INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE

Modelling of RC Buildings

Yogendra Singh
Professor, Railway Bridge Chair
Department of Earthquake Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Roorkee, India.
 Loads and Resisting Systems in Buildings

LOADS ON BUILDINGS

VERTICAL LOAD HORIZONTAL LOAD

DEAD LOAD LIVE LOAD SNOW LOAD WIND LOAD EARTHQUAKE LOAD

HORIZONTAL FRAMING VERTICAL FRAMING

SLAB BEAMS FRAME SHEAR WALL MASONRY INFILLS

10/18/2024
2
 Structural Systems for RC Buildings

10/18/2024
3
 Structural Systems for Steel Buildings

10/18/2024
4
 5. General Requirements (IS 16700)

5.1 Elevation
5.1.1 Height limits (in m) for structural systems (Table 1)
Structural Systems

Structural wall + Moment Frame

Structural wall + Framed Tube

Structural wall + Perimeter
Seismic Zone

Well-Distributed
Structural Walls
Moment

Frame
Fame

V NA 120 150 150 180

* Well-distributed walls are those which are outside of the core and capable of resisting
atleast
IV 25% of the lateral
NA loads. 150 200 200 225 5
 5. General Requirements (IS 16700)
5.1 Elevation
5.1.2 Slenderness ratio for structural systems (Table 2)
Structural Systems

Structural wall + Moment Frame

Structural wall + Framed Tube

Structural wall + Perimeter
Seismic Zone

Structural Wall
Moment

Frame
Fame

V NA 8 8 9 9

IV NA 8 8 9 9 6
What is Modelling ?
 Modelling is not a component-by-component construction of
a configuration resembling the structure similar to brick-by-
brick construction of building
 Modelling is idealization of a particular aspect of the
behaviour a structure by an assemblage of elements of
known behaviour.
 Geometric resemblance with the structure is not important.
 Different models for different aspects of behaviour.
 True model is the structure itself.
 Understanding of behaviour of the structure is essential
before making a reliable model.

7
 Frame Action
P P

P/2 P/2 P/2 P/2

H H

PH/2 PH/2 PH/4 PH/4

L PH/2L L PH/2L

P
P
P/2 P/2
P/cos
H
H Ptan

PH/4 <M <PH/2 PH/4 <M <PH/2

0<R<PH/2L L 0<R<PH/2L
PH/L L PH/L

10/18/2024
8
 Frame Action

Roof displacement
P/2 P/2
H

PH/4 <M <PH/2 PH/4 <M <PH/2

0<R<PH/2L L 0<R<PH/2L Base shear

Roof displacement
P/cos
H Ptan
Base shear

Ptan L Ptan

10/18/2024
9
 Frame vs. Shear Wall

10/18/2024
10
 Frame vs. Shear Wall

10/18/2024
11
 Frame vs. Shear Wall

10/18/2024
12
 Frame vs. Shear Wall

10/18/2024
13
 Frame-Shear Wall Dual System

10/18/2024
14
 Coupled Shear Walls

10/18/2024
15
 Coupled Shear Walls

b b b b b b

I1= 2xtb3/12 = (1/6)tb3 I2= t(2b)3/12 = (4/6)tb3 (1/6)tb3 < I3<(4/6)tb3

10/18/2024
16
 Core and Outrigger System

10/18/2024
17
 Core, Outrigger and Belt System

10/18/2024
18
 FRAMED-TUBE SYSTEM

• Closely spaced columns and

deep spandrel beam along
the periphery

• High lateral rigidity due to

hollow tube like section

• Vertical shear transfer takes

place at the corner column

10/18/2024
19
 FRAMED-TUBE SYSTEM

10/18/2024
20
 TUBE-IN-TUBE SYSTEM

• Outer framed tube

• Inner tube consists of shear

wall enclosing service core

• Outer and inner tubes are

interconnected through
floors

• Interaction between outer

and inner tube is similar to
that between frame and
shear wall

10/18/2024
21
 TRUSSED-TUBE SYSTEM

10/18/2024
22
 MULTI-CELL TUBE SYSTEM

10/18/2024
23
Role of Floor in Lateral Load

24
Role of Floor in Lateral Load

25
Role of Floor in Lateral Load

26
Role of Floor in Lateral Load

27
Role of Floor in Lateral Load

28
Role of Floor in Lateral Load

29
Role of Floor in Lateral Load

30
Distributor and Back Stay

31
Openings in Diaphragms - IS 16700

5.6.2 Openings
5.6.2.1 5.6.2.2

× Ao Ad Ao 0.30 Ad

5.6.2.3
W1 W1  W2 5m W1  W2 0.5W
W
W1 2m W2 2m
W2

32
Forces in Back Stay Diaphragms

33
Computer Modelling

• Structure is considered as assemblage of

members and elements  Continuum and
Discrete (Skeletal) Elements
• Stiffness matrix of each member/element is
obtained
• Stiffness matrices of various elements are
assembled using compatibility
• System of linear equations is solved

34
Skeletal vs. Continuum Elements

• Distribution of • Distribution of
mass along one mass along two or
dimension  One three dimensions
dimension is much
• Examples: Shear
larger
Walls, Slabs,
• Examples: Beams, Foundations,
Columns, Braces,
• Modelling: Plane
Trusses, Shear
Walls (??) Stress, Plate, Shell,
Brick (Solid)
• Modelling : Frame
35
Frame Element

36
Frame Element Stiffness Matrix

 EA EA 
 L 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 
L
 12 EI Z 6 EI Z 12 EI Z 6 EI Z 
 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 
 L3 L2 L3 L2 
 0 12 EI Y 6 EI Y 12 EI Y 6 EI Y
0 0  0 0 0  0  0 
 L3 L2 L3 L2 
 GI X GI X 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 
 L L 
 0 6 EI Y 4 EI Y 6 EI Y 2 EI Y
0  0 0 0 0 0 0 
 L2 L L2 L 
 6 EI Z 4 EIz 6 EIz 2 EIz 
 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 
S   EA L2 L L2 L 
 EA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 L L 
 12 EI Z 6 EIz 12 EI Z 6 EIz 
 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 0  
 L3 L2 L3 L2 
 0 12 EI Y 6 EI Y 12 EI Y 6 EI Y
0  0 0 0 0 0 0 
 L3 L2 L3 L2 
 GI X GI X 
 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
L L
 6 EI Y 2 EI Y 6 EI Y 4 EI Y 
 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 
 L2 L L2 L 
 0 6 EI Z 2 EIz 6 EIz 4 EIz 
 0 0 0 0  0 0 0
L2 L L2 L 

37
Modelling of Beam Offset

38
Modelling of Column Offset

39
Modelling of Beam-Column Joints

(a) (b) (c)

Beam-column Joint Model as per ASCE/SEI-41 Supplement-1 (2007)for Effective
Stiffness, when Ratio of Flexural Strength of Columns and Beams Framing into
Joint is: (a) 0.8, (b) in between 0.8 and 1.2, and (c) greater than 1.2.
40
Stiffness of a RC Section

RC Sections

41
Definition of Effective Stiffness

RC Sections

42
Stiffness of Cracked RC Sections

43
Stiffness of Cracked RC Sections

Un-factored Loads Factored Loads

Structural
S. No
Element
Area Moment of inertia Area Moment of inertia

i) Slabs 1.0 0.35 1.0 0.25

ii) Beams 1.0 0.70 1.0 0.35

iii) Columns 1.0 0.90 1.0 0.70

iv) Walls 1.0 0.90 1.0 0.70

44
Stiffness of Cracked RC Sections

45
Modelling of Shear Walls

Shear walls can be modeled by following models:

• Skeletal Model  Equivalent Frame Models (EFM)

• Wide Column Analogy
• Braced Frame Analogy

• Continuum Model  Finite Element Models (FEM)

• Plane Stress Elements  Out-of-plane stiffness is ignored
• Shell Elements  Out-of-plane stiffness is considered

46
Modelling of Shear Walls: Wide-Column Analogy

 EA 
4  L 
 12 EI 
 0 
6  L3 
5
 0 6 EI EI 
(4   ) 0
S   1  EA L 
2
L
(1   )  EA 
 0 0 
 L L 
 0 12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI 
 3  0  2
 L L2 L3 L 
 6 EI EI 6 EI EI 
 0 (2   ) 0  2 (4   ) 
 L2 L L L
3

12 EI
2
 2
1 L GAR
Modelling of Shear Deformation is Important  Timoshenko Beam Theory

47
Modelling of Shear Walls

S  H T S  H 

1 dL 0 0 
0 1 0 0 
H   
0 0 1  bL 
 
A A' B' B 0 0 0 1 
aL cL bL

Modelling of Joint Stiffness  Rigid Offsets, Half Width Long

48
Modelling of Coupled Shear Walls

Modelling of Joint Stiffness  Rigid Offsets, Half Width Long

49
Modelling of Frame-Shear Walls
Im bedded beam elem ents

(a) Wa ll-Fram e S tructure (b) An alysis M ode l

S tiff beam M om ent release w ith stiffness

(c) P ossible C o m p ound C om pone nt for Im bedded B eam

Modelling Using Plane-Stress Elements  Compatibility of Moment

50
Modelling of Non-planar Shear Walls

EFM FEM

51
Modelling of Rigid Floor Diaphragm

u1
u2
Θ RIGID
U2 u3
DIAPHRAGM
y

U3
U1 MOTION
x

TRANSFORMATION MATRIX

 cos sin  x sin   y cos  

B   sin  cos x cos  y sin  
 0 0 1 

52
Modelling of Rigid Floor Diaphragm

C1 C4 C7 C10

X
C2 C5 C8 C11

C3 C6 C9 C12

53
Modelling of URM Infills

54
Modelling of URM Infills

1
 Emetinf sin 2  4
1  
a 0.1751hcol 
 0.4
rinf  4 E I h
fe col inf 

55
Procedures of P-delta Analysis

 Procedure I  Non-iterative solution based on axial forces

 Reduced Stiffness
 Axial force is required in advance
 Since axial force changes it requires non-linear analysis
 Alternative approximate axial forces may be used
 Usually axial forces due to gravity are used to reduce
stiffness
 Reduced stiffness also results in increased period and
modified mode shape
 P-∆ analysis is performed before modal analysis

56
 Stiffness Matrix Without P-Delta Effect

d2 d5
kij Pi u j 1
d3 d6
ui 0
d1 d4
i j
12 EI
L3
6 EI  EA EA 
M 0 0  0 0 
L2 6 EI  L L
M 
d 2 1 L2 12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI 
 0 0  
 L3 L2 L3 L2 
 0 6 EI 4 EI 6 EI 2 EI 
0  2
k   EA L L 
2
L L
12 EI EA 
L3  0 0 0 0 
 L L 
 0 12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI 
 3  0  2
 L L2 L3 L 
 6 EI 2 EI 6 EI 4 EI 
 0 0  2 
 L2 L L L 

57
 Stiffness Matrix with P-delta Effect
Q2 6 EI
d2 d5 M 
L2 6 EI
d3 d6 P M 
P d 2 1 L2
P d1 d4 P
6 EI 6 EI
Q5
Q2 0  Q5 L  P 1  2  2
L L
12 EI P
Q5  3 
L L

 EA EA   EA EA 
 L 0 0  0 0   0 0  0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0
L L L  
 12 EI P 6 EI 12 EI P 6 EI   12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI   P P 
 0  0     0 0   0 0 0 0
 L 3
L L 2
L3
L L 2
  L 3
L 2
L 3
L 2
  L L 
 0 6 EI 4 EI 6 EI 2 EI   6 EI 4 EI 6 EI 2 EI  
0  2 0 0  2 0 0 0 0 0 0
 2   2   
k   EA L L
EA
L L
   EA
L L
EA
L L
  
 0 0 0 0   0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0
 L L   L L   
 0  12 EI   P  6 EI
P P
12 EI P 6 EI   12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI  
0   2 0  3  2 0  2 0 0 0 0


L3
6 EI
L L2
2 EI
L3 L
6 EI
L  
4 EI  
L
6 EI
L
2 EI
L3 L  
6 EI 4 EI  
L L 

 0 0  2   0 0  2 
 L2
L L L   L 2
L L L   0 0 0 0 0 0

58
Procedures of P-delta Analysis

 Procedure II  Second order iterative method

Q5 5 In ith storey,
additional equivalent
Q4 4
floor loadP (   )
Qi  i i i 1
Pi
Q3 3 h
i  i 1
Repeat iterations till
Qi
Q2 2 converges
' i  i   i
Q1 1 h
" i 'i  'i

" i  'i Pi

59
Procedures of P-delta Analysis (ETABS)
 For the gravity loads anticipated, create an Initial P-Delta Analysis case
in ETABS via  Define>P-Delta Options
 In all other analyses, use the stiffness matrix developed from the P-Delta
geometric-nonlinearity option

60
Procedures of P-delta Analysis
(SAP2000)
 Create a Modal P-Delta Analysis case in SAP2000 via  Define > Load
Cases
 Use the stiffness matrix and masses from the Gravity load case

61
Procedures of P-δ Analysis

• P-δ effect, is associated with local deformation relative to the

element chord between end nodes
• Becomes significant at unreasonably large displacement values,
or in especially slender columns
• P-∆ and P-δ effect are considered together at 
Q
member level

• P-∆ is done separately at structural level
• P-δ is performed at member level
• To determine whether a column is no-sway, stability h
index q ≤ 0.04
q
 P
Qh

P = Total axial force acting within the storey

Q = Total lateral force acting within the storey

62
Procedures of P-δ Analysis

Effective length ratios for Effective length ratios for

non-sway conditions sway conditions

63
Procedures of P-δ Analysis

Where 1  2 
 Kc

 K  K
c b

K c andK b are the flexural stiffness of columns and beams,

respectively, framing into a joint

64
Sequential Analysis

65
Sequential Analysis

66
Flat Slab Systems

Drop Panel

Column Head

67
Flat Slab Systems – Critical Failure Mode

68
Flat Slab Systems – Transfer of Forces

69
Flat Slab Systems – Stress Pattern

70
Failure of Interior Slab-Column Joint

71
Failure of Exterior Slab-Column Joint

72
Slab Hanging from Column

73
Failure of Flat Slab Buildings

74
Failure of Flat Slab Buildings

75
Failure Modes of Flat Slab Buildings

• Flexural failure of slab

• Flexural failure of slab-column
connection
Ductile mode of failure
Cracks appear on bottom surface
• Punching shear failure
Brittle mode of failure
Cracks appear on top surface

76
Shear at Slab-Column Joint

• Out of total unbalanced moment, part is transferred

through flexure and part is transferred through
torsion
• Shear stress at critical section is resultant of gravity
and torsional actions

Vg v M u c
vn  
b0 d J

77
Shear at Slab-Column Joint

v 1   f f = factor for unbalanced

moment transferred by flexure
1 at slab-column connections
f  v = factor for unbalanced
2 b1
1 moment transferred by torsion
3 b2 at slab-column connections

78
Modelling of Flat Slabs

• Explicit Transverse Torsional Element Model

79
Modelling of Flat Slabs

• Equivalent width of slab

 l1 
• Interior Supports  l 2   2c1  
 3

 l1 
• Exterior Supports  l 2   c1  
 6

80
Modelling of Flat Slabs

• Stiffness of Torsional Element

9 EC
K t 
l 2 1  c 2 l 2 
3

3
 x x y
C   1  0.63 
 y 3

81
Failure Modes of Flat Slab Buildings

Effective stiffness
factor
Member Flexure Shear
rigidity rigidity
Equivalent beam 0.33 0.40
Column with compression due to
0.70 0.40
gravity load
Column with compression due to
0.50 0.40
gravity load or with tension

82
Inter-Storey Drift Limit

5
Hueste and
Maximum Inter Storey Drift

Wright
4 ASCE/SEI 41 [NC]
ASCE/SEI 41 [C]
ACI 318-05
3
(%)

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Gravity Shear Ratio

83
THANK YOU !!

10/18/2024