Seismic Analysis Of Reinforced Concrete High Rise Multi-storey Building

A project report on

Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete High Rise Multi-Storied Building A project report submitted to National Institute of Technology, Agartala In Partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

Prepared by:

Sayan Deb (16UCE009) &

Subinita Deb (16UCE033) Civil Engineering Department National Institute of Technology Agartala, Tripura (W) Under the Guidance of:

Dr. Gopinandan Dey Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering National Institute of Technology, Agartala, Tripura (W)

REPORT APPROVAL SHEET

This Project work report entitled “Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete High Rise Multi-Storied Building” by Sayan Deb and Subinita Deb is approved for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering at National Institute of Technology, Agartala.

Examiners: _______________________ _______________________ _______________________

Supervisor: _______________________

Chairman: _______________________

Date: _______________________ Place: _______________________

I|Page

DECLARATION

We hereby declare that the project work entitled “Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete High Rise Multi-Storied Building”, submitted to the National Institute of Technology, Agartala, is a record of an original work done by us under the guidance of Dr. Gopinandan Dey, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Agartala, and this project work has not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea/fact/source. We understand that any violation of the above will cause disciplinary action by the institute and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken when needed.

Sayan Deb (16UCE009)

Subinita Deb (16UCE033)

II | P a g e

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, AGATALA WEST TRIPURA, PIN – 799046

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Sayan Deb and Subinita Deb, 7th-semester students of National Institute of Technology, Agartala have completed and submitted their project work titled “Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete High Rise Multi-Storied Building” during the academic session 2019-20 under my guidance. I am satisfied with the volume and quality of the work.

Dr. Gopinandan Dey Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering National Institute of Technology, Agartala

III | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We feel immense pleasure and privilege to express our deep sense of gratitude, indebtedness and thankfulness toward our respected teacher Dr. Gopinandan Dey, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Agartala, for his invaluable guidance, constant supervision, continuous support and encouragement throughout this project work. His suggestions and critical views have greatly helped us in enhancing the scope to go deep into the subject of this project work. We are also thankful to all those persons who contributed directly or indirectly for the initiation of this project work.

With Regards

Sayan Deb (Enrolment No:16UCE009)

Subinita Deb (Enrolment No:16UCE033)

IV | P a g e

ABSTRACT

Earthquake is a natural calamity that has taken toll of millions of lives throughout the ages. The earthquake ranks as one of the destructive events recorded so far in India in terms of death and damage to infrastructure. Due to the present environmental condition and behavior of tectonic plates, it has become utmost necessary for civil engineers to consider the effects of the earthquake during the designing of the building. Also, most parts of India are under the earthquake-prone zone, so it has become necessary to consider earthquake load while designing a structure to minimize the effects of the earthquake. In this project work, a (G+13) storey high rise building is analysed in seismic zone-V by both equivalent lateral force method and response spectrum method. After analysis, various response parameters like storey shear, storey displacement, storey drift, etc. are studied and the results are also compared. The analysis of building under construction is also done and the results of base shear at different storey level of construction phase are also compared.

V|Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Descriptions

Page No.

4.1

Building design data………………………………………………………......16

4.2

Seismic load parameters………………………………………………………19

4.3

Load combinations……………………………………………………............20

5.1

Floor no. and Lumped mass………………………………………………......22

5.2

Seismic load parameters for analysis…………………………………............23

5.3

Calculation of equivalent static lateral force method…………………............23

5.4

Storey shear (kN) corresponding to storey level……………………………...25

5.5

Lateral force (kN) corresponding to storey level………………………...…...26

5.6

Storey displacement (mm) corresponding to storey level…………………….27

5.7

Storey drift (m) corresponding to storey level…………………………...…...29

5.8

Base shear of under construction building…………………. …………...…...30

5.9

Storey shear (kN) corresponding to storey level………………………...........31

5.10

Modal period (sec) and Modal mass participating ratios………………...…...36

5.11

Storey displacement (mm) corresponding to storey level…………………….36

5.12

Storey drift (m) corresponding to storey level…………………………...…...38

5.13

Base shear of under construction building…………………............................38

5.14

Comparison of storey displacements…………………………………………41

5.15

Comparison of storey drift……………………………………………………42

5.16

Base shear comparison of under construction building………………………43

VI | P a g e

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No.

Descriptions

Page No.

4.1

Beam layout……………………………………………………………...…...17

4.2

Column layout………………………………………………………………...18

4.3

3D structural model of the building……………………………………...…...18

5.1

Storey No. Vs Storey Shear (kN)………………………………………...…...24

5.2

Storey No. Vs Lateral Force (kN)…………………………………………….24

5.3

Storey No. Vs Storey Shear (kN)………………………………………...…...26

5.4

Storey No. Vs Lateral Force (kN)…………………………………………….27

5.5

Storey No. Vs Storey Displacement (mm)……………………………………28

5.6

Deformed shape of the building due to EQX load……………………………28

5.7

Storey No. Vs Storey Drift (m)……………………………………………….29

5.8

Base shear of under construction building….………………………………...30

5.9

Storey No. Vs Storey Shear (kN)………………………………………...…...32

5.10

Mode Shapes................................................................................................32-35

5.11

Storey No. Vs Storey Displacement (mm)……………………………………37

5.12

Deformed shape of the building due to RSX load……………………………38

5.13

Storey No. Vs Storey Drift (m)……………………………………………….39

5.14

Base shear of under construction building.……………………...…….……...40

5.15

Comparison of Storey Displacements………………………………………...41

5.16

Comparison of Storey Drifts…………………………………………….........42

5.17

Base shear comparison of under construction building………………………43

VII | P a g e

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS RC

Reinforced Concrete

IS

Indian Standard

RSM

Response Spectrum Method

THM

Time History Method

DL

Dead Load

LL

Live Load

EQX

Earthquake Load in X Direction

EQY

Earthquake Load in Y Direction

ETABS

Extended Three-dimensional Analysis of Building Systems

MRF

Special Moment Resisting Frame

OMRF

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

I

Importance Factor

Z

Zone Factor

R

Response reduction factor

Ta

Fundamental natural Time Period

VIII | P a g e

CONTENTS REPORT APPROVAL SHEET……………………………………………………………...I DECLARATION.……………………………………………………………………….........II CERTIFICATE…...…………………………………………………………………………III ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………….……………………………………………...…. IV ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………...…...…V LIST OF TABLES…………….…………………………………………………………….VI LIST OF FIGURES………………….………………………………………………...…...VII LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………...VIII CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………IX

Chapter 1

Introduction.......................................................................................................1

Chapter 2

Literature Review……………………………………………………….........4

2.1

General…………………………………………………………………………4

2.2

Literature review related to present study……………………………………...4

2.3

Summary and observations on literature review………………………….........9

2.4

Scope of present work………………………………………………...…...…...9

2.5

Objectives of the work…………………………………………………...…...10

Chapter 3

Seismic Analysis Methods..............................................................................11

3.1

General…...…………………………………………………………………...11

3.2

Methods of analysis……………………………………………………...…...11 3.2.1

Linear static analysis………………………………………………….12

3.2.2

Linear dynamic analysis………………………………………………12 IX | P a g e

3.2.2.1 Response spectrum method of analysis………………………13 3.2.2.2 Time history method of analysis……………...…...………….13 3.3 Code based methods of analysis……………………………………...…...….13

3.4

Chapter 4

3.3.1

Equivalent lateral force method of analysis……………………...…...13

3.3.2

Response spectrum method of analysis………………………………14

3.3.3

Time history method of analysis……………………………………...14

Analysis methods adopted in the present study……………………………....14

Structural Modeling………………………………………………………....16

4.1

General…………………………………...…………………………………...16

4.2

Building design data……………………………………………………...…...16

4.3

Section modifiers..............................................................................................19

4.4

Fundamental Time Period…………………………………………………….19

4.5

Seismic load parameters………………………………………………………19

4.6

Load combinations……………………………………………………………20

Chapter 5

Analysis Results and Discussions...................................................................21

5.1

General…………………………………………………………………...…...21

5.2

Manual seismic analysis………………………………………………………21

5.3

5.2.1

Calculation of lumped mass to various floor levels……………...…...21

5.2.2

Linear static analysis by equivalent lateral force method…………….23

Seismic analysis by software…………………………………………………25 5.3.1

Linear static analysis by equivalent lateral force method…………….25 5.3.1.1 Storey shear…………………………………………...............25 5.3.1.2 Lateral force……………………………………………...…...26 5.3.1.3 Storey displacement……………………………………...…...27 5.3.1.4 Storey drift…………………………………………................29 X|Page

5.3.1.5 Base Shear of under construction building ….......…...…………………………….30 5.3.1.6 General Observations…………………………………………31 5.3.2

Linear dynamic analysis by response spectrum method……………...31 5.3.2.1 Scale factor……………………………………………………31 5.3.2.2 Storey shear…………………………………………………...31 5.3.2.3 Mode shapes……………………………………………...…...32 5.3.2.4 Storey displacement……………………………………...…...36 5.3.2.5 Storey drift……………………………………………………38 5.3.2.6 Base Shear of under construction building …………………...........…...………….39 5.3.2.7 General Observations…………………………………………40

5.4

Chapter 6

Comparative study……………………………...…………………………….41 5.4.1

Comparison of storey displacement……………………………...…...41

5.4.2

Comparison of storey drift……………………………………………42

5.4.3

Base Shear Comparison of under construction building……………...43

Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………….44

6.1

Summary……………………………………………………………………...44

6.2

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...45

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………46

XI | P a g e

Chapter 1

Introduction

A disruptive disturbance, that causes shaking of the surface of the earth due to underground movement along a fault plane or from volcanic activity is called an earthquake. They occur due to the release of energy accumulated in the earth’s crust over-time causing damage not only limited to buildings but also to the life of humans. Earthquake, a natural phenomenon that causes destruction to the un-engineered structures and has taken toll of millions of lives through the ages due to sudden release of huge amount of mechanical energy. The earthquake ranks as one of the most destructive events recorded so far in India in terms of death toll & damage to infrastructure. Earthquake is the natural hazards which are unpredictable in nature. In the past, due to an earthquake, there is a tremendous loss of life and damage to property such as the structure made by man. Due to the present environmental condition and behavior of tectonic plates, it has become utmost necessary for the civil engineer to consider the effects of earthquakes when designing the building. Also, most of India is under the earthquake-prone zone, so it has become essential to consider earthquake load while designing a structure. The theory includes in-depth information about earthquakes, its type, causes and measuring devices. Every earthquake leaves a trail of misery because of the loss of life and destruction All over the World, there is a high demand for construction of tall buildings due to increasing urbanization & spiraling population, and earthquakes have the potential for causing the damages to tall structures. Since earthquake forces are random in nature and unpredictable, the engineering tools need to be sharpened for analyzing structures under the action of these forces. Structural analysis is mainly concerned with finding out the behavior of a structure when 1|Page

subjected to some action. This action can be in the form of load due to earthquake, shaking of the ground due to a blast nearby etc. In essence all these loads of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure’s natural frequency. If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia forces (Newton’s second law of motion) can be ignored and the analysis can be simplified as static analysis. Structural dynamics, therefore, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures subjected to dynamic (action having high acceleration) loading. Dynamic loads include people, wind, waves, traffic earthquakes, and blasts. Any structure can be subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic analysis can be used to find dynamic displacements, time history, and modal analysis.

The theory includes in-depth information about earthquakes, its type causes and measuring devices. That prompts the designer to give life to a structure furthermost since it is the need for a safe, serviceable, feasible and aesthetically pleasing fulfillment of a structure. The ultimate aim of structural analysis is to design all the structural elements of a structural system in such a way that they perform their functions satisfactorily and at the same time assist design to become efficient, elegant and economical which helps to choose the right type of sections consistent with economy along with safety of the structure.

The unpredictable nature of the earthquake has presented itself to be a mind boggler to civil engineers all around the globe and target to build earthquake-resistant buildings still remains. The equivalent lateral force method is the most common procedure adopted, wherein the base shear is computed as a whole and then distributed along the height of the structure. In the case of a rigid frame, the total shear on any one plane is distributed to the various elements on the plane with respect to their relative rigidity. It becomes an absolute necessity that structures with limited height must at least cross the threshold of safety with references to the static load method. Because of the nature of earthquake, a dual design philosophy has been adopted for the design of building in earthquake-prone regions. The buildings which do not fulfill the requirements of seismic design, may suffer extensive damage or collapse if shaken by a severe ground motion. The seismic evaluation reflects the seismic capacity of earthquake vulnerable buildings for future use. Therefore, it is necessary to study variation in seismic behavior of multi-storey RC buildings in terms of various response such as displacement and base shear. The main objective of this paper is to study the seismic behavior of concrete reinforced buildings. The story displacement, storey drift results have been obtained by using 2|Page

both linear static and linear dynamic methods. The pertaining structure of 14 storey building has been modeled. The story mass is changing in the different floors. The buildings have been analysed by using the equivalent lateral force method and response spectrum method based on IS code 1893-2016; the results obtained are compared to determine the structural performance. An earthquake has been a major threat to humankind and the world, in the un-recordable and recorded human history. It causes an active shaking due to volcanic eruption, which causes the failure of weak and badly designed structures, leading to numerous fatalities.

3|Page

Chapter-2

Literature Review

2.1 General Literature review is a scholarly paper, which includes the current knowledge including substantive findings, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews are secondary sources and do not report new or original experimental work. In this section, we summarize the gist of various other works and findings related to our work for a better understanding of the current scenario of the work.

2.2 Literature Review based on Present Study Balaji U. and Selvarasan M.E. (2016) studied a residential building G+13 storied. The building was analyzed for earthquake loads using ETABS. Assuming that the material properties were linear, static and dynamic analysis was performed. These nonlinear analyses were carried out by considering severe seismic zones and the behavior was assessed by taking types II soil condition. Different response like displacement & base shear were calculated and it was observed that displacement increased with the building height.

4|Page

Gottala A. and Yajdhani S. (2015) studied static and dynamic analysis of G+9 multistoried building. Linear seismic analysis was done by the static method (Seismic Coefficient Method) and dynamic method (Response Spectrum Method) using STAAD-Pro as per the IS-18932002-Part-1. Parameters such as Bending moment, Axial force, Torsion, Displacement, Nodal displacement, beam and column end forces, etc. were calculated. The authors concluded that,



The values for Moments are 35 to 45 % higher for Dynamic analysis than the values obtained for Static analysis.



The values of Torsion of columns are negative for Static analysis and for Dynamic analysis the values of torsion are positive



The values of Nodal Displacements are 50% higher for Dynamic analysis than the values obtained for Static analysis



Nodal Displacements and Bending moments in beams and columns due to seismic excitation showed much larger values compared to that due to static loads.

Patil M. N. and Sonawane Y. N. (2015) studied seismic analysis of 8 storey building. A 22.5m x 22.5 m, 8 storey multi-storey regular structure was considered for the study. Storey height was 3m. Modeling and analysis of the structure was done on ETABS software. Analysis of the structure was done and then the results generated by the software were compared with manual analysis of the structure using IS 1893:2002.

Sultan M. R. and Peera D. G. (2015) studied the behavior of the structure in high seismic zone and also evaluated Storey overturning moment, Storey Drift, Displacement, Design lateral forested. For this purpose, a 15 storey-high building of four different shapes like Rectangular, L-shaped, H-shaped, and C-shaped were used for comparison. The complete models were analyzed with the assistance of ETABS 9.7.1 version. In this study, Comparative Dynamic Analysis for all four cases had been done to evaluate the deformation of the structure. Authors indicate that,



Building with severe irregularity produces more deformation than those with less irregularity, particularly in high seismic zones. And conjointly the storey overturning moment varies inversely with the height of the storey. 5|Page



The storey base shear for regular building is highest compared to irregular shaped buildings. Storey drift permitted is 0. 004 times the height of storey.



Storey drift increases with an increase in height of the storey up to 7th storey reaching to the maximum value and then it again starts decreasing. The maximum storey drift permitted is 0.004 x height of storey.

Sharma M. and Maru S. (2014) studied static and dynamic analysis with the help of STAADPro software using the parameters for design as per the IS 1893-2002-part-1for the zones-2 and 3. G+30 storied regular building was analysed. These buildings had the plan area of 25m x 45mwith a storey height 3.6m each and depth of foundation was 2.4 m and the total height of chosen building including depth of foundation was 114 m. he authors concluded that,



For zone 2 and zone 3, the values of torsion at different points in the beam are negative and for Dynamic Analysis the values for Torsion are positive.



Moments and Displacement at different points in the beam was 10 to 15% and 17 to 28 % higher for Dynamic Analysis than the values obtained for Static Analysis for moment and displacement at the same point.

Mahesh S. and Rao B. P. (2014) studied residential building of (G+11) regular and irregular configuration for earthquake and wind load using ETABS and STAAD PRO V8i. Assuming the material property to be linear, static and dynamic analysis was performed. This analysis was carried out by considering different seismic zones and for each zone; the behavior was assessed by taking three different types of soils namely Hard, Medium and Soft. Authors compared both the regular and irregular configurations. Following conclusions were drawn,



The base shear values and story drift values were more in regular configuration than irregular configuration.



Base shear value was more in the zone 5 and that in the soft soil in regular configuration.



Story drift value was more in the story 13 in the regular configuration

Win N. N. and Htat K. L. (2014) studied static and dynamic analysis of irregular reinforced concrete buildings due to earthquakes. In the study, computer-aided analysis of twelve-storied 6|Page

reinforced concrete building was carried out for static and dynamic analysis by using ETABS (Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building System) software. Load consideration was based on Uniformed Building Code (UBC-1997). The structure was designed in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI-318-99) design code. Firstly, the proposed building was analyzed with static analysis. Secondly, dynamic analysis with the response spectrum method was used. In this paper, the results of static and dynamic (response spectrum) analysis such as displacement, storey shear, storey moment and storey drift were compared. Authors found that,



In X-direction, displacements obtained static analysis were less than dynamic (response spectrum) analysis from storey 1 to 4 but were higher than in response spectrum from storey 5 to 12. In Y-direction, displacements obtained in static analysis were less than dynamic (response spectrum) analysis.



The difference of storey moment between static and response spectrum analysis was higher in X-direction than in the Y-direction. In both directions, the difference of storey drift was insignificant. For irregular high-rise buildings, static analysis was insufficient and it would be prudent to use dynamic analysis.

Kumar E. P. and Naresh A. (2014) studied the seismic analysis of structure by static and dynamic analysis in ordinary moment-resisting frame and special moment resisting frame. Equivalent static analysis and response spectrum analysis were the methods used in structural seismic analysis. They considered a residential building of G+ 15 story for the seismic analysis that was located in zone II. The total structure was analyzed by computer using STAAD.PRO software The static and dynamic analysis of OMRF and SMRF was carried out and it was concluded that,



The special moment resisting frame structure was good in resisting seismic loads.



The results of static analysis in OMRF & SMRF values were low when compared to that of dynamic analysis in OMRF & SMRF values. Hence the performance of dynamic analysis SMRF structure was quite good in resisting the earthquake forces compared to that of the static analysis OMRF & SMRF

7|Page

Patil A.S. and Kumbhar P.D. (2013) studied nonlinear dynamic analysis of a ten storied RCC building considering different seismic intensities and seismic response of the building was studied. The building under consideration was modeled with the help of SAP 2000 Software. Five different time histories had been used considering seismic intensities V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X on Modified Mercalli's Intensity scale (MMI) for the establishment of the relationship between seismic intensities and seismic responses. Authors concluded that similar variation patterns were observed in Seismic responses such as base shear and storey displacements with intensities V to X. From the study it was recommended that analysis of multistoried RCC buildings using Time History method was necessary to ensure safety against earthquake forces.

Mahdi T. and Soltangharaie V. (2012) studied seismic behavior of three concrete intermediate moment-resisting space frames with the unsymmetrical plan in five, seven and ten stories. In each of these three cases, plan configurations of the structure contained reentrant corners. Nonlinear static and linear dynamic procedures had been used to analyze these structures. To measure the accuracy of these two methods, the non-linear dynamic analysis had been used. Although the differences between the results of these two methods with the nonlinear dynamic procedure were quite wide, the linear dynamic analysis showed slightly better results than nonlinear static analysis.

Bagheri B., Firoozabad E. S. and Yahyaei M. (2012) studied static and dynamic analysis of Multi-storey irregular buildings. A 20 storey building had been modeled using software packages ETABS and SAP 2000 v.15 for seismic zone V in India. Dynamic response of building under actual earthquakes, EL-CENTRO 1949 and CHI-CHI Taiwan 1999 had been investigated. The storey plan was changing on different floors. The building had been analyzed by using the equivalent static, response spectrum and time history analysis, based on IS codes. The authors concluded that,



The maximum displacement was increasing from the first storey to the last one as the height of building increased.



The maximum displacement of the center of mass, obtained by time history analysis for both earthquakes on the 16th floor was less than the 15th floor which was against the general trend line. It was as a result of plan properties in those stories where the location of the center of mass changed in X and Y directions. 8|Page



Building with severe irregularity produced more deformation than those with less irregularity, particularly in high seismic zones. Conjointly the storey overturning moment varies inversely with the height of the storey.



The storey base shear for regular building is highest compared to irregular shaped buildings.

2.3 Summary and Observations of Literature Review In this chapter critical review of literature is made to highlight earlier studies in the field of linear static and dynamic analysis of the building. It is observed that the values for bending moment in dynamic values are high initially, for other columns it decreases gradually as compared to that of static analysis. They also got more values for displacement in static analysis of ordinary moment-resisting structures as compared to that of dynamic analysis of some columns. Different response like displacement & base shear were calculated and it was observed that the displacement increased with the building height. The mass irregularity in the structure due to uneven distribution of mass, strength or stiffness or due to the structural form. It is concluded that the results of seismic responses namely base shear, storey displacement and storey drift for both methods are found to be increasing with increasing displacements.

2.4 Scope of the Present Study The present work aims towards analyzing the behavior of a plan with a (G+13) residential building in seismic zone -V. In this work, a base model is created with only slabs, beams, and columns. As per IS 1893:2016 (part 1) linear static and dynamic analysis are carried out by equivalent lateral force method and response spectrum method respectively using ETABS (version 17.0.1). Further study is extended to find out the percentage difference of various response parameters like storey displacement, storey drift, storey shear, etc. And also the comparative analysis of building under construction at different storey level is done.

9|Page

2.5 The Objectives of the Present Study The objectives of the present study are as follows:



To develop the model of 14 storied high rise building considering fixed base using ETABS (version 17.0.1).



Analyse the structure by both equivalent lateral force method and response spectrum method.



To find structural response like storey displacement, storey shear, storey drift of the structure.



To compare the storey displacement and storey drift results for both linear static and dynamic analysis.



To find the base shear of the under construction building.



To compare the base shear results of the under construction building for both linear static and dynamic analysis.

10 | P a g e

Chapter 3

Seismic Analysis Methods

3.1 General Seismic analysis is a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the response of the building structure to earthquake and is a relevant part of structural design where earthquakes are prevalent. The seismic analysis of a structure involves evaluation of the earthquake forces acting at various levels of the structure during an earthquake and the effect of such forces on the behavior of the overall structure. All the structures are generally subjected to two types of loads one is static and the other is dynamic. Static loads are generally subjected to two types of loads one is static and the other is dynamic. Static loads are constant while dynamic loads are time-varying. The seismic load generated during an earthquake is basically a dynamic load. There are different methods of seismic analysis which provide different degrees of accuracy.

3.2 Methods of Analysis Depending upon the type of externally applied loads two type of analysis can be done, which are as follows: 1. Static analysis 2. Dynamic analysis 11 | P a g e

And depending on the behavior of structural components again two types of analysis is possible, which are as follows: 1. Linear analysis. 2. Nonlinear analysis So, based on the type of externally applied loads and behavior of structure of structural components the type of analysis can be further classified as: 1. Linear static analysis 2. Linear dynamic analysis. 3. Non-linear static analysis 4. Non-linear dynamic analysis.

3.2.1 Linear Static Analysis This is a forced based procedure of analysis. This method is an elastic method of analysis, the basic assumption of the elastic method is that the structure will remain elastic under probable loads and hence, the stress-strain relationship will remain linear across the depth of the sections. And the lateral load acting on the structure is considered as static load i.e. the load is independent of time.

3.2.2 Linear Dynamic Analysis This is also an elastic method of analysis i.e. the structure or structural materials will remain in the linear stage. But in this case the force acting on the structure is time-dependent, i.e. the lateral load on the structure is acting dynamically. This analysis will produce an effect of higher modes of vibration and the actual distribution of forces in elastic range in a better way. This method is an improvement over linear static analysis. The significant difference between linear static analysis is the level of force and their distribution along the height of the structure. This method can be performed in two ways, which are as follows:

1. Response spectrum method of Analysis (RSM). 2. Time history method of analysis (THM).

12 | P a g e

3.2.2.1 Response Spectrum Method of Analysis (RSM)

This approach permits the multiple modes of response of a structure to be taken into account. For each mode, a response is read from the design spectrum, based on the modal frequency and the modal mass, and they are combined to provide an estimate of the total response of the structures.

3.2.2.2 Linear Time History Method of Analysis (THM)

In this method, a real earthquake data is used to get the actual structural responses within elastic range under the actual lateral loading and time interval. This method provides more accurate structural behavior than the response spectrum method.

3.3 Code-based Methods of Seismic Analysis The seismic analysis of a structure involves evaluation of the earthquake forces acting at various levels of the structure during an earthquake and the effect of such forces on the behavior of the overall structure. The analysis may be static or dynamic in approach as per the code provisions.

According to IS 1893-2016 (Part 1), the methods linear seismic analysis of structures to compute the earthquake forces are as follows:

1. Equivalent lateral force method of analysis. 2. Response spectrum method of analysis. 3. Time history method of analysis.

3.3.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Method of Analysis

Seismic analysis of most structures are still carried out based on the lateral force assumed to be equivalent to the actual dynamic loading. The base shear which is the total 13 | P a g e

horizontal load on the structure is calculated based on structural mass and fundamental period of vibration and corresponding fundamental mode shape. The base shear is distributed along the height of the structure in terms of lateral forces according to code’s formula. This method is conservative for low to medium height of buildings with a regular configuration.

3.3.2 Response Spectrum Method of Analysis

This method applies to those structures, where, mode shapes other than the fundamental one, also significantly affect the response of the structure. In this method a multi-degree of freedom system is expressed as the superposition of modal response, each modal responses being determined from the special analysis of single degree of freedom system, which are combined to compute the total response. Modal analysis leads to the response history of the structure to a specific ground motion, however the method is usually used in conjunction with a response spectrum. For the analysis of high-rise buildings and buildings with vertical and horizontal irregularity, this method is generally used.

3.3.3 Time History Method of Analysis

The time history analysis overcomes all the disadvantages of modal response spectrum analysis, provided nonlinear behavior is not involved. This method requires greater computation effort to calculate, the response at discrete time. One interesting advantage of such a procedure is that the relative signs of response quantities are preserved in the response histories. This is important when interaction effects are considered in design among stress resultant.

3.4 Analysis Methods adopted in the Present Study In the present work, the linear static and linear dynamic seismic analysis for (G+13) RCC building are carried out by equivalent lateral force method and response spectrum method respectively as per IS 1893:2016 (part 1) by using ETABS software (version 17.0.1). The other

14 | P a g e

Parameters used in seismic analysis are important factor 1, 5 % damping, response reduction factor 5 and the building frame is considered as special RC moment-resisting(SMRF) frame.

15 | P a g e

Chapter 4

Structural Modeling

4.1 General The present study is based on the linear static seismic analysis and linear dynamic seismic analysis of the structure. So, it is very important to develop a computational model in which seismic analysis is going to be performed. The modeling of the structure and analysis has been performed using finite element based software ETABS (version 17.0.1). The first part of the chapter presents the structural geometry, material properties, details of structural elements used. The load considered on the next part of the chapter has seismic design data that is used in the analysis of that structure.

4.2 Building Design Data Table No. 4.1: Building Design Data

S. No

Particulars

Dimension/Size/Value

1.

Model

G+13

2.

Floor height

3m

3.

Building Height

42m

4.

Plan Size

22.5m x 22.5m

5.

Size of columns

700mm x 700mm

6.

Size of beams

300mm x 450mm 16 | P a g e

7.

Thickness of slab

225mm

8.

Thickness of flooring

50mm

9.

Thickness of waterproofing

150mm

10.

Thickness of wall

200mm

11.

Specific wt. of RCC

25 kN/m3

12.

Specific wt. of infill

20 kN/m3

13.

Specific wt. of flooring material

24 kN/m3

14.

Specific wt. of waterproofing material

22 kN/m3

15.

Live load

4 kN/m2

16.

Concrete used

Grade M-40

17.

Reinforcement used

Grade Fe500

Fig. No. 4.1: Beam layout

17 | P a g e

Fig. No. 4.2: Column layout

Fig. No. 4.3: 3D structural model of the building

18 | P a g e

4.3 Section Modifiers According to IS- 1893:2016(Part -1), Clause no: 6.4.3.1: The moment of inertia of column (Ic) is taken as: Ic = 70% of Igross column The moment of inertia of beam (Ib) is taken as: Ib = 35% of Igross beam

4.4 Fundamental Time Period (Ta) The infill walls in upper floors may contain large openings, although the solid walls are considered in load calculations. Therefore, fundamental time period (Ta) is obtained by using the following formula: Ta = 0.075 h0.75 (IS-1893 :2016, Clause 7.6.2a) = 0.075 x (42)0.75 = 1.237 sec

4.5 Seismic Load (EQ) Parameters Seismic loads to be applied for the structure were in accordance with the applicable provision of the IS- 1893-2016(Part 1) and noted below: Table No. 4.2: Seismic Load Parameters

S. No

Particulars

Values/Method/Type

Reference

1.

Seismic zone

V

IS-1893:2016

2.

Seismic factor for zone: V

0.36

IS-1893:2016

3.

Type of soil

Type –II, Medium soil

IS-1893:2016

4.

Structure importance

1.2

IS-1893:2016

coefficient (I) 5.

Fundamental Time period (Ta)

Ta = 1.237 sec

IS-1893:2016

6.

Response reduction factor (R)

5.00

IS-1893:2016

7.

Damping

5%

IS-1893:2016 19 | P a g e

8.

Linear Static analysis

Using Equivalent lateral

IS-1893:2016

force method 9.

Linear Dynamic analysis

Using Response spectrum

IS-1893:2016

method

4.6 Load Combinations Table No. 4.3: Load Combinations

S. No

Load Combination

1.

1.5 ( DL + LL )

2.

1.2 ( DL + LL ± EQX )

3.

1.2 ( DL + LL ± EQY )

4.

1.5 ( DL ± EQX )

5.

1.5 ( DL ± EQY )

6.

0.9DL ± 1.5EQX

7.

0.9DL ± 1.5EQY

8.

1.2(DL + LL ± RSX)

9.

1.2(DL + LL ± RSY)

10.

1.5(DL ± RSX)

11.

1.5(DL ± RSY)

12.

0.9DL ± 1.5RSX

13.

0.9DL ± 1.5RSY

20 | P a g e

Chapter 5

Analysis Results and Discussions

5.1 General The present study in the project report is based on the linear static seismic analysis and linear dynamic seismic analysis of the structure. The linear static seismic analysis is performed by using the equivalent static lateral force method and the dynamic seismic analysis is performed by using the response spectrum method. At first, the manual seismic analysis is done. In the manual analysis, the linear static seismic analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel (version 2016). After that, the linear static analysis and linear dynamic analysis were performed using finite element software ETABS (Version 17.0.1). The forces, displacement, and storey drift at each storey of the structure are obtained from the analysis and tabulated. Then graphs are also prepared for response parameters like base shear, storey displacement, and storey drift.

5.2 Manual Seismic Analysis 5.2.1 Calculation of Lumped Masses to various Floor Levels Floor load for 50 mm thick flooring = 50 x 24 x 10 -3 kN/m2 = 1.2 kN/m2 At Roof load for 150 mm thick waterproofing = 150 x 22 x 10 -3 kN/m2 = 3.3 kN/m2 21 | P a g e

At roof floor level: W14 = Mass of Infill + Mass of columns + Mass of beams in longitudinal and transverse direction of that floor + Mass of slab + Mass of waterproofing layer = ((1.5 – 0.45) x 0.2 x 20 x 270) + ((1.5 – 0.45) x (0.7 x 0.7) x 36 x 25) + ((0.3 x 0.45) x 25 x 270) + ((22.5 x 22.5) x 0.225 x 25) + (3.3 x (22.5 x 22.5)) = 7026.58 kN At 13th, 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd,2nd,1st floor levels: W13 = W12 = W11 = W10 = W9 = W8 = W7 = W6 = W5 = W4 = W3 = W2 = W1 = Mass of Infill + Mass of columns + Mass of beams in longitudinal and transverse direction of that floor + Mass of slab + Mass of flooring + Imposed live load on that floor = ((3 – 0.45) x 0.2 x 20 x 270) + ((3 – 0.45) x (0.7 x 0.7) x 36 x 25) + ((0.3 x 0.45) x 25 x 270) + ((22.5 x 22.5) x 0.225 x 25) + (1.2 x (22.5 x 22.5)) + ((0.5 x 4) x (22.5 x 22.5)) = 9257.46 kN Table No. 5.1: Floor No. and Lumped Mass (kN)

Floor No.

Lumped Mass (kN)

14

W14 = 7026.58

13

W13 = 9257.46

12

W12 = 9257.46

11

W11 = 9257.46

10

W10 = 9257.46

9

W9 = 9257.46

8

W8 = 9257.46

7

W7 = 9257.46

6

W6 = 9257.46

5

W5 = 9257.46

4

W4 = 9257.46

3

W3 = 9257.46

2

W2 = 9257.46

1

W1 = 9257.46 22 | P a g e

5.2.2 Linear Static Analysis by Equivalent Lateral Force Method The equivalent static lateral force method was performed using Microsoft Excel (Version 2016) following the provisions of IS -1893:2016. Table No. 5.2: Seismic Load Parameters for Analysis

Zone

Importance

Response

Fundamental

Design

Factor

Factor (I)

reduction

Natural Time

Acceleration

factor (R)

Period (Ta)

Coefficient ( )

1.237

1.099

(Z) 0.36

1.2

5

𝑺𝒂 𝒈

Table No. 5.3: Calculation of Equivalent Static Lateral Force Method

N

Hi

Wi

(m)

(kN)

Ah

VB

WiHi2

Pi= WiHi2/ (∑ (WiHi2))

Qi=VB

Si

xP

(kN)

12394887.12

0.154

929.971

929.971

(kN)

0.047

6049.68

(kN)

14

42

7026.58

13

39

9257.46

14080596.66

0.175

1056.45

1986.419

12

36

9257.46

11997668.16

0.149

900.168

2886.587

11

33

9257.46

10081373.94

0.125

756.391

3642.978

10

30

9257.46

8331714.00

0.103

625.117

4268.095

9

27

9257.46

6748688.34

0.084

506.345

4774.440

8

24

9257.46

5332296.96

0.066

400.075

5174.514

7

21

9257.46

4082539.86

0.051

306.307

5480.822

6

18

9257.46

2999417.04

0.037

225.042

5705.864

5

15

9257.46

2082928.50

0.026

156.279

5862.143

4

12

9257.46

1333074.24

0.017

100.019

5962.162

3

9

9257.46

749854.26

0.009

56.261

6018.422

2

6

9257.46

333268.56

0.004

25.005

6043.427

1

3

9257.46

83317.14

0.001

6.251

6049.680

Total:

127373.6

80631625

6049.68

23 | P a g e

Here, N = Floor no. Hi = Corresponding floor height Wi = Corresponding lumped mass to each floor Ah = Design horizontal acceleration coefficient VB = Design base shear Qi = Design lateral force at corresponding floor Si = Storey shear at corresponding floor level

Fig. No. 5.1: Storey No. Vs Storey Shear (kN)

Fig. No. 5.2: Storey No. Vs Lateral Force (kN)

24 | P a g e

5.3 Seismic Analysis by Software The linear static analysis and linear dynamic analysis were performed in finite element based software ETABS (version 17.0.1).

5.3.1 Linear Static Analysis by Equivalent Lateral Force Method 5.3.1.1 Storey Shear The storey shear on each storey of the structure during an earthquake depends on the structural mass of the building and the fundamental natural period of the building. Table No. 5.4: Storey Shear (kN) corresponding to Storey Level

Storey No.

Height (m)

Storey Shear (kN)

14

42

937.2969

13

39

2000.0119

12

36

2905.5206

11

33

3666.3994

10

30

4295.2249

9

27

4804.5735

8

24

5207.0218

7

21

5515.1463

6

18

5741.5235

5

15

5898.7298

4

12

5999.3419

3

9

6055.9362

2

6

6081.0892

1

3

6087.3775

25 | P a g e

Fig. No. 5.3: Storey No. Vs Storey Shear (kN)

5.3.1.2 Lateral Force Table No. 5.5: Lateral Force (kN) corresponding to Storey Level

Storey No.

Height (m)

Lateral Force (kN)

14

42

937.2969

13

39

1062.715

12

36

905.5087

11

33

760.8788

10

30

628.8255

9

27

509.3486

8

24

402.4483

7

21

308.1245

6

18

226.3772

5

15

157.2064

4

12

100.6121

3

9

56.5943

2

6

25.153

1

3

6.2883

26 | P a g e

Fig. No. 5.4: Storey No. Vs Lateral Force (kN)

5.3.1.3 Storey Displacement Table No. 5.6: Storey Displacement (mm) corresponding to Storey Level

Storey No.

Height (m)

Storey Displacement (mm)

14

42

103.255

13

39

100.637

12

36

96.788

11

33

91.609

10

30

85.213

9

27

77.776

8

24

69.489

7

21

60.532

6

18

51.073

5

15

41.272

4

12

31.297

3

9

21.374

2

6

11.924

1

3

3.94

27 | P a g e

Fig. No. 5.5: Storey No. Vs Storey Displacement (mm)

Fig. No. 5.6: Deformed shape of the building due to EQX load

28 | P a g e

5.3.1.4 Storey Drift Storey drift is defined as the difference between the lateral displacement of one floor relative to the other floor. The storey drifts corresponding to each storey are listed in table no. 5.7: Table No. 5.7: Storey Drift (m) corresponding to Storey Level

Storey No.

Height (m)

Storey Drift (m)

14

42

0.000876

13

39

0.001283

12

36

0.001726

11

33

0.002132

10

30

0.002479

9

27

0.002762

8

24

0.002986

7

21

0.003153

6

18

0.003267

5

15

0.003325

4

12

0.003309

3

9

0.003153

2

6

0.002667

1

3

0.001313

Fig. No. 5.7: Storey No Vs. Storey Drift (m)

29 | P a g e

5.3.1.5 Base Shear of under Construction Building Table No. 5.8: Base Shear of under construction building

Storey Completed

Base Shear (kN)

14

6087.378

13

6047.064

12

5934.399

11

5806.421

10

5659.780

9

5502.436

8

5336.714

7

5153.884

6

4953.416

5

4732.039

4

3952.274

3

2946.345

2

1940.421

1

934.487

Fig. No. 5.8: Base Shear of under construction building

30 | P a g e

5.3.1.6 General Observations From the linear static analysis, the following observations are mentioned below: 

The storey shear decreases from lower storey to upper storey.



The storey displacement increases from lower storey to upper storey.



The storey drift increases from lower storey up to a certain height, after that it decreases.



The base shear for under construction building increases with increase in storey level.

5.3.2 Linear Dynamic Analysis by Response Spectrum Method 5.3.2.1 Scale Factor (SF) For analysis of the structure, the scale factor in the first run was taken as, SF1= (10 x I x g) / (2 x R) = (10 x 1.2 x 9.81) / (2 x 5) SF1= 11.772 After that by comparing the dynamic base shear found in the first run with the static base shear the scale factor (SF) was modified. So, the final scale factor (SF) was, As per clause no. 7.7.3 of IS-1893:(part 1)-2016, SF= (6087.3775/3737.3844) x SF1 SF= 1.629 x 11.772 SF= 19.17 5.3.2.2 Storey Shear Table No. 5.9: Storey Shear(kN) corresponding to Storey Level

Storey No.

Height (m)

Storey Shear (kN)

14

42

6086.1077

13

39

5948.8544

12

36

5696.3846

11

33

5392.2118

31 | P a g e

10

30

5081.5227

9

27

4786.2238

8

24

4503.983

7

21

4222.9132

6

18

3926.2399

5

15

3587.3068

4

12

3175.3694

3

9

2643.3483

2

6

1942.6973

1

3

1000.234

Fig. No. 5.9: Storey No. Vs Storey Shear (kN)

5.3.2.3 Mode Shapes

Mode Shape- 1

Mode Shape- 2

32 | P a g e

Mode Shape- 3

Mode Shape- 4

Mode Shape- 5

Mode Shape- 6

Mode Shape- 7

Mode Shape- 8

33 | P a g e

Mode Shape- 9

Mode Shape- 10

Mode Shape- 11

Mode Shape- 12

Mode Shape- 13

Mode Shape- 14

34 | P a g e

Mode Shape- 15

Mode Shape- 16

Mode Shape- 17

Mode Shape- 18

Mode Shape- 19

Mode Shape- 20 Fig. No. 5.10: Mode Shapes

35 | P a g e

Table No. 5.10: Modal Period (sec) and Modal Mass Participating Ratios

Mode Shape No.

Modal Period (sec) Modal Participating Mass Ratios

1

2.146

0.7877

2

2.146

0.7878

3

1.993

0.7878

4

0.687

0.8868

5

0.687

0.8868

6

0.383

0.9255

7

0.383

0.9256

8

0.251

0.9311

9

0.251

0.9477

10

0.178

0.9514

11

0.178

0.9623

12

0.133

0.9649

13

0.133

0.9728

14

0.103

0.9747

15

0.102

0.9813

16

0.082

0.983

17

0.076

0.9903

18

0.062

0.9922

19

0.050

0.9986

20

0.046

0.9999

5.3.2.4 Storey Displacement Table No. 5.11: Storey Displacement (mm) corresponding to Storey Level

Storey No.

Height (m)

Storey Displacement (mm)

14

42

49.696

13

39

48.628

12

36

47.067

11

33

44.960

10

30

42.332 36 | P a g e

9

27

39.228

8

24

35.684

7

21

31.727

6

18

27.376

5

15

22.649

4

12

17.585

3

9

12.280

2

6

6.985

1

3

2.344

Fig. No. 5.11: Storey No. Vs Storey Displacement

37 | P a g e

Fig. No. 5.12: Deformed shape of the building under RSX load

5.3.2.5 Storey Drift Storey drift is defined as the difference between the lateral displacement of one floor relative to the other floor. The storey drifts corresponding to each storey are listed in table no. 5.12: Table No. 5.12: Storey Drift (m) corresponding to Storey Level

Storey No.

Height (m)

Storey Drift (m)

14

42

0.00048

13

39

0.000693

12

36

0.000906

11

33

0.001086

10

30

0.001233

9

27

0.001355

8

24

0.001459

7

21

0.001555

38 | P a g e

6

18

0.001646

5

15

0.001729

4

12

0.001788

3

9

0.001773

2

6

0.001552

1

3

0.000781

Fig. 5.13: Storey No. Vs Storey Drift (m)

5.3.2.6 Base Shear of under Construction Building Table No. 5.13: Base Shear of under construction building

Storey Completed

Base Shear (kN)

14

6085.532

13

6047.191

12

5923.536

11

5806.607

10

5659.786

9

5502.607

8

5335.221

7

5153.882

6

4953.407

5

4732.037 39 | P a g e

4

3952.269

3

2946.272

2

1984.871

1

1073.795

Fig. No. 5.14: Base Shear of under construction building

5.3.2.7 General Observations From the linear dynamic analysis, the following observations are mentioned below: 

The storey shear decreases from lower storey to upper storey.



The storey displacement increases from lower storey to upper storey.



The storey drift increases from lower storey up to a certain height, after that it decreases.



The base shear for under construction building increases with increase in storey level.

40 | P a g e

5.4 Comparative Study 5.4.1 Comparison of Storey Displacement Table No. 5.14: Comparison of storey displacement

Storey No.

Storey Displacement in

Storey Displacement in

Linear Static

Linear Dynamic

Analysis (mm)

Analysis (mm)

14

103.255

49.696

13

100.637

48.628

12

96.788

47.067

11

91.609

44.960

10

85.213

42.332

9

77.776

39.228

8

69.489

35.684

7

60.532

31.727

6

51.073

27.376

5

41.272

22.649

4

31.297

17.585

3

21.374

12.280

2

11.924

6.985

1

3.94

2.344

Fig. No. 5.15: Comparison of storey displacement

41 | P a g e

5.4.2 Comparison of Storey Drift Table No. 5.15: Comparison of storey drift

Storey No.

Storey Drift in Linear

Storey Drift in Linear

Static Analysis (m)

Dynamic Analysis (m)

14

0.000876

0.00048

13

0.001283

0.000693

12

0.001726

0.000906

11

0.002132

0.001086

10

0.002479

0.001233

9

0.002762

0.001355

8

0.002986

0.001459

7

0.003153

0.001555

6

0.003267

0.001646

5

0.003325

0.001729

4

0.003309

0.001788

3

0.003153

0.001773

2

0.002667

0.001552

1

0.001313

0.000781

Fig. No. 5.16: Comparison of storey drift

42 | P a g e

5.4.3 Base Shear Comparison of under Construction Building Table No. 5.16: Base Shear Comparison of under construction building

Storey Completed

Base Shear in Linear

Base Shear in Linear

Static Analysis (kN)

Dynamic Analysis (kN)

14

6087.378

6085.532

13

6047.064

6045.866

12

5934.399

5934.374

11

5806.421

5805.518

10

5659.780

5659.773

9

5502.436

5502.399

8

5336.714

5356.525

7

5153.884

5153.822

6

4953.416

4952.789

5

4732.039

4730.735

4

3952.274

3951.961

3

2946.345

2945.988

2

1940.421

1976.335

1

934.487

1121.694

Fig. No. 5.17: Base Shear Comparison of under construction building

43 | P a g e

Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions

6.1 Summary An earthquake may cause injury and loss of life, road and bridge damage, general property damage and collapse or destabilization (potentially leading to future collapse) of buildings. The aftermath may bring disease, lack of necessities, mental consequences such as panic attacks, depression to survivors.

To prevent the mass-scale destruction which occurs during the earthquake, seismic analysis of multi-storied buildings must be done according to IS 1893. It should be made mandatory for high rise buildings and longer their service life.

In this work, we have done linear static and linear dynamic seismic analysis of 14 storey building by equivalent lateral force method and response spectrum method respectively using finite element software ETABS (version 17.0.1) and storey shears are calculated. After that storey displacement and storey drift in both methods are compared. Then the base shear analysis corresponding to different storey levels of building under construction are also done and the results are compared.

44 | P a g e

6.2 Conclusion The following conclusions have been drawn from the analysis of complete 14 storied building, which are listed as follows: -



The difference of values of storey displacement between static and dynamic analysis is insignificant for lower stories but the difference is increased in higher stories and static analysis gives higher values than dynamic analysis.



The difference of values of storey drift between static and dynamic analysis increases from lower storey with increase in height up to a certain limit, after that the difference decreases and static analysis gives higher values than dynamic analysis.



The maximum storey drift allowed is 0.004 times of storey height. Here in both analysis studies, the maximum storey drift is lower than the safe limit. So, the building is safe in case of storey drift.



The results of equivalent lateral force method static analysis are approximately uneconomical because the values of displacements and drifts are higher than dynamic analysis



In the case of both equivalent static lateral force method and response spectrum method, the static and dynamic base shears corresponding to different storey levels of building under construction steadily increase with increase in storey level.



As all the base shears corresponding to storey levels other than the 14 storey is lesser than design base shear, i.e. 14 storied building base shear. So, we can cay the building is safe in earthquake in under construction phase.

45 | P a g e

REFERENCES

1. Balaji U. and Selvarasan M.E. “Design and Analysis of Multi Storied Building Under Static and Dynamic Loading Condition Using ETABS.” International Journal of Technical Research and Applications Volume 4, Issue 4. (July-Aug, 2016) 2. Gottala A. and Yajdhani S. “Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Seismic Analysis of Multistoried Building.” IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 01 | July 2015. 3. Patil M. N. and Sonawane Y. N. “Seismic Analysis of Multistoried Building”, International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT), Volume 4, Issue 9, March 2015. 4. Sultan M. R. and Peera D. G. “Dynamic Analysis of Multi-storey building for different shapes”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE), Issue 8, Volume 2 (August 2015). 5. Sharma M. and Maru S. “Dynamic Analysis of Multistoried Regular Building.” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684, pISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 11, Issue 1 Ver. II (Jan. 2014). 6. Mahesh S. and Rao B. P. “Comparison of analysis and design of regular and irregular configuration of multi-story building in various seismic zones and various types of soils using ETABS and STAAD”, Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSRJMCE), Volume 11, Issue 6 (Nov- Dec. 2014).

46 | P a g e

7. Win N. N. and Htat K. L. “Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic Analysis of Irregular Reinforced Concrete Building due to Earthquake”, International journal of scientific engineering and technology research, Volume3, Issue7, May-2014. 8. Kumar E. P. and Naresh A. “Earthquake Analysis of Multi Storied Residential Building - A Case Study”, E. Pavan Kumar et al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 4, Issue 11(Version 1), November 2014, pp.5964 9. Patil A.S. and Kumbhar P.D. “Time History Analysis of Multistoried RCC Building for Different Seismic Intensities”, Int. J. Struct. & Civil Engg, Vol. 2, No. 3. August 2013. 10. Mahdi T. and Soltangharaie V. “Static and Dynamic Analyses of Asymmetric Reinforced Concrete Frame”2012. 11. Bagheri B., Firoozabad E. S. and Yahyaei M. “Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Storey Irregular Building” International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering Vol:6, No:11, 2012.

47 | P a g e