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 1855 0.4113 5.29 0.673
30 2697 0.8538 14.79 1.092
45 2587 1.2990 23.11 1.147
60 2581 1.7703 32.10 1.189
75 2540 2.2544 42.26 1.209

15 2011 0.1156 0.42 0.049
30 3878 0.3249 3.56 0.221
45 5355 0.5989 11.66 0.485
60 4861 0.9216 18.01 0.555
75 4616 1.2759 24.94 0.618

15 1956 0.1340 0.57 0.068
30 3861 0.3853 5.02 0.312
45 4748 0.7061 13.83 0.573
60 4306 1.0728 20.64 0.640
75 4178 1.4653 28.37 0.707


15 1926 0.2402 1.77 0.234
30 3710 0.5208 8.67 0.533
45 3677 0.8367 15.18 0.608
60 3529 1.1953 22.02 0.656
75 3472 1.5864 29.67 0.702
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 1898 0.2528 2.02 0.250
30 3586 0.5702 10.23 0.613
45 3353 0.9326 17.24 0.686
60 3216 1.3411 24.94 0.757
75 3202 1.7806 33.85 0.828
CASE 1
6000 CASE 2
CASE 3
5500 CASE 4
CASE 5
5000
4500
B A SE SH E A R (kN )
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E I G H T (m )

CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
40 CASE 5
DISPLACEM ENTS (mm)
30
20
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
1 .2
CASE 5
1 .0
0 .8
D R IF T (m m )
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0 .0
15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )

BARE FRAME RESULTS

15 1855 0.4113 5.29 0.673
30 3236 0.8538 18.21 1.332
45 3127 1.2990 28.29 1.383
60 3047 1.7703 39.24 1.421
75 3080 2.2544 51.90 1.467

15 2011 0.1156 0.42 0.049
30 3878 0.3249 3.56 0.221
45 5682 0.5989 12.57 0.517
60 5781 0.9216 22.00 0.677
75 5386 1.2759 29.92 0.751

15 1956 0.1340 0.57 0.068
30 3861 0.3853 5.02 0.312
45 5553 0.7061 16.48 0.681
60 5095 1.0728 25.44 0.781
75 4853 1.4653 34.63 0.859


15 1926 0.2402 1.77 0.234
30 3710 0.5208 8.67 0.533
45 4455 0.8367 18.59 0.744
60 4210 1.1953 26.91 0.801
75 4052 1.5864 36.42 0.874
BRACINGS AT CORNERS

15 1898 0.2528 2.02 0.250
30 3639 0.5702 10.49 0.629
45 4045 0.9326 21.00 0.839
60 3809 1.3411 29.92 0.919
75 3707 1.7806 40.89 1.002
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
6000 CASE 4
CASE 5
5500
5000
4500
BASE SHEAR (m)
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
HEIGHT (m)

CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
50 CASE 5
40
DISPLACEM ENTS (mm)
30
20
10
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )
CASE 1
CASE 2
CASE 3
1.4 CASE 4
CASE 5
1.2
1.0
DRIFT (mm)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
H E IG H T (m )

CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY
8.1 Conclusions
In the present study, response spectrum analysis is carried out on different cases and
is carried out on different seismic zones of India and different types of soils. The conclusions
that can be drawn from the results discussed in the previous chapter are as follows:
1. Least lateral displacements and drift is given by zone II and maximum is given by
zone V.
2. Lateral displacements and drift increases as the soil type changes form hard to soft.
3. Base shear also increases as the soil type changes from hard to soft.
4. Lateral displacements and drift increases as the height of the building increases.
5. Case 1(Bare Frame) produces larger lateral displacements and drift compared to all
other cases.
6. Lateral displacements and drift is significantly lower after inserting shear wall and
bracings.
7. From the study it is clear that CASE 2 (Shear Wall in Middle) is performing better
and more efficient than all other cases in different zones and different types of soils.
8. Case 3 (Shear Wall at corners) and Case 4 (Bracings in middle) results doesn’t vary
much.

8.2 Scope for Further Study
1. Same study can be done by varying the plan size of the building.
2. The study can be extended by inserting staggered shear wall instead of continuous
shear wall.
3. The study can be extended by providing different types of bracings.
4. The study can be done by incorporating soil structure interaction.
5. Same study can be done by using other software’s.

REFERENCES
1. Shaik Kamal Mohammed Azam, Vinod Hosur, “Seismic Performance Evaluation of
Multistoried RC framed buildings with Shear wall” International Journal of Scientific
& Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 1, January-2013.
2. Anuj Chandiwala, “Earthquake Analysis of Building Configuration with Different

Position of Shear Wall” International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2012.
3. Viswanath K.G, Prakash K.B., Anant Desai, “Seismic Analysis of Steel Braced
Reinforced Concrete Frames” International Journal of Civil and Structural
Engineering, Volume 1, No 1, 2010.
4. Venkatesh S.V., H. Sharada Bai., Divya S.P., “Response of a 3-Dimensional 2 X 3

Bays Ten Storey RC Frame with Steel Bracings as Lateral Load Resisting Systems
Subjected To Seismic Load” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research Volume 4, Issue 5, May-2013.
5. S.V.Venkatesh, H.Sharada Bai “Effect of Internal and External Shear Wall on

Performance of Building Frame subjected to Lateral load” International Journal of
Earth Sciences and Engineering Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011.
6. Anand N, Mightraj C and Prince Arulraj G, “Seismic Behaviour of RCC Shear Wall
under Different Soil Conditions”, Indian Geotechnical Conference-2010, Geotrendz
December 2010.
7. C.V.R Murthy, Rupen Goswami, A. R. Vijayanarayanan, Vipul V. Mehta, “Some

Concepts in Earthquake Behaviour of Buildings”, Gujarat State Disaster Management
Authority, Government of Gujarat.
8. Obada Kayali, “High Performance Bricks from Fly Ash”, 2005 World of Coal Ash
(WOCA), April 11-15, 2005, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.

9. Venkatasai Ram Kumar. N, S. V. Satyanarayana, J. Usha Kranti, “Seismic Behaviour

of Multistoried Buildings”, International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications, Vol. 3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013.
10. Prof. S.S. Patil, Miss. S.A. Ghadge, Prof. C.G. Konapure, Prof. Mrs. C.A. Ghadge,
“Seismic Analysis of High-Rise Building by Response Spectrum Method”,
International Journal Of Computational Engineering Research (Ijceronline.Com) Vol.
3 Issue. 3.
11. M.D. Kevadkar, P.B. Kodag, “Lateral Load Analysis of R.C.C Building”,
International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), Vol.3, Issue.3, May-
June. 2013.
12. Anshuman. S, Dipendu Bhunia, Bhavin Ramjiyani, “Solution of Shear Wall Location
in Multistory Building”, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering,
Volume 2, No 2, 2011.
13. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande, “Earthquake Resistant Design of

Structures”, PHI Learning Private Limited, New Delhi, India.
14. Dr. Vinod Hosur, “Earthquake-Resistant Design of Building Structures”, Wiley India
Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, India.
15. S.K.Duggal, “Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Oxford University Press.
16. IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
17. IS 456-2000, “Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
18. “Seismic Structural Solutions”, CCANZ Level 6 / 142 Featherston St PO Box 448,
Wellington 6140, NEW ZEALAND.
View publication stats

Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems at Variable Heights

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Study of Lateral Load Resisting Systems at Variable Heights

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Study Of Lateral Load Resisting Systems At Variable Heights

Thesis · October 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

I express my sincere gratitude to my institution Gogte Institute of Technology,

A natural hazard like Earthquake causes damage to or collapse of buildings if not

In many respects concrete is an ideal building material, combining economy,

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 1

1.2 Objectives of study

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 2

 Seismic Performance Evaluation of Multistoried RC framed buildings with

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 3

 Earthquake Analysis of Building Configuration with Different Position of Shear

 Seismic Analysis of Steel Braced Reinforced Concrete Frames (Viswanath K.G,

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 4

 Response of a 3-Dimensional 2 X 3 Bays Ten Storey RC Frame with Steel

A natural hazard like Earthquake causes damage to or collapse of buildings if not

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 5

 Effect of Internal and External Shear Wall on Performance of Building Frame

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 6

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 7

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 8

1. Equivalent Lateral Force Method

3.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Method [13] [15] [16]

I = importance factor , depending on the functional purpose of the building, characterized by

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 9

3.1.1 Design Lateral Force

3.1.2 Seismic Weight

3.1.3 Fundamental Natural Period

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 10

3.1.4 Distribution of Design Force:

Qi = design lateral force at ith floor

Wi= seismic weight of ith floor

hi = height of ith floor measured from base, and

3.2 Response Spectrum Method [13] [15] [16]

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 11

3.2.3 Computation of Dynamic Quantities

b) Modal Participation Factor: The factor is given by

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 12

Seismic zone II III IV V

Table 3.1 Zone Factor, Z [16]

3.3 Time History Method [14]

This method involves the development of a complex mathematical model of the

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 13

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 14

4.2 Natural Period [7]

4.2.1 Factors affecting Natural Period

4.2.1.1 Effect of Stiffness

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 15

4.2.1.2 Effect of Mass

Mass of a building that is effective in lateral oscillation during earthquake shaking is

4.2.1.3 Effect of Building Height

4.2.1.4 Effect of Column Orientation

4.2.1.5 Effect of Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls in RC Frames

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 16

4.3 Mode Shape [7]

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 17

4.3.1 Factors influencing Mode Shapes

4.3.1.2 Effect of Axial Stiffness of Vertical Members

4.3.1.3 Effect of Degree of Fixity at Member Ends

Dept. of Civil Engineering, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belgaum Page 18

Figure 4.1: Hinged Base Figure 4.2: Fixed Base

4.3.1.4 Effect of Building Height