International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 1, January 2017, pp. 610614, Article ID: IJCIET_08_01_070

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

SEISMIC REACTION OF BUILDING FRAME UNDER

VARIOUS ZONES CONSIDERING FLEXIBLE AND
RIGID SUPPORTS
V Ratna Priya
1PG Student, Civil Engineering Department, K L University,
Vaddeswaram, Green fields, A P, India- 522502

N Jitendra Babu
Asst. prof, Civil Engineering Department, K L University,
Vaddeswaram, Green fields, A P, India- 522502

ABSTRACT
Objectives: To find seismic reaction of building frame under various zones considering flexible and
rigid supports. Methods/Analysis: If a structure is subjected to an earthquake excitation, it interacts
with the foundation and soil, and the ground motion is varied. That means, the movement of the whole
ground structure system is under the influence of soil type also by the type of structure. As the seismic
waves transfer from the ground which consist of alteration in soil properties and performs according to
soils respective properties differently. In this study, different soil strata are taken and corresponding
vertical and lateral displacement are determined with G+4 in zones II, III, IV and V. A G+4 building is
modeled in STAAD. Pro for different types of soils such as hard, medium and soft. Findings: The work
consist the calculations of vertical and lateral support reactions for soil types in various seismic zones
and the comparison of Rigid and Flexible supports is obtained. Applications: Effect of seismic reaction
of building frame under various zones considering flexible and rigid supports concept can be extended
to different types of buildings and number of bays and storeyes can be increasd further the analysis can
be carried out for the different types of zones using STAAD - PRO.
Key words: Seismic Reaction, Multiformity, Soil Properties, Earthquake Excitation.
Cite this Article: V Ratna Priya and N Jitendra Babu, Seismic Reaction of Building Frame Under
Various Zones Considering Flexible and Rigid Supports. International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 610614.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 610 editor@iaeme.com

 Seismic Reaction of Building Frame Under Various Zones Considering Flexible and Rigid Supports

1. INTRODUCTION
The time history of free field shaking of a specific site caused by an earthquake event is represented by the
earthquake acceleration wave. In other words, any one input motion adopted in the seismic response of building
structures is that, the ground motion on a specific free field which is caused by an earthquake event. A single
earthquake event generates various ground motions with different characteristics. The purpose of this paper is
of calculating the lateral and vertical reactions for both flexible and rigid supports under various zones
considering differ soil types. To obtain the high reaction is obtained either in lateral or rigid and is represented.
The present study is limited to RC multi-storied commercial building in different zones I, II, III & IV. The
analysis is carried out the help of FEM softwares ETABS. The building model in the study has 21 storeys with
constant storey height of 3m. Four models are used to analyze with equal bay lengths and the number of Bays
and the bay-width along two horizontal directions are kept constant in each model for convenience. Different
values of ZONE FACTOR are taken and their corresponding effects are interpreted in the results1-3. Many high-
rise buildings are designed with basement. In general, we assume that a building is fixed at the ground level.
Therefore, the basement of the building is not included in the analysis and only gravity loads are considered in
designing the basement. When a 20-story building structure was subjected to static lateral loads, the
displacements of the roof were 13.8cm and 12.7cm for the cases with and without the basement. And the period
of the building with the basement was about 10% longer than that of the building without the basement.
Therefore, it is recommended to use the proposed method to get more accurate results in the analysis of building
structures with basement 4-5. In this study, different soil strata are taken and corresponding base shear and lateral
displacement is determined with variation in floors as G+4, G+5 and G+6 and zone as 3, 4 and 5. IS 1893: 2002
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures gives response spectrum for different types of soil such
as hard, medium and soft 6-7 . The effect of different seismic zone on the performance of G+10 multistoried RC
building. Three dimensional (3D) models of building were developed to analyze and compare the effect of
seismic forces on multistory building by commercially available computer program, STADD PRO. It was
observed that the maximum moment in X-direction, Z-direction and maximum Fy found for Zone-V8. The
present study the structural behavior of the buildings with shear walls at different locations has been investigated
and compared in terms of storey drift and average displacement. It was noticed that for the buildings investigated
in the present study, the shear walls located at internal frames are most effective in reducing the storey drift and
average displacements9-10.

2. OBJECTIVES
Modeling a G+4 building in STAAD.PRO
Calculating vertical support reaction for various soils in various seismic zones.
Calculating lateral support reactions for various soils in various seismic zones.
Comparison of Rigid and Flexible supports.

3. METHODOLOGY
Size of the building - 12m X 16.5m
Type of structure - RCC Multi storey frame
Seismic zones - II, III, IV, V
Height of the building - 16.5m
No of storey - 5
Height of floor - 3m
Materials - M30, Fe415

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 611 editor@iaeme.com

 V Ratna Priya and N Jitendra Babu

Unit weight of RCC - 25kN/m3

Type of soil - Hard, Medium and Soft
Response spectra - IS 1893(Part I) 2002
For the determination of seismic forces, the country is classified into four seismic zones. The design
horizontal seismic coefficient Ah shall be determined by the following expression.

Ah =

Provide for any structure with T< 0.1s and the value of Ah will not be taken less than Z/2 whatever be the
value of I/R
Where, Z = Zone Factor.
I = Important Factor.
R = Response Reduction Factor.
Sa/g = Average Response Acceleration.

4. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

By the consideration of the Table 1-4. Vertical and lateral reactions in comparison of flexible with rigid supports
for various soils such as hard, medium, soft soils and shown zone wise.

Table 1. Max Vertical Reaction for Rigid Support

Max Vertical Reaction For Rigid Support (kN)

Soil Type
Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Hard Soil 44.64 67.27 100.90 151.35
Medium Soil 57.18 91.48 137.22 205.84
Soft Soil 64.54 103.26 154.88 232.33

Table 2 Max Lateral Reaction for Rigid Support

Max Lateral Reaction For Rigid Support (kN)
Soil Type
Zone - II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Hard Soil 15.15 22.83 34.24 55.36
Medium Soil 19.40 31.05 46.57 69.86
Soft Soil 56.24 60.12 65.32 85.24

Table 3. Max Vertical Reaction for Flexible Support

Max Vertical Reaction For Flexible Support (kN)
Soil Type
Zone - II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Hard Soil 45.48 72.77 109.16 163.73
Medium Soil 57.09 91.34 137.00 205.51
Soft Soil 61.90 99.04 148.56 222.84

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 612 editor@iaeme.com

 Seismic Reaction of Building Frame Under Various Zones Considering Flexible and Rigid Supports

Table 4. Max Lateral Reaction for Flexible Support

Max Lateral Reaction For Flexible Support (kN)

Soil Type
Zone - II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
Hard Soil 13.64 21.82 32.74 49.10
Medium Soil 17.99 28.78 43.17 64.76
Soft Soil 47.24 70.86 76.42 81.91

4.1. ZONE II
The maximum vertical reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 4.09% increment of vertical reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Vertical reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils. Maximum lateral reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 9.8% increment of lateral reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Lateral reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils.

4.2. ZONE III

The maximum vertical reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 4.08% increment of vertical reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Vertical reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils. Maximum lateral reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 15.47% increment of lateral reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Lateral reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils.

4.3. ZONE IV
The maximum vertical reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 4.08% increment of vertical reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Vertical reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils. Maximum lateral reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 42.32% increment of lateral reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Lateral reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils.

4.4. ZONE V
The maximum vertical reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 4.08% increment of vertical reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Vertical reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils. Maximum lateral reaction has been observed in soft soil for flexible support when compared to rigid
support. From the results, for soft soil 13.49% increment of lateral reaction has been observed in flexible support
when compared to rigid support. Lateral reaction for the soft soil is maximum when compared to medium and
hard soils.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 613 editor@iaeme.com

 V Ratna Priya and N Jitendra Babu

5. CONCLUSIONS
Max Lateral Reaction
Maximum Lateral Reaction is 9.9% more for zone II and 11.3% more for zone V at Rigid support than compared
to flexible support in hard soil.
Maximum lateral reaction is 7.2% more for zone II and 7.3% more for zone V at Rigid support than compared to
flexible support in Medium Soil.
Maximum lateral reaction is 4.06% more for zone II and 19% more for zone V at rigid support than compared to
flexible in Soft Soil.

Max Vertical Reaction

Maximum Vertical Reaction is 1.84% more for zone II and 7.5% more for zone V at flexible support than
compared to rigid support in hard soil.
Maximum vertical reaction is same for zone II and zone V at both the supports in Medium Soil.
Maximum vertical reaction is 4.06% more for zone II and 4.08% more for zone V at rigid support than compared
to flexible in Soft Soil.

REFERENCES
[1] IS 1893. Indian Standard Criteria of practice for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, 2002.
[2] Pankaj Agrawal, Manish Shrikhande. Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. 5th edition, Prentice Hall
India Publication, 2012.
[3] Raj Kumar Singh B, Imran Khan M A. Seismic Behavior of High Rise R C Building in Different Zones.
International Journal of Scientific Research. 2015 May; 4(5), 24-28.
[4] Bangle S T. Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings: Textbook of McGraw Hill International
Editions, 2011.
[5] Lee D G, Kim H S. Efficient seismic analysis of high-rise buildings considering the basements. NZSEE
Conference. 2001; 1-9.
[6] Ketan B, Jitesh T C, Bhavik M V. Seismic behaviour of buildings on different types of soil. Proceedings of
Indian Geotechnical Conference. 2013 December; 22-24.
[7] Mahesh S, Panduranga Rao B. 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. 2014
December; 11(6), 45-52.
[8] Neha D, Khobragade N. Effect of seismic forces on multi-storey building for different zones & soil condition.
International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering. 2016 May; 3(9), 2368-2371.
[9] Dr. D. V. Prasada Rao and G. Sulochana, Modelling of an Infill Wall for the Analysis of A Building Frame
Subjected to Lateral Force, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(1), 2016, pp. 180-
187.
[10] Ravindra N. Shelke and U. S. Ansari. Seismic Analysis of Vertically Irregular RC Building Frames.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 155169.
[11] Verma S K, Roshan L, Raman K. Seismic response of RC framed buildings. International Journal of Civil
and structural Engineering. 2014 May; 4(4), 499-506.
[12] Tejashree K, Sachin K, Anjum A, Kolhar M H. Analysis and design of high rise building frame using Staad.
Pro. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology. 2016 April; 5(4), 235-237.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 614 editor@iaeme.com