SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF REGULAR AND

IRREGULAR FLAT SLAB STRUCTURE WITH

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
Prateek Pattanashetti1, M.S.Bhandiwad2

Abstract--- Earthquake is a very important aspect to be predictions and mitigation of risks associated with
considered while designing structures. Lot of work has potential loss. Generally flat slab system are design in
been reported by many researchers who worked to study lower seismic zones for gravity loads and because
the effect of structures with irregular plan. This paper
absence of beams, flat slab structural system is more
presents effects of plan and shape configuration on
irregular shaped structures. Buildings with irregular flexible than the traditional slab-beam-column frame
geometry respond differently against seismic action. Plan system for lateral loads. And even an IS code the
geometry is the parameter which decides its performance provision for ductile detailing of flat slab is not
against different loading conditions. The effect of given separately. Hence the flat slab systems are more
irregularity (plan) on structure have been carried out by affected under seismic prone zones. For this reason the
using structural analysis software ETABS for three study of flat slab buildings under seismic loads is
different types of soil considering the effect of soil
important.
structure interaction. There are several factors which
affect the behaviour of building from which storey drift
and lateral displacement play an important role in A. Regular and irregular buildings
understanding the behaviour of structure. Results are A Regular building is one which has no significant
expressed in form of graphs and bar charts. Based on discontinuities as far as in plans or geometry, lateral
these conclusions have been presented.
load resisting system and vertical configuration. But an
Keywords--- Soil structure interaction, Seismic
irregular building is one which has significant
performance, ETABS, Equilvalent static method
discontinuities in plan or geometry, load path, lateral load
I. Introduction resisting systems and horizontal and vertical
configuration etc
In many structures flat slab type system is being
adopted as this system have more advantages over the
B. Classification of Irregularities
framed structure i.e., conventional RC framed structures
like speed of construction, reduce in floor height in order Table 1: Classification of Irregularities
to meet the architectural and economical demands, 1. Plan Irregularities 2. Vertical irregularity
simple form work, less loss in energy of cold storage a. Torsion Irregularity a. Stiffness irregularity
buildings, un obstructed area etc. Flat slab system is also
b. Re-Entrant corners b. Mass irregularity
called a beamless slab where RC slabs directly rests on
columns. In this system there will be no beam or girder c. Vertical geometric
c. Diaphragm Discontinuit
and loads transfers takes from slab to columns and irregularity
columns to foundations. d. In plane discontinuity in
d. Out of plane offsets
Because of recent occurred earthquake losses in a vertical elements
world have resulted in the awarenes of seismic hazards e. Discontinuity in
e. Non parallel systems
and corresponding loss to built of environment. Effort capacity
have been given in order for reasonable estimates,
C. Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction
1
PG Student, M.Tech in Computer Aided Design of Structures, Civil The primary issues involved in the phenomenon of
Department, SDM College of Enginering and Technology , Dharwad , soil-structure interaction are the seismic waves propagate
India. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Asst. Professor, Dept.of civil Engineering, SDMCET, Dharwad, through soil during an earthquake a discontinuity in the
India,Email:[email protected] medium of waves propagation is encountered at the
interface of soil and structural foundations. The change in Run the Analysis
the material properties leads to scattering, diffraction,
reflection and refraction of the seismic waves at the soil- A. General descriptions of building
foundation interface their by changing the nature of Plan size: 9 x 9 m
ground motion at that point. This further leads to slippage
No of story: 20(G+19)
across the soil-foundation interface-a nonlinear
Story Height: 3 m
phenomenon, which is very difficult to analyse. This
Grade of concrete: M25
leads to a subsequent increase in the natural periods of the
Grade of Steel: Fe415
structural system. Due to the flexibility of the soil the
Column size: 900 x 900 mm
overall time period of the structure will be elongated. If
the structure is founded on hard soil then the soil Thickness of slab: 200 mm
flexibility will not affect the time period of the structure. Thickness of drop: 450mm
If the structure is founded on medium or soft soil and if it Live load: As per IS875-1987 (Part II)
is a flexible structure then time period of the structure Typical floor: 3.0 KN\m2
further increased by considering soil flexibility which will Roof: 1.5 KN\m2
cause reduction in spectral acceleration and the base Super dead load (Floor finish):
shear. If the structure is a very flexible structure then Typical floor: 2.0 KN\m2
increase in time period will cause very small reduction in Roof: 2.5 KN\m2
spectral acceleration.
D. Objective of the present study The following parameters have used in analysis for
In this study behaviour of regular and plan irregularity both ESM and RS method
of flat slab building under the seismic response with soil
structure interaction (SSI) considered. Table 2: Seismic parameters
1. To study the effect of lateral load resisting system Seismic zone: III (Moderate)
for a regular and irregular flat slab structure. Soil type: Hard soil (Type I)
2. To study the performance under regular and Medium soil (Type II)
irregular flat slab structure under soil structure interaction
Soft soil (Type III)
(SSI).
Importance factor (I): 1
3. To study the response of structure by equivalent
Damping: 5%
static force method and response spectrum analysis.
Response reduction factor (R): 5
4. To study the parameters such as natural time period,
base shear, lateral displacement a and storey drift by B. Modelling of Regular and Irregular Building
using Equivalent static force method and response
spectrum analysis.
5. To compare the performance regular RC flat slab
structure with different plan irregular RC flat slab
structure.

II. Modelling
Modelling is done using ETABS by following steps
Define material properties
Define Frame section properties
Define Area section properties
Develop the model and assign the joint
restraints
Define load pattern and assign to frame
Figure 1: Plan view of regular flat slab building
Define Load Combinations
 III. Results and discussions
The results of all the individual models are being
presented in this chapter. The method of analysis
included are Equivalent static analysis and Dynamic
analysis by Response spectrum method. The graphs are
drawn for 20 storeys for a different types of soils. The
results obtained for the parameters like Maximum
lateral storey displacement, Maximum storey drifts. Out
of all load combinations the limit state of collapse
results being dominant and the results of such load
combinations are displayer in this section

Figure 2: Plan view of re-entrant corners irregularity A. Static Analysis Results for Hard soil
Table 4: lateral displacement for different plan
irregularities in X-direction

Story Re- Non-

Regular Mass Offsets
Ht(m) entrant parallel

Base 0.00068 0.00068 0.00748 0.00112 0.00695

3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
6 1 1 1 0.9 0.5

Figure 3: Plan view of non-parallel irregularity flat 9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1
slab building 12 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.5 1.6
15 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.4 2.3
C. Soil Parameters Considered in the Study
18 4.9 5 4.8 4.3 3
Table 3: Soil Parameters Considered in the Study
21 6.1 6.1 5.9 5.2 3.8
Soil type Medium
Hard soil Soft soil 24 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.1 4.6
soil
Properties 27 8.3 8.3 7.9 7 5.4
Poissons
0.5 0.5 0.5 30 9.4 9.4 8.9 7.9 6.2
ratio,
Mass density, 2000 1700 1500 33 10.5 10.5 9.9 8.8 7
Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 36 11.6 11.6 10.8 9.7 7.8
Shear wave
1500 m/s 800 m/s 200 m/s 39 12.6 12.6 11.7 10.6 8.6
velocity, v
Shear 4500000 108000 60000 42 13.5 13.6 12.5 11.4 9.3
modulus, G KN/m2 KN/m2 KN/m2
45 14.4 14.5 13.3 12.2 10.1
Safe Bearing
324 245 50 48 15.3 15.3 14 12.9 10.8
Capacity,
KN/m2 KN/m2 KN/m2
SBC 51 16 16.1 14.6 13.6 11.4
54 16.7 16.7 15.1 14.2 12
57 17.3 17.3 15.5 14.7 12.6
60 17.8 17.8 15.8 15.1 13.1
 Regular 70
70 Regular
Mass 60
60
Mass

Story Height (m)

Story Height (m)

50
50 Re-
40 entrant 40 Re-
30 Offsets 30 entrant
20 Offsets
Non- 20
10
parallel 10 Non-
0 parallel
0 10 20 0
Displacement (mm) 0 0.5 1 1.5
Story Drift (mm)
Figure 4: Variations in lateral displacement different
plan irregularities X-direction Figure 5: Variations in storey drift different plan
irregularities X-direction
Table 5: Story drift for different plan irregularities in X-
direction B. Static Analysis Results for Medium soil
Story Re- Non-
Regular Mass Offsets
Ht(m) entrant parallel Table 6: Lateral displacement for different plan
Base 0 0 0 0 0 irregularities in X-direction
3 0.294 0.297 0.306 0.309 0.183 Stor Regula Re- Non-
Mass Offsets
y Ht r entrant parallel
6 0.669 0.669 0.675 0.621 0.363 0.0019 0.0019 0.0211 0.0031 0.0147
Base
9 0.867 0.87 0.861 0.756 0.492 2 1 6 5 9
12 0.981 0.984 0.957 0.825 0.594 3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3
15 1.047 1.05 1.005 0.864 0.666 6 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.8
18 1.086 1.089 1.029 0.891 0.723 9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.5
21 1.11 1.11 1.035 0.909 0.762 12 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.4 2.3
24 1.119 1.122 1.032 0.918 0.789 15 5.3 5.3 5.2 4.6 3.3
27 1.119 1.122 1.02 0.921 0.807 18 6.7 6.8 6.6 5.8 4.3
30 1.11 1.11 0.999 0.918 0.813 21 8.3 8.3 8 7.1 5.4
33 1.089 1.092 0.969 0.906 0.828 33 14.3 14.3 13.5 12.1 9.9
36 1.059 1.062 0.93 0.885 0.804 36 15.7 15.8 14.8 13.3 11.1
39 1.02 1.02 0.882 0.858 0.783 39 17.1 17.2 16 14.4 12.2
42 0.969 0.969 0.825 0.822 0.756 42 18.5 18.5 17.2 15.6 13.3
45 0.909 0.909 0.756 0.777 0.726 45 19.7 19.7 18.2 16.6 14.3
48 0.837 0.837 0.678 0.723 0.687 48 20.8 20.9 19.1 17.6 15.3
51 0.756 0.759 0.591 0.663 0.648 51 21.9 21.9 19.9 18.5 16.3
54 0.672 0.672 0.501 0.594 0.609 54 22.8 22.8 20.6 19.3 17.1
57 0.588 0.588 0.411 0.522 0.57 57 23.6 23.6 21.2 20 18
60 0.519 0.519 0.363 0.462 0.54 60 24.3 24.3 21.7 20.7 18.8
 70 Regular 70
Regular
60 60
Mass

Story Height (m)

50 Mass
Story Height (mt)

50
Re-entrant 40
40 Re-entrant
30
30 Offsets
20 Offsets
20
Non-parallel 10 Non-parallel
10
0
0 0 1 2
0 20 40 Story Drift (mm)
Displacement (mm)

Figure 6: Variations in lateral displacement different Figure7: Variations in storey drift different plan
plan irregularities X-direction irregularities X-direction

Table 7: Story drift for different plan irregularities in X- C Static Analysis Results for Soft soil
direction
Story Re- Non-
Regular Mass Offsets
Ht(m) entrant parallel Table 8: Lateral displacement for different plan
Base 0 0 0 0 0 irregularities in X-direction
3 0.402 0.402 0.42 0.423 0.267 Story Non-
Regula Re-
6 0.909 0.912 0.921 0.849 0.522 Ht(m Mass Offsets paralle
r entrant
) l
9 1.185 1.185 1.176 1.035 0.696
0.0325 0.0245 0.0278 0.0379
12 1.338 1.341 1.305 1.128 0.837 Base 0.1
1 3 6 6
15 1.428 1.431 1.371 1.182 0.942 3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5
18 1.482 1.482 1.404 1.215 1.02 6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.3
21 1.512 1.515 1.416 1.239 1.077 9 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.3
24 1.527 1.527 1.413 1.251 1.119 12 5.1 5 4.8 4.6 3.5
27 1.524 1.527 1.398 1.257 1.143 15 7 6.8 6.6 6.2 4.7
30 1.512 1.515 1.368 1.251 1.155 18 8.9 8.7 8.3 7.8 6
33 1.485 1.488 1.329 1.233 1.173 21 10.9 10.6 10.1 9.4 7.4
36 1.443 1.446 1.278 1.209 1.149 24 12.8 12.6 11.9 11.1 8.9
39 1.389 1.392 1.212 1.17 1.122 27 14.8 14.5 13.6 12.7 10.3
42 1.32 1.323 1.131 1.122 1.089 42 24.2 23.7 21.6 20.6 17.6
45 1.239 1.239 1.041 1.062 1.047 45 25.8 25.3 22.9 22 19
48 1.14 1.143 0.936 0.99 0.999 48 27.4 26.8 24.1 23.3 20.3
51 1.032 1.035 0.819 0.906 0.945 51 28.8 28.2 25.2 24.5 21.5
54 0.918 0.918 0.693 0.813 0.891 54 30.1 29.5 26.1 25.6 22.7
57 0.804 0.804 0.573 0.717 0.84 57 31.2 30.6 26.9 26.7 23.8
60 0.711 0.711 0.501 0.633 0.801 60 32.3 31.6 27.5 27.6 24.9
 70 70
Regular Regular
60 60
Story Height (mt)

Story Height (mt)

50 Mass 50
Mass
40 40
Re-
30 entrant 30 Re-
20 Offsets 20
entrant
Offsets
10 10
Non-
0 parallel 0
0 20 40 0 1 2 3
Non-
parallel
Displacement (mm) Story Drift (mm)
In
Figure 8: Variations in lateral displacement different
plan irregularities X-direction Figure 9: Variations in storey drift different plan
irregularities X-direction
Table 9: Storey drift for different plan irregularities in X-
direction
IV. Conclusions
Story Re- Non-
Regular Mass Offsets
Ht(m) entrant parallel
Base 0 0 0 0 0
For Hard Soil
3 0.555 0.525 0.534 0.588 0.525
6 1.209 1.179 1.161 1.155 0.819 1. The maximum and minimum lateral displacements
amongst both X & Y direction are 17.8mm & 10.7mm
9 1.56 1.527 1.479 1.389 0.993 for a regular and non-parallel flat slab structure in
12 1.755 1.722 1.641 1.503 1.137 equivalent static method(ESM) and 13.4mm & 8.2 mm
for a regular and offsets structure from response spectrum
15 1.866 1.833 1.725 1.566 1.248 analysis(RSA).
18 1.929 1.899 1.764 1.602 1.332
2. The maximum and minimum story drift amongst both
21 1.968 1.935 1.779 1.626 1.395 X & Y direction are 1.11mm & 0.83mm for a regular and
24 1.983 1.953 1.773 1.638 1.44 non-parallel flat slab structure in equivalent static
method(ESM) and 0.89mm & 0.53 mm for a regular and
27 1.983 1.953 1.755 1.641 1.467
offsets structure from response spectrum analysis(RSA).
30 1.968 1.935 1.719 1.632 1.482
33 1.935 1.902 1.671 1.611 1.497 For Medium Soil

36 1.89 1.854 1.608 1.581 1.47 1. The maximum and minimum lateral displacements
39 1.827 1.791 1.53 1.536 1.443 amongst both X & Y direction are 24.3mm & 14.7mm
for a regular and non-parallel flat slab structure in
42 1.746 1.71 1.437 1.479 1.404 equivalent static method(ESM) and 18.6mm & 12.2 mm
45 1.65 1.614 1.326 1.41 1.359 for a regular and offsets structure from response spectrum
analysis(RSA).
48 1.539 1.5 1.2 1.326 1.302
51 1.416 1.371 1.059 1.23 1.242 2. The maximum and minimum story drift amongst both
X & Y direction are 1.52mm & 0.95mm for a regular and
54 1.284 1.236 0.912 1.125 1.179
non-parallel flat slab structure in equivalent static
57 1.152 1.101 0.768 1.014 1.125 method(ESM) and 1.23mm & 0.79mm for a regular and
60 1.044 0.993 0.678 0.918 1.077 offsets structure from response spectrum analysis(RSA).
For Soft Soil

1. The maximum and minimum lateral displacements

amongst both X & Y direction are 32.3mm & 22.3mm for
a regular and non-parallel flat slab structure in equivalent
static method(ESM) and 25.3mm & 18.7mm for a regular
and offsets structure from response spectrum
analysis(RSA).

2. The maximum and minimum story drift amongst both

X & Y direction are 1.98mm & 1.33mm for a regular and
non-parallel flat slab structure in equivalent static
method(ESM) and 1.62mm & 1.09mm for a regular and
offsets structure from response spectrum analysis(RSA).

References
1.Ravikumar C M, Babu Narayan K S, Sujith B V, Venkat Reddy
D(2012) Effect of irregular configuration on seismic
vulnerability of RC building.
2. Anantwad Shirish , Prof. M.R.Wakchaure , Rohit Nikam(2012)
Effect of Plan Irregularity on High-rise Structures.
3. Fayazuddin Ahmed Syed, B.Dean Kumar,
Y.Chandrasekar,B.L.P Swami(2012) Comparative Analysis of
Flat Plate Multistoried Frames With And Without Shear Wall
Under Wind LoadsInternational Journal Of Engineering And
Advanced Technology ISSN: 2249-8958, Volume-2, Issue-1.
4. Mr. Muralidhara G. B, Mrs. Swathi Rani K. S, Mr. Melese
Worku(2016) Seismic Parametric Study on Different Irregular
Flat Slab Multi-Story Building International Journal of
Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181,
Vol. 5 Issue 04.
5. GOURAMMA G, Dr. JAGADISH KORI G(2015) SEISMIC
PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT RC SLAB SYSTEMS FOR
TALL BUILDING International Journal of Engineering
Research-Online ISSN: 2321-7758, Vol.3., Issue.4.
6. K.Venkatarao, N.Nageswarao(2016)Seismic Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Framed Structure with Flat and Conventional
Floor Slab System.