Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Structures

Sekhar Chandra Dutta, Dr, Prof.; Pranab Kumar Das, Research Scholar; Piyali Sengupta, Dr, Asst. Prof., Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India. Contact: scdind2000@gmail.com. dutta.sc.
civ@ismdhanbad.ac.in
DOI: 10.2749/222137917X14881938989765

Abstract
Vertically irregular buildings are frequently constructed across the globe for eventually propagates to the progressive
functional as well as aesthetic considerations. However, post-earthquake recon- collapse of the entire building or major
naissance survey reports revealed high seismic vulnerability of buildings with parts of it.7,8 In reality, almost all the
vertical irregularities. Consequently, it is crucial to explore the reason behind buildings across the world contain irregu-
their high seismic vulnerability in order to improve their performance during larities to some extent due to functional
impending earthquakes. Considering the scarcity of relevant research in this or architectural purposes. From the
regard in the existing literature, a humble effort is undertaken to comprehend viewpoint of seismic safety, the funda-
the seismic behaviour of irregular structures. Several case studies comprising mental period of the structure, base
different configurations of irregular structures are chosen for performing shear and, most importantly, stress con-
response spectral as well as non-linear time history analyses. The results of the centration and ductility demand in locali-
analysis indicate that the irregular structures may have lesser base shear owing sed regions of a structure play a very
to lesser mass as compared to a similar reference regular structural system. crucial role in the seismic vulnerability of
However, there is ample chance of higher stress concentration as well as higher the irregular structures.
ductility demand in the members around the irregularity. This phenomenon In this context, this paper aims to
may trigger early damage of these members, leading to early damage propaga- explore the reason behind the high
tion culminating into progressive collapse of the entire or a major part of the seismic vulnerability of the irregular
structure. Member strength enhancement in the vicinity of vertical irregularity structures in order to improve their
may improve the overall seismic performance of the irregular structures. seismic resistance and to ensure
Keywords: vertically irregular structure; base shear; ductility demand; equiva- enhanced seismic safety in case of
lent infill brick panel; soil–interaction; member force. earthquakes in future. Furthermore,
the extent of stress concentration and
ductility demand in the elements sur-
The seismic performance of buildings rounding the irregular locations of
Introduction the structure is also studied. Since
with vertical irregularity is the primary
With the rapid growth of urbanisation focus of this research. Seismic vulnerabil- most of the seismic codes provide
occurring across the entire world, ity assessment of vertically irregular prohibitive guidelines, an extensive
irregular buildings are quite fre- seismic performance evaluation of
buildings is of the utmost significance for
quently built in almost every country, several buildings with vertical irregu-
potential risk assessment during impend-
including India. Such irregular build- larities may enable the engineering
ing earthquakes, pre-earthquake emer-
ings generally exhibit higher vulnera- community to propose refined guide-
gency disaster response planning and
bility under earthquake loading and lines and design methodologies in
post-earthquake seismic retrofit selection
thus require a thorough assessment to order to ensure the seismic safety of
and retrofit prioritisation.1–6 Seismic per-
ensure their safety during seismic such structures.
formance of a building depends on
events. Irregularities of buildings can numerous factors such as adequate lat-
be broadly classified into two major eral strength, stiffness, ductility, regular- Provisions of Various Codes for
groups, namely plan irregularity and ity and the extent of simplicity in its Vertically Irregular Structures
vertical irregularity. Vertical irregular- configuration. During an earthquake,
ity may be further categorised into geometrically regular-shaped buildings There was no provision for vertically
two subgroups, namely irregularity with uniformly distributed mass and stiff- irregular structures in the 1984 version
due to vertical distribution of mass ness perform relatively well compared to of Indian Seismic Code IS 1893.9 How-
and irregularity due to vertical distri- the vertically irregular buildings. Poor ever, the revised version (2002) of the
bution of stiffness. Photos of two ver- performance of vertically irregular IS 189310 has provided some discussion
tically irregular buildings and the buildings, as observed during past about the same. Different types of irre-
schematic diagram of the elevation of earthquakes, can be attributed to their gularities are defined and incorporated
the corresponding structural frames irregularity in the vertical distribution of in Table 5 of IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002,10
are shown in Fig. 1. as follows.
mass and stiffness. Stress concentration
occurs at the elements in the vicinity of 1. (a) Stiffness irregularity—soft sto-
the geometrical irregularity due to rey: A soft storey is one in which
Peer-reviewed by international ex- abrupt changes in mass and stiffness the lateral stiffness is less than 70%
perts and accepted for publication
by SEI Editorial Board along the height, resulting in high locali- of that in the storey above or less
sed ductility demand. Thus, the elements than 80% of the average lateral
Paper received: August 25, 2016 surrounding the abrupt geometrical stiffness of the three storeys above.
Paper accepted: March 19, 2017 change maytrigger local damage, which (b) Stiffness irregularity—extreme

526 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fi g. 1: Real types of irregular buildings and configurations of Indian Seismic Code. (a) Vertically irregular building at Kathmandu,
Nepal; (b) idealised form of vertical irregularity; (c) vertically irregular building at Kathmandu, Nepal; and (d) idealised form of vertical
irregularity

soft storey: An extreme soft storey storey is the total strength of all seis- Federal Emergency Management
is one in which the lateral stiffness mic force-resisting elements sharing Agency FEMA 450, Part 1: 200312
is less than 60% of that in the sto- the storey shear in the considered included provisions for some typical
rey above or less than 70% of the direction. irregular buildings. Additionally,
average stiffness of the three stor- FEMA 356: 200013 incorporated regu-
eys above. Buildings on stilts are lations for the irregular structures with
Figure 2 presents five different types of
examples of this category. out-of-plane discontinuity and severe
vertical geometric irregularities categori-
2. Mass irregularity: Mass irregularity weak storey irregularity. However, the
sed by IS 1893 (Part-1): 2002.10
occurs where the seismic weight of variation of provisions in different
any storey is more than 200% of The Eurocode11 recommends few codes and the prohibitive nature of the
that of its adjacent storeys. The design guidelines for setback build- provisions clearly indicate the necessity
irregularity need not be considered ings. In a gradual setback preserving of a general consensus to ensure safe
in case of roofs. axial symmetry, the setback at any seismic performance of such irregular
3. Vertical geometric irregularity: Verti- floor would not be greater than 20% buildings. A detailed study on the seis-
cal geometric irregularity is consid- of the previous plan dimension in the mic behaviour of irregular structures
ered to exist where the horizontal direction of the setback, as explained may enlighten the engineering commu-
dimension of the lateral force-resist- in Fig. 3a and c. A single setback nity with the possible mechanisms of
ing system in any storey is more lower than 15% of the total height of initiation of failure. Furthermore, the
than 150% of that in its adjacent the main structural system would not extent of stress concentration in the
storey. be greater than 50% of the previous elements surrounding the location of
4. In-plane discontinuity in vertical ele- plan dimension, as illustrated in the irregularity due to excessive local
ments resisting lateral force: In-plane Fig. 3d. If the setback does not pre- deformation may also be enumerated.
discontinuity in vertical elements serve symmetry, each face of the set-
occurs when an in-plane offset of backs at all storeys would not be
the lateral force-resisting elements is greater than 30% of the plan dimen- Existing Research on the
greater than the length of those sion at the ground floor above the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular
elements. foundation or above the rigid base- Structures
5. Discontinuity in capacity—weak sto- ment top. Subsequently, it can be per-
rey: A weak storey is one in which ceived well that the individual Numerous research works have been
the lateral strength of the storey is setbacks would not be greater than conducted on the seismic vulnerability
less than 80% of that in the storey 10% of the previous plan dimension, assessment of the regular structures.
above. The lateral strength of the as shown in Fig. 3b. However, there is still a dearth of

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

L L L L2 L2
A A A A A L1 L1

Shear Wall

A/L > 0.10 A/L > 0.15 A/L > 0.25 L2 > 1.5L1 L2 > 1.5L1

Fi g. 2: Different types of elevation for vertical irregularities10

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 527

(a) (b) L
(c) (d)
L1 L3 L L1
L3 L L1
L1
L2
L2

H
H

0.15H
0.15H
L1–L2 L1+L3
≤ 0.2 L–L2 L1–L2 L1+L3
L1 ≤ 0.3; ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.2 ≤ 0.5
L L1 L L
(Set back occurs above 0.I5H) (Set back occurs below 0.15H)

F ig . 3: Elevational criteria for irregular buildings11

sufficient research studies to elucidate T = 0:075 h0:75 × k ð2Þ may play a very important role in regu-
the possible mechanics involved in lating the seismic vulnerability of verti-
where
irregular structures under earthquake cally irregular structures. Additionally, it
loading. In general, analytical meth- k = TTref = was observed that the lateral load-carry-
ods are the most common approach in Fundamental period of irregular building ing capacity of buildings decreases with
Fundamental period of same type of regular building
seismic performance evaluation of = ½1− 2ð1 − ηÞ ð2η −1Þ; for 0:6 ≤ η ≤ 1:0 an increase in the vertical irregularities
structures as analytical methods utilise of the building. Two other studies20,21
a detailed vulnerability assessment Here, η = regularity index = Γ1Γ, 1ref; Γ1 = focussed on the seismic response of the
algorithm to allow straightforward cal- first mode participation factor for the irregular buildings on sloping ground in
ibration with the structures as well as irregular building frame; Γ1,ref = first hilly areas and found that these buildings
the hazard characteristics. However, mode participation factor for the simi- experienced higher displacement and
the difference between the real struc- lar regular building frame without ver- base shear compared to the buildings
ture and its model highly influences tical steps; h = overall building height resting on plain ground. Buildings rest-
the reliability of the results. Conse- (in “m”); and T = fundamental period ing on sloping ground are more suscepti-
quently, the application of various of irregular building (in “s”). ble to seismic excitations as the shorter
analytical methods may be limited by column attracts more forces and under-
A modified empirical expression for
the modelling capabilities and the goes early damage during earthquakes.
obtaining the fundamental period of
computational effort. Mass-irregular and stiffness-irregular
irregular buildings was suggested,16 as
buildings face higher storey shear and
Seismic analysis of structures can be mentioned in Eq. (3).
displacement compared to similar regu-
broadly classified into two categories: (a)
T = λ0 0:075 h0:75 ð3Þ lar buildings.22 After conducting the
pseudo static analysis and (b) dynamic
response spectrum analysis (RSA) on
analysis. The fundamental period for the
where different types of vertically irregular
vertically irregular buildings is observed
buildings, it was concluded14 that the sto-
to be lesser than their regular λ0 = TTri = Fundamental period of irregular building
Fundamental period of regular building rey drift increases proportionally with
counterparts.14 Several approaches are Here, h = overall building height the vertical irregularities of the buildings.
proposed by many researchers to evalu- (in m) and T = fundamental period of Based on the incremental dynamic
ate the fundamental period of vertically irregular building (in s). analysis results of several buildings,23 it
irregular buildings, mostly in the form of
A qualitative review was conducted by was understood that the dynamic perfor-
empirical expressions. In this context, it
the researchers17 to summarise existing mance of buildings would be affected if
may be appropriate to present the
research on the seismic response of ver- their lateral load-resisting properties
expressions obtained by a few of
tically irregular buildings. Excerpts were not uniformly distributed.
researchers for calculating the funda-
mental periods of the irregular buildings. from the research suggested that there Another study24 explained the differ-
Indian Seismic Code IS 1893 (Part-1): is ample chance of increase in seismic ent methods for increasing lateral load
200210 incorporates a formula (Eq. (1)) demand of buildings comprising height- capacities of soft storey buildings.
for calculating the fundamental periods wise irregular distribution of mass, stiff- High-rise, vertically irregular buildings
of regular buildings. To calculate the ness and strength. Furthermore, the are observed as being more vulnera-
fundamental period of a vertically irreg- buildings containing the combined stiff- ble to ground excitation25 as plasticity
ular structure, an empirical expression ness, mass and strength irregularities and damage generally initiate at the
(Eq. (2)) was proposed15 by modifying have a higher seismic demand. Another locations of the irregularities. Another
the IS 1893 (Part-1): 200210 formula research18 concluded that the regular study26 discussed the accuracy of
(Eq. (1)), as presented below: buildings are safer in seismic zones II, modal pushover analysis to evaluate
III, IV and V with respect to their the seismic performance of high-rise,
Ta = 0:075 h0:75 ð1Þ irregular counterparts. It was deduced irregular buildings. A recent study27
from the study19 that the seismic zones following the Gorkha earthquake in

528 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

Nepal on 25 April 2015 also underlines undertaken to comprehend the seismic and storey height are chosen for seis-
the vulnerability of the irregular struc- behaviour of the irregular structures. mic analyses. A symmetrical five-storey
tures. Furthermore, the importance of building with four bays in each direc-
In the first part of the present study, a
considering torsional irregularity and tion is considered a reference symmet-
response spectrum method is
higher mode effects in seismic response rical building, denoted by “R”. The
employed for the three-dimensional
analyses were highlighted by some height and bay length of each storey
models of vertically irregular buildings
researchers.28–30 Non-linear analysis is are considered to be 3 and 4 m, respec-
to understand their basic response
stated to be essential for performance- tively. Detailed geometry of the regular
under free vibration analyses. The fun-
based design and collapse prevention of frame, along with the cross-sectional
damental periods of the irregular
the irregular structures.31–33 Another details of a typical column and a typical
buildings can be accumulated from the
research34 was conducted on the seismic beam, is shown in Fig. 4. A ‘strong col-
results of the analysis to compare the
performance of setback buildings retro- umn weak beam’ philosophy is utilised
performance of the empirical expres-
fitted with damped braces, incorporating for the design of the regular and irregu-
sions. The comparison study may
the higher mode effect. Additionally, lar buildings.
enlighten the engineering community
the behaviour of buildings with torsional
about the suitable empirical expression Seismic response of the regular frame
irregularity was studied35 using the time
to estimate the fundamental period of is chosen as a reference to compare the
history analysis method to examine the
irregular structures. In the second part, response of their irregular counter-
effect of eccentricity of the buildings,
several case studies comprising differ- parts. These irregular counterparts are
with regard to seismic excitation, on
ent configurations of irregular struc- derived from the regular building
their seismic performance.
tures are chosen to perform response frame (R) to encompass various possi-
The study presented in this section spectral as well as non-linear time his- ble types of irregularities, as shown in
summarises the empirical expressions tory analyses. The nature and contribu- Fig. 5. The bay length, storey height
for the estimation of the fundamental tion of various modes may be able to and cross-sectional properties of irregu-
period of vertically irregular buildings. explain the vulnerability of the irregu- lar frames are similar to the regular
Furthermore, the seismic vulnerability lar buildings. Stress concentration and frame, as shown in Fig. 4. The cross-
of various irregular buildings is briefly higher ductility demand in the mem- sectional dimensions and material
demonstrated. However, a detailed bers around the location of irregularity properties of the beam, column and
study to understand the basic mechan- may trigger early local damage, leading slabs are shown in Table 1. Dead load
ism of irregular buildings under seis- to early damage propagation and cul- and live load applied at the roof levels
mic loading is still missing in the minating into progressive collapse of and floor levels of the regular and
literature. Although most of the exist- the entire or a major part of the struc- irregular Reinforced Concrete (RC)
ing research emphasised the additional ture. Member strength enhancement in frames are enumerated in Table 2. In
vulnerability of the irregular buildings, the vicinity of irregularity may improve this study, the Takeda hysteresis model
the location of stress concentration— the overall seismic performance of the is utilised to incorporate the non-linear-
that is, the zone of initiation of yield- irregular structures. ities while modelling the regular and
ing and damage—was not clearly indi- irregular buildings.
cated. The location of stress
concentration or high ductility demand Configurations of Regular
may give an idea about the failure and Irregular Buildings Free Vibration and Spectral
path of the irregular buildings when Analyses of Regular and
subjected to seismic loading. Consider- In order to understand the effect of Irregular Buildings
ing the scarcity of the relevant irregularities on seismic performance, a
research in this context in the existing five-storey regular frame and a set of The regular and irregular buildings
literature, a humble effort is irregular frames with similar bay length shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively,

(a) (b)
3m 40 mm 25 mm
500 mm 250 mm
3m
40 mm 25 mm
3m 15 m

3m

3m 500 mm 350 mm

8 mm diameter
4m stirrup
8 mm diameter
4m stirrup
4m
4m 16 m 1 no. 20 mm diameter bar
4m 4m 4m4m 4 nos. 25 mm diameter bar at intermediate positions
at intermediate positions
16 m 4 nos. 25 mm diameter bar at corner positions
4 nos. 28 mm diameter bar
at corner positions

Fi g. 4: Layout and cross-sectional details of a vertically regular (R) RC frame. (a) Layout of vertically regular RC frame building;
(b) reinforcement details of a typical column (left); and a typical beam (right)

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 529

 are subjected to free vibration ana-
lyses to determine the fundamental
period and initial three natural fre-
quencies. Then, the same buildings
are subjected to complete quadratic
combination (CQC) analysis to com-
pute the stresses in the critical mem-
bers. The mode shapes of the regular
and irregular buildings are compared
to identify the most deformed mem-
Irregular Frame 1 (IR1) Irregular Frame 2 (IR2) Irregular Frame 3 (IR3) bers visible from the mode shapes of
irregular structures and the stresses
developed in them. This method
enables the identification of the physi-
cal reason of excessive deformation
due to stress concentration. Such a
stress concentration may initiate local
failure that may gradually propagate,
culminating into partial or complete
structural collapse. In particular, such
a proportion cannot be firmly ascer-
Irregular Frame 4 (IR4) Irregular Frame 5 (IR5) Irregular Frame 6 (IR6)
tained if the deformation and stress
distribution of similar elements of ref-
erence symmetric structure are not
compared. If the deformations in the
mode shapes as well as distribution of
forces or stress quantities are much
lesser in the similar element of the
regular structure, it may be clearly
understood that the irregularity con-
tributes to the excessive deformations,
forces and stresses. Such an investiga-
tion will help in pointing out the vul-
Irregular Frame 7 (IR7) Irregular Frame 8 (IR8) Irregular Frame 9 (IR9) nerable members of irregular
structures and help in arriving at
guidelines to protect them. The initial
three mode shapes of regular and
irregular frame structures, along with
their modal participation factors
(PF) and the effective masses (mk),
are shown in Table 3. The effective
mass (mk) as a ratio of modal mass
(Mk) and total seismic mass (W) in
percentage is computed using Indian
Irregular Frame 10 (IR10) Irregular Frame 11 (IR11) Irregular Frame 12 (IR12)
Seismic Code IS 1893 Part 1 (2002).10
The first three mode shapes of the
F ig . 5: Layouts of several irregular (IR) RC frames. (a) Irregular frame 1 (IR1);
(b) irregular frame 2 (IR2); (c) irregular frame 3 (IR3); (d) irregular frame 4 (IR4);
irregular buildings and the regular
(e) irregular frame 5 (IR5); (f ) irregular frame 6 (IR6); (g) irregular frame 7 (IR7);
building are presented in a schematic
(h) irregular frame 8 (IR8); (i) irregular frame 9 (IR9); (j) irregular frame 10 (IR10);
diagram in Table 3 to provide an idea
(k) irregular frame 11 (IR11); and (l) irregular frame 12 (IR12) about the deformation pattern in each
of three mode shapes. To make the
modelling more realistic, the masonry
Structural elements Dimensions Materials partition walls are modelled as equiva-
Column 500 mm × 500 mm M25 concrete, Fe 415 for main lent compressive diagonal struts only.
reinforcement and Fe 250 for transverse Furthermore, the periods of low-rise
Beam 350 mm × 250 mm buildings (which are generally stiff in
reinforcement
Slab 125 mm thickness nature) may also be considerably
lengthened by soil flexibility. For accu-
Table 1: Cross-sectional dimensions and material properties of RC frame structures racy of the results, effects such as those
described in following section are con-
Level Dead load (kN/m2) Live load (kN/m2) sidered. Generally, the first mode
Roof level 10 1.5 shapes of irregular buildings have pri-
marily lateral and torsional deforma-
Floor level 12 3 tion. In the second mode shapes of
Table 2: Dead load and live load on RC frame structures irregular buildings, the amounts of

530 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Types of building First mode shape Second mode shape Third mode shape

Natural Period: 0.572 seconds

PF (X): 39.22; PF (Z): 39.33 PF (X): 39.33; PF (Z): 39.22 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 0.00
Regular (R) mk: 78.88% mk: 79.34% mk: 80.29%

Natural Period: 0.570 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 63.15 PF (X): 70.71; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 0.00
Irregular (IR1) mk: 74.08% mk: 70.64% mk: 70.41%

Natural Period: 0.541 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 61.78 PF (X): 73.42; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 7.61
Irregular (IR2) mk: 75.34% mk: 73.62% mk: 73.73%

Natural Period: 0.534 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 57.61 PF (X): 71.17; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 5.46
Irregular (IR3) mk: 73.34% mk: 71.09% mk: 70.93%

Natural Period: 0.520 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 50.62 PF (X): 66.68; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 3.47
Irregular (IR4) mk: 71.79% mk: 66.70% mk: 66.28%

Tab l e 3: Regular and vertically irregular RC frame buildings with their initial three mode shapes

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 531

 Types of building First mode shape Second mode shape Third mode shape

Natural Period: 0.798 seconds

PF (X): 79.39; PF (Z): 0.17 PF (X): 0.17; PF (Z): 20.58 PF (X): 0.06; PF (Z): 63.56
Irregular (IR5) mk: 80.48% mk: 83.98% mk: 84.89%

Natural Period: 0.592 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 68.44 PF (X): 69.98; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.06; PF (Z): 3.47
Irregular (IR6) mk: 69.86% mk: 69.67% mk: 71.80%

Natural Period: 0.570 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 61.29 PF (X): 73.47; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 3.44
Irregular (IR7) mk: 76.51% mk: 73.36% mk: 73.07%

Natural Period: 0.501 seconds

PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 55.63 PF (X): 70.71; PF (Z): 0.00 PF (X): 0.00; PF (Z): 0.00
Irregular (IR8) mk: 70.56% mk: 70.16% mk: 72.64%

Natural Period: 0.566 seconds

PF (X): 33.18; PF (Z): 33.18 PF (X): 38.21; PF (Z): 38.21 PF (X): 6.03; PF (Z): 6.03
Irregular (IR9) mk: 77.00% mk: 78.34% mk: 78.44%

T abl e 3: Continued

532 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Types of building First mode shape Second mode shape Third mode shape

Natural Period: 0.560 seconds

PF (X): 26.66; PF (Z): 32.98 PF (X): 39.44; PF (Z): 33.04 PF (X): 8.86; PF (Z): 8.55
Irregular (IR10) mk: 72.03% mk: 75.94% mk: 75.54%

Natural Period: 0.559 seconds

PF (X): 26.71; PF (Z): 32.97 PF (X): 39.26; PF (Z): 32.95 PF (X): 8.60; PF (Z): 8.28
Irregular (IR11) mk: 69.6% mk: 73.77% mk: 72.44%

Natural Period: 0.565 seconds

PF (X): 0.21; PF (Z): 73.89 PF (X): 74.23; PF (Z): 0.25 PF (X): 0.58; PF (Z): 0.58
Irregular (IR12) mk: 61.52% mk: 83.21% mk: 80.25%

Table 3: Continued

torsional deformation are increased.

However, in the case of the third mode
(a) (b) shape of the irregular buildings,
generally, a further domination of tor-
sional displacements, as well as other
The portion of brick wall local deformations, is observed. These
Brick infill effectively behaving as a may play a very important role in regu-
compressive strut lating the seismic response. On the
other hand, first and second mode
shapes of regular buildings have shown
Deformed shape of a single panel purely lateral displacements, and the
third mode shape represented the tor-
(c) Equivalent compression only diagonal strut sional deformation. Further, torsional
displacements are dominated specially
at the location where the irregularities
Lateral load
a a exist for irregular structures. In fact,
hcol
hinf this issue will be more clearly under-
rinf rinf stood if the mode shapes of irregular
θ building frames, for example IR9,
IR10, IR11 and IR12, are studied. It
may be noticed that the members near
Fi g. 6: (a) Reinforced frame building with masonry infill; (b) different configuration of a the sudden geometrical change, which
typical panel of brick infill; and (c) schematic diagram of equivalent compression only causes irregularity, may suffer larger
diagonal strut36 deformation, particularly in second and

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 533

 Lateral stiffness of of the masonry infill panels of RC
columns (Kframe) frames in the form of an equivalent
Mass of
diagonal strut model, multiple strut
building model and equivalent bi-diagonal
compression strut model.36–44 How-
Translational spring Rocking spring
ever, in the present research, an
with stiffness Kx with stiffness Kθ equivalent compression-only diagonal
strut model, as shown in Fig. 6, is
adopted. During dynamic analysis,
Torsional spring Square footing of between each of the two lateral direc-
with stiffness Kf length (L) = width (B)
tions of the diagonal struts, only the
equivalent diagonal strut in compres-
sion becomes effective. From the liter-
F ig . 7: Idealised model of a structure with translational, torsional and rocking springs to
ature, dimensions of the compressive
incorporate SSI due to lateral vibration of building strut can be obtained for application
in the computational model. Out of
the few guidelines available regarding
third modes dominated by the torsional of the most common types of con- the dimensions rinf, a, hinf of the
deformations. The modal participation struction throughout the world. A equivalent diagonal compressive strut
factors PF (X) and PF (Z) of the regu- masonry wall can withstand considera- shown in Fig. 6c, the formula
lar and irregular buildings in the X and ble compressive stress but almost no (Eq. (4)) as provided in FEMA37 is
Z directions, respectively, are pre- tensile stress. When subjected to lat- used in the current study.
sented in Table 3, along with the effec- eral loads, especially seismic loads,
tive masses (mk) for the initial three the masonry infill provides additional a = 0:175ðλ1 hcol Þ − 0:4 rinf ð4Þ
modes. The second and third modes stiffness arising from the compressive
together may have a considerable influ- strut effect, as explained in Fig. 6. where λ1 = [(Emtinf sin 2θ)/(4EfeIcol
ence on overall building response, as Due to the lateral deformation of a hinf)]0.25; a is the width of equivalent
revealed from their PF and effective typical rectangular panel caused by strut; hcol is the column height between
masses (mk). So, the vulnerability of the seismic load, the panel tends to the centre lines of beams; Em is the
irregular structures may be attributed take the shape of a parallelogram expected modulus of elasticity of infill;
to the early failure of individual highly (Fig. 6b), causing elongation of one tinf is the thickness of infill panel and
deformed/stressed elements at the diagonal and shortening of the other. equivalent strut; hinf is the height of the
point of sudden geometrical change. infill panel; θ is the angle whose tangent
The shortened diagonal will carry a
compressive load and behave like a is the aspect ratio of infill (height to
compressive strut in the equivalent length); Efe is the expected modulus of
Modelling Effect of Masonry sense. elasticity of frame material; Icol is the
Infill and Soil Flexibility moment of inertia of column; and rinf is
Till date, several researchers have the diagonal length of infill panel. In
Reinforced concrete frames with non- proposed different modelling techni- this research, hcol = 3000 mm; Em = 14
reinforced masonry infill walls are one ques to capture the realistic behaviour 000 MPa; tinf = 250 mm; θ = 37 ;
Efe = 25 000 MPa; Icol = 520833 × 104
mm4; hinf = 2650 mm; rinf = 4390 mm;
Building type Stiffness of equivalent Stiffness of Stiffness of Stiffness of and a = 500 mm are considered to rep-
spring with inclusion of frame translational rocking resent a realistic condition.45,46 Thus,
equivalent diagonal (Kframe) spring (Kx) spring (Kθ) the regular building (R) and irregular
struts and SSI (Kxeqv) buildings (IR1–IR12) are equipped
R1 0.281 × 106 0.289 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 with an equivalent diagonal compres-
sive strut to incorporate the effect of
IR1 0.216 × 10 6
0.221 × 10 6
17.349 × 10 6
8251.792 × 106
masonry infill in their fundamental
IR2 0.202 × 106 0.207 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 period.
IR3 0.191 × 106 0.196 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 Furthermore, the effect of soil structure
IR4 0.172 × 10 6
0.175 × 10 6
17.349 × 10 6
8251.792 × 106 interaction (SSI) is taken into account
IR5 0.292 × 106 0.302 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 in the analyses of the regular (R) and
irregular buildings (IR1–IR12) to
IR6 0.259 × 106 0.267 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106
obtain a more realistic seismic
IR7 0.224 × 106 0.229 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 response. On the basis of the concept
IR8 0.189 × 10 6
0.192 × 10 6
17.349 × 10 6
8251.792 × 106 and procedure put forward in the exist-
ing literature,47–56 a similar study was
IR9 0.201 × 106 0.215 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106
conducted to incorporate the SSI effect.
IR10 0.245 × 106 0.250 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 The effects of soil flexibility along the
IR11 0.243 × 106 0.249 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106 horizontal rotation were introduced
through the addition of a torsional
IR12 0.251 × 106 0.258 × 106 17.349 × 106 8251.792 × 106
spring with stiffness Kf. The effects of
Table 4: Numerical values of stiffness (kN/m) of various equivalent springs of regular and soil flexibilities in the lateral and rock-
irregular buildings ing movements are incorporated by a

534 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Types of “T” by “T” by “T” by “T” by FE T= T= “T” (s) by Nature of
building Indian Eurocode11 FEMA12 (s) analysis 0.075h0.75 × λ0 0.075h0.75 considering fundamental
Seismic (s) without k (s)15 (s)16 the effects mode shape
Code10 (s) considering of
the effect of equivalent
masonry diagonal
infill and strut
SSI (s) and SSI
Regular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.618 0.572 0.637 0.480 Purely
building (R) lateral
displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.570 0.436 0.570 0.518 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR1) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.541 0.432 0.543 0.535 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR2) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.534 0.429 0.539 0.540 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR3) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.520 0.454 0.535 0.560 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR4) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.798 0.589 0.972 0.507 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR5) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.592 0.463 0.587 0.503 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR6) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.570 0.431 0.570 0.516 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR7) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.501 0.432 0.541 0.568 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR8) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.566 0.447 0.410 0.542 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR9) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.560 0.429 0.559 0.502 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR10) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.559 0.570 0.558 0.504 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR11) displacement
Irregular 0.572 0.572 0.533 0.565 0.514 0.565 0.496 Lateral and
building torsional
(IR12) displacement
Table 5: Comparison of fundamental periods (in s) of regular and vertically irregular RC frame buildings obtained through various
sources with and without incorporating the effect of masonry infill and SSI

translational spring and a rocking 1 1 1 L2 foundation; J (L/B) = correlation fac-

spring, respectively. The mathematical = + + ð5Þ tor; G = shear modulus of soil medium;
expression of equivalent soil flexibility Kxeqv Kframe K x Kθ ν = Poisson ratio of soil medium; and
(Kxeqv) in terms of frame stiffness L and B are length and width of rectan-
Kframe, translational spring stiffness Kx 8GR3 gular foundation, respectively.
and rocking spring stiffness Kθ is pre- where Kx = ð8GR
2−νÞ and Kθ = 3ð2− νÞ; Kf =
0 0

sented in Eq. (5).57 The effect of SSI in K0 (R0). J (L/B); The stiffness of an equivalent spring
an idealised model of a structure is
2 incorporating equivalent diagonal
modelled by adding translational, rock- R0 = 2B:π2L = radius of equivalent struts and SSI (Kxeqv), stiffness of
ing and torsional springs, as shown in circular foundation; K0 (R0) = corre- frame (Kframe), stiffness of transla-
Fig. 7. sponding stiffness of equivalent circular tional spring (Kx) and stiffness

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 535

 3.0 13% higher than the fundamental peri-

Coefficient of spectral acceleration ga

ods of the same buildings without

s
2.5 Type III (soft soil) incorporating the effects of equivalent
Type II (medium soil)
diagonal strut and SSI. On the other
2.0 hand, the fundamental periods of verti-
Type I (rock or hard soil)
cally irregular buildings IR1–IR2, IR6–
1.5 IR7 and IR9–IR12 are 1 to 15% lower
when the effects of equivalent diagonal
1.0 strut and SSI are considered. Vertically
irregular building IR5 shows a decrease
0.5 of 36% in the fundamental period
when the effects of equivalent diagonal
0.0 strut and SSI are incorporated.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period (s)
Variations in Base Shear
F ig . 8: Response spectra for rock and soil sites for 5% damping10 in Regular and Vertically
Irregular Buildings
rocking spring (Kθ) are summarised which may create a possibility of
in Table 4. increase in base shear. However, base Base shear of a building depends on
shear depends on both spectral accel- both spectral acceleration Sa/g and
The fundamental periods of regular and
eration Sa/g and mass. Irregular build- mass. Irregular buildings have less
vertically irregular buildings obtained
ings have less mass compared to their mass compared to their regular
from finite element (FE) analysis with
regular counterpart. Therefore, it is counterparts. However, the funda-
and without taking into account the
very difficult to predict whether the mental periods of vertically irregular
effect of masonry infill and soil irregularity in buildings will cause an buildings are mostly lower than the
flexibility, along with the same increase in base shear or not. This fundamental periods of the reference
outcomes obtained from different code issue is further investigated by com- regular buildings. This may result in
provisions and exiting research puting the base shear of regular and an increase of Sa/g. Thus, it is very dif-
guidelines, are presented in Table 5. irregular buildings in the following ficult to predict whether the irregular-
Table 5 demonstrates that the funda- section. ity in buildings will cause an increase
mental periods of vertically irregular It can be noticed that the fundamental in the base shear or not. Therefore,
buildings (except IR5) are lower than period of the regular building with from the response spectrum analyses
the fundamental period of the refer- inclusion of the equivalent diagonal of the regular (R) and vertically irreg-
ence regular building (R). The reason strut and SSI is 22% lower than the ular buildings (IR1–IR12) along X
may be understood if we consider an fundamental period of the same build- direction, base shears of the buildings
example of typical response spectra, ing without incorporating the equiva- are calculated using the CQC method
which is provided in Indian Seismic lent diagonal strut and SSI. However, and square root of the sum of the
Code IS 1893 Part 1 (2002),10 as the fundamental periods of vertically square (SRSS) method. The base
shown in Fig. 8. This figure implies irregular buildings IR3, IR4 and IR8 shears of regular and vertically irregu-
that with a decrease in the fundamen- with inclusion of the effects of equiva- lar buildings computed using the CQC
tal period, an increase in Sa/g occurs, lent diagonal strut and SSI are 1 to method and SRSS method are
summarised in Table 6.
Types of building Base shear (kN) Table 6 reveals that the base shears cal-
culated using the SRSS method for ver-
SRSS CQC
tically irregular buildings IR5–IR6 are
Regular building (R) 626.90 886.67 approximately 42% higher than the
Irregular building (IR1) 709.75 709.98 base shears calculated for the regular
(R) frame. Similarly, the base shears
Irregular building (IR2) 718.89 730.73
calculated using the SRSS method for
Irregular building (IR3) 699.91 700.73 IR7–IR8 are approximately 25 to 30%
Irregular building (IR4) 643.12 646.50 higher than the base shears calculated
Irregular building (IR5) 891.93 894.49 for the regular (R) frame. The base
shears calculated using the SRSS
Irregular building (IR6) 887.34 887.90 method for IR1–IR3 are approximately
Irregular building (IR7) 781.03 781.55 12 to 15% higher than the base shears
Irregular building (IR8) 812.49 816.17 calculated for the regular (R) frame.
The base shears calculated using the
Irregular building (IR9) 552.52 792.03
SRSS method for IR4 and IR12 are
Irregular building (IR10) 525.01 749.99 approximately 3 to 6% higher than the
Irregular building (IR11) 518.56 739.45 base shears calculated for the regular
(R) frame. The base shears calculated
Irregular building (IR12) 666.97 761.90
using the SRSS method for IR9–IR11
Table 6: Base shears of regular and vertically irregular RC frame buildings by SRSS and are approximately 12 to 17% lower
CQC method than the base shears calculated for the

536 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

6 115

6 5 115
4

Members
3 4 121
5
1
2 3 143

2 143

1 144

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR1)

9 120
4
6 8 127
5 3 7 127
2
7 6 154

Members
1
9
8 5 167
4 167
3 167
2 168
1 168

Irregular building (IR2) % of Increase in moment of members

9 164
2
8 164
3
4 5 7 164
1 6
Members

8 167
6
7 5 167
9
4 168
3 168
2 168
1 174

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR3)

Tab l e 7: Moments on identified members of vertically irregular buildings

regular (R) frame. On the other hand, issue is investigated in the following Part 1 (2002).10 Then, bending
the base shears calculated using the section. moments of beams and columns of
CQC method for IR1–IR4 and IR7– irregular buildings are compared to
IR12 are approximately 8 to 30% lower those of the similar members in the
than the base shears calculated for the Moment Increase in Various regular building. Table 7 presents the
regular (R) frame. The base shears cal- Members Due to Irregularities increases in bending moment of the
culated using the CQC method for critical members of the irregular
IR5–IR6 are marginally higher than High seismic vulnerability of the irreg- buildings. The members of an irregu-
the base shears calculated for the regu- ular buildings may be attributed to lar building which experience
lar (R) frame. Therefore, this clearly the increased bending moment of the increased bending moment when com-
shows that irregularity does not neces- members located in the vicinity of pared with the similar members of a
sarily cause a considerable increase in abrupt geometrical change. Conse- regular building are considered the
base shear. Thus, the possibility of quently, bending moments of beams critical members and are marked by
excessive vulnerability of such build- and columns in the regular bold lines and numbered for ease of
ings may only arise due to excessive (R) building and irregular buildings identification. The percentages of
force or moment generated in some of (IR1–IR12) are calculated using RSA increase in bending moment of the
the members as predicted earlier. This based on Indian Seismic Code IS 1893 critical members of irregular buildings

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 537

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

9 123
2
1 8 123
8
3 7 123
7
6 161

Members
9 5
4
6 5 161
4 161
3 168
2 168
1 169

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR4)

5 2 9 105
9 8 8 112
6
3 7 113
1 4
6 114
Members
7 5 115
4 117
3 120
2 122
1 132

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR5)

2 6 110
3
4 5 115
5 6
Members

4 120
1
3 120

2 120

1 127

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR6)

T abl e 7: Continued

with respect to their regular counter- is observed, with a maximum increase their regular counterparts. Vertical
parts are presented in Table 7 in the (168%) in bending moment in the ver- member 1 of irregular frame IR4
form of a bar diagram. tical members 1 and 2. Additionally, experiences a maximum increase
Table 7 depicts the percentage of members 3, 4 and 5 in irregular frame (169%) in moment. By examining the
increase in moment of the critical IR2 have 167% increases in moment amount of increase in moments in the
members of the irregular buildings with respect to their regular counter- critical members of the irregular build-
(IR1–IR12) with respect to the similar parts. In the irregular frame IR3, a 164 ings IR1–IR4, it can be clearly per-
members in the regular (R) building. In to 174% increase in moment can be ceived that, with an increase in
the irregular building IR1, a 115 to observed in the critical members, with irregularities, a considerable increase in
144% increase in moment is observed a maximum increase (174%) in the moments can be obtained in a
due to irregularity, with a maximum moment in the vertical member 1. In higher number of members.
increase (144%) in moment in the ver- the irregular frame IR4, a 123 to 169% Irregular building IR5 has symmetrical
tical member 1. In the irregular frame increase in moment can be observed in irregularities on both sides of the
IR2, a 120 to 168% increase in moment the critical members, with respect to building, and thus, all the members of

538 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

8 126
3
1 7 126
2 6
4 6 131

Members
5
5 131

7 8 4 137

3 171

2 171

1 171

Irregular building (IR7) % of Increase in moment of members

6 111
3
1
5 111
2

Members
5 4 112
4
6 3 115

2 115

1 115

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR8)

9 126
9 3 1
8 130
4
2 7 130
7
6 6 131
Members

8 5
5 131
4 166
3 166
2 167
1 167
% of Increase in moment of members
Irregular building (IR9)

Tab l e 7: Continued

the over-hanged portion experience a members, with a maximum increase irregular frame IR10, a 130 to 171%
105 to 132% increase in moment (171%) in moment observed in the ver- increase in moment can be observed
compared to the regular building. Fur- tical members 1, 2 and 3. In the irregu- in the critical members, with a maxi-
thermore, other members of the build- lar frame IR8, a 111 to 115% increase mum increase (171%) in moment
ing also face some increase in moment in moment is found in critical observed in the vertical member
compared to the regular building. In members with respect to their regular 1. Vertical members 2 to 5 face a 166
the irregular frame IR6, a 110 to 127% counterparts. to 167% increase in moment due to
increase in moment can be observed in irregularities in the building. Irregular
the marked members with respect to Irregular buildings IR9–IR12 contain building IR11 experiences a 102 to
their regular counterparts. Additionally, irregularities in both directions. In the 167% increase in moments in the criti-
irregular building IR6 is found to be in irregular building IR9, a 126 to 167% cal members, with a maximum
a more stable condition compared to increase in moment can be observed increase (166–167%) in the vertical
the irregular building IR5. In the irregu- in critical members, with a maximum members 1, 2 and 3. In the irregular
lar building IR7, a 126 to 171% increase increase in moment observed in the building IR12, a 116 to 167% increase
in moment can be observed in critical vertical members 1, 2, 3 and 4. In the in moment can be observed in the

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 539

 Building Type Increased Moment of Members

5 2 9 130
4 8 130
3
6 1 9 7 132
7
6 138

Members
8
5 166
4 166
3 167
2 167
1 171

Irregular building (IR10) % of Increase in moment of members

9 9 102
2 8 102
1
4 7 104
3
Members
6 115
7
5 5 123
8 4 134
6 3 166
2 167
1 167

Irregular building (IR11) % of Increase in moment of members

2 3
9 116
8 116
5 1
7 130
4
6
Members

130
8 5 132
6 7 9
4 135
3 135
2 136
1 167

% of Increase in moment of members

Irregular building (IR12)

Table 7: Continued

critical members, with a maximum in the second and third modes, experi- Non-linear Time History
increase (167%) in moment observed encing higher moment. This phenome- Analyses of Regular
in the vertical member 1. non triggers early local failure in the
overstressed critical elements, leading and Irregular Buildings
By inspecting the amount of increase in to damage propagation and culminat- Seismic ductility demand of the critical
moment in irregular buildings, a com- ing into partial and complete collapse
mon feature is observed: maximum members of the irregular buildings can
of the building. Consequently, it can be
increase in moment occurs at the loca- be investigated by performing non-lin-
observed that the domination of defor-
tion of abrupt change in width, introdu- ear time history analyses. Seismic dis-
mation in the second, third or even
cing irregularities in the frames. Hence, higher modes appears to be the physi- placement ductility demand of a
the irregularities in the buildings cause cal cause of higher seismic vulnerability structural member is the ratio of maxi-
stress concentration in the vicinity of in irregular buildings. In the following mum displacement occurring at the end
abrupt geometrical changes. The mem- section, the seismic ductility demand of of seismic time history and the displace-
bers located near the sudden geometri- the critical members of irregular build- ment corresponding to the yield level
cal change due to the irregularity of the ings is determined using non-linear of the structure. In this regard, the reg-
building exhibit a higher deformation time history analyses. ular frame and irregular frames IR3

540 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 No. Year Earthquake Magnitude Mechanism Station Peak Ground Peak Ground Peak Ground
(Mw) Acceleration Velocity Displacement
(PGA) (g) (PGV) (cm/s) (PGD)
(cm)
1 1994 Northridge 6.7 Thrust Saturn Street 0.43 43.52 23.04
School
2 1971 San Fernando 6.6 Thrust Castaic, Old 0.27 25.90 4.87
Ridge Route
3 1979 Imperial Valley 6.5 Strike Slip Calexico 0.27 42.49 36.12
Table 8: Ground motion summary

and IR11 were chosen for conducting selected for the time history analyses, are not incorporated in the analyses.
the dynamic analysis. Three far fault are summarised in Table 8. The effects The regular frame and irregular frames
ground motions (GM), which are of masonry infill and soil flexibilities IR3 and IR11 are subjected to three

Building Type Seismic Ductility Demand of Members

9 Ground
2 8 Motion 1
3 Member Numbers 7
4 5
6
1 5
8
6
7 4
R=4
9 3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

Irregular building (IR3) 9 Ground

8 Motion 2
Member Numbers

7
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

9 Ground
8 Motion 3
Member Numbers

7
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

Tab l e 9: Seismic ductility demand of critical members of vertically irregular buildings for response reduction factor R = 1, 2 and 4

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 541

 Building Type Seismic Ductility Demand of Members

9
8
9 Ground

Member Numbers
2 7
Motion 1
1 6
4 5
3 4
7 R=4
5 3
R=2
2
8 R=1
1
6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

9
Irregular building (IR11) 8
Ground

Member Numbers
7
Motion 2
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

9
8
Ground
Member Numbers

7 Motion 3
6
5
4
R=4
3
R=2
2
R=1
1

0 2 4 6 8 10
Seismic Ductility Demand

Table 9: Continued

GM time histories with response reduc- IR3 is 1.6 to 2.1 for response reduction Unreinforced Brick Masonry
tion factors (R) 1, 2 and 4 by assigning factor R = 1, 3.1 to 4.2 for response Structures
adequate strength to the members as reduction factor R = 2 and 6.1 to 7.2
derived from the strength demand to for response reduction factor R = 4. Seismic vulnerability of irregular
remain elastic, that is, at R = 1. There- Similarly, the seismic ductility demand unreinforced brick masonry (URM)
after, the seismic ductility demand of of irregular frame IR11 is 1.3 to 1.8 for structures is investigated in this section.
the critical members of IR3 and IR11, response reduction factor R = 1, 2.7 to A regular building made of URM was
as marked in Table 7 , is estimated. 4.3 for response reduction factor R = 2 considered in the literature.46,58,59 For
Table 9 presents the ductility demand and 5.3 to 8.6 for response reduction this study, in-plane stiffness and out-of-
factor R = 4. Enhanced displacement plane stiffness were calculated from the
of the critical members near abrupt
ductility demand of the members can basic consideration of bending and
stiffness change as identified from the
also be attributed to the high seismic shear in a rectangular plate by Eq. (6).
elastic analysis presented in the previ-
vulnerability of the irregular buildings The wall situated in the longitudinal
ous section. due to localised concentration of defor- direction of the lateral force is desig-
Table 9 demonstrates that the seismic mation at places near the change of nated as the in-plane wall, while the
ductility demand of irregular frame abrupt stiffness. wall situated in the perpendicular

542 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

 literature.48 For each storey, the stiff-
ness of the in-plane wall and out-of-
plane wall is considered to be springs
connected in a parallel series. The
equivalent storey stiffness is deter-
mined by considering each storey con-
nected in series. This idealization of
inter-storey as well as intra-storey
walls is based on the basic concept of
URM IRURM1 IRURM2
mechanics, as explained in Fig. 10.59
The lateral stiffness of each wall can
Fi g. 9: Regular and irregular buildings made of URM be expressed as Kwall as shown in
Eq. (6). The equivalent soil stiffness
(a) Ksoil is provided in Eq. (7).
Out-of-plane wall
In-plane wall Kout-of-plane
Kwall = 
1
Lateral load Lateral load
Kin-plane fð11H 3 Þ=ð60Em I Þg + fð2αH Þ=ð3Gm AÞg
Actual building ð6Þ
Idealized condition
where H is the height of wall; I is the
(b) moment of inertia of wall; A is the
Lateral load area of wall, α is the shape factor; and
1st storey K1st KGr
Em and Gm are modulus of elasticity
Lateral load
and shear modulus of brick masonry,
respectively.
Ground

storey Ksoil = ½2GL0 =ð2 −νÞ 2 + 2:50χ 0:85

– ½0:2=ð0:75 − νÞGL0 1 − ðB0 =L0 Þ ð7Þ

Fi g. 10: Representation for carry-out equivalent stiffness. (a) Parallel spring connection
for in-plane wall and out-of-plane wall; (b) series spring connection for multistorey
building59 where χ = (Ab/4L0 2); Ab = area of
foundation; ν = Poisson ratio of soil;
direction of the lateral force is termed (IRURM-1, IRURM-2) masonry build- G = shear modulus of soil; and L0 and
the out-of-plane wall. The equivalent ings are considered, as shown in Fig. 9. B0 are half-length and half-width of
stiffness due to the effect of soil flexibil- Storey height and bay dimension of the the foundation, respectively.
ity is calculated by Eq. (7) using the URM buildings are the same as the
For analysing the regular and irregular
formula from the literature.46 In the dimensions of reinforced concrete-
masonry buildings, the masonry walls
present study, an effort is undertaken frame buildings shown in Fig. 4.
are modelled as in-plane plate elements,
to calculate the natural periods of SSI is incorporated into the computa- with material properties of masonry
URM buildings. A regular (URM) tional model in the form of equivalent obtained from the literature.46,58 Numer-
masonry building and two irregular soil springs, as suggested in the ical values of equivalent storey-wise

Building type Equivalent spring stiffness for ground storey (KGr) Equivalent spring stiffness for first storey (K1st)
In-plane stiffness (Kin- Out-of-plane stiffness In-plane stiffness (Kin- Out-of-plane stiffness
plane) (Kout-of-plane) plane) (Kout-of-plane)
URM 1 690 140.845 12 614.646 1 690 140.845 12 614.646
IRURM1 1 690 140.845 12 614.646 845 070.422 8409.764
IRURM2 1 690 140.845 12 614.646 563 380.282 4204.882
Table 10: Equivalent in-plane and out-of-plane spring stiffness (kN/m) of unreinforced masonry regular and irregular buildings

Type of building “T” by Indian “T” by FEMA11 “T” by Eurocode12 “T” by FEA “T” by
Seismic Code9 computational
method with SSI
URM 0.190 0.187 0.192 0.190 0.185
IRURM-1 0.190 0.187 0.192 0.190 0.182
IRURM-2 0.190 0.187 0.192 0.190 0.193
Table 11: Fundamental periods of regular and irregular URM buildings

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 543

in-plane and out-of-plane springs are forces/stress concentration and ductil- dynamic loading conditions. Adv. Struct. Eng.
provided in Table 10. The fundamental ity demand at the locations of abrupt 2014; 17(2): 211–232.
periods of the initial three modes of the change in width or height cause early [9] Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 1893: 1984.
regular and irregular masonry buildings, localised damage, resulting in progres- Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resist-
inclusive of the effects of SSI, are deter- sive damage propagation and partial ant Design of Structures. BIS: New Delhi, 1984.
mined by Dunkerley’s method.59 Funda- or complete collapse of the structures. [10] Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 1893 (Part-
mental periods determined by the The moment in critical members of 1): 2002. Indian Standard Criteria for Earth-
computational method as well as by irregular buildings may increase to quake Resistant Design of Structures. BIS: New
using the formulae specified by various 170% with respect to their regular Delhi, 2002.
codes are shown in Table 11. counterparts. [11] European Committee for Standardization.
Euro-code 8: 2004. Design of Structures for
In the following equation, foundation Similarly, the seismic ductility demand Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules,
length (L) = 10 m; half length (L0 ) of critical members of irregular build- Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. CEN:
= 5 m; foundation width (B) = 10 m; ings may increase to 2.2 for response Brussels, 2004.
half width (B0 ) = 5 m; area of founda- reduction factor 1, 4.3 for response [12] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
tion (Ab) = 10 × 10 = 100 m2 reduction factor 2 and 8.6 for FEMA 450, Part 1: 2003. NEHRP Recom-
  response reduction factor 4. This mended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
χ = Ab =4 L0 = ð10 × 10Þ=ð4 × 52Þ = 1
2
observation may be utilised to ensure New Buildings and Other Structures. Building
better seismic performance of irregu- Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute


Ksoil = ½2GL0 =ð2 −νÞ 2 + 2:50χ 0:85 lar buildings by providing greater of Building Sciences: Washington, DC, 2003.

− ½0:2=ð0:75 −νÞGL0 1 − ðB0 =L0 Þ strength and stiffness to the vulnera- [13] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
ble members located near the abrupt FEMA 356: 2000. Prestandard and Commentary
= 4 218 750 kN=m geometrical change. for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
FEMA: Washington, DC, 2000.
This study as a whole is a humble [14] Saraswathy B, Udaya KL, Leslie R. Effect
A trend of results similar to that
attempt to identify the reason of high of vertical irregularity on performance of rein-
obtained for RC frames is observed
seismic vulnerability of irregular rein- forced concrete framed buildings. Proceedings
for masonry buildings. The walls
forced concrete and masonry build- of the Second International Conference on
where sudden change of width takes
ings with the intention of enhancing Advances in Civil, Structural and Environmental
place exhibit about 20 to 90% more Engineering. Zurich: Switzerland, 2014.
their seismic performance during
shear for URMIR-1 and 30 to 110%
impending earthquake events. This [15] Sarkar P, Prasad AM, Menon D. Vertical
more shear for URMIR-2 compared
study may further facilitate the build- geometric irregularity in stepped building
to the reference regular walls because frames. Eng. Struct. 2010; 32: 2175–2182.
ing of irregular structures that go
of high torsional deformation of the
beyond the protective provisions of [16] Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B. Fun-
structure in the second and third
various seismic codes. damental time period of RC setback buildings.
modes. However, the fundamental lat- Concr. Res. Lett. 2014; 5(4): 901–935.
eral periods of masonry buildings do
[17] Soni DP, Mistry BB. Qualitative review of
not vary much, as observed for irregu- References seismic response of vertically irregular building
lar RC buildings. The detailed results frames. J. Earthq. Technol. 2006; 43(4):
for regular and irregular masonry [1] Aslani H, Miranda E. Fragility assessment 121–132.
buildings are not presented for the of slab–column connections in existing non-
ductile reinforced concrete structures. J. Earthq. [18] Singh R, Pahwa S, Gupta A. Seismic beha-
sake of brevity. viour of buildings having vertical irregularities.
Eng. 2005; 9(6): 777–804.
Universe Emerg. Technol. Sci. 2014; I(V):
[2] Brown PC, Lowes LN. Fragility functions
Summary and Conclusions for modern reinforced concrete beam–column
620–625.

joints. Earthq. Spectra 2007; 23(2): 263–289. [19] Kalibhat MG, Arun Kumar YM,
The present study is an effort to Kamath K, Prasad SK, Shet S. Seismic perfor-
explore the reason and extent of high [3] Gulec CK, Whittaker AS, Hooper JD. Fra- mance of r.c. frames with vertical stiffness irreg-
seismic vulnerability of various irregu- gility functions for low aspect ratio reinforced ularity from pushover analysis. J. Mech. Civil
concrete walls. Eng. Struct. 2010; 32(9): Eng. 2014; 2: 61–66.
lar buildings. A large variety of setback
2894–2901.
RC buildings are studied and com- [20] Birajdar BG, Nalawade SS. Seismic analy-
pared with their regular counterparts. [4] Pagni CA, Lowes LN. Fragility functions for sis of buildings resting on sloping ground. 13th
Effects of masonry infills are older reinforced concrete beam–column joints. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Earthq. Spectra 2006; 22(1): 215–238. Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004.
accounted for by employing equivalent
compressive diagonal struts. SSI is [5] Sengupta P, Li B. Seismic fragility evalua-
[21] Ravikumar CM, Babu Narayan KS,
incorporated by adding equivalent soil tion of lightly reinforced concrete beam–column
Sujith BV, Venkat RD. Effect of irregular con-
joints. J. Earthq. Eng. 2014; 18(7): 1102–1128.
springs based on the existing literature. figurations on seismic vulnerability of RC build-
[6] Sengupta P, Li B. Seismic fragility assess- ings. Archit. Res. 2012; 2(3): 20–26.
The study provides valuable insights ment of lightly reinforced concrete structural
into the vulnerability of irregular walls. J. Earthq. Eng. 2016; 20(5): 809–840. [22] Bansal H, Gagandeep. Seismic analysis
buildings. It has been realised that the and design of vertically irregular RC building
[7] Huang ZW, Li B, Sengupta P. Reliability frames. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2012; 3(8): 207–215.
variations of lateral periods and base assessment of damaged RC moment-resisting
shears are not the causes of high seis- frame against progressive collapse under static [23] Khan QUZ, Tahir T, Mehboob SS. Investi-
mic vulnerability of the irregular loading conditions. ASCE J. Eng. Mech. 2013; gation of seismic performance of vertically
buildings. From the response spectral 139(1): 1–17. irregular reinforced concrete buildings. Life Sci.
analysis and non-linear time history J. 2013; 10(12s): 949–955.
[8] Huang ZW, Li B, Sengupta P. Reliability
analysis, a conclusion has been made assessment of damaged RC moment-resisting [24] Pirizadeh M, Shakib H. Probabilistic seis-
that the sudden increases in member frame against progressive collapse under mic performance evaluation of non-geometric

544 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017

vertically irregular steel buildings. J. Constr. [36] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of [49] Haroun MA, Abou-Izzeddine W. Paramet-
Steel Res. 2013; 82: 88–98. Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & ric study of seismic soil–tank interaction I:
Sons Inc.: New York, 1992; 768 pages. horizontal excitation. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. Div.
[25] Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK. Effective-
1992; 118(3): 783–797.
ness of some strengthening options for masonry [37] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
infilled RC frames with open first story. FEMA 273: 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the [50] Johnson JJ. Soil structure interaction: The
J. Struct. Eng. 2009; 135(8): 925–937. Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA: status of current analysis methods and research.
Washington, DC, 1997. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
[26] Mwafy A, Khalifa S, El-ariss B. Relative
(LLNL), UCRL-53011, NUREGICR-1780, pre-
safety margins of code-conforming vertically [38] Samoila D. Analytical modeling of
pared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
irregular high-rise buildings. Second European masonry infills. Civil Eng. Archit. 2012; 55(2):
sion, Washington, DC, 1981.
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and 127–136.
Seismology, Istanbul, 2014. [51] Johnson JJ, Asfura AP. Soil structure
[39] Polyakov SV. On the Interaction Between
interaction (SSI): observations, data and correl-
[27] Khoshnoudian F, Mohammadi SA. Seismic Masonry Filler Walls and Enclosing Frame
ative analysis. In Developments in Dynamic
response evaluation of irregular high rise struc- When Loaded In Plane of the Wall. Earthquake
Soil–Structure Interaction, Gulkan P,
tures by modal pushover analysis. The 14th Engineering and Research Institute: San Fran-
Clough RW (eds) Kluwer Academic Publishers:
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, cisco, 1960.
Dordrecht, 1993; 219–258.
Beijing, China, October 12–17, 2008.
[40] Madan A, Reinhorn A, Mander JB,
[52] Johnson JJ, Chang C-Y. State of the art
[28] Dutta SC, Nayak S, Acharjee G, Valles RE. Modelling of masonry infill panels
review of seismic input and soil–structure inter-
Panda SK, Das PK. Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake for structural analysis. ASCE J. Struct. Eng.
action. In Appendix E in A Methodology for
of April 25, 2015: actual damage, retrofitting 1997; 123(10): 1295–1302.
Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic
measures and prediction by RVS for a few typi-
[41] Chrysostomou CZ, Gergely P, Abel JF. A Margin (Rev. 1), EERI NP-6041-SL Electric
cal structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2016; 89:
six-strut model for nonlinear dynamic analysis Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, 1991.
171–184.
of steel infilled frames. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn.
[53] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC, Dasgupta S.
[29] Bento R, Bhatt C, Pinho R. Using nonlin- 2002; 2(3): 335–353.
Effect of soil flexibility on dynamic behaviour
ear static procedures for seismic assessment of
[42] El-Dakhakhni WW, Elgaaly M, of building frames on raft foundation. J. Sound
the 3D irregular SPEAR building. Earthq.
Hamid AA. Three-strut model for concrete Vib. 2004; 274: 111–135.
Struct. 2010; 1(2): 177–195.
masonry-infilled steel frames. ASCE J. Struct.
[54] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC. Assessing lat-
[30] Ferraioli M. Case study of seismic perfor- Eng. 2003; 129(2): 177–185.
eral period of building frames incorporating
mance assessment of irregular RC buildings: hos-
[43] Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ. Proposed macro- soil-flexibility. J. Sound Vib. 2004; 269: 795–821.
pital structure of Avezzano (L’Aquila, Italy).
model for the analysis of infilled frame structures.
Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2015; 14(1): 141–156. [55] Dutta SC, Bhattacharya K, Roy R.
Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 2007; 40(2): 69–77.
Response of low-rise buildings under seismic
[31] Duan XN, Chandler AM. Inelastic seismic
[44] Rodrigues H, Humberto V, Costa AB. ground excitation incorporating soil–structure
response of code designed multistorey frame
Simplified macro-model for infill masonry interaction. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2004; 24:
buildings with regular asymmetry. Earthq. Eng.
panels. J. Earthq. Eng. 2010; 14(3): 390–416. 893–914.
Struct. Dyn. 1993; 22(5): 431–445.
[45] Bureau of Indian Standards. IS 456: 2000. [56] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC, Roy R. Seismic
[32] De Stefano M, Pintucchi B. A review of Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete design aids for buildings incorporating soil-
research on seismic behaviour of irregular Code of Practice. BIS: New Delhi, 2000. flexibility effect. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.
building structures since 2002. Bull. Earthq. 2006; 5(2): 341–348.
Eng. 2008; 6(2): 285–308. [46] Mukhopadhyay P, Goswami K,
Chatterjee P, Mandal U, Bala S, Dutta SC. An [57] Dutta SC, Ghatak D. P–Δ effect in seismic
[33] Kreslin M, Fajfar P. Seismic evaluation of attempt towards modelling the behaviour of behaviour of elevated water tanks incorporating
an existing complex RC building. Bull. Earthq. masonry element under lateral loading with lim- foundation flexibility. Adv. Vib. Eng. 2010; 9(1):
Eng. 2010; 8(2): 363–385. ited experimental verification. Bridge Struct. 85–104.
Eng. 2010; 40(1): 1–23.
[34] Mazza F. Nonlinear seismic analysis of r.c. [58] Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK. Stress–
framed buildings with setbacks retrofitted by [47] Gazetas G. Analysis of machine founda- strain characteristics of clay brick masonry
damped braces. Eng. Struct. 2016; 126: 559–570. tion vibrations: state of the art. Soil Dyn. under uniaxial compression. J. Mater. Civil Eng.
Earthq. Eng. 1983; 2(1): 2–42. 2007; 19(9): 728–739.
[35] Özhendekci N, Polat Z. Torsional irregu-
larity of buildings. The 14th World Conference [48] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impe- [59] Dutta SC, Nayak S, Dinakar P. Lateral
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, dances of surface and embedded foundations. period and seismic vulnerability of masonry build-
October 12–17, 2008. J. Geotech. Eng. 1991; 117(9): 1363–1381. ings. Struct. Build. 2014; 167(SB11): 633–645.

Structural Engineering International Nr. 4/2017 Scientific Paper 545