IRJET- Comparative Analysis of Regular and Irregular Configuration of Multistoried Building in Medium Soil and Various Seismic Zones (II&V)

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1068
Comparative Analysis of Regular and Irregular Configuration of
Multistoried Building in Medium Soil and Various Seismic Zones (II&V)
Mr. Vinayaka Swamy M P M1, Ms. Ramya B V2
1Post Graduate in Structural Engineering, BIET College, Davangere, Karnataka, India
Abstract - Earthquakes are caused generally by rupture of
geological faults inside the earth, but also byothereventssuch
as volcanic movement, landslides, mine blasts, and atomic
tests. Irregularities are characterized by vertical
discontinuities in the geometry, distribution of mass, rigidity
and strength. Plan irregularity is the even inconsistency inthe
design of vertical parallel drive opposing components, in this
way creating a differential between the focal point of mass
and focus of Inflexibility, that ordinarily result in huge
torsional requests on structure. A G+30 storey building is
modeled in ETABS 2016 software and comparison is made
between regular structure and plan irregular structures with
varying seismic zones i.e., zone II and Zone V and in medium
soil, these models are analyzed under response spectrum
method. The comparison was made forbaseshear, storeydrift,
storey displacement, storey acceleration, storey forces and
storey stiffness.
Key Words: Tall Building1, ETABS2, Response
Spectrum3, Seismic Loads4, Wind Loads5
1. INTRODUCTION
The word earthquake is used to express any seismic
occurrence whether natural or caused by humans that can
produce seismic influence around any particular area.
Earthquakes are caused generally by rupture of geological
faults inside the earth, but also by other events such as
volcanic movement, landslides,mineblasts,andatomictests.
Irregularities are characterized by vertical discontinuities in
the geometry, distribution of mass, rigidity and strength.
Setback buildings are a subset of vertically irregular
buildings where there are discontinuities with respect to
geometry. However, geometric irregularity also introduces
discontinuity in the distribution of mass, stiffness and
strength along the vertical direction. Majority of the studies
on setback buildings have focused on the elastic response.
The behavior of these types of building is something
different. There is a need of more work to be done in this
regard. So this research work is an attempt to reachonmore
accurate conclusion to reduce their effect on the structure.
We observe that real structures are frequently irregular as
perfect regularity is an idealization that rarely occurs in the
practice. Regarding buildings, for practical purposes, major
seismic codes across the globe differentiate between
irregularity in plan and in elevation, but it must be realized
that irregularity in the structure is the consequence of a
combination of both types. It is seen that irregularstructural
configurations either in plan or in elevation were often
recognized as one of the major causes of collapse during
precedent earthquakes.
1.1 Plan Irregularity
Plan Irregularity is the even inconsistency in the design
of vertical parallel drive opposing components, in this way
creating a differential between the focal point of mass and
focus of Inflexibility, that ordinarily result in huge torsional
requests on structure. In other word the state of being no
uniform, or quickly fluctuating, rather than steady.
 Torsional Irregularity
 Re-entrant Corners
 Diaphragm Discontinuity
 Out of Plane Offsets
 Non Parallel Systems
1.2 Vertical Irregularities are mainly of five types
 Stiffness Irregularity
 Mass Irregularity
 Vertical Geometric Irregularity
 In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Elements
Resisting Lateral Force
 Discontinuity in Capacity
2. OBJECTIVES
 The analysis of a multi-storeyed RC building having
G+30 Storey is analysed with varying earthquake
intensity.
 To Model regular and irregular buildings in Etabs
Software.
 To analyse the regular and irregular building
models with Response Spectrum method in seismic
zones II and V and in medium soil.
 To compare the responses of regular and irregular
configuration structures for base shear,storeydrift,
storey displacement and storey stiffness.
 To compare the performance of the structures that
varies in plan dimensionsandwithdifferentseismic
zones in medium soil.
2Assistant Professor, M-Tech Structural Engineering, BIET College, Davangere, Karnataka, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------

3. METHODOLOGY
 An extensive literature review is carried out to
establish the above objectives for the project work.
 G+30 storey structure is chosen for the present
investigation.
 ETABS software is chosen for modelling and
analysis of the selected structure.
 To understand the behaviour of structure, two
models are considered with regular and irregular
configuration in different seismic zones and in
medium soil.
3.1 Modelling
Table-1: Regular and Irregular configuration in seismic
Zone II & V
Number of stories G+30
C/C distance between
columns in X-direction
5 m
C/C distance between
columns in Y-direction
5 m
Foundation level to ground
level
3 m
Floor to floor height 3 m
Live load on all floors 3 kN/m2
Live Load on Roof 1.5 kN/m2
Floor Finish 1.5 kN/m2
Concrete M25 and M30
Steel Fe 415 and Fe
500
Size of column 850 x 850
mm
Size of beam 350 x 650
mm
Depth of slab 150 mm
Seismic zone II 0.10
Seismic zone V 0.36
Soil Type Medium
Fig-1: Structural Plan of Regular Model
Fig-2: 2D Elevation of Model
Fig-3: 3D Elevation of Model

Fig-4: Structural Plan of Irregular Model
Fig-5: 2D Elevation of Irregular Model
Fig-6: 3D Elevation of Irregular Model
4. Analysis Results
This chapter deals with results and discussionofRCbuilding
with Regular and Irregular configuration inZoneIIandZone
V.
 Model 1- RC building withIrregularconfigurationin
Zone II
 Model 2- RC building with regular configuration in
Zone II
 Model 3- RC building withIrregularconfigurationin
Zone V
 Model 4- RC building with regular configuration in
Zone V
Discussions are made based on following parameters
 Storey Displacement
 Storey drift
 Storey acceleration
 Storey forces
 Storey Stiffness
 Base Shear
Chart-1: Storey Displacement due to Seismic Load in X
Direction

Chart-2: Storey Displacement due to Seismic Load in Y
Direction
Chart-3: Storey Displacement due to Wind Load in X
Direction
Chart-4: Storey Displacement due to Wind Load in Y
Direction
Chart-5: Storey Drift due to Seismic Load in X Direction
Chart-6: Storey Drift due to Seismic Load in Y Direction
Chart-7: Storey Drift due to Wind Load in X Direction
Chart-8: Storey Drift due to Wind Load in Y Direction
Chart-9: Storey Acceleration in X Direction

Chart-10: Storey Acceleration in Y Direction
Chart-11: Storey Force in X Direction
Chart-12: Storey Force in Y Direction
Chart-13: Storey Stiffness in X Direction
Chart-14: Storey Stiffness in Y Direction
Chart-15: Base Shear in X Direction
Chart-16: Base Shear in Y Direction
5. CONCLUSIONS
In the above thesis four models are considered in two are
regular and two are irregular and are compared for seismic
zones like Zone II (0.1) and Zone V (0.36) respectively. The
effects on models have been shown in the form of graph in
successive part of results and discussions, by comparing
various parameters such as displacements, storey drifts,
storey acceleration, storey force, storey Stiffness, and base
shear. Hence from the obtained results the following
conclusions are made,
1. Considering the effect of lateral displacement on
structure. It has been observed that, building with
L-shape have displaced more in comparison to
regular simple shaped building.

2. The storey drifts being the important parameter to
understand the drift demand of the structure. L-
shaped models showed larger drift than regular
simple shaped models.
3. The storey force in both the zones i.e., for II and V
showed that regular building model has a lower
force than that for the building with irregular
configuration.
4. The storey stiffness in both the zones i.e., for II and
V showed that regular building model has high
stiffness than that for the building with irregular
configuration.
5. The graphs of base shear for zone II and V, has a
higher shear values for the regular simple building
than that for irregular configured building.
6. The result shows the storey displacement, storey
drift and storey acceleration is increased by 66%,
85% and 17% respectively in irregular structure
than regular structure.
7. From the obtained results it is observed that storey
forces, storey stiffness and base shear is increased
by 48%, 77% & 37% respectively in regular
structure than irregular structure.
8. As the storey force decreased and an increase in
storey stiffness and base shear for the regular
simple shaped building, which give a clear
indication that regular configured buildingperform
better then that the irregular structure.
9. Shear wall increases the stiffness and strength of
the structure and affect the seismic behavior of the
structure.
10. The presence of shear wall increase the lateral
stability in irregular building and thus help in safe
guarding the structure to some extent.
11. It is observed that, there are no torsional effects in
the frame because of symmetry that is the centre of
mass that coincides with the centre of rigidity,
hence symmetric structure perform better in
resisting earthquake force.
12. From the above results so obtained from all the
graphs is clear that building with regular
configuration give a better resistance against
earthquake forces and offer a stable structure.
REFERENCES
[1] Darshan D, Shruthi H K,” Study on Mass Irregularity
of High Rise Buildings”, Volume: 03 Issue: 08 | Aug-
2016.
[2] Kevin Shah and Prutha Vyas,” Effects of Vertical
Geometric and Mass Irregularities in Structure”,
Volume 1, 2017, Pages 87-92.
[3] Milind V. Mohod “Effect Of Shape And Plan
Configuration On Seismic Response Of Structure”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC &
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 4, ISSUE 09,
SEPTEMBER 2015.
[4] M.R.Wakchaure, Anantwad Shirish, Rohit Nikam
“Study Of Plan IrregularityOnHigh-RiseStructures”
IJIRD, October, 2012 Vol 1 Issue 8.
[5] Pradeep Pujar, Amaresh “SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF
PLAN IRREGULAR MULTI-STORIED BUILDING
WITH AND WITHOUT SHEAR WALLS” IRJET,
Volume: 04 Issue: 08, Aug -2017.
[6] Ramesh Konakalla , Ramesh Dutt Chilakapati , Dr
Harinadha Babu Raparla “RESPONSE STUDY OF
MULTI-STORIED BUILDINGS WITH PLAN
IRREGULARITY SUBJECTEDTOEARTHQUAKEAND
WIND LOADS USING LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS”
ICAET-2014, PP 12-19.
[7] Ranga swamy, Raja Madhukar vishnu
“PERFORMANCE OF PLAN IRREGULARITY
BUILDING USING RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS”
IJRET, Volume: 04 Special Issue: 13.
[8] Raul Gonzalez Herrera and Consuelo Gómez
Soberón “INFLUENCE OF PLAN IRREGULARITY OF
BUILDINGS”.
[9] Satyaveni Allipilli, Mallikadevi Palli, Ramesh Dutt
Chilakapati, Dr. Harinadha Babu Raparla “Impactof
Plan Irregularity to Opt a Suitable Structural
Framing System in the AnalysisandDesignofMulti-
Storied Buildings” IJEAR Vol. 4, Issue Spl-2, Jan -
June 2014.
[10] Subodh.S.Patil and Shrinivas.R. Suryawansh “A
Study of Plan Irregularity Inducing Accidental
Torsional Moment of Multi Story Building using
Stadd Pro” International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology,Vol.6,No.3,June2016.
BIOGRAPHIES
Mr. Vinayaka Swamy M P M
Post Graduate Student,
Department of Civil Engineering,
BIET College, Davangere.
Ms. Ramya B V
Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
BIET College, Davangere.

IRJET- Comparative Analysis of Regular and Irregular Configuration of Multistoried Building in Medium Soil and Various Seismic Zones (II&V)

Related slideshows

More Related Content

IRJET- Comparative Analysis of Regular and Irregular Configuration of Multistoried Building in Medium Soil and Various Seismic Zones (II&V)