Impact of Plan Irregularity To Opt A Suitable Structural

IJEAR Vol.
4, Issue Spl-2, Jan - June 2014
ISSN: 2348-0033 (Online) ISSN : 2249-4944 (Print)
Impact of Plan Irregularity to Opt a Suitable Structural

Framing System in the Analysis and Design of
Multi-Storied Buildings
1
Satyaveni Allipilli, 2Mallikadevi Palli, 3Ramesh Dutt Chilakapati, 4Dr. Harinadha Babu Raparla
1,2,3,4
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sir CRR college of Engineering, Andhra University, AP, India
Abstract
This paper investigates the significance of plan irregularity in the
selection of suitable structural moment resisting framing system
for the analysis and design of multi-storied buildings .Clause 1.1.1
of IS 13920:1993, accepted to satisfy any one of four conditions
for the designing and detailing as Special Moment Resisting
Frame. Functional use of the structures, zones and height of the
building are taken into consideration in the four conditions of
above clause. But there appears to be another important issue to
be considered i.e. building irregularity and it is not mentioned
in the four conditions. Hence it is proposed to check the impact
of plan irregularity to select a suitable structural framing system
for the analysis and design of multi-storied buildings. Nodal
displacements and drifts are determined by performing the linear
static analysis. From the design results amount of reinforcement
is determined and compared. Frame wise observations from the
analysis and design are observed in detail. Number of twenty
storied moment resisting frames both regular and irregular in
plan are analysed and designed for the present study. Though
the ultimate results authenticate the four conditions given in the
Clause, it is observed and may be concluded from this study that
there is no impact of plan irregularity to opt a suitable moment
resisting structural framing system for the analysis and design.
Hence it may be extend to add one more condition for the Clause
1.1.1 of IS 13920:1993 mentioning that the four conditions are
applicable for the frames of plan irregularity.
Keywords
Ductile, Structural, Framing, Irregular, Linear
I. Introduction
Earthquake has caused considerable loss of life and property
damage wherever good building design and construction
practices are not adhered to. Gujarat remains the best example
in this issue. Since then considerable attention has gone into
creating awareness and improving upon the design standards.
Earthquake resistant design for building has become essential due
to influence of seismic forces. In IS 1893-1984 [1] seismic forces
up to zone III are not considered essential due to less influence
and generally not recommended. However, IS 1893-2002[2] made
a substantial influence in the design forces due to revisions in
seismic coefficients and related parameters. Buildings are designed
either as Ordinary moment resistant frame or Special moment
resistant frame. IS 1893 (Part I):2002 deals with assessment of
seismic loads on various structures and earthquake resistant design
of buildings. IS 456:2000[3] deals with the general structural use
of plain and reinforced concrete and this is suitable to design the
building frames as ordinary moment resisting frame structural
system. IS 13920:1993[4] covers the requirements for designing
of monolithic reinforced concrete buildings so as to give them
adequate toughness and ductility to resist severe earthquake shocks
without collapse.
38
International Journal of Education and applied research
Performance of any building frame is said to be good in an

earthquake when a building should possesses four main attributes,
namely simple and regular configuration, adequate lateral strength,
stiffness and ductility. Buildings having simple regular geometry
and uniformly distributed mass and stiffness in plan as well as in
elevation, suffer much less damage than buildings with irregular
configurations. A building shall be considered as irregular for the
purposes of this study, if at least one of the conditions given in
Tables 4 and 5 of IS 1893:2002 is applicable.
Moment resisting frames for resisting earthquake forces can be
designed according to the Indian codes of practices. The frame
designed and detailed according to Is 456-2000 is an Ordinary
moment resistant frame(OMRF) which is a non ductile system with
response reduction factor R=3. The frame Designed and detailed
according to IS 13920:1993 is a Special moment resistant frame
(SMRF) and this is a ductile frame with response reduction factor
R=5. Provisions of code IS 13920:1993 shall be adopted in all
reinforced concrete structures which satisfy one of the following
four conditions. (1)The structure is located in seismic zone IV
or V (2) the structure is located in seismic zone III and has the
importance factor (I) greater than 1.0 (3) the structure is located in
seismic zone III and is an industrial structure and (4) the structure
is located in seismic zone III and is more than 5 storey high. This
is as per the clause 1.1.1 of ductile detailing code 13920:1993.
In this clause 1.1.1 of IS 13920-1993, frame irregularity is not
mentioned in the four conditions. Hence it is proposed to check
the impact of plan irregularity in the multi-storied buildings to
opt a suitable moment resisting frame structural system for the
analysis and design of required building frame.
Modelling
Modelling of frames with plan dissimilarity are taken as given in
paper [5] except change in the member properties as shown in
Table1.All these are 20-storied building frames with floor heights
of 4m except ground floor and bay size of 5m x 5m.Height of
ground floor is 5m and the total height of the all building frames
is 81m( Fig. 1, 2) . As per IS code 1893 -2002, the natural time
period is 2.025 sec. Number of members, nodes and supports of
all four building frames are given in the Table 2.
w w w. i j e a r. o r g
IJEAR Vol. 4, Issue Spl-2, Jan - June 2014
Fig. 1: Frames of Different Plan Configuration

Dead load , Live load and earthquake loads are considered as per
the Indian codes IS 875:1987 [6] and IS1893:2002. The response
of the moment resisting frames is studied mainly for the dominated
load combinations i.e.1.5DL1.5EL in both X-direction and
Z-direction for the selected column at different seismic zones.
Fig. 2: Selected Frames With Shapes, Supports, Nodes and

Framing
Table 1: Physical Properties of the Columns and Beams

Member
Columns for all floors
Beams for all floors
Size
750mm750mm
500mm750mm
Table 2: Members, Nodes And Supports For All Frames

Building frames
Frame-1
Frame-2
Frame-3
Frame-4
Regularity
Regular in plan
Irregular in plan
Irregular in plan
Irregular in plan
Number of members
2660
1700
2340
1700
II. Results and Observations

In the present study, analysis and design is performed for gravity
and earthquake loads for all the frames and load combinations as
per IS codes i.e.IS 1893 (part-1) 2002, IS 456-2000, IS 139201993 using STAAD[7] analysis package. Nodal displacements
and drifts of a selected column is determined and studied for the
comparison. From the design results amount of reinforcement is
compared for different zones and frames. Frame wise observations
from the analysis and design are discussed in detail and only few
results and figures are presented in this paper. Over 32 - twenty
storied moment resisting frames are analysed and designed for
the present study. Table 3 and Figure 3 shows that weight of
reinforcement required as per design per unit built up area of each
frame in different zones.
Number of supports(fixed)
49
33
45
33
Table 3: Weight of Reinforcement per Unit Built Up Area

Weight of Reinforcement of Frame per unit
Built Up Area ( kN/m2)
Zone
OMRF
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
SMRF
Z2
Z3
Z4
Z5
Number of nodes
1029
693
945
693
Frame-1
Frame-2
Frame-3 Frame-4
4.44
4.47
4.75
4.98
4.96
4.98
5.25
5.43
4.87
4.89
5.17
5.32
4.94
5.27
5.29
5.72
4.53
4.56
4.65
5.08
5.10
5.16
5.14
5.18
5.23
4.98
5.22
5.13
4.64
5.23
5.30
5.26
39
Fig. 3: Weight of Reinforcement Per Unit Built Up Area (kN/m2)

Fig. 4 (a) and (b) shows the quantity and percentage of longitudinal and lateral reinforcements obtained from the design for all the
moment resisting building frames in different zones.
40
(a)
41

(b)
Fig. 4: Quantity and Percentage of longitudinal and lateral reinforcement for all the moment resisting building frames in different
zones
From the design results, Table 4 represents the percentage of variation in the reinforcements both longitudinal and lateral. Comparison
of reinforcement is observed in between moment resisting frames in all the Indian seismic zones.
42
Table 4: Comparison of Reinforcements Regarding Longitudinal

and Lateral Reinforcements
Long-Steel
LatSteel
SMRF % more than OMRF
LatSteel
Zone-V
SMRF % less than OMRF
Long-Steel
LatSteel
Zone-IV
Long-Steel
LatSteel
Long-Steel
Zone-III
Zone- II
4% 4%
2%
2%
3% 3%
3% 3%
4% 4%
2% 2%
3% 3%
3%
3%
3% 3%
3% 3%
3% 3%
Fig. 5 shows that roof the displacements of all the moment resisting
frames for a selected column in specified zones of India as per
the IS 1893-2002.
Fig. 5: Roof Displacements for Ordinary and Special Moment

Resisting Frames in Different Zones
Inter storey drifts of a selected corner column for all the moment
resisting frames in different zones are shown in the fig. 6
3% - 4%
2% 2%
2% - 3%
3%
2% - 3%
3%
3% - 4%
3% 3%
2% - 3%
3% 3%
2% - 3%
3%
2% - 3%
3%
2% - 3%
Variation
Frame-4
Frame-3
Frame-2
Frame-1
Frame
Type of
Steel
Zone
(a)
(b)
43
(c)
(g)
(d)
(h)
Fig. 6: Inter Storey Drifts for the Selected Frames in Different

Indian Seismic Zones
(e)
(f)
44
III. Discussion on Results

1. It is observed that the axial forces for all columns are in increasing
order from zone II to zone V. This is due to seismic intensity. The
same thing is observed both in OMRF and SMRF.
2. Results shows that the axial force of any internal column is same
for all zones. It is observed in all the regular and irregular building
frames. This is due to the gravity loads are dominating over the
internal columns. Gravity and earthquake load combination is
dominating in the case of external and edge columns of all the
frames.
3. The inter-story drifts are in increasing order from zone II to
zone V for all the regular and irregular building frames because
of the seismic intensity.
4.The roof displacement of L shaped plan configuration is less than
the symmetrical square shaped configuration and unsymmetrical
inverted U and T shaped configurations.
5. Inter storey drift is very less at the top stories which shows that
the shear is dominating the bending. This may change according
to the aspect ratio of the building.
6. The weight of steel per unit area is less for a regular building than
irregular building. In the case of unsymmetrical building the amount
of steel per unit area depends on the building irregularity.
7. From the design results it is observed that the longitudinal
steel is more in the case of OMRF than the SMRF. The amount
of lateral steel per unit area is less in the OMRF than the SMRF.
The reinforcements various from 2% to 3% in the case of zone
II, zone III and zone IV and 3% to 4% in zone V.
8. In the case of zone II and zone III the weight of steel per unit
area is less in OMRF than SMRF for all the selected frames. Even
though the drifts are more in OMRF than SMRF, it is worthwhile
to consider the structural system as OMRF in zone II and zone III.
The results shows that there is no impact due to plan irregularity
in the selection of structural system.
9. In the case of zone IV and zone V the weight of steel per unit
area is less in SMRF than OMRF. Inter-storey drift is also less in
SMRF than OMRF both in regular and irregular building frames.
The results show that there is no impact of plan irregularity in the
selection of structural system for the analysis and design.
10.In the case of zone IV and zone V for any regular or irregular
buildings, selecting the building framing system as SMRF is safe
and economical.
IV. General Conclusion
Clause 1.1.1 of code Ductile detailing of Reinforced Concrete
Structure subjected to Seismic Forces - Code of Practice IS
13920:1993, shall be adopted to satisfy one of four conditions
for the designing and detailing as SMRF. These conditions are
representing zones, function of the structure and height of the
building. But there is another important issue to be considered is
the plan irregularity of the building. Clause 1.1.1 has not mentioned
about the irregularity in the four conditions. In the present work
it is proposed to study the analysis and design results of irregular
buildings. The results not only confirm the four conditions in
the Clause 1.1.1. and also show that there is no impact of plan
irregularity in the multi-storied buildings to opt suitable moment
resisting structural framing system for the analysis and design.
Hence it may be considered to add one more condition for the
Clause 1.1.1 mentioning that the four conditions are applicable
for the frames of plan irregularity.
V. Future Scope of Work
For the future work it is advisable to study the suitability of
the moment resisting frames for complex plan and vertical
irregularity to give a generalized conclusion and the conclusion
may incorporate as another condition in the clause 1.1.1 of code
IS 13920-1993.
References
[1] IS 1893:1984,"Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[2] IS 1893(Part1):2002,"Criteria for earthquake resistant design
of structures -General provisions and buildings", Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[3] IS 456: 2000,"Plain reinforced concrete-code of practice",
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[4] IS 13920: 1993,"Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete
structures subjected to seismic forces-code of practice",
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[5] Ramesh Konakalla, Ramesh Dutt Chilakapati, Dr. Harinadha
Babu,"Response Study of Multi-Storied Buildings With Plan
Irregularities Subjected to Earthquake and Wind Loads Using
Linear Static Analysis", IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), pp. 12-19
[6] IS 875: 1987,"Code of practice for design loads(other than
earthquake) for buildings and structures", Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
[7] STAAD pro V8, 2007 Version,"General-purpose structural
analysis and design solution", Bentley California, USA,
2007.
45

Impact of Plan Irregularity To Opt A Suitable Structural

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Impact of Plan Irregularity To Opt A Suitable Structural

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IJEAR Vol.

4, Issue Spl-2, Jan - June 2014

ISSN: 2348-0033 (Online) ISSN : 2249-4944 (Print)