LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 1: Introduction............................................................................................................3

1.1. General...........................................................................................................................3

1.2 Application of work........................................................................................................5

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review...................................................................................................6

2.1 Literature Papers:................................................................................................................6

Research Paper 1:................................................................................................................7

Research Paper 2:................................................................................................................9

Research Paper 3:..............................................................................................................11

Research Paper 4:..............................................................................................................13

Research Paper 5:..............................................................................................................15

CHAPTER 3: Aim, Objective and Scope of Work......................................................................17

3.1 Aim....................................................................................................................................17

3.2 Objectives..........................................................................................................................17

3.3 Scope of Work...................................................................................................................17

CHAPTER 4: Data Validation.....................................................................................................18

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 1

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1 Building on sloping ground........................................................................................4

Figure 1. 2 Re-entrant corner irregularity.....................................................................................4

Figure 4. 1 building with 0 degrees slope...................................................................................19

Figure 4. 2 Building with 20 degrees slope.................................................................................19

Figure 4. 3 Geometry of the Model.............................................................................................20

Figure 4. 4 Plan of the Building..................................................................................................20

Figure 4. 5 Building with 0 degrees slope...................................................................................21

Figure 4. 6 Building with 20 degrees slope.................................................................................21

Figure 4. 7 Beam section property..............................................................................................22

Figure 4. 8 Column section property...........................................................................................22

Figure 4. 9 Column reinforcement property................................................................................23

Figure 4. 10 Beam reinforcement property.................................................................................23

Figure 4. 11 Slab section property...............................................................................................24

Figure 4. 12 live dead intensity...................................................................................................25

Figure 4. 13 live load intensity....................................................................................................25

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 2

 CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.1. General
An earthquake is the most destructive and unpredictable natural event that may occur when a
building is subjected to seismic stresses, human lives are not instantly lost instead, the building
is damaged, causing it to collapse, risking the lives of its people and destroying nearby
property. The enormous destruction of low- and high-rise structures caused by recent
earthquakes, particularly in a developing country like India, necessitates more investigation A
structure subjected to seismic or earthquake pressures is always at danger of being damaged,
but the risk increases dramatically if the structure is sloping, such as a building on a hill that
slopes toward the ground. Higher lateral strains cause plastic hinges to develop on the uphill
side of short columns. Structures on slopes vary from those on plains in that they are uneven
vertically and Doda (2013), the Nepal earthquake (2015), and Sikkim (2011) have all lately
caused widespread devastation. Multi-story RC framed constructions are necessary due to the
area's rapid urbanization, increased economic growth, and resultant increase in population
density. Due to a lack of level terrain, structures in this area must be erected on sloping ground.
Figure 1 depicts a structure on level terrain. In the current study, a two-tale framed building
with dispositions of 0°, 10°, and 20° to the floor that is difficult to sinusoidal floor movement is
modelled with the aid of an experimental setup, proven with the aid of finite detail coding, and
the outcomes obtained are proven by using out linear time records evaluation in structural
evaluation and layout software. Although previous research has offered a better understanding
of the structural behaviour of hill structures, the performance of hill buildings in various
configurations has not been completely examined. IS 1893 (1984) and IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002
recommend modal analysis for buildings with irregular geometry and mass/stiffness
distribution. Torsional shear should be considered separately. However, this approach may not
accurately reflect the structure's response.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 3

 Figure 1. 1 Building on sloping ground

1. Irregular building

Figure 1.1 illustrates why irregular construction systems are necessary because to choppy mass,
strength, and stiffness distributions around the top of the structure. Building dwellings in high
seismic zones poses additional challenges for appraisal and layout. Seismic forces are resisted
by the building's lateral force resisting system (L.F.R.S). The building's L.F.R.S. might be of
several types. Figure 1.2 depicts the most common forms of construction systems, including
shear walls, frame-shear wall dual systems, and special moment-resistant frames. Damage often
occurs in weak structural planes of a structure. These defects lead the building to degrade and
eventually collapse. These defects are typically produced by structural irregularities in a
building's stiffness, strength, and mass. Structural irregularities are classified into two types:
plan and vertical. If there is a choppy distribution of mass, strength, and stiffness together with
the construction height, the form is most likely classified as vertically irregular. According to IS
1893:2002, a storey in a building is considered to exhibit mass irregularity if its mass exceeds

Figure 1. 2 Re-entrant corner irregularity

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 4

200% of the story adjacent to it. A storey is considered "weak" if its pressure is less than 60%
of the level immediately above it.

A storey is considered a "soft storey" if its stiffness is less than 70% or more than that of the
storey next to it. It is the Centroid's stiffness in a floor-diaphragm configuration. When lateral
load is applied to the centre of stiffness, the floor diaphragm will only experience translational
displacement. Because behaviour is tied in both plan and height, additional layers can freely
translate and rotate. Loading has no effect on the centre of stiffness, which is determined by
structural properties. According to IS1893-2002, the centre of rigidity is the place on the floor
through which lateral force must pass for a one-story building such that the floor experiences
only rigid body translation rather than rigid body rotation.

2. Regular building

Regular buildings have no obvious plan or vertical configuration discontinuities. Physical

discontinuities in irregular buildings, whether in plan, elevation, or both, might affect their
performance under lateral stresses. All lateral load-resisting vertical components (columns)
must continue uninterruptedly to the foundations, starting at the top of the building or setback.
Floors must have a consistent lateral stiffness and mass from base to top, with no sudden
changes. When considering masonry infills, storey resistance should not change significantly
across neighbouring storeys.

1.2 Application of work

The project uses E-tabs, a program for analysing and designing RCC structures. E-tabs is
widely utilized because to its user-friendly interface and ease of data interpretation.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 5

 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2.1 Literature Papers:

Sr Title Author Publication Year

No.

1 Seismic analysis of Multi storey K Veera Babu, IOP Conference 2022

Building on Sloping Ground and S Siva Rama Krishna, Series: Earth and
Flat Ground by using ETABS. Venu Malaga Velli Environmental
Science

2 Seismic Response of RC Framed Zaid Mohammada, ELSEVIER 2016

Buildings Resting on Hill Slopes Abdul Baqib ,
Mohammed Arifb

3 A Performance study and seismic MohammedUmar IOSR Journal of 2018

evaluation of RC frame buildings FarooquePatel, , Mechanical and Civil
on sloping ground. [Link], , Engineering (IOSR-
Nayeemulla Inamdar. JMCE)

4 Seismic Analysis of Multistoried [Link], International Journal 2020

Building on Sloping Ground with Vaijanath Halhalli of Innovative
Ground, Middle and Top Soft Technology and
Storey. ExploringEngineering
(IJITEE)

5 SeismicPerformance of Buildings Saurav Kumar Verma, Horizon Research 2021

with Various Configurations in Hrishikesh Dubey* Publishing (HRPUB)
Hilly Regions.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 6

Research Paper 1:

Name of Journal : IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

Title of paper: Seismic analysis of Multi storey Building on Sloping Ground and Flat
Ground by using ETABS

Authors: K Veera Babu , S Siva Rama Krishna , Venu Malagavelli

Content: In This paper researcher design earthquake-resistant buildings using IS 1893:2002,

and to compare the seismic responses of multi-story regular and irregular structures to flat
terrain and multi-story structures on hills. To investigate the seismic behaviour of multi-story
structures in Zone II in accordance with IS 1893:2002, the results of story drift, shear force,
bending moment, and building torsion of regular and irregular buildings with 10-degree and
20-degree slope ground structures were compared to flat ground models developed with
ETABS software.

Under this article the three building models namely 00 slope, 100 slope and 200 slope structure
are addressed in Zone II seismic concerns. In this step, the three structures are modelled based
on the problem description. Initially, the grid data (Plan data) and storey data are defined
according on the issue description. The ETABS program is then used to determine the material
parameters of concrete and steel of the M30 and Fe500 grades. The grid structure model is
allocated frame section features such as beams, columns, and slabs. depicts the entire 3D model
of the 00-slope building. Two of the final models defy the slope angles of 10° and 20°. Loads
connected to gravity and lateral loads are imposed according to standards. Response spectrum
study is now being undertaken for three seismic models in Zone II. Analyse the structure and
compare data for storey drift, shear, bending, torsion, time period, and frequency to achieve
better results.

Conclusion:

1. The values of deflection are observed as high for 20-degree slope building and for the
remaining models the storey drift values are almost equal intensities in case of RSA X
load case.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 7

 2. The shear, bending, torsion values are less values obtained in case of 0-degree slop,10-
degree slop and high values are obtained for 20-degree slope.
3. The time period is decreasing by providing the ground slope and it also decreasing by
providing the building irregularities.
4. The time period is increasing by providing the ground slope and it also increasing by
providing the building irregularities.
5. By providing the slope to the ground the base shear is increasing when we compared
with flat ground building.
6. Setback buildings are more stable and won't sustain as much damage from lateral load
action when built on level ground as opposed to other structures on sloping land.
7. While setback buildings may be preferred if the cost of levelling the sloping land is
within reasonable limitations, step back structures on sloping ground attract more action
forces than do setback buildings.
8. The figures also show that constructions on sloped land are more vulnerable to
earthquake damage than ones on flat ground.
9. Storey displacements are mostly shear walls than core shear walls beneath earthquake
zones. - II.
10. On Flat ground, setback building attracts less action forces as comparing with other
configurations on sloping ground which make it more stable and it would not tolerate
more damages due to the lateral load action.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 8

Research Paper 2:

Name of Journal: ELSEVIER

Title of paper: Seismic Response of RC Framed Buildings Resting on Hill Slopes

Authors: Zaid Mohammada, Abdul Baqib , Mohammed Arifb

Content:

In This Paper author conducted three-dimensional space frame assessments of two hill building
configurations to examine the impact of plan aspect ratio. The models were parametrically
varied in terms of plan and height. The seismic analysis is performed using the equivalent static
technique and response spectrum method with the finite element code ETABS v 9.0. Seismic
characteristics, including basic time period, maximum top story displacement, story shear, drift,
and column shear at ground level, are computed using SRSS modal combination and compared
across hill slopes. Concrete is considered to be homogeneous, isotropic, and elastic, with a
Poisson's ratio of 25000 and value of poisons ratio is 0.2. The yield stress of reinforcing steel is
415 MPa. Seismic analysis models the floor system as a rigid frame diaphragm, with beam and
column members represented by two node beam components. All models assume a fixed
support system. The analysis follows Indian code IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 guidelines, taking into
account torsional effects and unintentional eccentricity.

Conclusion:

1. The current study looks at the behaviour of hill structures under seismic stress
circumstances. Parametrically analysing two popular hill construction layouts involves
adjusting plan dimensions.
2. The models are geometrically modelled and evaluated using a finite element algorithm,
which includes similar static and reaction spectrum methods.
3. The analyses examine seismic factors such as storey drift, fundamental time period
(FTP), top storey displacement, storey shear, and base shear in columns at ground level,
and assess their impacts on hill buildings.
4. The performance of step-back and step-back setback designs is notably unlike when
compared to one other and altogether different from a structure sitting on plain ground.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 9

 IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 (Clause 7.6) does not accurately represent time periods along and
across slope directions.
5. The corresponding static technique is not suitable for designing hill buildings due to its
reliance on time period parameters. To determine the real behaviour of complex
structures such as hill buildings, response spectrum analysis using a three-dimensional
model is recommended.
6. Step-back setback layouts have lower torsional moments and seismic forces than step-
back buildings due to the structure's lower seismic weight. When compared to step-back
layouts, step-back setback buildings have a 45% reduction in base shear value.
7. Step-back buildings have higher story drift and shear, making them more sensitive to
earthquake effects. Therefore, step-back setback buildings outperform step-back
configurations under seismic stresses. Furthermore, greatest storey shear in both designs
is recorded in the topmost levels. Structural elements with large shear forces and
moments under lateral pressures should be designed appropriately.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 10

Research Paper 3:

Name of Journal: IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)

Title of paper: A Performance study and seismic evaluation of RC frame buildings on

sloping ground

Authors: Mohammed Umar Farooque Patel1, A.V. Kulkarni2, Nayeemulla Inamdar3

Content:

In this study compares seismic performance of L-shear walls (LSW) at corners, C-shear
walls at cores (CSW), and reinforced concrete-filled steel tube columns (RCFST) at
corners and cores in step back and step back-setback configurations in buildings
designed for Indian codes, using response spectrum analysis. Seismic study was
performed using the structural analysis program ETABS 2017.
This study examines several building layouts on a hill slope, including bare frame,
concrete blockwork infill, LSW full bay, LSW half bay, CSW and RCFST column at
corners, and core. The following parameters will be determined and analysed for
various structures on sloping ground: base shear, ground floor column forces, storey
drift, maximum storey displacement, time period, column bending moment, and storey
shear. Buildings with corner LSW outperform those with centrally positioned shear
walls in the core. LSW at half bay at the corner and RCFST columns at corners and core
achieve space constraints while also improving performance. Seismic analysis is
performed on structures on flat ground and slopes (step back and step back-setback)
using the response spectrum technique and finite element software ETABS 2017. To
strengthen architectural buildings, shear walls, RCFST columns, and blockwork infill
were used to reduce drift, displacements, time period, and storey shear. In the long run,
a viable design for utilization in hilly regions is recommended.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 11

Conclusion:

1. Compared to the CSW construction, the LSW at corners in full and half-panel
performed better. Nonetheless, both structures created according to the Indian code
operate well.
2. Structures on sloping terrain appear to be more susceptible than those on flat ground.
3. The models on sloping ground have been seen to move orthogonally under
unidirectional force.
4. Because of the reduction in column height, columns on the upper side of the slope are
also more vulnerable to increasing bending forces.
5. Using L-shear walls at corners with RCFST columns reduces lateral displacement and
drift, resulting in improved building performance. In setback buildings, shear walls and
RCFST composite columns effectively reduce lateral displacements.
6. Adding shear walls raises base shear in all models, indicating the building's increased
seismic weight.
7. Shear walls alter the behaviour of buildings under lateral loads. Shear walls contribute
significantly to reducing displacement and storey drift.
8. Using shear walls at different locations in a normal structure on sloping terrain can
reduce lateral displacement by up to 3-5 times, fundamental time period by 70-80%, and
base shear by 2-3 times in all specified models.
9. In step back-setback models on incline terrain, incorporate shear barriers at different
points. All recommended models show up to a 5-7 times reduction in lateral
displacement, a 50-80% reduction in fundamental time period, and 2-2.5 times increase
in base shear.
10. A dual-type structural system with suitably positioned shear walls is more effective
than a moment-resisting frame system in resisting earthquake loads, making it ideal for
sloped structures.
11. Shear walls with a spreader construction provide superior torsional control, but limit
access to the open ground level, reducing functional efficiency and concentrating
stiffness at a specific point. RCFST composite columns, on the other hand, are evenly
distributed throughout the building's base and their cross section does not change at the
junction, making them suitable for areas with more space.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 12

Research Paper 4:

Name of Journal: International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring

Engineering (IJITEE)

Title of paper: Seismic Analysis of Multistore Building on Sloping Ground with Ground,
Middle and Top Soft Storey.

Authors: Tanuja V Kenerson, Viranath Halhalli

Content:

This article examines the seismic impact on the RCC multistorey building model G + 20
with masonry infill, GMT with resilient floor, and L- and C-type shear walls. The 21-
story RCC building models are produced and evaluated using ETAB software (2018).
After successfully finishing the models, the ideal position for the sloping terrains is
determined by adjusting the degree to minimize seismic effects. Various models have
been built and compared to other models. Each level has a height of 3.5 meters. The
seismic zone evaluated is V, with average ground conditions. This document comprises
live, seismic, and dead loads as per IS 875 part 1, IS 1893-2016, and IS 875-part I. The
structure is examined utilizing the static, linear, and dynamic methods.
Calculated responses include displacement, floor deviation, period, and base cut. After
assessing the structure, the results are utilized to create a table, graphs, and conclusion.

A. Linear Static Method

This approach is used to identify across (horizontal) signals. This solution is simple and
uses minimal computing energy, aligning with the IS code of practice. This approach
involves calculating the design of base shear for the entire structure and then circulating
the findings along the peak. Each floor's crosswise signal is sent to all horizontal
resisting sections.

B. Linear Dynamic Method

IS 1893 (part 1): 2002 recommends dynamic building analysis for regular structures
over 40 m tall in zones IV and V, and individuals over 90 m tall in zones II and III. (ii)

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 13

 Irregular buildings include all frame structures over 12 m in height zones IV and V, and
those over 40 m in height zones II and III. The primary goal of dynamic analysis is to
identify the design seismic signals.
The analysis is comparable to the linear static approach, with points dispersed over the
structure's height and transverse load resistance sections. For dynamic analysis, masses
are considered to be grouped by floor level, with just sway displacement permitted at
each floor.
The dynamic technique assumes that irregular buildings have appropriate stiffness and
mass circulation along their height, allowing for more precise prediction of reactions.

Conclusion:

1. GMT soft storey with C-type shear wall has the largest displacement value compared to
other models because to the presence of stiffeners.
2. GMT soft storey with C type shear wall outperforms other types on sloping land.
3. Bare frame has the longest time period compared to other models, including masonry
brick infill, GMT soft storey, GMT soft storey with L type shear wall, and GMT soft
storey with C type shear wall.
4. . The GMT soft storey with C type shear wall has the highest base shear value compared
to other models due to less displacement.
5. The model on sloping terrain has the largest displacement values due to irregularity,
asymmetry, and torsion. As a result, the insertion shear wall rises, reducing lateral load.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 14

Research Paper 5:

Name of Journal: Horizon Research Publishing (HRPUB)

Title of paper: Seismic Performance of Buildings with Various Configurations in Hilly

Regions

Authors: Saurav Kumar Verma, Hrishikesh Dubey*

Content:

In This study analyses all models utilizing the Equivalent static method (ESM) and
Response spectrum method (RSM).
ETABS 2017 software is used for linear analysis. Buildings have been allocated dead
and live loads according on IS 875 Part I and II. The buildings are designed according
to IS 1893 and IS 13920.
ESM and RSM analyses are used to evaluate the seismic response of structures and
compare the results. Modal studies often use normalized mode shapes, therefore RSM
findings must be scaled appropriately. This analysis scaled by equating base shears from
ESM and RSM using IS1893 (2016).
For each structural instance, a minimum number of modes were examined, with the sum
of modal masses accounting for at least 99 percent of the total seismic mass.
Accidental eccentricity and torsional influence are examined.
Damping is calculated at 5%.
The various models were analysed using E-tabs 2017. The outcomes are presented in a
way that is acceptable for each of the study's models.

Conclusion:

Reaction spectrum analysis was used to compare seismic reaction between buildings on
slopes and level terrain. The conclusions gained from the preceding inquiry were
summarized below:

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 15

 1. The LSW at corners, both full and half-panel, outperformed the CSW construction.
Nonetheless, both structures created according to the Indian code operate well.
2. Structures on sloping terrain are more susceptible compared to those on flat ground.
3. Models on sloping ground move orthogonally with unidirectional force.
4. As column height decreases, columns on the higher side of the slope may experience
larger bending moments.
5. Using L-shear walls at corners with RCFST columns reduces lateral displacement and
drift, leading to better building performance. In setback buildings, shear walls and
RCFST composite columns effectively reduce lateral displacements.
6. Adding shear walls raises base shear in all models, indicating the building's increased
seismic weight.
7. Shear walls alter the behaviour of buildings under lateral loads. Shear walls contribute
significantly to reducing displacement and storey drift.
8. Using shear walls at different locations can reduce lateral displacement by up to 3-5
times, fundamental time period by up to 70-80%, and base shear by up to 2-3 times in
regular-type buildings without setbacks on sloping land.
9. Step back-setback models on incline terrain with shear walls at various places reduce
lateral displacement by up to 5-7 times, fundamental time period by 50-80%, and base
shear by 2-2.5 times in all recommended models.
10. A dual-type structural system with suitably positioned shear walls is more effective than
a moment-resisting frame system in resisting earthquake loads, making it ideal for
sloped structures.
11. Shear walls with a spreader construction provide superior torsional control, but limit
access to the open ground level, reducing functional efficiency and concentrating
stiffness at a specific point. RCFST composite columns, on the other hand, have equal
stiffness throughout the building's base and do not change at the junction, making them
suitable for various applications.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 16

 CHAPTER 3: Aim, Objective and Scope of Work

3.1 Aim
Design And compression of multistorey building on a flat ground and sloping ground and
create earthquake resistant building on sloping ground under different earthquake zones.

3.2 Objectives
1. Explain the philosophy of structural design.
2. . To discuss various elements of structural and material behaviour.
3. Perform seismic analysis & Evaluate the Structural Response
4. Identify Vulnerabilities and Weaknesses.
5. Compare seismic performance
6. Provide Design Recommendations
7. Validate E-tabs Software for Seismic Analysis.

3.3 Scope of Work

1. Analysis and comparison of multistorey building under the choppy mass of soil.
2. Analysis and comparison of multistorey building under the different condition of soil such
as hard strata, medium strata, and lose soil strata.
3. Distinct foundation conditions for multistorey buildings on sloping land.

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 17

 CHAPTER 4: Data Validation

 Procedure used:

In this paper the response of G+12 building is carried out by using response spectrum
method as per ETABS software. The detailed process of the study is discussed below.

 Problem statement:

The following are the fundamental data used in analysis.

Height of typical Storey = 3 m Seismic Zones = Zone II

Height of ground Storey = 3 m Site type = II
Length of the building = 15 m Importance factor = 1.5
Width of the building = 13 m Response reduction factor = 5
Height of the building = 39 m Damping Ratio = 5%
Number of stores = 13 Structure class = C
Wall thickness = 230 mm Basic wind speed = 44m/s
Slab Thickness = 150 mm Risk coefficient (K1) = 1.08
Grade of concrete = M30 Terrain size coefficient (K2) = 1.14
Grade of the steel = Fe500 Topography factor (K3) = 1.36
Support = Fixed Wind design code = IS 875: 2015
Column size = 460mmX230mm (Part 3)
Beam size = 350mmX230mm RCC design code = IS 456:2000
Location of Building = India Steel design code = IS 800: 2007
Live load = 3 KN/m2 Earthquake design code = IS 1893:
Dead load = 2 KN/m2 2016 (Part 1)
Density of concrete = 25 KN/m3

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 18

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 19
 Figure 4. 1 building with 0 degrees slope

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 20

 Figure 4. 2 Building with 20 degrees slope

Figure 4. 3 Plan of the Building

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 21

 Figure 4. 5 Building with 0 degrees slope

Figure 4. 6 Building with 20 degrees slope

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 22
LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 23
 Figure 4. 7 Beam section property

Figure 4. 8 Column section property

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 24

 Figure 4. 9 Beam reinforcement property

Figure 4. 10 Column reinforcement property

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 25

 Figure 4. 11 Slab section property

Figure 4. 12 live load intensity

LJ University, Ahmedabad Page 26