Assessment of effective complex structure under

various support conditions subjected to seismic

loads using ETABS
Under the guidance of
Mr. T.S.D. Phanindranath
Assistant Professor
by
18VV1A0106 Neyyila Harshavardhan
18VV1A0107 Jatothu Asha Naik
18VV1A0109 Kella Bharathi
18VV1A0115 Pappala Jayasree
18VV1A0120 Simma Bhupati Raja
16VV5A0132 Manem Naga Sreevally

Department of Civil Engineering, JNTU-GV

 Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 response of structure to earth quake
1.2 types of earth quake analysis
1.3 response spectrum analysis
2.Literature survey
2.1 Identification of gap from literature review
2.2 Objective
2.3 Scope of the project
3.Methodology
3.1 step wise procedure

4.Results and discussions

4.1 fixed models
4.2 spring models
5.Conclusions
6.References
 Abstract
Dynamic actions are caused on buildings by both wind
and earthquakes. The principle objective of this project
is to analyse the building (G+C+4), according to the
different seismic forces by using ETABS software. In
this project (G+C+4) building for finding the shear
force, bending moments, deflections and etc., for the
structural components of buildings( such as beams
,columns, slabs) according to the seismic forces that are
acting on the building. This project is based on the
seismic response of multi storied building.
 ETABS signify extended 3dimensional analysis of
Building systems. ETABS integrates every aspect for
the engineering design process. Within the present
situation of housing industry the buildings that are being
constructed are gaining significance , in general those
with most effective possible outcomes which are
brought up numbers such as beams and columns in
multi storey RCC structures. This software mainly used
for structures such as high rise structure, concrete and
steel structures.
 1. Introduction
 An earthquake is a sudden movement or trembling of
the Earth’s tectonic plates, that creates the shakes of the
ground
 Most earthquakes are caused by the sudden release of
built up stress along faults, fractures in the earths crust
where large blocks of crustal rock move against one
another.
 When stress on the edge overcome the friction , there is
an earthquake that release energy in waves that travel
through the earth’s crust and cause the shaking.
 1.1 Response Of Structure To Earthquake

 The inertia forces can cause shearing of the structure

which can concentrate stresses on the weak walls or
joints in the structure resulting in failure or perhaps total
collapse.
 Buildings pound because they respond to earthquake
shaking according to their own, inherent natural
frequency. Stiff buildings will generate larger forces and
shake more rapidly but with smaller deflections.
Flexible buildings will generate smaller forces and will
vibrate more slowly but will deflect more.
 1.2 Types Of Earthquake Analysis

The responses of a structure subjected to seismic ground wave can

be analyzed in two ways:
 STATIC ANALYSIS:
It can only be performed if the system being simulated does not
depend on time, and if the loads being applied are constant.
 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS:
It covers the behavior of a structure subjected to dynamic (actions
having high acceleration) loading. Dynamic loads include people, wind,
waves, traffic, earthquakes, and blasts. Methods of dynamic analysis are:
1. Response spectrum analysis
2. Time history analysis
 1.3 Response Spectrum Analysis

 RSA is a linear-dynamic statistical

analysis method which measures the
contribution from each natural mode
of vibration to indicate the likely
maximum seismic response of an
essentially elastic structure.

 A response spectrum is a plot of the

peak or steady-state response
(displacement, velocity or
acceleration) of a series of oscillators
of varying natural frequency, that are
forced into motion by the same base
vibration or shock. Fig1 Response acceleration Vs. Frequency
(Reference: https://images.app.goo.gl/aABBrkTLBtCs2nyd7)
 2. Literature Survey
Gopal Dhabi et.al (2020)(10) studied the different Area of basement
system, different floors numbers and different soil conditions like
rocky, hard soil, medium soil and soft soil are considered for dynamic
(Time history Analysis) and static analysis using ETABS. Author
compared various results like Base shear, Base moment, Displacement,
Storey drift and time period with the fixed base condition.
Tejaswini (2019)(26) studied the Multi- Storied building in four
seismic zones (Zone II, Zone III, Zone IV) using ETABS. The results
are interpreted using different values of coefficient of zone. The
response spectrum method was adopted for the analysis. He concluded
that the base shear and STOREY displacement of structure increases as
we go to higher seismic zones. Steel percentage increases from zone II
to zone V.
Arshadet.al (2019)(6) studied the effect of soil structure
interaction for R.C Multi storied building resting on raft
foundation. He modelled the underneath soil by Winkler sprinkler
approach. structures are modelled and analyzed using ETABS. He
considered G+12 STOREY building in Mumbai for analysis.
Mumbai falls under Seismic zone 3.
Akash et.al (2019)(3) in this journal have taken earth quake
zone3(Lucknow) and its comes under moderate risk area. Building
is designed by ETABS. These are high rise building according to
software. He said that the project is to learn relevant Indian
standard codes are used for design of various building elements
such as beams, columns , slab, etc.. In this project author classified
the seismic analysis with the lateral forces by the effect of
earthquake. Author considered G+21 STOREY RCC building
during his analysis.
Chiranjeevi Yadav et.al (2017) (8) studied irregularities in structures
with analysis and design of G+20 building structure as per code
(IS1893:2002) provision and analyzed the buildings in ETABS
software to carry out the storey deflection, storey drift, storey shear
force and base shear of regular and irregular structures using response
spectrum analysis and compared the results of different structures.He
observed that the results are more conservative in Static analysis as
compared to the dynamic method resulting uneconomical structure . It
is observed that the increasing overall stiffness of the building results
in reducing the sway problem in the structure. As building is irregular
the behavior in both directions is not similar. The comparison between
regular and modular type indicates the overall feasibility of the
scheme without affecting its stability in gravity as well as lateral loads.
 Mahesh et.al (2017)(22) opined that in case of tall buildings,
because of its height it may have chances to be effected by lateral
forces due to wind or earth quake actions. Hence author studied
the effect of these forces on tall buildings. So he considered
G+30 floor building subjected to different load combinations and
different types of soils in different zones. The main objective of
this analysis is to study Storey drift, Storey displacement for
those soils and zones. Finally he concluded that capacity of
irregular buildings may be significant but seismic demand varies
with respect to different soil types and zones.
 2.1 Identification Of Gap From Literature Survey

Based on literature survey it was observed that most of the

studies are based upon response of Multi-storeyed building subjected
to Soil Structure Interaction, Seismic analysis of MSB for different
plan configurations using ETABS, Analysis of MSB in different
Seismic Zones using ETABS is done separately.
So, it is decided to analyze various MSB for simple and complex
configurations under different support conditions in seismic zone 5
using ETABS.
The effective complex structure under various support conditions
subjected to seismic loads is determined by making comparisons
between simple and complex structures by taking simple structure
as a base model by using suitable simulation software (ETABS).
 2.2 Objective

 The main aim of the project is to analyze the structures

(simple and complex) based on the seismic forces in
seismic zone 5 considering fixed supports and springs
under medium soil conditions.
 To calculate modal time periods and frequencies.
 To determine storey displacements, storey drifts and
base reactions.
 To compare structures(simple and complex shapes).
 To assess the affective complex shape in both fixed and
spring models.
 2.3 Scope Of The Project

 Assessment of effective complex shape ( T, C ,L, +)

comparing with simple shape of hollow rectangle.
 To determine the effective complex shape based on time
periods, shear forces , storey drifts and storey
displacements etc.
 Comparison between fixed support and springs supports
under medium soil conditions.
 Seismic analysis (RSA) of the structure (C+G+4) in
zone V.
2.4 Details Of Plan Configurations
Table 2.1 Details of plan configuration

Model No. of No. of No. of Slabs

shape Beams Columns

T shape 360 207 156

+ shape 360 205 156

C shape 360 204 156

L shape 360 205 156

Hollow 358 202 156

Rectangle
2.5 Details Of Structural Components
Table 2.2 Description of structural components

S.NO Description Values

1. No. of Stories C+G+4

2. Storey height 3.00m

3. Foundation depth 1.50m

4. Cellar height 2.50m

5. Beam size 300*400 mm

6. Column size 300*450 mm

7. Slab thickness 150 mm

8. Area of Model 2496 sq.m

 3. Methodology
Any building had a chance to experience lateral loads.
Earth quakes are natural hazards under which disasters are
mainly caused by damage to buildings. It is necessary to
evaluate and strengthen structures based on evaluation
criteria before an earthquake. Building design must be
such has to ensure that building has adequate strength,
high ductility when subjected to deformation. The study
of damage provides an important step in the evaluation of
strengthening measures for different type of buildings.
 3.1 Step Wise Procedure
 Modelling of different plan configurations
 Define material and section properties
 Assigning properties to frame and slab sections
 Define load patterns
 Assign loads to structural components
 Diaphragm for slabs
 Response spectrum analysis
 Load combinations from IS 1893 (part-I): 2016
 Analysis of structure
 Comparison of results
 Assessment of effective complex shape.
3.1.1 Details Of “+” Shape Model

Fig 3.1 Details of + shape

3.1.2 Details Of “T” Shape Model

Fig 3.2 Details of T shape

3.1.3 Details Of "C" Shape Model

Fig 3.3 Details of C shape

3.1.4 Details Of “L” Shape Model

Fig 3.4 Details of L shape

3.1.5 Details Of “Hollow Rectangle" Model

Fig 3.5 Details of Hollow rectangle

 3.1.6 Loads
Table 3.1 Description of Loads

S.NO Loads Values

1. Live load 3 kN / sq. m

2. Live load on terrace 1.5 kN / sq. m

3. Self weight of external wall 13.11 kN/m

4. Self weight of internal wall 6.5 kN/m

5. Self weight of parapet wall 2.2 kN/m

6. Self weight of slab 3.75 kN / sq. m

7. Floor finish 1 kN / sq. m

8. Grade of concrete M30

9. Grade of steel HYSD 415

 3.1.7 Diaphragm Of Slabs

 It is a horizontal or nearly
horizontal structural system
(reinforced concrete floors
and horizontal bracing
systems) which transmits
lateral forces to vertical
elements connected to it.
 The most common lateral
loads to be resisted are those
resulting from wind and
earthquake actions, but
other lateral loads such as
lateral earth pressure or
hydrostatic pressure can also
be resisted by diaphragm
action.
Fig 3.6 Diaphragm of slab
 3.1.8 Response Spectrum Analysis

 As per clause 6.4.3 of IS 1893 (part-1): 2016 Equivalent

static method may be used for analysis of regular
structures with approximate natural period Ta less than
0.4 sec, if not Response spectrum analysis is used.
 Modify mass source
 Define modal case (Eigen, Ritz)
 Define response spectrum functions (RS-horizontal &
vertical)
 Define load cases (RS-X , RS-Y, RS-Z)
 3.1.9 Load Combinations
(As per clause 6.3.4.1 Pg.8 of IS 1893 (part 1) : 2016)
Table 3.2 Description of Load combinations
S.NO LOAD COMBINATION S.NO LOAD COMBINATION

1 1.5DL 13 0.9DL+1.5EQY
2 1.5(DL+LL) 14 0.9DL-1.5EQY
3 1.2(DL+LL+EQX) 15 1.2(DL+LL+RSX)
4 1.2(DL+LL+EQX) 16 1.2(DL+LL+RSY)
5 1.2(DL+LL+EQY)
17 1.2(DL+LL+RSZ)
6 1.2(DL+LL-EQY)
18 1.5(DL+RSX)
7 1.5(DL+EQX)
19 1.5(DL+RSY)
8 1.5(DL-EQX)
20 1.5(DL+RSZ)
9 1.5(DL+EQY)
21 0.9DL+1.5RSX
10 1.5(DL-EQY)
11 0.9DL+1.5EQX 22 0.9DL+1.5RSY
23 0.9DL+1.5RSZ
12 0.9DL-1.5EQX
 4. Results And Discussions
4.1 Fixed Models
4.1.1 Storey Stiffness (kN/m)
Table 4.1 Storey stiffness
Storey Stiffness (kN /m)
Storey Stiffness
Fixed Model type 13100000.00
(kN/m) 13000000.00
12900000.00
12800000.00
T 13026299.63
12700000.00

HOLLOW 12600000.00
12914161.19 12500000.00
RECTANGLE 12400000.00

PLUS 12837586.62

L 12651888.43

C 12630878.33 Fig 4.1 Storey stiffness

Storey stiffness has been increased by 0.87% for T shape and

decreased by 0.59%,2.03%,2.19% for and plus ,L, C shape
respectively when compared with hollow rectangle .
 4.1.2 Model Time Period (sec)
Table 4.2 Model time period

Model Time Model Time Period (sec)

Fixed Model type 1.26
Period (sec) 1.24

1.22
T 1.25 1.20

1.18

HOLLOW RECTANGLE 1.14 1.16

1.14

PLUS 1.14 1.12

1.10

L 1.14 1.08

1.06
T HOLLOW PLUS L C
C 1.13 RECTANGLE

Fig 4.2 Model time period

Model time period has been increased by 9.96% for T shape and
decreased by 0.88% for C shape and no change observed for L &
Plus shape when compared with hollow rectangle.
 4.1.3 Diaphragm Accelerations, Ux (mm/sec2)
Table 4.3 Diaphragm acceleration

Diaphragm
Fixed Model type Accelerations, UX Diaphragm Accelerations, UX
(mm/sec2)
(mm/sec2) 1900.00

T 1693.56 1850.00

HOLLOW 1800.00
1712.89
RECTANGLE
1750.00
PLUS 1740.47
1700.00

C 1785.36 1650.00

1600.00
L 1865.52 T HOLLOW PLUS L C
RECTANGLE

Fig 4.3 Diaphragm acceleration

Diaphgram acceleration has been decreased by 1.13% for T shape and
increased by 1.16%,4.2%,8.9% for plus ,C,L shape respectively when
compared with hollow rectangle.
 4.1.4 Base Reactions
Table 4.4 Base reactions

Base Reactions , Base Reactions , Fx (kN)

Fixed Model type 28000.00
Fx (kN) 27500.00
27000.00
26500.00
T 27732.68
26000.00

HOLLOW 25500.00
25069.29 25000.00
RECTANGLE
24500.00

PLUS 25424.46 24000.00

23500.00

L 25525.35

C 25212.70
Fig 4.4 Base reactions

Base reactions has been increased by 10.62%,1.42%,1.82%,0.57%

for T , plus ,L,C shape respectively when compared with hollow
rectangle.
 4.1.5 Maximum Storey Forces

Table 4.5 Maximum storey forces

Maximum storey forces

Over turning
Model type Load, P (kN) Storey shear ,Vx (kN)
moment, Mx (kN-m)

T 339474.66 28431.18 17732492.00

Plus 337614.46 25993.07 15943046.00

C 337614.46 25773.85 8268234.08

L 336209.16 26088.38 10694091.00

Hollow rectangle 327564.30 25597.61 7997233.39

 Load, P (kN) Storey shear Vx (kN)
342000 29000
340000
28500
338000
336000 28000
334000
27500
332000
330000 27000
328000
26500
326000
324000 26000
322000
25500
320000
25000

24500

24000
T PLUS C L HOLLOW
RECTANGLE

Fig 4.5 Load Fig 4.6 Storey shear

 Over turning Moment, Mx (kN-m)
20000000
18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
T PLUS C L HOLLOW
RECTANGLE

Fig 4.7 Over turning moment

Load has been increased by 3.64%,3.07%,3.07%,2.64% for T , plus , C,

L shape respectively when compared with hollow rectangle.
Storey shear has been increased by 11.07%,1.54%,0.69%,1.92% for T ,
plus ,C,L shape respectively when compared with hollow rectangle.
Over turning moment has been increased by 121.73%,
99.36%,3.39%,33.72% for T , plus ,C,L shape respectively when
compared with hollow rectangle.
 4.1.6 Storey Drift
Table 4.6 Storey drift

Storey Drift
Hollow
Storey Name T Plus L C
Rectangle
Base 0 0 0 0 0

Plinth 0.002212 0.001808 0.001943 0.002038 0.001799

Ground Floor 0.005211 0.00425 0.004584 0.004796 0.004241

Storey 1 0.006102 0.005018 0.005401 0.005632 0.00508

Storey 2 0.005437 0.004578 0.004811 0.005033 0.004586

Storey 3 0.004465 0.003952 0.003975 0.004118 0.003946

Storey 4 0.003203 0.002907 0.002914 0.003035 0.002883

Storey 5 0.001581 0.001479 0.001442 0.001537 0.001408

 Storey Drift
0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0
PLINTH GROUND STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 3 STORY 4 STORY 5
FLOOR

HOLLOW RECTANGLE C T L PLUS

Fig 4.8 Storey drift

Storey drift shape has been decreased by 4.8 %, 2.5 % for C, plus
and increased by 6.89%,3.92% for T, L shape respectively when
compared with hollow rectangle.
 4.1.7 Storey Displacement
Table 4.7 Storey Displacement

Storey Displacement
Hollow
Storey Name T Rectangle
Plus L C

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Plinth 3.32 2.71 2.92 3.06 2.70

Ground Floor 16.31 13.30 14.34 15.01 13.25

Storey 1 34.51 28.27 30.46 31.81 28.47

Storey 2 50.44 41.34 44.59 46.60 41.93

Storey 3 63.09 51.99 55.77 58.32 52.47

Storey 4 71.75 60.71 63.36 66.31 60.75

Storey 5 75.82 64.98 66.89 70.70 65.14

 STOREY DISPLACEMENT

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
BASE PLINTH GROUND STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 3 STORY 4 STORY 5
FLOOR

HOLLOW RECTANGLE C T L PLUS

Fig 4.9 Storey displacement

Storey displacement has been increased by

0.249%,16,69%,8.8%,2.95% for C , T ,L ,Plus shape
respectively when compared with hollow rectangle.
 4.2 Spring Models Results

4.2.1 Storey Stiffness

Table 4.8 Storey Stiffness Storey Stiffness (kN/m)
12000000
Storey Stiffness
Spring Model type 11900000
(kN/m)
11800000

11700000
T 11919052.56
11600000

Hollow Rectangle 11809361.14 11500000

11400000
PLUS 11744524.09
11300000
L 11573169.50

C 11555795.42

Fig 4.10 Storey Stiffness

Storey Stiffness Has Been Increased By 0.93% For T Shape

And Decreased By 0.55%, 2%, 2.15% For And Plus , L, C
Shape Respectively When Compared With Hollow
Rectangle.
 4.2.1 Model Time Period (sec)

Table 4.9 Model time period

Model Time Period (sec)
Model Time Period 1.22
Spring Model type
(sec) 1.21
1.2
1.19
Hollow Rectangle 1.207
1.18
1.17
T 1.164 1.16
1.15
L 1.155 1.14
1.13

Plus 1.153 1.12

1.11
HOLLOW T L PLUS C
C 1.147 RECTANGLE

Fig 4.11 Model time period

Model time period has been increased by 3.56, 4.31%, 4.47%,

4.47% for T ,L plus ,C shape respectively when compared with
hollow rectangle.
 4.2.2 Base Reactions , Fx (kN)

Table 4.10 Base reactions

Base Reactions , Fx (kN)
Spring Model Base Reactions , Fx 30000.00

type (kN)
25000.00

20000.00
T 25843.93
15000.00

L 25420.68 10000.00

5000.00
Hollow Rectangle 25309.67
0.00

C 25113.87

Plus 20562.38
Fig 4.12 Base reactions

Base reactions has been increased by 2.11%, 0.438% for T,L,

shape and decreased by 0.77%, 18.75% for C, plus shape
respectively when compared with hollow rectangle.
 4.2.3 Diaphragm Accelerations UX (mm/sec2)

Diaphragm Accelerations, UX
Table 4.11 Diaphragm acceleration (mm/sec2)
Diaphragm 1900.00
Spring Model
Accelerations, UX 1850.00
type 1800.00
(mm/sec2)
1750.00
Hollow 1700.00
1598.81
Rectangle 1650.00

1600.00
Plus 1723.26 1550.00

1500.00

C 1763.30 1450.00

T 1787.60
Fig 4.13 Diaphragm acceleration
L 1845.37

Diaphgram acceleration has been increased by 11.81%,

15.42%, 7.78%, 10.29% for T ,L plus ,C shape
respectively when compared with hollow rectangle.
 4.2.4 Maximum Storey Forces
Table 4.12 Maximum storey forces

Spring Model Storey shear Vx Over turning Moment, Mx

Load, P (kN)
type (kN) (kN-m)

T 339475 26408 17732492

Plus 337614 25896 15943046

L 337559 25989 10693980

Hollow Rectangle 345975 25891 8303410

C 301453 25621 7417519

 Load, P (kN) Story shear Vx (kN)
350000 26600

340000 26400

26200
330000
26000
320000
25800
310000 25600

300000 25400

25200
290000

280000

270000

Fig 4.14 Load Fig 4.15 Storey shear

 Over turning Moment, Mx (kN-m)
20000000
18000000
16000000
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
HOLLOW T PLUS L C
RECTANGLE

Fig 4.16 Over turning moment

Load has been decreased by 1.88%,2.40%,2.43%, 12.87% for T , plus, L,C shape
respectively when compared with hollow rectangle.
storey shear has been increased by 1.99%,0.01%,0.38%,for T , plus, L shape
and decreased by 1.04% for C shape respectively when compared with hollow
rectangle.
Over turning moment has been increased by 113.56%, 92%,28.8% for T , plus,
L shape and decreased by 10.66% for C shape respectively when compared with
hollow rectangle.
 4.2.5 Storey Drift
Table 4.13 Storey Drift

Storey Drift
Hollow
Storey Name L T C Plus
Rectangle

Plinth 0.00259 0.002577 0.002302 0.002446

0.002354

Ground Floor 0.004249 0.004698 0.00469 0.004143 0.004456

Storey 1 0.004929 0.005452 0.005412 0.004798 0.005161

Storey 2 0.004641 0.004865 0.004815 0.00425 0.004585

Storey 3 0.004067 0.004073 0.003935 0.003455 0.003932

Storey 4 0.003107 0.003 0.0028 0.002439 0.002882

Storey 5 0.001756 0.001519 0.001375 0.001164 0.001426

 STOREY DRIFT
0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0
GROUND FLOOR STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 3 STORY 4 STORY 5

HOLLOW RECTANGLE L T C PLUS

Fig 4.17 Storey drift

Storey drift has been increased by 33.71%, 18.79%, 21.69%,

13.5% for C, plus , T, L shape respectively when compared
with hollow rectangle.
 4.2.6 Storey Displacement
Table 4.14 Storey displacement

Storey Displacement

Hollow
Storey Name L T C Plus
Rectangle

Ground Floor 14.094 15.566 15.537 13.743 14.762

Storey 1 28.793 31.824 31.675 28.042 30.15

Storey 2 41.691 46.095 45.801 40.484 43.594

Storey 3 53.684 57.34 56.993 50.259 54.208

Storey 4 63.002 64.984 64.62 56.828 61.451

Storey 5 68.264 68.598 68.206 59.792 65.729

 Storey Displacement
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
GROUND FLOOR STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 3 STORY 4 STORY 5

HOLLOW RECTANGLE L T C PLUS

Fig 4.18 Storey displacement

Storey displacement has been increased by 0.49% for L shape

and decreased by 0.085%,12.41%,3.713% for T, C, plus
shape respectively when compared with hollow rectangle.
 5. Conclusions
Based on the values of storey stiffness , model time
period ,base reactions ,over turning moment , storey drift
and storey displacement conclusions are observed.
For the structure to be effective, the storey stiffness
should be high, which varies with column size , the
modal time period should be less which is inversely
proportional to storey stiffness and the base reactions ,
overturning moment, storey displacement and storey
drift developed should be less.
 As per the results obtained, the effective
complex shape is considered to be C shape
followed by + shape, L shape and T shape when
compared with hollow rectangle (simple shape)
under fixed support conditions. In case of spring
supports the effective complex shape is
considered to be C shape followed by + and
values are varying for L shape and T shape when
compared with hollow rectangle.
 Appendix
S.no Item Description
1. C cellar
2. C shape c -configuration
3. DL dead load
4. ETABS Extended Three - Dimensional Analysis
of Building System
5. EQ -X earth quake load in x direction
6. EQ -Y earth quake load in y direction
7. Fx base reactions
8. G ground floor
9. K storey stiffness
10. kN kilo newton
11. kN-m kilo newton -meter
12. kN/m kilo newton per meter
13. L shape L configuration
S.no Item description

14. LL live load

15. m meter
16. mm/sec2 milli meter per second square
17. MSB multi storeyed building
18. Mx over turning moment
19. P load
20. RCC reinforced cement concrete
21. RSA response spectrum analysis
22. RS -X RS load case in x- direction
23. RS -Y RS load case in y- direction
24. RS -Z RS load case in z- direction
25. T shape T configuration
26. Ux diaphragm acceleration
27. Vx storey shear
28. + plus configuration
 6. References
1. Abhay Guleria “Structural Analysis of a Multi Storied Building using ETABS for different Plan
Configurations” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) Vol. 3 Issue 5,
May – 2014.
2. A.Hamada "Seismic analysis of L shaped high and low rise buildings-comparison with NBCC 2005
and NBCC 2010’’CSCE 2013 general conference ,may 29 to june 1.
3. Akash Kumar, ER. Kundan Kulbhushan "Design of earth quake resistant structure of multi-storied
RCC building " International Research journal of engineering and technology(IRJET) Vol.6, iss.5, may
2019
4. Anil kumar magalam palli “study on effect of geometry on multi story building under seismic load” 4
August 2020
5. Anwar Shamkhi Jabbar Alkhazali , DR. N.V. Ramana Rao " Seismic analysis and comparison of
different models of multi storeyed buildings" International journal of scientific engineering and
technology research (IJSETR) Vol.3.iss.21,september-2014.
6. Arshad Jamal, H.S . Jadhav "evaluation of RC multi-storey building response under effect of soil
structure interaction" International Research journal of engineering and technology (IRJET) Vol.
6,iss.4, April 2019.
7. Chetan P . Agarwal, AMEY R.KHEDIKAR “linear and non linear dynamic analysis of RC structure
for various plan configurations using ETABS” August 5 2018.
8. Chiranjeevi Yadav, L. Ramaprasad Reddy “Dynamic Analysis of G + 20 Residential Building in zone2
and zone5 by using ETABS” International journal of professional engineering studies (IJPRES),
volume viii /issue 3 April 2017.
9. Gauri G. Kak pure , Ashok R. Mundhada "comparative study of static and dynamic seismic analysis
of multi storied RCC building by ETABS" International journal of emerging research in management
technology (IJERMT) vol.5, iss.12, December 2016.
10. Gopal Dabhi, Vimlesh V Agrawal , Vishal B. Patel3 Soil structure interaction for basement system of
malty storey building for different soil condition using static analysis in ETABS SSRG International
Journal of Civil Engineering (SSRG-IJCE) – Volume 7 Issue 6 – June 2020.
11. John Louie A.gagalang,Rina J.Arcigal “hand calculation and extended 3 dimensional analysis of
buildings (ETABS): An analysis and design for 3 storey buildings” International journal of multi
disciplinary research (IJMR) Vol.7,ISS.2 Feb 2021
12. Mahendra Kumawat, Ankit paal and Mayank choudary “a review study use of different shapes of
twin towers high rise buildings under seismic load” International journal of current engineering and
technology (INPRESSEO) Vol.10 Feb 2020
13. Mahesh, Panduranga Rao Comparison of analysis and design of regular and irregular configuration
of multi-Story building in various seismic zones and various types of soils using ETABS and
STAAD IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSRJMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684, p-
ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 11, Issue 6 Ver. I (Nov- Dec. 2014), PP 45-52.
14. Md.Mohiuddin Ahmed,Sri shishir Chandra das"seismic response analysis for complex shape RCC
buildings by linear static analysis”journal of structural technology (JST)-volume 5 issue 1
15. Meera Arun, T Srinivas “seismic analysis of multi storied building for different plan configurations
using etabs” E3S web of conference (ICMED) 2021
16. Narayan Malvia, Sumith paahwa “seismic analysis of high raise building with is code 1893 to 2022
and IS code 1893 to 2016 (IRJET) intenational research journal of engineering and
technology,Vol.4 ,ISS.11 November 2017
17. Prayash jain, Rahul sathbahaiya “ study on residential building of constant area ad different shape
using ETABS” International journal of scientific research in civil engineering(IJSRCE) Vol.4,ISS.5
September 2020
18. Pushkar Rathode , Rahul Chandra sekhar “seismic analysis of multi-storeyed building for different
plans using ETABS 2015” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
Vol.4,ISS.10, October 2017.
19. P.Vignesh ,M.Kathir vel “comparative non linear static analysis on stiffness regular and stiffness
irregular structures to seismic zones using ETABS” (IJRAR) Vol.7 ISS.1 March 2020.
20. Rashedur rahman,Tohur ahmed,Afia anjum ulka mony "Comparitive study between rectangular
and specially shaped r.c column on seismic response for multistoried building’’ International
conference on civil engineering for sustainable development(ICCESD)Feb 2020.
21. Shriya chandrakanth agarwal, Pratiksha malviya"A review on multistoried building by changing
different shapes on shear wall for zone 4 and 5 under plane and sloping ground condition”
International journal of scientific research and engineering Vol.5,ISS.4 July to August 2019.
22. S.Mahesh,Dr. B. Pandurangarao “comparision of analysis and design of regular and irregular
configuration of multi story building in various seismic zones and various types of soils using
ETABS and STAAD” IOSR journal of mechanical and civil engineering (IOSR-
JMCE)Vol.11,ISS.6 November to December 2014.
23. Soniya BM,Vijay kumar YM “Finite element analysis of L shape building and its seismic
behaviour variations in ETABS.
24. Sunil S K, Mahesh Kumar, Shwetha K G Raghavendra H J "Seismic Evaluation of Multi
storied building using ETABS" International research journal of Engineering and
technology(IRJET) Vol.4,Iss.8,august 2017.
25. Supreet A.R, Rekha B, Prema kumar W.P “effects of plan dimensions ,seismic zone ,infill on
story drifts and force response of L shaped reinforced concrete buildings International Journal
of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) Vol.4 ,ISS.7,July 2015.
26. Tejaswini V. Yoela, Rohan Kumar Choudhary “Design and Analysis of Multi-Storeyed
Residential Building in Different Seismic Zones” International Journal of Innovative Science
and Research Technology(IJISRT), Volume 4, Issue 6, June – 2019.
27. T.Harshavardhan,A.Vimala“Seismic analysis of C,L,F,I shapes shearwalls along with
introduction of raft foundation in different seismic zones type 3’’ soil International research
journal of Engineering and technology(IRJET)vol.8,iss.7,july 2019
28. Vivek suwalka,Nandeshwar laata,Bharat nagar“Comparitive study and modelling of framed
structure with and without shearwall using ETABS’’ International research journal of
Engineering and technology(IRJET)VOI.5,ISS.9,SEPT 2018
Thank you

Thank you