International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

Effect Of Area And Height Of Building On Lateral Forces Using Scm And Rsm
Abhay W. Khorgade, R. V. R. K. Prasad
(PG, student Department of Civil Engineering, K.D.K.C.E Nagpur)*
(Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K.D.K.C.E Nagpur)**

ABSTRACT:
In the present paper, a comparative study of seismic coefficient method and response spectrum method using
STAAD software with IS1893 (Part1:2002). For these purpose three different storey buildings having plan
areas 100, 200 and 300m2are analyzed using STAAD software and the results obtained are compared using
seismic coefficient method & response spectrum method mentioned in IS 1893:2002. It is important to note
that the study is conducted for variation in geometrical properties of building but the seismic properties for all
these buildings is same. The buildings are located in zone IV region. The results obtained for base shear and
other design parameters obtained from STAAD software match with IS1893:2002. The value of base shear
obtained by seismic coefficient method and response spectrum method was also compared. In addition to this
lateral force distribution obtained from SCM and RSM are also compared. After analysis these buildings are
also designed for the results obtained from seismic coefficient method and response spectrum method. The
percentage variation in concrete and steel consumption by the two methods is also studied.

1. INTRODUCTION:

IJE
RT

Keywords: Response spectrum method, seismic coefficient method, STAAD software, base shear.

Structures constructed in seismically active areas are subjected to the risk from earthquakes. The degree of
seismic protection and level of acceptable structural damage depend on many design consideration. Generally
accepted seismic design philosophy requires that the structure should be able to resist minor earthquakes without
damage but with possibility of some non structural damage and resist major earthquakes without collapse, but
may suffer some structural and non structural damage. Research efforts are being made to understand
earthquake loading properly and to make structural analysis more and more refined. With the availability of
computing machines, analysis and design of structures is being done using computer software. For a framed
building, modeling comprises of beams and columns along with the loads applied and boundary condition.
Usually, in computer oriented structural analysis, three-dimensional models of buildings are used. After
achieving a reasonably good structural model, next stage is to use appropriate analysis method to obtain seismic
response.
In India, IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, is used to calculate earthquake loads on the
structures. In this Indian Standard, three methods of analysis are given. In the first method, which is used for
most of the buildings, static earthquake loads are obtained at each floor of building using empirical time period.
This method is termed as Equivalent Static Analysis (ESA) or Seismic Coefficient Method (SCM); it is very
easy to use and is based on empirical time period and empirical distribution of earthquake loads on each floor
along the height of the building. Next method given in IS 1893 is Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA), wherein,
from the structural model of building, natural frequencies and natural modes are obtained. For this purpose, free
vibration analysis is performed, wherein mass of structure is to be properly modeled. The mass of slab and mass
corresponding to appropriate amount of imposed load are considered along with the mass of beam and column.
Using natural frequencies and mode shapes, static earthquake loads and response in each mode are obtained.
These modal responses are combined using any one modal combination rules, i.e. Sum of Square Root of
Squares (SRSS), Combined Quadratic Combination (CQC) and Absolute Sum (ABS). The third method given
in IS 1893 is Time History Analysis (THA). In the time history analysis (THA), dynamic response is obtained
by using either modal superposition method or numerical integration method. Here time history of ground
acceleration is used and dynamic response in the form of time history of response is obtained. It is to be noted
that if modal superposition method is used to obtain dynamic response, then modal responses are combined
using algebraic sum.

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

913

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

RSA uses modal quantities such as modal frequencies, modal mass etc. Response spectrum is
more rigorous than equivalent static analysis. Due to combination of modes by different methods one can get
good results while performing response spectrum analysis. In the RSA also static loads are calculated, which are
obtained using modal properties of structure. The modal combination rules have a very peculiar property i.e. in
these combinations; sign of modal response is lost. The modal combination rules, wherein maximum modal
responses are considered are used only in RSA.
The present study discusses comparative study between seismic coefficient
and response spectrum method as per IS 1893:2002 is presented. STAAD software is used for numerical study.
For comparison of the seismic methods of G+3, G+5 and G+7 buildings having plan area 100, 200 and 300m2
are modeled and analyzed using STAAD. As per Indian code (IS 1893:2002) earthquake zones are classified
into four zones namely II, III, IV and V. In the present study the geometrical properties of building are varied
but the seismic properties for all these buildings are same. The buildings are located in zone IV region.
Moreover the results are further compared with the different methods used for analysis. The results obtained for
base shear and other design parameters obtained from STAAD software match with IS1893:2002. The value of
base shear obtained by seismic coefficient method and response spectrum method was also compared. After
obtaining the analysis results, the buildings are designed for its structural components. And a comparative study
of the design results obtained by these two methods is also explained.

2. MODELING IN STAAD:

IJE
RT

STAAD is powerful design software licensed by Bentley. Staad stands for structural analysis and
design. Any object which is stable under a given loading can be considered as structure. So first find
the outline of the structure, where as analysis is the estimation of what are the type of loads that acts
on the beam and calculation of shear force and bending moment comes under analysis stage. Design
phase is designing the type of materials and its dimensions to resist the load. This we do after the
analysis. To calculate S.F.D and B.M.D of a complex loading beam it takes about an hour. So when it
comes into the building with several members it will take a week. STAAD pro is a very powerful tool
which does this job in just few minutes. STAAD is a best alternative for high rise buildings. To
perform dynamic analysis in STAAD following steps must be followed:
i. Geometric Modeling
ii. Sectional Properties
iii. Material Properties
iv. Supports : Boundary Conditions
v. Loads & Load combinations (Dynamic)
vi. Special Commands
vii. Analysis Specification
viii. Design command

Geometric Modeling
To model any structure in STAAD the first step is to specify the nodal co-ordinate data followed by
selection of elements from element library. For the present work beam elements are selected to model
the structure.
Sectional & Material Properties
The element selected for modeling is then assigned the properties if the element is beam the cross
section of beam is assigned. For plate elements thickness is assigned. After assigning the sectional
property to the member it is important to assign it with member properties. Material properties include
modulus of elasticity, poissons ratio; weight density, thermal coefficient, damping ratio and shear
modulus

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

914

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

Support and boundary condition

After assigning the sectional and material properties, boundary condition is assigned to the structure
in form of fixed, hinged and roller support to structure. In the present work boundary condition is
assigned in form of fixed support.
Load and load combination
Loads are a primary consideration in any building design because they define the nature and
magnitudes of hazards are external forces that a building must resist to provide a reasonable
performance (i.e., safety and serviceability) throughout the structures useful life. The anticipated
loads are influenced by a buildings intended use (occupancy and function), configuration (size and
shape) and location (climate and site conditions). Ultimately, the type and magnitude of design loads
affect critical decisions such as material collection, construction details and architectural
configuration. Thus, to optimize the value (i.e., performance versus economy) of the finished product,
it is essential to apply design loads realistically. In the present project works following loads are
considered for analysis.
Dead Loads (IS- 875 PART 1):

IJE
RT

Dead loads consist of the permanent construction material loads compressing the roof, floor, wall, and
foundation systems, including claddings, finishes and fixed equipment. In the study following loads
are taken under dead load. Figure1 shows the dead load assigned to G+3 building in STAAD.
Slab Weight
Loads on beams of walls
Slab Weight Calculation:
Thickness of slab=0.15m
Density of concrete= 25kN/m3
Self Weight of slab= Density of concrete x Thickness of slab
= 25x0.15
= 3.75kN/m2
Floor Finish at floor level = 1 kN/m2
Water Proofing at Terrace =2 kN/m2
Total Slab Weight at floor level= 4.75 kN/m2
Total Slab Weight at terrace = 5.75 kN/m2

Wall load calculation:

Width of the wall=230mm
Beam size=300x450mm
Height of the wall=3.6m
Wall Weight = Thickness of wall x Height of wall x Density of brick wall
= 0.23 x (3.6-0.45) x 20
= 14.49kN/m
Weight of parapet wall = 0.23 x 1 x 20
= 4.6kN/m

Figure 1 STAAD model showing dead load.

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

915

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

Live Loads (IS 875 PART 2):

Live loads are produced by the use and occupancy of a building. Loads include those from human
occupants, furnishings, no fixed equipment, storage, and construction and maintenance activities. In
staad we assign live load in terms of U.D.L .we has to create a load case for live load and select all the
beams to carry such load. The following loads come under live loads. Figure 2 shows STAAD model
subjected to live load.
Floor load
Floor load:
Live Load Intensity specified = 4 kN/m2
Live Load at roof level =1.5 kN/m2

IJE
RT

Figure 2STAAD model showing live load.

In addition to the above mentioned loads some generated loads are also applied to the structure in
STAAD. The generated load cases assigned to the structure are as follows:
1. Wind Load
2. Seismic Co-efficient Method
3. Repetitive Moving Load
In the present work only seismic load is assigned to the structure. In addition to this dynamic loads are
assigned to the structure in form of Response Spectrum. STAAD also uses IS 1893 2002 (Part 1)
parameters mentioned below to evaluate seismic output parameters in form of design seismic
coefficient, base shear storey shear and mass participation factor.
1. Seismic Zone Coefficient
2. Response Reduction Factor
3. Importance Factor
4. Soil Site Factor
5. Type of Structure
6. Damping Ratio (obtain Multiplication Factor for Sa/g)
7. Depth of Foundation below Ground Level

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

916

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

After assigning the primary and generated load case to the structure the combination of loads are
assigned. Table 1 shows primary and load combination assigned to the structure.
Table 1 Primary and Load combination
Type
L/C
Name
DL
Primary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

LL
EQX+
EQXEQZ+
EQZ1.5(DL+LL)
1.5(DL+EQX+)
1.5(DL+EQX-)
1.5(DL+EQZ+)
1.5(DL+EQZ-)
1.2(DL+LL+EQX+)
1.2(DL+LL+EQX-)
1.2(DL+LL+EQZ+)
1.2(DL+LL+EQZ-)
0.9DL+1.5EQX+
0.9DL+1.5EQX0.9DL+1.5EQZ+
0.9DL+1.5EQZ-

IJE
RT

Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Combination
Combination
`Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination

3. Seismic Analysis Results in STAAD

Using STAAD software G+3, G+5 and G+7 building models are analyzed. Figure 3 shows the plan of 100m2,
200m2 and 300m2 models selected for analyzing G+3, G+5 and G+7 buildings. The results obtained from
seismic analysis of building model by SCM and RSM are summarized as shown by 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively.
The seismic parameters taken for seismic analysis of building by using seismic coefficient method (SCM) and
response spectrum analysis (RSM) are as follows. Table 2, 3 and 4 shows the geometrical properties and
sectional properties taken for analyzing G+3, G+5 and G+7 buildings.

Figure 3 Plan of G+3, G +5 and G+7 models selected for analysis

Table 2 Geometrical and Sectional Properties (G+3 Building)
Floor Height =3.6m

Structural Member

Size (mm)

Total Height of Building (h) =16.4 m

Beam (R2)

300x450

Depth of foundation =2 m

Column (R1)
Slab

300x300
150

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

917

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

Table 3 Geometrical and Sectional Properties (G+5 Building)

Floor Height =3.6m

Structural Member

Size (mm)

Total Height of Building (h) =16.4 m

Beam (R2)

300x450

Depth of foundation =2 m

Column (R1)
Slab

400x400
150

Table 4 Geometrical and Sectional Properties (G+7 Building)

Floor Height =3.6m

Structural Member

Size (mm)

Total Height of Building (h) =16.4 m

Beam (R2)

300x450

Depth of foundation =2 m

Column (R1)
Slab

500x500
150

1. Zone factor = 0.24

2. Response Reduction factor = 5
3. Importance Factor =1.5
4. Type of soil strata= 2
5. Damping =5%

IJE
RT

Seismic Load Parameters:

Table 5 Comparison of Base shear by SCM and RSM

Storey
G+3:100m2
G+3:200m2
G+3:300m2
G+5:100m2
G+5:200m2
G+5:300m2
G+7:100m2
G+7:200m2
G+7:300m2

Plan area
100

200

IJERTV2IS70452

Base shear kN
(vB) (SCM)
615.86
1159.31
1896.19
705.44
1635.66
2168.38
736.96
1706.20
2442.14

Base shear kN
(vb) (RSM)
189.52
348.89
480.28
259.06
538.37
673.54
329.04
584.78
799.19

vB/Vb
3.25
3.32
3.95
2.72
3.04
3.22
2.24
2.92
3.06

Table65Comparison of storey shear G+3 Building (SCM & RSM)

Floor
SCM
RSM
% Change in
(kN)
(kN)
Storey Shear
Third Floor
216.56
57.75
73.33
Second Floor
220.27
59.91
72.80
First Floor
137.7
34.79
74.73
Ground Floor
37.3
32.23
13.59
Plinth level
3.32
4.84
45.78
Base shear
615.86
189.52
69.23
Third floor
411.45
104.24
74.67
Second floor
412.53
111.65
72.94

www.ijert.org

918

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

Plan area
100

200

300

IJERTV2IS70452

250.4
78.96
6.03
1159.31
620.7
764.7
364.0
134.8
10.9
1896.19

65.29
59.32
8.39
348.89
135.8
159.97
91.53
82.36
11.1
480.28

73.93
24.87
39.14
69.91
78.12
79.08
74.85
38.90
1.83
74.67

Table 7Comparison of storey shear G+5 Building (SCM & RSM)

Floor
SCM
RSM
% Change in Storey Shear
(kN)
(kN)
Fifth Floor
183.9
56.24
69.42
Fourth Floor
213.6
72.56
66.03
Third Floor
143.7
41.09
71.41
Second Floor
92.25
29.55
67.97
First Floor
46.84
27.85
40.54
Ground Floor
19.78
27.8
40.55
Plinth level
5.34
3.97
25.66
Base shear
705.44
259.06
63.28
Fifth Floor
479.56
119.60
73.54
Fourth Floor
556.68
132.07
73.42
Third Floor
284.61
93.33
64.82
Second Floor
173.37
77.98
65.88
First Floor
105.40
57.36
24.09
Ground Floor
33.25
51.21
39.27
Plinth level
2.79
6.82
1.38
Base shear
67.08
1635.66
538.37
Fifth Floor
548.43
135.95
75.21
Fourth Floor
671.4
188.2
71.97
Third Floor
451.28
116.15
74.26
Second Floor
295.22
76.8
73.99
First Floor
145.5
81.15
44.23
Ground Floor
52.70
67.78
28.61
Plinth level
4.28
8.11
89.49
Base shear
2168.38
673.54
68.94

IJE
RT

300

First Floor
Ground floor
Plinth level
Base shear
Third floor
Second floor
First Floor
Ground floor
Plinth level
Base shear

www.ijert.org

919

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

Table 8Comparison of storey shear G+7 Building (SCM & RSM)

Floor

SCM

100

Seventh Floor
Sixth Floor

141.88
195.6

Fifth Floor
Fourth Floor
Third Floor

147.22
105.78
71.25

Second Floor

43.44

First Floor

22.42

Ground Floor

8.32

Plinth level

1.05

Base shear
Seventh Floor

736.96
350.3

Sixth Floor

443.7

Fifth Floor
Fourth Floor

338.78
240

Third Floor

161.4

Second Floor

98.18

First Floor

50.73

Ground Floor

18.76

Plinth level

4.5

Base shear
Seventh Floor
Sixth Floor
Fifth Floor
Fourth Floor
Third Floor
Second Floor
First Floor
Ground Floor
Plinth level
Base shear

1706.20
538.45
633.0
476.56
342.22
230.18
120.2
72.46
26.82
2.25
2442.14

200

300

RSM

IJE
RT

Plan area

60.97

% Change in
Storey Shear
57.03

78.95
46.42
32.1

59.64
68.47
69.65

28.57

59.90

25.68

40.88

28.46

26.94

24.33

1.92

3.56
329.04

2.39
55.35

106.09

69.71

138.19
86.61

68.86
74.43

59.0

75.42

50.55

68.68

47.47

51.65

50.82

0.18

40.83

1.17

5.22
584.78
127.84
188
134.92
84.86
63.36
70.41
74.27
49.87
5.66
799.19

16.00
65.73
76.26
70.30
71.69
75.20
72.47
41.42
2.50
85.94
1.51
67.28

The above results are summarized for base shear and figure 4 shows the comparison of base shear for
different buildings by SCM and RSM. The percentage variation of base shear by SCM and RSM is also
plotted as shown by figure 5 and 5A.

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

920

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

IJE
RT

Figure 4 Comparison of base shear for different buildings by RSM and SCM.

Graph shows percentage variation in base shear by change in plan area (Fig 5)

Graph shows percentage variation in base shear by change in height . (fig 5A)

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

921

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

The total quantity of concrete and steel required in the constructions of these buildings by SCM and
RSM is also summarized by table 9and 10 respectively. A plot of quantity of concrete and steel
obtained from SCM and RSM is also presented. Figure 8 shows the comparison of concrete quantity
obtained by SCM and RSM whereas Figure 9 shows the comparison of steel quantity obtained by SCM
and RSM

Table 9 Comparison of Quantity of concrete by SCM and RSM

Concrete (m3) (RSM)

G+3 :100

204.3

164.42

G+3 :200

379.72

304.60

G+3 :300

567.71

456.32

G+5 :100

353.86

289.62

G+5 :200

714.77

566.16

G+5 :300

935.4

755.96

G+7 :100

524.41

430.1

G+7 :200

884.86

701.86

1296.73

1119.35

G+7 :300

IJE
RT

Concrete (m3) (SCM)

Table 10 Comparison of Quantity of steel by SCM and RSM

IJERTV2IS70452

Steel(MT) (SCM)

Steel (RSM)

G+3 :100

18.00

15.80

G+3 :200

34.94

29.50

G+3 :300

49.30

44.10

G+5 :100

25.14

22.26

G+5 :200

47.50

40.90

G+5 :300

68.50

59.37

G+7 :100

33.80

29.65

G+7 :200

62.22

54.00

G+7 :300

90.56

79.02

www.ijert.org

922

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

IJE
RT

Figure 8 Comparison of Concrete Quantity by SCM and RSM

Figure 9 Comparison of Steel Quantity by SCM and RSM

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

In the present study, an attempt is made to compare the results obtained from SCM and RSM using STAAD and
IS 1893:2002. Different models of G+3, G+5 and G+7 are prepared in STAAD. The seismic analysis is carried
out taking into consideration that all the buildings are located in zone IV. In addition, design of all these models
is also done. Schedule for beams columns slabs and footings were also prepared for these buildings. At the end
quantity of concrete and steel requirement by SCM and RSM was also evaluated for these models. In the next
section all the conclusions obtained from the present study is discussed.
The major conclusions drawn from the present study are as follows:
1. For G+3 building, due to increase in plan area the variation in base shear by SCM and RSM increases.
2. For G+3 building the percentage variation in base shear for 100m2 is 69.23% and for 200m2 and 300m2
is 69.91% and 74.67% respectively
3. For G+5 building, due to increase in plan area the variation base shear by SCM and RSM increases.
4. For G+5 building the percentage variation in base shear for 100m2 is 63.28% and for 200m2 and 300m2
is 65.47% and 68.94% respectively
5. For G+7 building, due to increase in plan area the variation base shear by SCM and RSM increases.
6. For G+7 building the percentage variation in base shear for 100m2 is 55.35% and for 200m2 and 300m2
is 65.73% and 67.28% respectively
7. For 100m2 plan area and increase in height of building the percentage variation in base shear by SCM
and RSM reduces.

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

923

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

For 100m2 plan area the percentage variation in base shear for G+3 building is 69.23% and for G+5
and G+7 building is 63.28% and 55.35% respectively
For 200m2 plan area and increase in height of building the percentage variation in base shear by SCM
and RSM reduces.
For 200m2 plan area the percentage variation in base shear for G+3 building is 69.91% and for G+5
and G+7 building is 67.08% and 65.73% respectively
For 300m2 plan area and increase in height of building the percentage variation in base shear by SCM
and RSM reduces.
For 300m2 plan area the percentage variation in base shear for G+3 building is 74.67% and for G+5
and G+7 building is 68.94% and 67.28% respectively.
The quantity of concrete required for G+3:100m 2 , G+3:200m2 and G+3:300m2 is obtained as 204.3,
379.72 and 567.71 m3 respectively by SCM
The quantity of concrete required for G+3:100m 2 , G+3:200m2 and G+3:300m2 is obtained as
164.42, 304.6 and 456.32 m3 respectively by RSM
The quantity of concrete required for G+5:100m 2 , G+5:200m2 and G+5:300m2 is obtained as
353.86, 714.77and 935.4 m3 respectively by SCM
The quantity of concrete required for G+5:100m 2 , G+5:200m2 and G+3:300m2 is obtained as
289.62, 516.66and 755.96 m3 respectively by RSM
The quantity of concrete required for G+7:100m 2 , G+7:200m2 and G+7:300m2 is obtained as
524.41, 884.86and 1296.73m3 respectively by SCM
The quantity of concrete required for G+7:100m 2 , G+7:200m2 and G+7:300m2 is obtained as 430.1,
701.86and 1119.35m3 respectively by RSM
The quantity of steel required for G+3:100m 2 , G+3:200m2 and G+3:300m2 is obtained as 18.0,
34.94 and 49.3MT respectively by SCM
The quantity of steel required for G+3:100m 2 , G+3:200m2 and G+3:300m2 is obtained as 15.8, 29.5
and 44.1MT respectively by RSM
The quantity of steel required for G+5:100m 2 , G+5:200m2 and G+5:300m2 is obtained as 25.14,
47.5 and 68.5MT respectively by SCM
The quantity of steel required for G+5:100m 2 , G+5:200m2 and G+5:300m2 is obtained as 22.26,
40.9 and 59.37MT respectively by RSM
The quantity of steel required for G+7:100m 2 , G+7:200m2 and G+7:300m2 is obtained as 33.8,
62.22and 90.56MT respectively by SCM
The quantity of steel required for G+7:100m 2 , G+7:200m2 and G+7:300m2 is obtained as 29.65,
54.0 and 79.02MT respectively by RSM

IJE
RT

8.

5. REFERENCES
Agarwal, P., Shrikhande, M. (2006) Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Prentice-Hall of India.
Ahirwar, S.K., Jain, S.K., and Pande, M. M. (2008). Earthquake loads on multistory buildings as per
IS1893-1984 and IS: 1893-2002: a comparative study. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October 12-17.
3. Autocad (2010). Software application for computer aided design and drafting, Autodesk, U.S.A.
4. Bagheri, B., Firoozabad, E.S., and Yahyaei, M. (2012). Comparative study of static and dynamic analysis
of multi storey irregular building. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 71, 19201924.
5. Freeman, S.A. (2007). Response spectra as a useful design and analysis tool for practicing structural
engineers. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 44, 25-37.
6. IS 1893 (2002). Indian Standard criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures Part 1: General
Provisions and Buildings, Fifth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi.
7. IS 456 (2000). Indian Standard Plain Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice, Fourth Revision, Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi.
8. IS 875 (1987). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquakes) For
Building and Structures Part 1: Dead Loads Unit Weights of Building materials and stored materials,
Second Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi.
9. IS 875 (1987). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquakes) For
Building and Structures Part 2: Imposed Loads, Second Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New
Delhi.
10. Jain, S.K. and Navin, R. (1995). Seismic over strength in reinforced concrete frames. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 580-585.

1.
2.

IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

924

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 2 Issue 7, July - 2013

IJE
RT

11. Murthy, C.V., and Jain, S.K. (1994). A review of IS 1893-1984 provisions on seismic design of
buildings. The Indian Concrete Journal, 619-629.
12. Otani, S. (2004). Earthquake Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Past and Future.
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 1, 3-24.
13. Patil, S.S., Ghadge, S.A., Konapure, C.G., and Ghadge, C.A. (2013). Seismic Analysis of High Rise
Building by Response Spectrum. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 3, 272279.
14. Shimazaki, K. (1992). Seismic coefficient distribution of high rise reinforced concrete buildings.
Earthquake Engineering Tenth World Conference, Balkema Rotterdam.
15. STAAD-Pro (2008). Structural analysis software, Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of
Structures. Bentley, USA.

13
IJERTV2IS70452

www.ijert.org

925