Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Seismic response of RC framed irregular structures

D. Annapurna *, Ezatullah Yaqubi , P. Anuradha, K.L. Radhika
Department of Civil Engineering, University College of Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad 500007, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Earthquakes are one of the most unpredictable and deadliest of all-natural disasters; nevertheless, because of
Irregular structures their unpredictable character, it is difficult to prevent human deaths and property loss if structures are not
Dynamic Analysis designed to withstand earthquake forces. A structure can be classified as irregular if it has an irregular distri­
Stiffness irregularity
bution of stiffness, mass, and strength, or because of an irregular geometric configuration. However, previous
Mass irregularity
Vertical
earthquake records suggest that these constructions have a poor seismic performance. In the present research
Plan irregularity study, effects of irregularities are compared with regular buildings of different stories in seismic zones II & IV.
Irregular buildings with mass irregularity, stiffness irregularity, geometry vertical, and plan irregularity are
considered in the present paper. Earthquake analysis is carried out by using linear dynamic analysis i.e. Response
Spectrum method. The parameters considered being story lateral loads, story displacement, story drifts, story
shear, and story stiffness using ETABS. As a result of the analysis, Story lateral loads, Story shear and Story
stiffness were observed to be maximum in regular buildings as compared to irregular buildings. The story
displacement and story drifts are maximum in the irregular building as compared to regular buildings. Response
spectrum curves are drawn for regular and irregular buildings and concluded that accelerations are greater in
zone IV than zone II.0.

1. Introduction reinforced concrete irregular structures with various combination of

irregularities under earthquake loads. Researchers [4,5,6] have selected
Specific parts of the world sometimes face natural disasters of buildings and modelled for elastic-free vibration analysis and nonlinear
varying intensity. In the past, several major earthquakes in many parts of time history analysis for seismic risk assessments. Bahram M. Shahrooz
the world, especially in India, exposed the shortcomings of buildings in et.al [7] have investigated the seismic behavior of four irregular rein­
large earthquakes, resulting in damage or collapse of buildings. It has forced concrete test structures with vertically irregularities. Some au­
been found that buildings with a simple regular shape, and uniformly thors [8,9,10] Studied the vertical geometric irregularity in stepped
distributed stiffness and mass in the plan and elevation perform better building frames with mass and stiffness irregularity, and also proposed a
and suffer much less damage than building has irregular configuration modified empirical formula for estimating fundamental period of step­
during earthquakes. Non-uniform load distribution in different building ped building. Athanassiadou, C. J. 2008 [11] have done analytical study
components is caused by structural imperfections. The challenges for on the seismic performance of multi-story Reinforced concrete plane
structural engineers have increased due to the wide variety of irregu­ frames buildings with elevation irregularity, and Anil K. Chopra, and
larities associated with buildings designed by architects. Structural en­ Chatpan Chintanapakdee [12] studied the seismic response of vertically
gineers are responsible for ensuring that the planning, analysis, design, irregular frames by response spectrum and pushover analyses. Through
and construction of structures should withstand extreme dynamic im­ the earlier research studies, it is identified to study the influence of all
pacts of earthquakes. Several studies have done on the effects of irreg­ irregularities on the seismic response of RC framed structures. Hence, in
ularities on the seismic behavior of multi-story irregular buildings. the present paper, the seismic response of G + 10 and G + 20 irregular
Ahamad et. al. [1] have done analytical study on the dynamic structures with mass, stiffness, geometry vertical, and geometry plan
analysis of G + 20 multi storied building by using shear walls in various irregularities is studied by the Response spectrum method according to
locations for different seismic zones by using ETABS. Siva Naveen et.al IS 1893:2016 (Part 1) [13] and compared with that of regular structures
[2] and Mohd. Zahid et. al [3] Studied the seismic response of in zone II&IV. Through the analysis, the parameters studied are story

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Annapurna).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.09.028
Received 7 August 2023; Received in revised form 2 September 2023; Accepted 5 September 2023
Available online 18 September 2023
2214-7853/Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the UKIERI Concrete
Congress – ‘Sustainable Concrete Infrastructure.
D. Annapurna et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

lateral loads, story displacement, story drift, story shear, and story • Stiffness Irregularity (Soft Story): If the lateral stiffness of one story is
stiffness by using ETABS Software. Also, Response spectrum curves are less than 70% of the subsequent story’s or less than 80% of the
drawn for both (Regular and Irregular) buildings, which has not yet overall stiffness of the three floors above, the building is said to have
attempted in the recent research. soft stories or stiffness irregularity.
In the present paper, the seismic response of RC framed regular and • Mass Irregularity: The building exhibit mass irregularity, if the
irregular buildings is carried out both in zone II and IV using Response effective mass of any story is greater than 150 percent that of an
spectrum analysis. Four irregularities in structures are studied, namely adjacent story.
mass, stiffness, horizontal and vertical geometry irregularities. Different • Vertical Geometric Irregularity: Vertical setback is a geometric ir­
characteristics like story lateral loads, story displacements, story drifts, regularity is taken into account when the horizontal dimension of the
story shear, and story stiffness of regular and irregular structures along bearing system inside any floor is more than 150% of the size of the
X & Y directions is studied. Further, the Time-period Vs acceleration adjacent floor.
plots were also drawn for regular and irregular buildings in Zone II & IV.
3. Methodology
2. Structural irregularities
In this research work modelling and analysis of the G + 10 and G +
Building irregularities come in a variety of shapes and sizes, 20 regular and irregular buildings have been done in ETABS. As height
depending on their location and scope, but they may be classified into of both regular and irregular buildings are greater than 15 m and located
two categories: plan irregularities and vertical irregularities. Fig. 1 in two different seismic zones (II and IV), so analysis of structures is
shows main groups and subgroups of all irregularities as per IS carried out by dynamic analysis, i.e., Response spectrum method [14].
1893:2016 (part 1), which are described in the following heading.

3.1. Response spectrum method

2.1. Plan irregularity

The modal method or mode superposition method is another name

Among the different type of plan irregularities, torsion irregularity
given for this procedure. It is found on the premise that a building’s
and re-entrant corners is considered in the present study.
response is a superposition of many modes of vibration’s responses, each
mode reacting with its own distorted shape, frequency and modal
• Torsional Irregularity: When the largest horizontal displacement of a
damping.
floor in the direction of the lateral force at one end is greater than 1.5
Earthquake analysis is carried out on buildings. The descriptions of
times the minimum horizontal displacement at that end, the building
the buildings are mentioned below:
is said to be torsional irregular.
• Re-entrant Corners: A building may be said to have re-entrant cor­
• Building Configuration: In the present study, mainly two groups of
ners, if the structural configuration of a building in the plan has a
the buildings are considered, one is Regular building with G + 10 and
projection larger than 15 percent of the overall plan size.
G + 20 stories and other is Irregular building with G + 10 and G + 20
stories including irregularities like Plan geometry irregularity, Ver­
2.2. Vertical irregularity
tical geometry irregularity, Stiffness irregularity and Mass
irregularity
The following irregularities under this heading are considered in the
• Building Description: In the present work seismic response of G + 10
present paper.
and G + 20 RC framed structures with regular and irregular con­
figurations were studied in zone II and IV under medium soil con­
ditions. Both regular buildings has 3 m storey height whereas
irregular building has 4 m ground floor height and remaining floors
3 m height. The details of both building configurations are described
Structural in Table 1.
Irregularities
Plan Vertical 3.2. Load combination
Irregularity Irregularity
Torsional Stiffness Load combinations used for Response spectrum analysis of regular
Irregularity Irregularity and irregular building models are given in Table 2.
Both regular buildings has 10 bays along X-direction and 7 bays
Re-Entrant Mass along Y-direction are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 respectively.
Corners Irregularity G + 10 regular and irregular buildings are considered as special
Floor Slabs Vertical moment resisting frames, whereas G + 20 regular and irregular build­
With Geometric ings are considered as special moment resisting frames with the struc­
Excessive Irregularity tural Walls. Mass irregularity exists in the first floor and 10th floor of the
Openings irregular G + 10 building, and in the first and 20th floor of the irregular
Plan
Discontinuity G + 20 building with stiffness irregularity on the ground floor of (G + 10
Out-Of-Plan
Offsets In In Vertical and G + 20). Both G + 10 and G + 20. The plan, elevation and 3D view of
Vertical Element G + 10 irregular buildings without and with shear wall are shown in
Elements Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Plan and 3D view of G + 20 irregular building is shown
Strenght
in Fig. 6.
Non-Parallel Irregularity
Lateral Force 4. Results and discussions
Floating
Sysem
Columns
Following parameters of the result obtained from analysis of the
Fig. 1. Classification of structural irregularity. considered buildings.

531
D. Annapurna et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

Table 1
Configuration description of regular and irregular building.
Building G þ 10 G þ 20

Type of Regular building Irregular building Regular building Irregular building

Building

Floor area 39 X 24.5 m GF to 3rd floor –42 X 24.5 m 39 X 24.5 m GF to 6rd floor –
4th to 10th floor- 42 X 24.5 m
34 × 24.5 m 7th to 20th floor-
34 × 24.5 m
No. of bays 10 bays along X direction and 7 bays GF to 3rd floor- 10 bays along X- direction and 7 bays GF to 6th floor-
along y direction 10 bays along X-direction and 7 bays along Y-direction 10 bays along X- direction and 7 bays
along Y-direction along Y-direction
4th to 10th floor- 7th to 20th floor-
8 bays along X- direction and 7 bays 8 bays along X- direction and 7 bays
along Y-direction. along Y-direction
Size of beam 300 mm × 500 mm 300 mm × 500 mm 300 mm × 500 mm 300 mm × 500 mm
300 mm × 400 mm 300 mm × 400 mm 300 mm × 400 mm 300 mm × 400 mm
Size of 300 mm × 600 mm 300 mm × 600 mm 300 mm × 800 mm 400 mm × 800 mm
column 300 mm × 500 mm 400 mm × 600 mm
300 mm × 400 mm 400 mm × 500 mm
300 mm × 400 mm

(GF = Ground Floor).

irregular building is 47.57% lesser than regular one and 40.4% lesser
Table 2
than irregular building with shear walls in zone II, and 40.06% lesser
Load combination.
than regular and 27.2% lesser than irregular building with shear walls in
No Combinations zone IV. The variation of story lateral loads in G + 20 irregular building
1 1.5 (DL + LL) is 2.98% lesser than regular one in zone II, and 22.17% lesser than
2 1.2(DL + LL + ELx) regular one in zone IV. Number of lateral loads in the higher seismic
3 1.2(DL + LL-ELx)
zones can be decreased by using shear walls in the correct location and
4 1.2(DL + LL + ELy)
5 1.2(DL + LL-ELy)
directions in irregular buildings with various irregularities as per IS
6 1.5(DL + ELx) seismic codes.
7 1.5(DL-ELx)
8 1.5(DL + ELy)
9 1.5(DL-ELy)
4.2. Story displacement
10 0.9DL + 1.5ELx
11 0.9DL-1.5ELx From Fig. 8, it is observed that story displacement in irregular
12 0.9DL + 1.5ELy buildings is greater than regular ones, showing greater displacement
13 0.9DL-1.5ELy
along X-direction as compared to Y-direction.
14 RS X
15 RS Y

(DL = Dead Load, LL = Live Load, ELx = Earth­ 4.3. Story drift
quake Load along X direction, ELy = Earthquake
Load along Y direction, RS X = Response Spectrum From Fig. 9, it is observed that regular buildings have greater drift
along X direction, RS Y = Response Spectrum along than regular one in both zones and directions. Variation of story drift
Y direction). along X-direction in G + 10 irregular building is 18.91% greater than
regular and 17.1% greater than irregular building with shear walls in
4.1. Lateral load distribution zone II, and 20.4% greater than regular and 17.1% greater than irregular
building with shear walls in zone IV. The variation of story drift in G +
From Fig. 7, it is observed that the lateral forces along X and Y-di­ 20 irregular building is 73.93% greater than regular one in zone II, and
rections increase uniformly in regular buildings with the increase in 63.51% greater than the regular one in zone IV. But along Y-direction
number of stories. But the variation of lateral loads in irregular buildings the variation of story drift in G + 10 irregular building is 26.5% greater
aren’t the same as the regular ones, it changes where the building has than regular and 6.96% greater than irregular building with shear walls
setbacks. Along X and Y-directions, variation of lateral loads in G + 10 in zone II, and 11.57% greater than regular and 6.94% greater than
irregular building with shear walls in zone IV. The variation of story drift

Fig. 2. Plan, elevation, and 3D view of G + 10 Regular building.

532
D. Annapurna et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

Fig. 3. Plan, elevation, and 3D view of G + 20 Regular building.

Fig. 4. (a) (b), and (c) Plan, and 3-D view of G + 10 Irregular building.

Fig. 5. (a), (b), and (c) Plan and 3-D view of G + 10 Irregular building with shear wall.

Fig. 6. (a), (b), and (c) Plan and 3-D view of G + 20 Irregular building.

in G + 20 irregular buildings is 65.18% greater than the regular one in shear in G + 10 irregular building is 77.5% lesser than regular and
zone II, and 57.49% greater than regular one in zone IV. 11.4% lesser than irregular building with shear walls. The variation of
story shear in G + 20 irregular building is 9.05% lesser than irregular
one in zone II, and 40.85% lesser than regular one in zone IV. But along
4.4. Story shear Y-direction variation of story shear for G + 10 irregular building is
41.1% lesser than regular and 7.47% lesser than irregular building with
From Fig. 10, it is observed that story shear is greater in regular shear walls in zone II, and 61.8% lesser than regular and 6.9% lesser
buildings as compared to irregular buildings. than irregular buildings with shear walls in zone IV. The variation of
Variation of story shear along X-direction for G + 10 irregular story shear in G + 20 is 8.34% lesser than regular one in zone II, and
building is 46.43% lesser than regular and 12.86% lesser than irregular 41.6% lesser than regular one in zone IV.
building with shear walls in zone II, and in zone IV the variation of story

533
D. Annapurna et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

Fig. 7. Lateral loads variation for (a) G + 10 buildings along X direction; (b) G + 10 buildings along Y direction; (c) G + 20 buildings along X direction; (d) G + 20
buildings along Y direction.

a b Story Displacement along Y-direction

11 G+10 Re Z II

9 G+10 Irre Z II
Story Level

G+10 Irre with Shear

7 walls Z II
G+10 Re Z IV
5
G+10 Irre Z IV
3 G+10 Irre with Shear
walls Z IV
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Displacement(mm)

Story Dispacement along X-direction Story Displacement along Y-direction

c G+20
21 Reg Z II
21
G+20 Reg Z II
18 18
G+20
Story Level

15 G+20 Irreg Z 15
Irreg Z II
Story Level

12 II 12
G+20 Reg Z
9
IV d 9 G+20
6 G+20 Irreg Z 6 Reg Z IV
3 IV 3
0 0 G+20
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Irreg Z
Displacement(mm) Displacement(mm) IV

Fig. 8. Story displacement variation for (a) G + 10 building along X-direction; (b) G + 10 building along Y-direction; (c) G + 20 building along X-direction; (d) G +
20 building along Y-direction.

4.5. Story stiffness 19.76% lesser than irregular building with shear walls in zone II and is
64.06% lesser than regular and 19.73% lesser than irregular building
From Fig. 11, it is observed that due to using the columns with with shear walls in zone IV. The variation of story stiffness in G + 20
different sections on the same floor in G + 10 and G + 20 irregular irregular building is 84.4% lesser than regular one in zone II and 85.56%
buildings and using of the same section of columns with typical height in lesser than regular one in zone IV. But along Y-direction, variation of
all stories in regular buildings, stiffness of regular buildings are greater story stiffness in G + 10 irregular building is 67.1% lesser than regular
as compared to irregular ones. Variation of story stiffness along X-di­ and 19.76% lesser than irregular building with shear walls in zone II,
rection for G + 10 irregular building is 64.64% lesser than regular and and 67.1% lesser than regular and 19.76% lesser than irregular building

534
D. Annapurna et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

Fig. 9. Variation of story drift for (a) G + 10 building along X-direction; (b) G + 10 building along Y-direction; (c) G + 20 building along X-direction; (b) G + 20
building along Y-direction.

Fig. 10. Variation of story shear for (a) G + 10 building along X-direction; (b) G + 10 building along Y-direction; (c) G + 20 building along X-direction; (b) G + 20
building along Y-direction.

with shear walls in zone IV. The variation of story stiffness in G + 20 1. Story lateral loads of regular buildings are 30.88%, and 33.66%
irregular buildings is 84.4% lesser than regular ones in zone II and greater than that of irregular buildings in zone II and zone IV
85.56% lesser than regular one in zone IV. respectively.
2. Story displacement of G + 10 and G + 20 irregular buildings are
16.43% and 62.38% in zone II, 28.68% and 74.14% in zone IV
4.6. Acceleration response spectrum greater than regular buildings respectively. Variation of story
displacement was observed lesser in G + 10 irregular buildings with
Response spectrum curves are drawn as shown in Fig. 12. It indicates shear walls 10.42% as compared to G + 10 irregular building.
that acceleration in buildings doesn’t change according to building 3. Story drift was observed 19.34% to be greater in irregular buildings
configuration; it changes according to the seismic zone. It is concluded than regular ones in zone (II&IV). In G + 10 irregular buildings with
that for regular and irregular buildings accelerations in zone IV are shear walls, the story drift was observed 12.02% lesser as compared
greater than in zone II. to irregular buildings without shear walls, and story drift in the
middle story is greater in irregular buildings as compared to regular
5. Conclusions buildings in both zones.

The following conclusions are made from the present study:

535
D. Annapurna et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

Fig. 11. Variation of story stiffness for (a) G + 10 building along X-direction; (b) G + 10 building along Y-direction; (c) G + 20 building along X-direction; (b) G + 20
building along Y-direction.

Fig. 12. Acceleration response spectrum of buildings in (a) Zone II (b) Zone IV.

4. Story shear was observed in regular buildings 51.49% in zone II and CRediT authorship contribution statement
61.16% in zone IV greater as compared to irregular buildings.
5. Story stiffness was observed greater in regular buildings 66.17% and D. Annapurna: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Ezatullah
54.4% more than irregular buildings without shear walls and irreg­ Yaqubi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Visualization,
ular buildings with shear walls respectively in both zones, and with Writing – original draft. P. Anuradha: . K.L. Radhika: .
the provision of soft - story, there is a large change in stiffness.
6. The ratio of maximum horizontal displacement at one end and the
minimum horizontal displacement at the other end is 1.11, it is in the Declaration of Competing Interest
limits as per IS 1893 code. Hence irregular building doesn’t twist
bout the vertical axis. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
7. Eccentricity in irregular buildings is Ex less than 15%×DX, and Ey interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
less than 15%Dy. Hence, eccentricities are within the limit specified the work reported in this paper.
by Indian standards.
8. According to this research work, it was observed that, irregular Data availability
buildings vulnerable than regular buildings. By using shear walls and
proper placing of the frames (Columns, Beams, and Shear walls) as Data will be made available on request.
per seismic code, the seismic-resistant of irregular buildings can be
increased. References
9. Acceleration in buildings doesn’t change according to building
configuration; it changes according to the seismic zone. In zone IV [1] SHAIK, AKHIL, AHAMAD., K. V. PRATAP. Dynamic analysis of G + 20 multi
storied building by using shear walls in various locations for different seismic zones
acceleration is greater than zone II for both regular and irregular by using ETABS, Materials Today Proceedings,2021. Volume 43, Part 2, 2021, p
buildings. 1043-1048.
[2] SIVA, NAVEEN E ., NIMMY MARIAM ABRAHAM ., ANITHA KUMARI S D. Analysis
of Irregular Structures under Earthquake Loads, Procedia Structural Integrity,
Volume 14, 2019, p 806-819.
[3] MOHD Zahid, Md Miraz, Mohd Faizan Saifi Warsi, Shilpa Pal. Seismic Analysis of
Vertically Regular and Irregular Buildings with Shear Walls and RCC X-Bracing

536
D. Annapurna et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 93 (2023) 530–537

System, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering - Advances in Construction Materials [9] GEORGOUSSIS, G. K. An approximate method for assessing the seismic response of
and Sustainable Environment, 10.1007/978-981-16-6557-8_79,2021, pp. 981-993. irregular in elevation asymmetric buildings. In Seismic Behavior and Design of
[4] A.S. Bhosale, R. Davis, P. Sarkar, Vertical irregularity of buildings: regularity index Irregular and Complex Civil Structures II,2016, Springer, Cham., p. 111-122.
versus seismic risk, ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A Civ. Eng. 3 [10] ADITI PARASHAR, SAURABH KUMAR SHARMA, BIKRAM PAUL, KUSHAL
(2017) 1–10. GHOSH. Effect of Vertical-Stepped Geometric Irregularity on the Seismic
[5] RAAGAVI, M. T., S, SIDHARDHAN. Analytical Study on Seismic Performance of Performance of Buildings, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE,
Plan Irregular Structure. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative volume 269), Recent Advances in Materials, Mechanics and Structures,2022, pp
Research (JETIR), 2021,8(8). 443–453.
[6] SILPA RANI, M. V., AISWARYA, S. Seismic Response of Irregular RC Building with [11] ATHANASSIADOU, C. J. Seismic performance of RC plane frames irregular in
Soft Story at Different Levels. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), elevation, Engineering structures, 2008, Volume 30, p. 1250-1261.
2016, 5(7). [12] CHATPAN, CHINTANAPAKDEE., ANIL K. CHOPRA. Seismic Response of vertically
[7] BAHRAM M. SHAHROOZ, JACK P. MOEHLE. Experimental Study of Seismic irregular frames: Response history and modal push over analysis, Journal of
Response of Reinforced Concrete Setback Buildings, 2015, https://datacenterhub. Structural Engineering, 2004, Volume 130, Issue8, August.
org/deedsdv/publications/view/293. [13] INDIAN STANDARD CODE. IS 1893 part 1: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
[8] P. Sarkar, A.M. Prasad, D. Menon, Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped Design of Structures, New Delhi, 2016.
building frames, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 2175–2182. [14] INDIAN STANDARD CODE. IS 16700: Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall
buildings, New Delhi, 2017.

537