Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Structuralonline
Available Integrity
atProcedia 00 (2018) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819

2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity and Exhibition 2018

2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity and Exhibition 2018
Analysis of Irregular Structures under Earthquake Loads
Analysis of Irregular Structures under Earthquake Loads
Siva Naveen Ea,d , Nimmy Mariam Abrahamb,d,* , Anitha Kumari S Dc,d
Siva NaveenFormer
E ,Post-graduate
a,d
Nimmy Mariam
a Abraham
Student, Assistant
b,d,*
, Anitha
Professor, Associate
b Kumari S Dc,d
Professor c
ad
Former Post-graduate
M. S. Ramaiah Student,
University b
Assistant
of Applied Professor,
Sciences, c
Associate
Bangalore, Professor
560058, India
d
M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore, 560058, India

Abstract
Abstract
Behavior of a multi-storey building during strong earthquake motion depends on structural configuration. Irregular configuration
Behavior of a multi-storey
either in plan or in elevation building during strong
is recognized as oneearthquake
of the major motion depends
causes on structural
of failure configuration.
during earthquakes. ThusIrregular configuration
irregular structures,
either in plan
especially the or
onesin located
elevationin isseismic
recognized
zonesasare
one of the major
a matter causesStructures
of concern. of failuregenerally
during earthquakes. Thus irregular
possess combination structures,
of irregularities
especially the onesoflocated
and consideration a single in irregularity
seismic zones mayare
nota result
matterinofaccurate
concern.prediction
Structuresofgenerally possess combination
seismic response. The choice of of irregularities
type, degree
and consideration of a single in
location of irregularities irregularity
the designmay not result isinimportant
of structures accurate prediction
as it helps ofin seismic
improving response. Theaschoice
the utility of aesthetics
well as type, degree
of
and locationHence,
structures. of irregularities
the present in the design
study of structures
addresses is important
the seismic responseas itofhelps in improving
reinforced the structures
concrete utility as well as aesthetics
possessing of
various
structures.
combinations Hence, the presentA study
of irregularities. addresses
nine-storeyed the seismic
regular frame is response
modified of reinforced concrete
by incorporating structures
irregularities possessing
in various forms various
in both
combinations of irregularities.
plan and elevation A nine-storeyed
to form 34 configurations regular
with singleframe is modified
irregularity and 20 bycases
incorporating irregularities
with combinations in various forms
of irregularities. Alongin with
both
plan and elevation
the regular to form 54
configuration, 34 irregular
configurations with single
configurations areirregularity
analyzed and andcompared.
20 cases with All combinations
the frames areofsubjected
irregularities. Alongloads
to seismic with
the
and regular configuration,
the response 54 irregular
of the structures is configurations are analyzed
computed numerically. It isand compared.
observed that All the frames
irregularity are subjected
considerably to seismic
affects loads
the seismic
and the response
response. of the types
Out of various structures is computed
of single numerically.
irregularities analyzed, Itstiffness
is observed that irregularity
irregularity is found to considerably
have maximum affects the seismic
influence on the
response. Out of various
Among the casestypes of single
having irregularities
combinations analyzed, stiffness
of irregularities, irregularity iswith
the configuration found to have
mass, maximum
stiffness influence
and vertical on the
geometric
response. Among
irregularities the cases
has shown having response.
maximum combinations
The of irregularities,
results the configuration
of this study with mass,ofstiffness
would aid in designing irregularand verticaljudiciously
structures geometric
irregularities has showntheir
without compromising maximum response. The results of this study would aid in designing of irregular structures judiciously
performance.
without compromising their performance.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019
© 2018an The
TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier B.V. B.V.
by Elsevier
This
This isisan open
open access
access article
article under
under the BY-NC-ND
the CC CC BY-NC-ND licenselicense (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an and
Selection openpeer-review
access article under
under the CC BY-NC-ND
responsibility licenseunder
of Peer-review (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
responsibility of the
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018SICE 2018 organizers.
organizers.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
Keywords: Configuration, horizontal irregularity, vertical irregularity, combination, response, displacement, storey drift
Keywords: Configuration, horizontal irregularity, vertical irregularity, combination, response, displacement, storey drift

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9448234542

*Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +91 9448234542
nimmy555@gmail.com
E-mail address: nimmy555@gmail.com

2452-3216© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open
2452-3216© 2018access article Published
The Authors. under thebyCC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an and
Selection openpeer-review
access article under
under the CC BY-NC-ND
responsibility licenseunder
of Peer-review (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.

2452-3216  2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
10.1016/j.prostr.2019.07.059
 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819 807
2 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

1. Introduction

The behavior of any building depends on the arrangement of structural elements present in it. The important
aspects on which the structural configuration depends are geometry, shape and size of the building. When a building
is subjected to dynamic loads, inertia forces are developed and gets concentrated at the center of mass of the
structure. Usually, the vertical members such as columns and shear walls resist the horizontal inertia forces and the
resultant of these forces gets concentrated at a point called center of stiffness. When the center of mass doesn’t
coincide with the center of stiffness, eccentricity develops in the structure. Eccentricity occurs due to the irregular
arrangement of structural configuration which in turn induces torsion in the structure. Location and size of structural
elements have significant effect on torsional coupling which results in damage of structures. Regular structures have
no significant discontinuities in plan or in vertical configurations. Irregular structures have certain physical
discontinuities either in plan or in elevation or both which affect the performance of the structure subjected to lateral
loads. Irregularities in the distribution of mass, stiffness and geometry along the height of any building are grouped
as vertical irregularities. Horizontal irregularities can be attributed to the presence of discontinuities in plan.
Different structural irregularities affect the seismic response of structures in different ways.
Irregularities are introduced in real structures for both aesthetics and utility. The magnitude of variation in
response depends on the type, degree and location of irregularities present. The judicious choice of these parameters
in the design of structures improves performance of the structure.
So far, many researchers have investigated the effect of seismic response on structures having vertical and
horizontal irregularities. Valmundsson and Nauhave (1997) studied the seismic behavior of multistoried buildings
having vertical structural irregularities and concluded that 30% decrease in stiffness have increased the storey drift in
the range of 20-40%. Guevara et al. (1992) focused on the effect of floor plan on the seismic behavior of structures.
Study includes the dynamic analysis of H and L shaped buildings. The paper suggests that buildings having H and L
shaped plan should be divided into rectangular blocks separated by seismic joints. Wood (1992) investigated the
effect of seismic response of setback structures and concluded that the presence of setbacks did not affect the seismic
behavior. The behavior was found to be similar to that of regular structure having no setback. Khoure et al. (2005)
studied the response of nine-storey steel frames with setback irregularities and observed that the higher torsion
response at the upper portion of the setbacks. Tremblay and Poncethave (2005) studied the dynamic behavior of
building frames with irregular distribution of mass. They have concluded that both static and dynamic analysis
methods are ineffective in predicting the response of the frames having mass irregularity. Gokdemi et al. (2013)
studied the effect of torsional irregularity on structures. According to the authors, torsion is caused due to the
eccentricity between center of mass and center of stiffness. The intensity of moment due to torsion was found to be a
function of eccentricity ratio. Ozmen et al. (2014) performed parametric studies on six buildings with varying shear
wall positions. Based on the floor rotations, a torsional irregularity coefficient was proposed. According to their
findings, as the number of storey decreases, the torsional irregularity coefficient increases and the maximum storey
rotations occur for the top storeys. Ahmed et al. (2016) have studied the effect of seismic response of L shaped
buildings. Equivalent static and response spectrum methods were performed using ETABS software. They observed
that the response of L shaped building is higher than that of the regular frame due to torsion. Patil et al. (2017)
studied the dynamic response of multi-storey buildings with plan asymmetry. They have numerically analyzed multi-
storyed frames having different plan shapes. They have reported that the increase in height of T and L shaped
buildings increases the displacement response and stress at the re-entrant corners.
As per the study conducted on existing literature, researchers have mainly focused on single irregularity. The
works reported are mainly related to mass, stiffness or geometry. Real structures contain multiple irregularities in
various combinations. However, the studies on the effect of combination of irregularities are scarce. Hence, the
present research addresses the behavior of structures having combination of irregularities, subjected to ground
motion. The study includes the analysis of both regular and irregular multistoried reinforced concrete (RC) frames.
Irregularities in both elevation and plan are studied. The vertical irregularities considered for the study include mass,
stiffness and vertical geometric irregularities. The horizontal irregularities considered are torsion and re-entrant
corner irregularities. A total of 54 irregular frames are analyzed. Out of the cases studied, 34 configurations have
single irregularity and 20 possess combination of irregularities. The main purpose of the study is to identify critical
combinations of irregularities.
808 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819
Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

2. Methodology

In the present work, seismic response of frames having different configurations are obtained numerically using a
finite element based software, ETABS. The major inputs are geometry of the frame including dimensions of storeys
and columns, total mass of each floor, modulus of elasticity, damping ratio and earthquake data. The modulus of
elasticity for the material is taken as 20000 MPa. Rayleigh damping is assumed with a damping ratio of 4%. It is
also assumed that the structure starts from rest on load application. The results are structural response in the form of
storey displacement, storey drift, base shear and overturning moment. In order to validate the results, response
obtained for the regular configurations is compared with the results reported in literature. For both validation and
subsequent analysis, same methodology is adopted.

3. Validation

Moehle (1984) has conducted experiments on a small scale nine-storyed test structure subjected to El-Centro
North-South 1940 ground motion (scaled). The results reported are used to validate the model developed for the
present study. Two frames having nine storeys and three bays were placed opposite and parallel to each other. The
frames together carry a total weight of 460 kg at each floor level. The typical storey height is 0.229 m. The frame
has three bays in the direction of length and one bay in the direction of width. The dimension of each bay in the
direction of length and width are 0.305 m and 0.914 m respectively. At the base, the frames were subjected to
simulated earthquake base motion in horizontal direction parallel to the plane of the structure. The same test
structure is modeled and analyzed numerically using ETABS. The first three natural frequencies and the top storey
displacement of the structure obtained numerically are compared with the experimental results reported by Moehle
(1984). The same is tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1. Validation of the model.

Particulars Literature (Moehle,1984) Obtained
1st natural frequency (Hz) 4.5 2.4
2nd natural frequency (Hz) 14.4 15.3
3rd natural frequency (Hz) 28.3 29.5
Top storey displacement (mm) 16.1 16.9

4. Analysis of frames with regular and irregular configurations

A structure is said to be irregular, when certain structural parameters exceed the limits specified by standards.
Table 2 shows the limits for mass (M), stiffness (S), vertical geometric (VG), re-entrant corner (REC) and torsional
(T) irregularities prescribed by IS1893:2016 (Part I).

Table 2. Irregularity limits prescribed by IS 1893:2016 (Part I) (i = storey number, a = adjacent storey number, Δmax =
maximum deformation and Δavg = average deformation).
Type of irregularity Classification Limits
Mass (M) Vertical irregularity Mi< 1.5Ma
Stiffness (S) Vertical irregularity Si< Si+1
Vertical geometry (VG) Vertical irregularity VG< 1.25 VGa
Re-entrant Corner (R) Horizontal irregularity Ri<= 15%
Torsion (T) Horizontal irregularity Δmax<= 1.5Δavg

A nine-storey scaled frame with a storey height of 0.229 m is considered for the study. The frame has six bays in
the direction of length and three bays in the direction of width. The dimension of each bay in the direction of length
and width are 0.305 m and 0.914 m respectively. Each floor carries a lumped mass of 2760 kg. The irregularities are
 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819 809
4 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

incorporated by changing the vertical and horizontal configurations of the regular frame. Apart from the regular
case, 54 irregular configurations are analyzed, out of which, 34 cases possess single irregularity and 20 possess
combination of irregularities.

4.1. Configurations having single irregularity

Vertical irregularities include mass, stiffness and vertical geometric irregularities whereas horizontal
irregularities include re-entrant corner and torsional irregularities. The 24 frame configurations with single vertical
irregularity along with the regular configuration and the 10 configurations having single plan irregularity are shown
in Figures 1a and 1b respectively. For all the cases analyzed, bay length and number of storeys are kept constant.
The details of various irregularities incorporated in each case are as follows:

 Mass irregularity (MI)

Four different cases of mass irregularity (MI-1 to MI-4) are adopted for the analysis. Irregularity is introduced by
increasing the mass of a particular storey. For MI-1 and MI-2, the mass is increased at 4th storey by 1.5 and 2 times
respectively than the regular frame. For MI-3 and MI-4 the mass is increased at second and seventh storeys by 1.5
and 2 times respectively.

 Stiffness Irregularity (SI)

Ten different cases of stiffness irregularities (SI-1 to SI-10) are considered for the analysis. Irregularity is
introduced by reducing the number of columns, increasing the length of the columns or changing the cross section
area of the columns. For the cases SI-1 and SI-9, number of columns is reduced from 28 to 12 with respect to the
regular frame. For SI-2, SI-3, SI-4 and SI-5 cases, the length of the columns is increased. For SI-6, rectangular
columns are replaced with circular columns for the first two floors, without changing the total cross sectional area of
the columns. For SI-7, rectangular columns are replaced with circular columns for the first two floors, with
increased total cross sectional area of the columns. For SI-8, the cross sectional area of the columns for first two
floors is increased to 0.056m×0.042m from 0.051m×0.038m. For the first two floors, the cross sectional area is more
compared to the remaining floors. For SI-10, the number of columns was reduced to 12 and the length of the
columns was increased to 0.458 m from 0.229 m. Table 3 shows the percentage reduction in storey stiffness with
respect to adjacent storey, at the location of irregularity.

 Vertical Geometric Irregularity (VGI)

Ten different cases of vertical geometric irregularity (VGI-1 to VGI-10) are considered for the analysis.
Irregularity is introduced by varying vertical configuration along the height. For the cases VGI-1, VGI-2, VGI-3,
VGI-7, VGI-9 and VGI-10, the horizontal dimension of the lateral resisting force system is reduced as shown in
Figure 1a. For the cases VGI-4, VGI-5, VGI-6 and VGI-8 lateral dimension is increased.

 Re-entrant Corner Irregularity (REC)

Re-entrant corner irregularity is introduced by varying plan configuration of the frames. Seven different cases
(REC-1 to REC-7) are considered for analysis.

 Torsional Irregularity (TI)

Torsional irregularity is introduced by varying vertical structural elements. Three different cases (TI-1 to TI-3)
are selected for the analysis. For case TI-1, irregularity is incorporated by introducing circular columns of size
0.06m. For case TI-2, irregularity is incorporated by introducing two shear walls of thickness 0.042m at the corner
of the building. For the case TI-3, irregularity is incorporated by introducing columns of different types of cross
sections, two columns of dimensions 0.06m×0.04m, one column of dimensions 0.055 m×0.04m, sixteen columns of
dimensions 0.051m×0.038m and two columns of dimension 0.05m×0.035m along with two shear walls of thickness
0.042m at the corner.
 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 5
810 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819

Fig. 1. (a) Elevation of the regular and horizontally irregular frames: MI-1 to MI-4 have mass irregularity, SI-1 to SI-10 have stiffness irregularity
and VGI-1 to VGI-10 have vertical geometric irregularity (All dimensions are in m); (b) Plan of vertically irregular configurations: REC-1 to
REC-7 have re-entrant corner irregularity and TI-1 to TI-3 have torsional irregularity.
 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819 811
6 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

Table 3. Percentage reduction in storey stiffness for the configurations having SI.
% of storey % Reduction in
Location of stiffness with storey stiffness
Case
irregularity respect to adjacent with respect to
storey adjacent storey
SI-1 1st floor 57 43
SI-2 1st floor 12.5 87.5
SI-3 8th floor 12.5 87.5
SI-4 5th floor 28 72
SI-5 5 floor
th
61 39
SI-6 3rd floor 70 30
SI-7 3rd floor 52 48
SI-8 3rd floor 67.5 32.5
SI-9 5th floor 57 43
SI-10 5th floor 16 84

4.2. Configurations having Combinations of Irregularities

Twenty cases with seven different combinations of irregularities (CoI) are considered for the analysis. The details
of various combinations considered are tabulated in Table 4. The individual cases of irregularities where maximum
response is observed are selected for the analysis of frames having combination of irregularities. Location and type
of irregularity are kept almost same for the cases in each CoI. Figure 2 depicts the different combinations of
irregularities considered for the analysis.

Table 4. Details of the cases with combination of different irregularities.

Combination Combination
CoI Irregularity involved CoI Irregularity involved
case number case number
CoI-1 C-1 MI+SI CoI-4 C-11 MI+SI+VGI
CoI-1 C-2 MI+SI CoI-5 C-12 REC+VGI
CoI-2 C-3 MI+VGI CoI-5 C-13 REC+VGI
CoI-2 C-4 MI+VGI CoI-5 C-14 REC+VGI
CoI-2 C-5 MI+VGI CoI-6 C-15 MI+SI+REC+VGI
CoI-3 C-6 SI+VGI CoI-6 C-16 MI+SI+REC+VGI
CoI-3 C-7 SI+VGI CoI-6 C-17 MI+SI+REC+VGI
CoI-3 C-8 SI+VGI CoI-7 C-18 MI+SI+REC+VGI+TI
CoI-4 C-9 MI+SI+VGI CoI-7 C-19 MI+SI+REC+VGI+TI
CoI-4 C-10 MI+SI+VGI CoI-7 C-20 MI+SI+REC+VGI+TI
812 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819
Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

Fig. 2. Cases with different combinations of irregularities: elevation is shown for C-1 to C-11, both plan and elevation are shown for C-12 to
C-20 (All dimensions are in m).
 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819 813
8 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

5. Results and discussion

The results obtained from the analysis of frames having single and combination of irregularities are plotted and
compared with that of a regular frame.

9
9
8 8

7 7

6 6
Level

Level
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1
1
0 5 10 15
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement(mm) Storey Drift(mm)
R MI-1 MI-2 MI-3 R MI-1 MI-2 MI-3
MI-4 SI-1 SI-2 SI-3 MI-4 SI-1 SI-2 SI-3
SI-4 SI-5 SI-6 SI-7 SI-4 SI-5 SI-6 SI-7
SI-8 SI-9 SI-10 SI-8 SI-9 SI-10

Fig.3. Displacement response and storey drift for MI & SI cases.

Figure 3 represents the displacement response and storey drift of MI and SI cases. Maximum storey displacement
and storey drift among mass irregularity cases is observed for case MI-3, where the magnitude of mass was doubled
at 2nd and 7th floor levels. Compared to the regular structure, an increase of 23% is observed in maximum floor
displacement for MI-3. For SI-1, a reduction in stiffness by 43% has shown an increase of 21% in the displacement
response compared to the regular one. For SI-2 and SI-3, a reduction in stiffness by 87.5% has increased the
maximum storey displacement by 71% and 44% respectively with respect to the regular one. It is observed that for
the same amount of reduction in stiffness, SI-2 has displayed more response than SI-3. This indicates that the
seismic response of structure depends on the location of irregularity. For SI-4 and SI-5, the location of reduction in
stiffness is kept same (5th floor). However, due to the amount of reduction in stiffness by 72% for SI-4 and 39% for
SI-5, maximum storey displacement has increased by 38% for SI-4 and 8% for SI-5 compared to the regular frame.
It is observed that for SI-3, SI-4 and SI-5, the displacement response showed an abrupt increase near the location of
irregularity (i.e. change in storey height). For SI-6, the cross sectional area of columns for all the floors are almost
equal but, the cross sectional shape of first two storeys (circular) differs from the remaining floors (rectangular).
Thus, a reduction in stiffness by 30% is seen which is due to the cross sectional shape. It has reduced the
displacement response by 20% than the regular one. In SI-7, the first two floors have circular columns and in SI-8
the first two floors have rectangular columns. However, the cross sectional area for both the shapes is kept same.
Also, for both the cases, the first two floors have more cross sectional area than the remaining floors. Thus, for SI-7
and SI-8, due to the increased cross sectional area, the displacement response is reduced by 13.4% for SI-7 and
14.4% for SI-8. With the same cross sectional area, the structure with circular columns (SI-7) displaces more than
SI-8. Even though circular columns have larger moment of inertia, it displaces more than that of rectangle columns
as the moment carrying capacity for rectangular columns is more than the circular one. Hence, from SI-6, SI-7 and
SI-8 it is observed that, with the introduction of circular columns the displacement response decreases. For SI-9 and
814 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819
Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 9

SI-10, a reduction in stiffness by 43% and 84% has increased the displacement response by 9% and 71.7%
respectively when compared to the regular one. The abrupt change in the displacement response along the height of
the building at the location of irregularity is also to be noted. It is also observed for most of the SI cases that
reduction in storey stiffness increases the storey drift. The same is found to be the maximum at the location of
irregularity. The cases SI-2 and SI-10 have shown maximum storey drift compared to the remaining cases of SI.
According to IS 1893:2016 (Part 1), the drift should not exceed 0.004 times the storey height. Thus SI-2 and SI-10
have exceeded the specified drift limits.
Figure 4 shows the displacement responses and storey drift of VGI cases. Increase in maximum displacement
response is observed for VGI-4, VGI-5, VGI-6 and VGI-8 by 79%, 15%, 76% and 50% respectively than that of
regular one. The displacement response is reduced by 20%, 22%, 26%, 26%, 22% and 41% for VGI-1, VGI-2, VGI-
3, VGI-7, VGI-9 andVGI-10 respectively. The results show that the displacement response is increasing along the
height of the building irrespective to the presence of setback. In all the cases, sudden increase in the drift value is
observed at the areas of discontinuity in geometry. For VGI-1 due to sudden change in vertical configuration at the
7th storey, drift at that particular storey has increased abruptly and then decreased. Other cases have also followed
the same pattern. Among the VGI cases, VGI-6 and VGI-9 are found to display maximum displacement and storey
drift.

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6
Level

Level

5 5

4 4

3 3
2
2
1
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement(mm)
Storey Drift(mm)
R VGI-1 VGI-2 VGI-3 R VGI-1 VGI-2 VGI-3
VGI-4 VGI-5 VGI-6 VGI-7 VGI-4 VGI-5 VGI-6 VGI-7
VGI-8 VGI-9 VGI-10 VGI-8 VGI-9 VGI-10

Fig.4. Displacement response and storey drift for VGI cases.

Figure 5 represents the displacement response and storey drift of REC and TI cases. For all the cases of REC, the
displacement response and storey drift are found to be less when compared to the regular one owing to the reduction
in mass and stiffness. It is observed that the configuration with the least plan area has less displacement response
and storey drift and vice versa. Out of the seven cases of REC, REC-4 has more plan area and shows higher
response compared to the other cases. The amount of torsion induced in TI-1, TI-2 and TI-3 are 1.56, 1.43 and 1.42
respectively. It is observed that for the cases of TI-2 and TI-3 REC irregularities, torsion is within the limits (i.e. TI
< 1.5). Due to the increased stiffness, all the TI cases have shown lesser displacement response and storey drift than
the regular model. Due to the presence of columns having different cross-sectional area, TI-1 has shown a decrease
in response by 37%. TI-2 has shown a reduction in response by 77% owing to the presence of two shear walls at the
corner. TI-3 has two shear walls and two different cross sectional areas of columns and it behaves similar to regular
 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819 815
10 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

model. The displacement response is reduced by 10% because of the increase in stiffness due to the presence of
shear walls. The increase in stiffness induces torsion in the frames.

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6
Level

Level
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2
1 1
0 5 10 15 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement(mm) Storey Drift(mm)
R REC-1 REC-2 R REC-1 REC-2
REC-3 REC-4 REC-5 REC-3 REC-4 REC-5
REC-6 REC-7 TI-1 REC-6 REC-7 TI-1
TI-2 TI-3
TI-2 TI-3

Fig.5. Displacement and Storey drift for REC & TI cases.

Figure 6 represents the displacement response and storey drift for CoI-1 to CoI-4 which includes cases from C-1
to C-11. All these combination cases have shown higher displacement and storey drift compared to the regular
model. The maximum drift is observed at the location of irregularity. For C-1, MI is introduced at 2nd and 7th storey
levels and SI at the first floor. The displacement response is increased by 78% than the regular model. Due to the
presence of SI at the first floor, the displacement of first storey is higher than that of C-2. For C-2, MI is positioned
at 4th floor and SI at 5th floor. The displacement response is found to increase by 54% than that of regular model.
Due to the presence of SI at the 5th floor, there is an abrupt increase in the displacement response from 4th to 5th
floor. For C-1, due to the presence of SI at the first floor, the drift has shown maximum value of 12.102 mm at that
particular floor and it is seen to exceed the drift limits specified in IS 1893:2016 (Part-1). For C-2, the maximum
drift occurred at the 5th storey due to the presence of SI at that particular floor. Out of the three cases of CoI-2, C-5
has shown maximum displacement response. The increase in the displacement response with respect to regular one
is 85%.
The increased response for CoI-3 is due to the presence of stiffness irregularity at the first floor. Out of the three
cases of CoI-3, C-6 has displayed maximum displacement response and the increase with respect to regular model is
150%. Due to the presence of SI at the first floor, the drift is maximum at the first storey level. Out of the three
cases, C-8 has displayed maximum storey drift. Due to the presence of stiffness irregularity at the first floor, all the
three cases of CoI-4 showed higher displacement response than the regular. The percentage increase with respect to
regular model for C-9, C-10 and C-11 are 187, 188 and 188 respectively. Due to the presence of SI at the first floor,
the drift is maximum at the first storey level. All the three cases show high storey drift and exceed the limits
specified as per IS 1893:2016 (Part-1).
Figure 7 shows the displacement and storey drift of 5th and 6th CoI, (C-12 to C-20). It is observed that all the three
cases of CoI-5 have shown less displacement and drift than that of regular model due to the reduced mass and
stiffness. Out of the three cases, C-12 has lesser displacement response and the percentage reduction is 50 with
816 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819
Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 11

respect to the regular model. Due to the sudden change in the vertical geometry at the 6 th storey level, all the three
cases of CoI-5 are showing abrupt changes in the drift response. It is observed that all the three cases of CoI-6 show
higher displacement and drift than that of regular model. Out of three cases, C-16 has shown more displacement
response and the increase is 85% with respect to the regular model. Due to the presence of SI at the first floor, the
drift is maximum at the first storey level. All the three cases have shown considerable effect on the storey drift and
has exceeded the limits specified as per IS 1893:2016(Part-1). C-18 has shown lesser response because of the
reduction in mass and stiffness of the columns at the higher levels (storey 6 to storey 9) and increased stiffness of
the frame due to the presence of shear wall. Displacement response of C-18 has reduced to 85%. C-19 and C-20
have shown higher response compared to regular model. Out of three cases, C-20 has the higher displacement
response and the percentage increase in displacement response with respect to regular model is 47%. Maximum drift
is also shown by C-20.

9 9

8 8

7 7
Level
6 6
Level

5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 10 20 30 40
0 5 10 15
Displacement(mm) Storey Drift(mm)
R C-1 C-2 C-3 R C-1 C-2 C-3
C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7
C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11

Fig.6. Displacement responses and storey drift for CoI cases (C1-C11).

Increase in maximum displacement for the configurations that have shown the highest response from each type of
single irregularity is summarized in Table 5. It is seen that VGI is the most critical irregularity among the single
irregularities considered in this study. Table 6 gives the percentage increase in displacement response for all the
combination of irregularity cases with respect to the regular case. Out of the seven combinations (20 different
cases), the combination of stiffness and vertical geometric irregularities (C-8) has shown maximum displacement
response followed by the combination of mass, stiffness and vertical geometric irregularities (C-11). The
combination cases having re-entrant corner and vertical geometric irregularities (CoI-5: C-12, C-13 and C-14) have
shown less displacement response. It is further seen that the response shown by the frames having combinations of
all five irregularities is less compared to that of the frames having combination of three irregularities. This reduction
in response is due to the presence of shear wall and reduction in mass and stiffness in the configuration. It is
observed from Tables 5 and 6 that certain cases involving combination of irregularities are way more critical than
the ones involving single irregularity. It is also observed that the response displayed by few configurations involving
combination of irregularities is less than that of the regular one.
The maximum base shear and overturning moment for all the cases studied are tabulated in Table 7. Among the
cases having single irregularity, MI cases have shown higher base shear and overturning moment than all other
 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819 817
12 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

configurations, owing to the increase in mass of the structure. On other hand, due to the reduction in overall mass of
the structure, VGI and REC cases have shown lesser base shear and overturning moment than that of regular, MI
and SI cases. Among the cases with combination of irregularities, C-2 (MI+SI) has shown maximum base shear and
overturning moment. C-18 (MI+SI+VGI+REC+TI) has displayed the least base shear and overturning moment
owing to the overall reduction in both mass and stiffness. In short, the case with increased mass (MI-2) has shown
maximum base shear and overturning moment among all the irregularity cases analysed.

9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
Level

Level
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
0 10 20 30 40 1
0 5 10 15
Displacement(mm)
Storey Drift(mm)
R C-12 C-13 C-14 R C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15
C-15 C-16 C-17 C-18
C-19 C-20 C-16 C-17 C-18 C-19 C-20

Fig.7. Displacement and Storey drift of CoI cases (C12-C20).

Table 5 Maximum percentage increase in displacement response for single irregularity cases
% change in maximum
Case displacement with respect to
regular configuration
MI-3 38
SI-10 101
VGI-6 133
REC-6 5
TI 6

Table 6 Percentage change in displacement response for combination cases

% change in maximum % change in maximum
Combination Irregularity displacement with Combination displacement with
Irregularity involved
case number involved respect to regular case number respect to regular
configuration configuration
C-1 MI+SI 97 C-11 MI+SI+VGI 242
C-2 MI+SI 48 C-12 REC+VGI -50
C-3 MI+VGI 146 C-13 REC+VGI -32
C-4 MI+VGI 10 C-14 REC+VGI -10
C-5 MI+VGI 125 C-15 MI+SI+REC+VGI 68
C-6 SI+VGI 249 C-16 MI+SI+REC+VGI 109
C-7 SI+VGI 105 C-17 MI+SI+REC+VGI 54
C-8 SI+VGI 250 C-18 MI+SI+REC+VGI+TI -68
C-9 MI+SI+VGI 238 C-19 MI+SI+REC+VGI+TI 25
C-10 MI+SI+VGI 104 C-20 MI+SI+REC+VGI+TI 50
818 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819
Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 13

Table 7 Maximum Base shear and Overturning moment for all the cases analyzed.
Maximum Base Maximum Overturning Maximum Base Maximum Overturning
Model Model
Shear (kN) Moment (kNm) Shear (kN) Moment (kNm)
Regular 237.6 318.9 REC-4 211.44 285.84
MI-1 279.4 366.4 REC-5 172.04 245.02
MI-2 243.8 309.7 REC-6 141.89 189.71
MI-3 371.1 501.3 REC-7 150.00 207.06
MI-4 295.3 390.9 TI-1 202.41 264.57
SI-1 301.8 401.1 TI-2 152.27 226.19
SI-2 251.6 351.9 TI-3 207.46 315.70
SI-3 242.1 415.5 C-1 272.1 395.3
SI-4 304.0 445.8 C-2 286.8 470.1
SI-5 246.1 337.6 C-3 140.9 228.4
SI-6 248.2 334.3 C-4 190.3 256.7
SI-7 236.6 320.5 C-5 140.7 207.0
SI-8 190.1 273.3 C-6 146.9 264.0
SI-9 225.5 315.2 C-7 160.0 274.7
SI-10 268.7 360.7 C-8 149.0 274.7
VGI-1 181.0 207.4 C-9 124.4 209.0
VGI-2 184.7 204.3 C-10 176.2 264.7
VGI-3 82.7 100.5 C-11 127.5 214.6
VGI-4 136 208.7 C-12 86.0 84.1
VGI-5 212.2 308.5 C-13 151.7 183.0
VGI-6 145.6 214.2 C-14 126.2 176.7
VGI-7 157.3 166.5 C-15 150.0 182.2
VGI-8 110.3 172.2 C-16 178.6 269.8
VGI-9 147.8 161.6 C-17 182.5 240.3
VGI-10 140.4 157.1 C-18 100.8 130.0
REC-1 137.043 178.27 C-19 152.7 237.3
REC-2 180.83 244.05 C-20 140.7 210.7
REC-3 122.165 177.11

6. Conclusions

The structural behaviour of multi-storey frames with single and combinations of irregularities is studied. The
results indicate that irregularity considerably affects the structural response. In all the cases analysed, change in
response is observed for frames having single or multiple irregularities with respect to the regular configuration. The
present study indicates that the presence of irregularities does not always amplify the response. Certain
combinations of irregularities bring down the structural response. All the single irregularity cases analysed have
shown an increase in response when compared to the regular configuration under seismic loads. Among these cases,
the configurations with vertical geometric irregularity have given maximum response. The combination of stiffness
and vertical geometric irregularities has shown maximum displacement response whereas the combination of re-
entrant corner and vertical geometric irregularities has shown less displacement response. In the modern world,
where people are not ready to compromise with their needs, incorporation of combinations of irregularity in
structures is inevitable. As the structural response depends on the type, location and degree of irregularity, these
factors need to be taken care while designing any structure. This would help in incorporating irregularities in
structures without compromising their performance.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to M.S.Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences for providing all
the facilities for conducting the research work. Sincere thanks to Computers and Structures, Inc. for permitting the
authors to use the finite element software, ETABS for research purpose.
 Siva Naveen E et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 806–819 819
14 Siva Naveen E, Nimmy Mariam Abraham, Anitha Kumari S D / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

References

Clark, T., Woodley, R., De Halas, D., 1962. Gas-Graphite Systems, in “Nuclear Graphite”. In: Nightingale, R. (Ed.). Academic Press,
New York, pp. 387.
Gokdemi, H., Ozbasaran, H., Dogan, M., Unluoglu, E., Albayrak, U., 2013. Effects of Torsional Irregularity to Structures during Earthquakes.
Engineering Failure Analysis 35, 713-717.
Guevara, LT., Alonso, JL., Fortoul, E., 1992. Floor-plan Shape Influence on the Response of Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering. 10th World
Conference, Rotterdam.
Gunay Ozmen., Konuralp Girgin and Yavuz Durgun., 2014. Torsional Irregularity in Multi-story Structures, International Journal of Advanced
Structural Engineering 6, 121-131.
IS 1893 (Part-1) 2016. Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 General Provision and Building 5th Revision. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Khoure, W., Rutenberg, A., Levy, R., 2005. On the Seismic Response of Asymmetric Setback Perimeter-Frame Structures. In: Proceedings of the
4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behavior of Irregular and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki.
Moehle, P., 1984. Seismic Analysis of R/C Frame-Wall Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 110, 2619-2634.
Momen, M. M., Ahmed, Shehata., E. Abdel Raheem., Mohamed, M., Ahmed and Aly, G.A., Abdel, shafy., 2016. Irregularity Effects on the
Seismic Performance of L-shaped Multi-story Buildings. Journal of Engineering Sciences 44(5), 513-536.
Patil, SS., Ajim Mujawar, G., PrritamMali., Murugesh Katti, R., 2017. A Study of Torsional Effect on Multi-storied Building with Plan
Irregularity. International Journal of Advanced Research 5(1), 1625-1632.
Sharon Wood, L., 1992. Seismic Response-of R/C Frames with Irregular Profiles. Journal of Structural Engineering 118,545-566.
Tremblay, R., Poncet, L., 2005. Seismic Performance of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames in Multistorey Buildings with Mass Irregularity.
Journal of Structural Engineering 131, 1363–1375.
Valmundsson, EV., Nau JM., 1997. Seismic Response of Building Frames with Vertical Structural Irregularities. Journal of Structural
Engineering 123(1), 30-41.