Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799

11th International Symposium on Plasticity and Impact Mechanics, Implast 2016

Seismic Response of RC Framed Buildings Resting on

Hill Slopes
Zaid Mohammada,*, Abdul Baqib, Mohammed Arifb
a
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, 247667, India
b
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 202002, India

Abstract

Framed structures constructed on hill slopes show different structural behavior than that on the plain ground. Since these buildings
are unsymmetrical in nature, hence attract large amount of shear forces and torsional moments, and show unequal distribution due
to varying column lengths. In present study, two different configurations of hill buildings have been modelled and analyzed using
ETABS v 9.0 finite element code. A parametric study has been carried out, in which hill buildings are geometrically varied in
height and length. In all, eighteen analytical models have been subjected to seismic forces along and across hill slope direction and
analyzed by using Response Spectrum Method. The dynamic parameters obtained from analyses have been discussed in terms of
shear forces induced in the columns at foundation level, fundamental time periods, maximum top storey displacements, storey
drifts and storey shear in buildings, and compared within the considered configurations of hill buildings. At last, the suitability of
different configurations of hill buildings has been suggested.
©©2017
2016TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd. This
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
Keywords: Hill buildings, Step-back and Step-back setback, Response Spectrum method, Earthquake analysis.

1. Introduction

Economic development of hill areas in the last century has led to the reconsideration of building style, optimum
use of construction material and method of construction. Due to scarcity of the plain land on hills, houses built on
steep slopes, pose special structural and construction problems. RC framed structures constructed on hill slopes show
different structural behavior than on the plain ground. Because of steep slopes, buildings are constructed generally in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9045774610

E-mail address: zaidzhcet@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.221
 Zaid Mohammad et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799 1793

step-back configuration, though a combination of step-back and setback building configuration is also common. There
is a development of torsional moments due to the unsymmetrical nature of these buildings and eccentricity caused by
the difference in the alignments of the center of mass and stiffness at each floor. Additionally, at the location of
setbacks, an increase in the stress concentration has also been reported, when the building is subjected to seismic
forces. Recent earthquakes, struck in hill regions viz., Nepal (2015), Sikkim (2011), Kashmir (2005), Uttarkashi (1990)
and Bihar-Nepal (1988) have shown major casualties caused by design flaws and failures in RC as well as masonry
structures.
A significant amount of research work has been done involving hill buildings. Previous studies have described
various problems and suggested different techniques regarding mathematical modelling formulation and lateral load
analysis of step-back and setback buildings. Cheung and Tso [1] incorporated the concept of compatibility analysis to
subdivide the loading components (translational and torsional) in setback structures, involving the determination of
center of rigidity. Shahrooz and Moehle [2] presented analytical and experimental studies on influence of current static
and dynamic design requirements for setback buildings, also it was found that were inadequate to prevent concentration
of damage in the members near setbacks. Paul [3] suggested a simplified approach for dynamic analysis of hill
buildings and considered only one degree of freedom per floor in either translational direction. Kumar and Paul
developed a method of analysis based on transformation of stiffness and mass matrices about a vertical reference axis
and, results obtained have been compared with the IS Code method 1893 (1984) [4 & 5]. Kumar [6] and Kumar and
Paul [7 & 8] illustrated a simplified three dimensional approach for elastic seismic analysis of irregular and
asymmetrical hill structures, incorporating rigid floor diaphragm action and compared with the rigorous method of
analysis considering complete flexibility of floor in all the directions and found similar results from the two methods.
Birajdar and Nalawade [9 & 10] studied various configurations of step-back and setback buildings, and observed that
in step-back buildings shorter frame on the uphill side attracts more base-shear force than the other frames of the
building. Singh et al. [11] applied different seismic analysis approaches viz., Response Spectrum Method of analysis,
Linear and Non-linear Time History analysis and compared dynamic properties at across and along slope of step-back
and buildings at vertical steep/cut slopes. The results obtained in the study were corroborated by the damage pattern
of hill buildings observed in Sikkim earthquake in 2011. Murty et al. [12] described the adequacy of translational
fixidity of column foundations under lateral loads in step-back buildings, and commented on the suitability of the plan
size of the buildings to be built on steep slope.
Although, the researches carried out in past have provided a better view of structural behavior of hill buildings but
the performance of the hill building in different configurations has not been studied thoroughly. Also, IS 1893 (1984)
and IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002; recommend that buildings with geometrical irregularity and or having irregular distribution
of mass and stiffness should be analyzed by modal analysis and torsional shear should be accounted separately, but
fails to capture the true response of the structure. Thus, in order to get the realistic behavior of hill buildings subjected
to seismic load, a three dimensional modelling of structure is required, considering real structural behavior of
beams/columns, rigid slabs, infill masonry walls and RC shear walls, etc. Also, to incorporate the inelastic behavior
of hill buildings, linear and non-linear dynamic analysis should be carried out. In the present study three dimensional
modelling of two different configurations of hill buildings has been undertaken and the effect of plan aspect ratio has
been parametrically studied by varying plan dimensions and height of the models. Results have been discussed in
terms of static and dynamic properties of buildings such as shear forces induced in the columns at foundation level,
fundamental time period, maximum top storey displacements, storey drifts and storey shear in buildings and compared
with in the considered configurations of hill buildings.

2. Method of Analysis

Three dimensional space frame analyses of two configurations of hill buildings involving the effect of plan aspect
ratio have been carried out by parametrically varying plan and height of the models. The seismic analysis is carried
out by using equivalent static approach and response spectrum method using finite element code ETABS v 9.0, and
seismic parameters such fundamental time period, maximum top story displacement, story shear, story drift and
column shear at ground level in each direction, i.e. along slope and across slope of hill, are determined using SRSS
modal combination and compared within the considered configurations. Concrete, as constituent material, is assumed
to be homogenous, isotropic and elastic in nature with modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of concrete as 25000
1794 Zaid Mohammad et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799

N/mm2 and value of Poisson’s ratio is 0.2. The yield stress of reinforcement steel is taken as 415 MPa. For seismic
analysis, the floor system in the all the configurations is modelled as rigid frame diaphragm and beam and column
members modelled as two node beam elements. The foundation in all the models is assumed to be fixed support
system. The torsional effects and accidental eccentricity is considered in the analysis as per recommendations of Indian
code IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.

2.1. Geometrical properties

All the models have same geometrical and material properties, and rest on the same inclination of ground which is
26o (Fig. 1). The geometrical properties of the structural elements in the models with designation of different model
types are given in Table 1. The inter-storey height is taken as 3 meters and foundation depth is 1.5 m in all the
buildings. The thickness of the slab at all floors in all the models is considered as 125 mm. Since, the models are
varied in length along and across the slope, their heights will also be varied accordingly, variation in length of step-
back and step-back setback configurations along the slope is carried out from four bays (6 m each) to eight bays with
an increment of one bays at each step by keeping width of building constant to one bay across slope (Fig. 2). Further,
the length of both building types, across the slope is altered from one bay (5 m each) to five bays of same length at
one bay at a time by keeping the same number of bays along slope and number of storeys in the structure (Fig. 3).

Fig. 1. Terrain properties of hill slope.

Table 1. Geometrical properties of different configurations of hill buildings

Column size Beam size
Building Configuration Parametric variation Designation of models
(mm) (mm)
up to 5: 400×400
4 to 8 bays STEPALS
Step-back from 6 to 8: 450×450 along slope: 300×500
1 to 5 bays STEPACS all: 400×400
4 to 8 bays SETALS all: 400×400 across slope: 300×450
Step-back setback
1 to 5 bays SETACS all: 400×400

2.2. Seismic parameters and loads

The seismic parameters considered in dynamic analysis of all the models are assumed as per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002.
The hill buildings are assumed to be in Zone V with the peak ground acceleration value of 0.36g. The importance
factor, I is taken as 1.5 (for important building). Also, the response reduction factor R taken as 5 for SMRF system of
the buildings. The soil strata beneath the foundation is assumed as medium soil.
The gravity and imposed loads are taken as per IS 875 (Part 1 and 2): 1987, self-weight of the structure is calculated
and imposed load is assumed to be 3 kN/m2 for a typical residential building. Since, the lateral load due to earth
pressure on foundation columns does not take part in the seismic weight of the structure, thus its effect is neglected in
the analysis to observe only the effect of lateral forces due to seismic loads. However, for design purposes, the effect
of lateral earth pressure should be considered. All the models of both building configurations are analyzed, designed
and checked for any failure of members and hence the size of the columns are varied accordingly as the height of the
structure increases (Table 1).
 Zaid Mohammad et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799 1795

Fig. 2. Variation in length (bays) along slope direction; (a) Step-back buildings, (b) Step-back setback buildings

Fig. 3. Variation in length (bays) across slope direction; (a) Step-back buildings, (b) Step-back
setback buildings
1796 Zaid Mohammad et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799

3. Discussion of results

In this study, geometrical variations in the structure of step-back and step-back setback configurations are
performed by varying height and length of the buildings in along and across slope direction. In all, eighteen models
of different lengths and widths have been analyzed for earthquake loads and accidental eccentricity as per codal
provisions. The hill buildings are subjected to seismic loads independently in either direction viz., along and across
slope of the hill. The results obtained in the analyses are discussed in terms of seismic parameters such as storey drift,
fundamental time period (FTP), top storey displacement, storey shear and normalized base shear in columns at ground
level and compared within the considered effects on hill buildings.

3.1. Configurations with variation in length along hill slope

The dynamic parameters of both configurations viz., step-back and step-back setback buildings along and across
hill slopes are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. In step-back buildings, marginal difference is observed in the values of
time period obtained by empirical relation as per code and RSA. The top storey displacement is found to be varying
from 4.29 mm to 6.64 mm as the length is increased. Further, the values of shear force in columns at ground level
increased significantly in frame A (Fig. 4a). On the other hand, in the step-back setback buildings, the values of time
period obtained in the dynamic analysis are found to be same (Table 3). Whereas, the values calculated by empirical
formula are similar to the values of step-back buildings. The top storey displacements are found to be less due to less
storey weight as compared to that of step-back buildings. The shear force at ground level found to be substantially
less which is about 55.2 % (in SETALS 8) of the previous value at frame ‘A’ in STEPALS 8 (Fig. 5a). This reduction
in the base shear is mainly due to less seismic weight of step-back setback building in their respective models.
Step-back buildings have shown significant increase in the FTP obtained in RSA (ranging from 0.575 sec to 1.089
sec) in across slope direction (Table 2). A linear increase in values of top storey displacements is observed. Unlike
the behavior in along slope direction, the values of shear force at ground level have shown marginal increase with
length. In case of step-back setback buildings (Table 3), the variation in the values of time period obtained from
dynamic analysis are varied from 0.575 sec to 0.695 sec, which are different from the values calculated from the
empirical relation as from 0.543 sec to 1.026 sec. The top-storey displacement vary from 28.37 mm to 15.57 mm, this
variation is opposite to the step-back buildings subjected to lateral loads across slope. The values of shear force in
columns at ground are not much significant, ranging from minimum of 18.89 kN to 105.24 kN as maximum value,
and shows same variation as in the step-back building configurations (Figs. 4b & 5b).
A significant amount of difference in storey drift is observed between step-back and step-back setback
configurations, as the length of the models is increased. The reduction in storey drift ranges from 10.48% to 49.8% in
along slope direction and 25.29% to 46.26% in across slope direction at their maximum difference. Further, it is
observed that step-back setback buildings induce less shear force than step-back buildings at each story levels. The
difference at that level in along slope direction is found to be 10.19% (STEPALS 5 and SETALS 5) and increases to
51.54% (STEPALS 8 and SETALS 8). However, values of storey shear obtained in analysis of hill buildings in across
slope direction, show that the maximum shear built up is at the middle heights of the structure models. Further, as the
length of the models is increased, more difference in the shear force is observed between step-back and setback
buildings. In case of buildings with five bays in length (across slope), there is a reduction of 164.13 kN at maximum
and the difference increases up to 299.92 kN in case of SETALS 8 (51.63% of STEPALS 8).

Table 2 Dynamic response of step-back building along and across hill slope (STEPALS)

FTP by RSA FTP as per IS 1893 Max. Top storey displacement Base Shear ratio
No. of Height
Designation (sec) (sec) (mm) (λ)
Bays (m)
Along Across Along Across Along Across Along Across
STEPALS 4 4 13.5 0.252 0.575 0.248 0.543 4.29 28.37 1.338 1.457
STEPALS 5 5 16.5 0.267 0.708 0.271 0.664 4.81 32.49 1.312 1.324
STEPALS 6 6 19.5 0.281 0.833 0.293 0.785 5.46 35.12 1.330 1.256
STEPALS 7 7 22.5 0.294 0.961 0.312 0.906 6.05 39.02 1.335 1.205
STEPALS 8 8 25.5 0.306 1.089 0.331 1.026 6.64 42.88 1.339 1.158
 Zaid Mohammad et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799 1797

500 120
a 4 bays 5 bays 6 bays 7 bays 8 bays b
4 bays 5 bays 6 bays 7 bays 8 bays
100
400

Shear Force in kN
Shear Force in kN

80
300
60
200
40
100 20
0 0
Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame
A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I

Fig. 4. Base shear distribution in step-back configuration; (a) along hill slope direction, (b) across hill slope direction

Table 3 Dynamic response of step-back setback building along and across hill slope (SETALS)

FTP by RSA FTP as per IS 1893 Max. Top storey displacement Base Shear ratio
No. of Height
Designation (sec) (sec) (mm) (λ)
Bays (m)
Along Across Along Across Along Across Along Across
SETALS 4 4 13.5 0.252 0.575 0.248 0.543 4.29 28.37 1.338 1.457
SETALS 5 5 16.5 0.253 0.632 0.271 0.664 4.62 23.66 1.326 1.240
SETALS 6 6 19.5 0.253 0.663 0.293 0.785 4.82 20.43 1.311 1.100
SETALS 7 7 22.5 0.253 0.683 0.312 0.906 4.84 18.11 1.280 1.025
SETALS 8 8 25.5 0.253 0.695 0.331 1.026 4.78 15.57 1.249 0.923
250 120
4 bays 5 bays 6 bays 7 bays 8 bays a 4 bays 5 bays 6 bays 7 bays 8 bays b
100
Shear Force in kN
Shear Force in kN

200
80
150
60
100 40
50 20
0 0
Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame Frame
A B C D E F G H I A B C D E F G H I

Fig. 5. Base shear distribution in step-back setback configuration; (a) along hill slope direction, (b) across hill slope direction

3.2. Configurations with variation in length across hill slope

As it is observed in the previous geometrical variations, seismic parameters obtained in across the hill slope
direction show different variation than in along slope direction. Thus, analyzing the models with only one bay length
in across slope direction will not suffice the analysis and the seismic response in that direction. Hence, in this section,
by keeping the length and height of the models fixed at five bays and five storey, both the configurations are varied
in length across the slope from one bay to five bays in length of 5 m each.
Table 4 and Table 5 show the dynamic properties of step-back and step-back setback buildings in along and across
hill slope direction. Due to similar height and length, the fundamental time period obtained from empirical relations
in that direction is 0.271 seconds. Whereas, in the RSA, values of time period are recorded, ranging from 0.267 to
0.303 sec, showing a marginal change in the results. Also, top storey displacements are minimum (4.81 mm to 5.78
mm) and there is insignificant increase in base shear ratio is observed. A marginal increase in shear force is observed
from 228.87 kN to 262.56 kN in frame ‘A’ (Fig. 6a). However, in case of step-back setback buildings, the fundamental
time period is found to be less (0.253 sec to 0.288 sec) as compared to step-back buildings. There is also a marginal
difference in the top storey displacements and base shear ratio. Further, shear force in column at ground level
experience a small decrease in all respective frames, ranging from 205.80 kN at frame ‘A’ in SETACS 1 to 238.60
kN in SETACS 5 (Fig. 7a).
1798 Zaid Mohammad et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799

In across slope direction the response of step-back models (Table 4) show reduction in the time period. Also, top
storey displacement is reduced from 32.39 mm to 19.95 mm. However, due to increase in the seismic weight of the
structure, there is a linear increase in the base shear. The larger value of shear force in the columns at foundation level
is obtained in mid-frames (B, C and D) of the structure and this increases in the shear force is get shifted to frame ‘A’
and ‘B’ (95.63 kN in STEPACS 1 to 182.37 kN in STEPACS 5) as the length of the bays from one bay to five bays
across hill slope (Fig. 6b). In the case of step-back setback configuration, all the seismic parameters obtained in the
dynamic analysis are found to be reduced. The value of fundamental time period lies between 0.632 sec and 0.415
second. Whereas, values of displacement at top storey and base shear ratio are found to be varying from 23.66 mm to
15.22 mm and 1.240 to 1.652, respectively (Table 5). Also, the maximum values of shear force in columns at ground
level are coming to be 93.33 kN in frame ‘C’ of SETACS 1 and 169.32 kN in frame ‘B’ of SETACS 5. Thus, step-
back setback buildings develop lesser amount of torsion and induce less shear forces as compared to step-back
buildings (Fig. 7b).
The storey drift values obtained in along and across hill slope direction show marginal difference in step-back and
step-back setback configuration. The storey shear distribution show similar pattern as in the previous geometrical
variation. In along slope direction, the storey shear is found to be higher at second last storey. The difference in the
values of storey shear between STEPACS and SETACS varies from 36.1 kN to 185.52 kN. On the other hand, in
across hill slope direction, the maximum storey shear response is found in the mid-height of the models. However, as
the number of bays are increased, the position of larger shear force get changed to second last storey. The maximum
value of storey shear ranges from 576.82 kN to 1985.57 kN and from 551.89 kN to 2061.9 kN in along and across
slope direction respectively. Also, the difference in the storey shear values of step-back and step-back setback
buildings in across slope direction varies from 64.74 kN to 231.09 kN at maximum difference levels.
300 200
1 bay 2 bays 3 bays 4 bays 5 bays a 1 bay 2 bays 3 bays 4 bays 5 bays b
250
150
Shear Force in kN
Shear Force in kN

200

150 100

100
50
50

0 0
Frame A Frame B Frame C Frame D Frame E Frame F Frame A Frame B Frame C Frame D Frame E Frame F
Fig. 6. Base shear distribution in step-back configuration; (a) along hill slope direction, (b) across hill slope direction

Table 4 Dynamic response of step-back building along and across hill slope (STEPACS)

FTP by RSA FTP as per IS 1893 Max. Top storey displacement Base Shear ratio
No. of Height
Designation (sec) (sec) (mm) (λ)
Bays (m)
Along Across Along Across Along Across Along Across
STEPACS 1 1 16.5 0.267 0.708 0.271 0.664 4.81 32.39 1.312 1.323
STEPACS 2 2 16.5 0.285 0.605 0.271 0.469 5.3 32.68 1.320 1.592
STEPACS 3 3 16.5 0.294 0.539 0.271 0.383 5.53 27.32 1.324 1.570
STEPACS 4 4 16.5 0.299 0.495 0.271 0.332 5.69 23.53 1.326 1.646
STEPACS 5 5 16.5 0.303 0.462 0.271 0.297 5.78 19.95 1.326 1.685

Table 5 Dynamic response of step-back setback building along and across hill slope (SETACS)

FTP by RSA FTP as per IS 1893 Max. Top storey displacement Base Shear ratio
No. of Height
Designation (sec) (sec) (mm) (λ)
Bays (m)
Along Across Along Across Along Across Along Across
SETACS 1 1 16.5 0.253 0.632 0.271 0.664 4.62 23.66 1.326 1.240
SETACS 2 2 16.5 0.271 0.540 0.271 0.470 5.12 23.67 1.336 1.499
SETACS 3 3 16.5 0.307 0.502 0.271 0.383 6.08 21.91 1.351 1.579
SETACS 4 4 16.5 0.285 0.443 0.271 0.332 5.50 17.24 1.344 1.617
SETACS 5 5 16.5 0.288 0.415 0.271 0.297 5.61 15.22 1.345 1.652
 Zaid Mohammad et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1792 – 1799 1799

300 200
1 bay 2 bays 3 bays 4 bays 5 bays a 1 bay 2 bays 3 bays 4 bays 5 bays b
Shear Force in kN

Shear Force in kN
150
200
100
100
50

0 0
Frame A Frame B Frame C Frame D Frame E Frame F Frame A Frame B Frame C Frame D Frame E Frame F
Fig. 7. Base shear distribution in step-back setback configuration; (a) along hill slope direction, (b) across hill slope direction

4. Conclusions

The present study discusses the behavior of hill buildings under seismic load conditions. Two common
configurations of hill buildings are parametrically investigated by altering their plan dimensions. All the models are
geometrically modelled and analyzed with a finite element code incorporating equivalent static and response spectrum
method. The results obtained in the analyses are discussed in terms of seismic parameters such as storey drift,
fundamental time period (FTP), top storey displacement, storey shear and base shear in columns at ground level and
compared within the considered effects on hill buildings.
The performance of step-back and step-back setback configurations is significantly unlike when compared to each
other and entirely different than a building resting on plain ground. The empirical relations given in IS 1893 (Part 1):
2002 (Clause 7.6) are unable to depict the correct values of time period in along and across slope direction. Since, the
parameters involved in equivalent static method are entirely depend on the time period value, thus this method should
not be used to design a hill building. Instead response spectrum analysis of a three dimensional model of complex
structures like hill buildings should be carried out to ascertain true behavior.
The step-back setback configurations experience less torsional moments and seismic forces as compared with step-
back buildings due to less seismic weight of the structure. Around 45 % reduction in base shear value is observed in
case of step-back setback buildings when compared to step-back configurations. Also, step-back buildings show
higher storey drift and storey shear, making the structures more vulnerable to earthquake forces. Hence it can be stated
that the step-back setback buildings perform better than step-back configuration when subjected to seismic loads.
Further, maximum storey shear in both the configurations is observed in top most stories thus, structural members
experiencing high shear forces and moments under lateral loads should be designed accordingly.

References

[1] V.W.T. Cheung and W.K. Tso, Lateral load analysis for buildings with setbacks. J. ASCE Structural Divison 113 (1987) (2), 209-227.
[2] B.M. Shahrooz and J.P. Moehle, Seismic response and design of setback buildings. J. of Structural Engg. ASCE, 116 (1990) (5), 1423-1439.
[3] D.K. Paul, Simplified seismic analysis of buildings on hill slopes. Bull. Indian Society of Earthquake Technology 30 (1993) (4), 113-124.
[4] S. Kumar and D.K. Paul, 3-D analysis of irregular buildings with rigid floor diaphragm. Bull. Indian Society of Earthquake Technology
31(1994a) (3), 141-154.
[5] S. Kumar and D.K. Paul, Dynamic analysis of step-back and setback buildings. Proc. Tenth Symposium on Earthquake Engineering,
1(1994b), 341-350.
[6] S. Kumar, Seismic analysis of step-back and setback buildings. Thesis(1996), Earthquake engineering, University of Roorkee, Roorkee.
[7] S. Kumar and D.K. Paul, A simplified method for elastic seismic analysis of hill buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2(1998)(2),
241-266.
[8] S. Kumar and D.K. Paul, Hill buildings configuration from seismic consideration. Journal of Structural Engineering, 26(1999) (3), 179-185.
[9] S.S. Nalawade, Seismic Analysis of Buildings on Sloping Ground. Dissertation (2003), University of Pune, Pune.
[10]B.G. Birajdar and S. S. Nalawade, Seismic analysis of buildings resting on sloping ground. In Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering (13WCEE), 2004, Vancouver, Canada.
[11]Y. Singh, P. Gade, D.H. Lang and E. Erduran, Seismic behaviour of buildings located on slopes: An analytical study and some observations
from Sikkim earthquake of September 18, 2011. 15 WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.
[12]A.R.V. Narayanan, R. Goswami and C.V.R. Murty, Performance of RC buildings along hill slopes of Himalayas during 2011 Sikkim
earthquake. 15 WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal, WCEE Online Proceedings, 2012.