Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol.

5 (4)2014

www.crl.issres.net Vol. 5(4) – December 2014

Fundamental time period of RC Setback Buildings

S.Varadharajana,* ,V. K. Sehgal b and B. Saini c
a
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Echelon Institute of technology, Faridabad, Haryana,
INDIA
b
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana,INDIA
c
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of technology, Kurukshetra,
Haryana, INDIA

Abstract

The buildings with the presence of setback irregularity are now being increasingly used in the urban areas.
The present work proposes an irregularity index for quantifying the setback irregularity based on the dynamic
characteristics of the buildings. This paper also proposes a modified equation for the fundamental period of
vibration, for building frames with setback irregularity. Furthermore, the equations for estimating the
maximum inter storey drift ratio (Ir) and maximum displacement ductility (μmax) are also proposed. These
equations are proposed on basis of the regression analysis conducted on the seismic response databank of 305
building models with different types of setback irregularity for each height category. The proposed equations
are represented as a function of the irregularity index, and are validated for 2D and 3D building models with
setback irregularity.

Keywords: Setback irregularity; Vertical geometric irregularity; Fundamental period of vibration; irregular
buildings.

1. Introduction
The setback irregularity is one of the most common types of irregularity in the modern
buildings. The functional and aesthetic requirements are the main reasons for preference of these
structures. These buildings are very useful in urban areas, where the buildings are closely spaced. In
such areas, these buildings provide the adequate sunlight and ventilation for the bottom stories, in
addition; it approves with the building bye law restrictions of ‘Floor area ratio’ as per building code
of India.
* Corresponding author: Email:[email protected]

901
 The presence of a setback in the building results in abrupt reductions of the floor area, which
in turn results in change of mass and stiffness along the building height. The past earthquake
records indicate that, the buildings with setbacks experience greater damage as compared to the
regular buildings. This poor seismic behaviour may be attributed to the inadequacy of current codes,
based on which these buildings were designed. The change of mass and stiffness of the stepped
building along its height results in the difference in their dynamic characteristics, as compared to
the regular buildings and this aspect is ignored by design codes. This may be due to the scarcity of
literature works available regarding this aspect.
The procedures prescribed by the design codes like EC 8 2004 and FEMA 356 for estimating
the deformation demands are formulated considering the single degree of freedom systems. So, the
prescribed procedures are unsuitable for design of real structures. Also, the current seismic codes
imply restrictions on method of analysis used for irregular structures, and prescribe the dynamic
analysis for seismic evaluation of such structures. In addition, a 20 % reduction on value of
behaviour factor is prescribed for such structures. The maximum displacements and interstorey
drifts are calculated by equal displacement rule as shown in Eq. 1
q (1)
Where, μ = displacement ductility
q = Behaviour factor

The displacements and inter-storey drift ratio are calculated by the following expressions
'
D  D q (2)
'
d  d q (3)
Where D = maximum displacement
D’ = yield value of maximum displacement under reduced design lateral forces
d = maximum inter-storey drift
d’ = yield value of maximum inter-storey drift under reduced design lateral forces

The above rules as stated in Equations 1-3, assume uniform profile of D’ and d’ during the
seismic excitation. This is contradictory to the observations of previous research works
(Athanassioudu 2008; Karavasilis et al. 2008a; Varadharajan et al. 2012a; Varadharajan et al.,
2012b; Varadharajan et al. 2013a; Varadharajan 2013b Varadharajan et al. 2014).
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

In the present study, some of the important aspects regarding the setback irregularity are
discussed. This paper, proposes an approach to quantify the mass and stiffness changes due to the
setback in the form of a parameter called as the ‘Irregularity index’. The proposed approach is
found to be more effective as compared to the existing measures in quantifying the setback
irregularity. Furthermore, the empirical equations suggested by the seismic design codes for
evaluation of the fundamental period of vibration, are heavily depended on the building height.
Therefore, a modified equation, based on the results of time history analysis of 305 different
building frames is proposed to make it applicable to the buildings with setback irregularity.
Furthermore, the empirical equations to estimate the deformation demands like maximum
interstorey drift ratio and displacement ductility are also proposed. The proposed equations are
validated for 2D and 3D building models.

2. Literature review
The research works regarding setback irregularity started in early 1970s with Humar and
Wright, who conducted analytical studies on buildings with a setback, and observed higher drift
demand at the upper portion of the setback. Moelhe (1984) conducted both experimental and
analytical study on R.C. frames with setbacks. Based on results of his analytical studies, it was
observed that damage concentration was greater near vicinity of the setback Aranda (1984) also
observed greater ductility demand at the tower portion of the setback, as compared to the base
portion. However, Wood (1992) observed similar seismic behavior of building frames, with and
without setbacks.
Wong and Tso (1994) used elastic response spectrum analysis to determine the response of
structures with setback irregularity and observed higher modal masses in setback buildings,
resulting in different seismic load distributions as compared to the regular structures. Pinto and
Costa (1995), based on their study, concluded structures, with and without setbacks exhibited
similar seismic behavior, and the same result was observed by Mazzolini and pilso (1996) from the
analytical study on setback structures. Duan and Chandler (1995), used static and modal spectral
analysis to conduct analytical studies on building systems with setback irregularity. Results of study
suggested the inefficiency of both analysis procedures in preventing the damage concentration in
structural members near the level of setbacks.
Kappos and Scott (1998), compared static and dynamic analysis methods for evaluating the
seismic response of R.C. building frames with the setbacks. On comparison, the difference in results

903
of both methods was observed. The authors ignored the irregularities in mass, strength and stiffness
in their study.
Khoure et al. (2005) performed seismic analysis and design of a nine storey steel frame with
the setbacks as per provisions of Israeli steel code SI 1225(1998). Results of analytical study
indicated higher torsion in the tower portion of the setback.
Trembley and poncet (2005) conducted analytical study on building frames with vertical mass
and setback irregularity. These frames were designed in accordance with NBCC code provisions.
The static and dynamic analysis was used to evaluate the seismic response of these buildings.
Results of analytical study confirmed the inefficiency of both static and dynamic analysis
procedures in predicting the seismic response of irregular structures.
Basu and Gopalakrishnan (2007) proposed an alternative method for evaluation of seismic
response of building frames with horizontal setbacks. The proposed method was assessed by
applying it on four building models. From results of analytical study it was found that the proposed
procedure yielded accurate results of natural frequency for building systems in which the scattering
of centre of mass is less than 50%. However, for other building models the proposed procedure
yielded inaccurate results.
Karavallis et al. (2008) conducted parametric study on the multistorey steel frames with
setback irregularity. These frames were designed in accordance with EC 8 seismic code provisions.
The time history analysis method was employed to create a seismic response databank consisting of
parameters like number of stories, irregularity index, and beam to column strength ratio. Based on
the results of the analytical study four different performance levels were identified namely a)
occurrence of first plastic hinge b) Maximum inter-storey drift ratio (IDRmax) equal to 1.8 % ; c)
IDRmax equal to 3.2% d) IDRmax equal to 4.0%. Further, results of analytical study suggested that the
inter-storey drift (IDR) ratio increased with increase in storey height and tower portion of setback
experienced maximum deformation as compared to the base portion.
Athanassiadou (2008) determined the seismic response and capacity of RC building frames
with setbacks. Three types of building frames were modelled. Two of these three frames contained
two to four setbacks in upper floors and the third frame contained setback along its full height from
top to bottom. These frames were designed as DCH and DCM frames as per low ductility class of
Euro code 2008.For analytical study these frames were subjected to an ensemble of 30 different
ground motions. From the results of analytical study, it was observed that the frames designed as
per EC 8 provisions exhibited adequate seismic performance.
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

Kappos and Stefanidou (2010) proposed a new deformation based method for evaluation of
inelastic seismic response of the 3d R.C. building models with setback irregularity. The proposed
method uses the advance analysis technique. The authors have used partial inelastic model in their
methodology. The main aim of the proposed method was to reduce the design forces thereby
economize the design process. The 3D irregular setback building models were designed as per EC 8
provisions and by the proposed method. On comparison of the results, it was found that the
proposed method yielded accurate results as compared to the EC 8 code especially with respect to
the detailing of transverse reinforcement in the members.
Sehgal et al. (2011) conducted analytical studies on R.C. frames with a setback on one side
and on both sides. The authors also, studied the variation of setback length on seismic response.
Based on the analytical study, the authors found higher torsional response near setbacks, and
increase in setback length is found to aggravate the response.
Georgoussis (2011) investigated the effect of irregular variation of stiffness in the setback
structures. For investigating the setback structures, a new indirect method based on the modal
stiffness was suggested. The proposed procedure was applied to the setback building models and
the results of the proposed procedure were compared with that of three-dimensional analysis.
Results of both methods were found to be comparable and accuracy of the proposed procedure was
verified.
Varadharajan et al. (2012a) has conducted a detailed review of different structural
irregularities in the building. The authors observed a drastic change in seismic response near the
vicinity of irregularities especially in case of tall structures. These results were further confirmed by
Vardaharajan et al. 2012 (b).
Varadharajan 2013 (a) has determined the seismic response of short period structures with
setback irregularity. From the analysis results the short period structures exhibited a strong response
as compared to long period structures (Varadharajan et al. 2013b). This shows the criticality of
short period structures.
Varadharajan et al. (2014) determined the seismic response of setback frames designed as
per EC8:2004 and IS 456 provisions. The results of analytical study showed conservativeness of EC
8 provisions in estimation of deformation demands.

3. Code provisions for setback irregularity

The setback irregularity is identified by several design codes as indicated in Table 1. As per IS
1893:2002, a building is said to be irregular when the horizontal dimension of the building frame in

905
any storey is greater than 150 % of the adjacent storey. As per other seismic design codes, the above
prescribed limit is 130 %. The setback limit as per different codes is shown in Table 1, and the
pictorial representation of setback limit as per IS 1893:2002 and ASCE 7:05 is shown in Figure 1.
To define the vertical setback irregularity, the codes consider the ratio of horizontal dimension of
one storey to that of the adjacent storey but the gradual variation of the setback irregularity is
ignored, which results in inaccurate prediction of seismic response of setback structures. The
dynamic method of analysis is prescribed by several design codes [ASCE-7.05, UBC 97, EC8 and
IS1893:2002], for analysis of such irregular structures.
The fundamental time period of the structure is an important parameter which represents the
dynamic response of the structure under seismic excitation but, the seismic design codes specify the
same expression of the fundamental time period for both regular and irregular building structures as
0.75
T  0.075h (4)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1: Code limits for vertical setback irregularity a) IS code b) ASCE code c) EC 8 code
As per code proposed equation, the fundamental time period is a function of building height only,
and this equation does not account for stepped variations of building frame along the building
height. However, in reality, the period decreases with the increase in the vertical setback
irregularity. Hence, the Eq. 4 is inadequate in predicting the periods for the building frames with
setbacks.

4. Quantification of setback irregularity

As discussed earlier, the limits of setback irregularity as prescribed by different seismic codes,
does not account for gradual variation of setbacks along the building height. To address the above
issue, the first main aim is to propose a parameter to quantify the setback irregularity. The proposed
parameter is then compared with the parameters proposed by Karavasilis et al. (2008). The
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

parameters proposed by Karavasilis et al. (2008) are represented in Eq. 5, and the definition of
terminologies in Eq. 5 are expressed in Figure 2.

1 nb 1 Li 1 nb 1 H i
s   , b   (5)
ns 1 1 Li 1 nb 1 1 H i 1

Where, ns represents the number of stories in the building model, and nb represents the number of
bays in the first storey of the building model. Li and Hi are the width and the height of the ith storey
as presented in Figure 2.

TABLE 1: SETBACK LIMITS AND EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS FOR ESTIMATING

FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD AS PER DIFFERENT CODES OF PRACTICE
S. No. Name of code Year Setback irregularity limit Empirical Equation
for T
1 UBC 1997 Si < 130 % Cth0.75

2 IS I893 2002 Si < 150 % 0.09h/√d

3 EC 8 2004 Si < 130 % Cth0.75

4 NBCC 2005 Si < 130 % 0.01N

5 ASCE 7:05 2005 Si < 130 % Ta = Cthnx

Where Si – setback irregularity limit, Ct – constant which varies for different codes, h – total height
of the building, T – Fundamental period of vibration, N- Number of stories

Figure 2: Frame Geometry for definition of irregularity indices proposed by Karavasilis et al.
(2008).
The second main purpose of the present study is to propose a correction factor for code
defined expression of the fundamental period of vibration, to make it suitable for building structures
with setback irregularity. To achieve the above aims, 1525 (305*5) building models representing

907
the different degree of the vertical setback irregularity and ground motions were considered for the
analytical study (Tables 2 and 3).
The building models considered have the number of bays varying from one to five (in the
direction of earthquake) with a bay width of 3 m and 4 m, in the direction perpendicular to the
direction of the earthquake. It should be kept in mind that bay width of 4 m-6 m is the general case
for RC building frames, in Indian and European codes. Moreover, from the analysis results, it was
observed that the number of bays does not affect the response of the building significantly. Five
different height categories, ranging from 6 to 18 stories, with a similar storey height of 3m, was
considered for the present study. A total of sixty one building geometries is considered for the
analytical study. Twenty-one of these are shown in Figure 4a, and rest of them are adopted from
Karavallis et al. (2008). The geometries considered for the study consist of building models with
equal and unequal step heights and widths. The geometrical configurations selected to represent
building models with, a) Setbacks at bottom, middle and top storey, b) small to large setbacks at
different locations along the height of the building. The geometries are selected such that, they
represent the majority of the actual setback structures encountered in practice. Furthermore, the
relations between the fundamental period of vibration (T) and the total building height (H) are kept
in accordance with the empirical relations proposed by Goel and Chopra (1997), to ensure that the
building models considered for the analytical study represent the general moment resisting RC
frames. The periods of building models used, and limits proposed by Goel and Chopra (1997) as
shown in Figure 3.

54
Building Height (m)

45
UPPER LIMIT = 1.4T
36 LOWER LIMIT = T
BUILDING MODELS

27

18
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fundamental Time period (Sec)

Figure 3: Fundamental Time period of building models used within limits prescribed by Goel and
Chopra (1997).
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

TABLE 2: DETAILS OF BUILDING MODELS USED

S.No Model Details of Building models
No.

1 Abg A indicates 6 storey building model, subscripts b indicates number of bays and
subscript g indicates geometry number.
2 Bbg B indicates 9 storey building model, subscripts b indicates number of bays and
subscript g indicates geometry number.
3 Cbg C indicates 12 storey building model, subscripts b indicates number of bays and
subscript g indicates geometry number.
4 Dbg D indicates 15 storey building model, subscripts b indicates number of bays and
subscript g indicates geometry number.
5 Ebg E indicates 18 storey building model, subscripts b indicates number of bays and
subscript g indicates geometry number.

TABLE 3: DETAILS OF GROUND MOTIONS USED

Name of Earthquake and Station Date Mu D PGA
(Km) (m/s2)
Kern Country (Taft) 21/07/1952 7.7 43 1.74
San Fernado (Castaic) 09/02/1971 6.6 29 2.63
Imperial Valley (Calexico) 15/10/1979 6.6 15 2.70
Loma Prieta (Gilroy Array #4) 18/10/1989 6.9 16 4.09
Loma Prieta (SF Intern. Airport) 18/10/1989 6.9 64 3.23
Northridge (LA Nfaring Road) 17/01/1994 6.7 24 2.68
Northridge (LA City Terrace) 17/01/1994 6.7 37 3.10
Northridge (LA Wonderland Ave.) 17/01/1994 6.7 23 0.17
Northridge (Leona valley #3) 17/01/1994 6.7 38 0.11
Northridge (LA Chalon Road) 17/01/1994 6.7 24 2.21
Northridge (LA Baldwain Hills) 17/01/1994 6.7 31 1.65

where Mu = magnitude of the earthquake, D = Distance from epicenter, PGA = Peak ground
acceleration, Tc = Critical time period of earthquake. For every accelogram , the scale factors were

909
obtained from SEAOC manual. The characteristic period Tc for these ground motions have been
calculated by using Riddel and Newmark (1979) algorithm. The study on these building models has
been carried out by time history analysis using E-Tabs v 9.0 software.

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7

G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14

G15 G16 G17 G18 G19 G20 G21

Figure. 4a: Some of the building geometries considered for the analytical study
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

The selected building models are subjected to an ensemble of 11 ground motions as presented
in Table 3. The ground motions data for the present study have been selected from the PEER
database.

4.1 Sensitivity Analysis

In quantifying the vertical the dynamic response parameters like natural frequency of the
vibration and mass participation factor can be considered, as these parameters effectively represent
the change of mass and stiffness due to presence of setback irregularity. Furthermore, these
parameters have a dominant effect on the fundamental period of vibration. To determine the
parameter that has the most significant impact on the fundamental period of vibration, the
sensitivity analysis was carried out. In general, the sensitivity represents the impact of an input
parameter on an output parameter. Using sensitivity analysis, the parameter with the most
significant effect on the fundamental period of vibration can be determined. To obtain sensitivity,
the standard deviation of an input parameter is divided by the standard deviation of the output
parameter. The input parameter with the highest sensitivity has the greatest influence on the output
parameter. In the present study, the dynamic response parameters like natural frequency of the
vibration and participation factor are treated as the input parameters, and the fundamental time
period is treated as the output parameter. The results of sensitivity analysis, for all the building
frames considered are presented in Figure 4b.

Figure 4b: Results of Sensitivity analysis

It can be seen from Fig. 4b that the fundamental frequency of vibration (ω) has the larger
impact on the fundamental period of vibration as compared to the mass participation factor (p).
Therefore, based on these results, an irregularity index (ηir) has been proposed to quantify the

911
vertical setback irregularity by authors in their previous research work (Varadharajan et al. 2013b)
as shown below in Eq. (6).
i
ir 
r (6)
where, ωi and ωr are the modal combinations of frequency of vibration of the irregular and regular
building frames. The approximate values of these two factors can be obtained by eigenvalue
analysis using Eq.7 as mentioned below
 K  2M   0 (7)
 

Where K, M, ω are the Stiffness matrix, Mass matrix and Natural frequency of vibration of the
building .The matrix operations to determine the natural frequency of vibration are performed using
MatLab v 8.2 software. The higher value of the proposed parameter represents larger floor area
reductions and setbacks of greater width and height resembling the tower like shape. The
comparison of approaches for quantifying the setback irregularity is presented in Table 4.
From Table 4, it can be seen that the code defined approaches are found to be ineffective in
capturing the variation of setback irregularity. For example, B312 and C409 models are completely
different in height, number of bays and in geometry still, code defined approaches specify the same
value of setback irregularity for these frames. Nevertheless, the seismic responses of the frames
with different type of setbacks are dissimilar, due to variation in torsion generated. Furthermore,
Figure 6 shows the torsional response in the form of lateral displacement, inter storey drift and
torsional moment profiles for building models B309 and B312 respectively. From Figure 5, the
difference in torsional response of these models can be clearly seen. However, as earlier stated, the
code specifies the same value of setback irregularity index for both these building models.
Therefore, the code provisions are inadequate in capturing the setback irregularity.
Karavallis et al. (2008) approach performs better than the code defined approach, but it has a
major disadvantage of requiring two indices to quantify the setback irregularity. However, the
present approach is found to me more effective as compared to other approaches. The building
models presented in Table 4, cover a broad range fundamental time periods from 0.76s to 2.65s.
The parameters ¢s and ¢b, as proposed by Karavasilis et al. (2008) vary from 1 to1.4, and from 1 to
2.39 respectively. Furthermore, it can be said that, unlike the proposed index, the other approaches
does not consider the non - uniform distribution of mass and the stiffness irregularity.
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

TABLE 4: DIFFERENT IRREGULARITY INDICES FOR DIFFERENT BUILDING MODELS

CONSIDERED
Frame ID T (Sec) IS 1893: ASCE 7-05 ¢s ¢b Varadharajan et al. 2013

A121 0.976 1 2 1.2 0 1.068925

A214 0.984 0.8 1.33 1.316 6 1.065938

A310 0.967 0.8 1.5 1.390 3 1.06619

A305 0.995 0.8 2.0 1.396 3 1.087688

B303 0.998 0.4 2.0 1.437 6 1.072782

B221 1.03 1 2 1.125 12 1.067747

B312 1.17 0.8 1.5 1.260 6 1.063117

C409 1.21 0.8 1.5 1.189 5 1.065062

C307 1.32 1 2 1.189 7.5 1.085907

C416 1.06 0.4 2.5 1.227 5 1.085685

D309 1.32 1 2 1.148 7.5 1.056788

D401 1.37 0.80 2 1.255 5 1.075403

5. Variation of the irregularity index with building properties

The variation of building properties with irregularity index is shown in Figures 6 and 7. From
Figure 7, it can be observed that the irregularity index tends to increase gradually with the storey
height. The proposed irregularity index assumes a minimum value of 1.21 for the six storey
building model (Geometry 7) and assumes the maximum value of 1.43 for eighteen storey building
model (Geometry 6). Therefore, it can be said that the value of the irregularity index depends
collectively on storey height and the geometry. The variation of irregularity index with the number
of bays is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 7 shows that the irregularity index increases with the number of bays but this increase
is very marginal. Hence, it can be said that the affect of the setback irregularity is least effected by
variation in the number of bays. Moreover, it can be said that the variation of proposed irregularity
index with the setback geometry is non-uniform and does not follow any pattern indicating that the

913
setback geometry has the major influence on the irregularity index. Thus, it can be said that the
proposed irregularity index effectively captures the variations in the setback geometry.

Building Height (m) 27

18

B309
9 B312

0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Lateral Displacement (Cm)

a) Lateral displacement profile

27
Storey Height (m)

18
B309
9 B312

0
0.02 0.07 0.12
Interstorey Drift (Cm)

b) Interstorey Drift profile

27
Storey Height (m)

18
B309
B312
9

0
6 9 12 15
Torsional Moment (KNm)

c) Torsional Moment profile

Figure. 5: Torsional response of a 9 storey Setback frame
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

Proposed Irregularity Index 1.5

6 Storey
9 Storey
(ηir)

12 Storey
1.2 15 Storey
18 Storey

0.9
0 5 10 15 20 25
Geometry Number

Figure. 6: Variation of irregularity index (ηir) with different geometries and Storey height for an
18 storey irregular building
Proposed Irregularity Index

1.5
1 Bay
2 Bay
(ηir)

3 Bay
1.2
4 Bay
5 Bay

0.9
0 5 10 15 20 25
Geometry Number

Figure. 7: Variation of irregularity index (ηir) with different geometries and different number of
bays for an 18 storey irregular building

6. Estimation of fundamental period of vibration for building frames with vertical setback
irregularity

As explained earlier, the design codes prescribe the dynamic analysis for the irregular
building. The base shear is obtained corresponding to the value of the fundamental period of
vibration as per code specified empirical formulae. Moreover, these formulae are developed

915
considering the buildings to be regular. In these expressions, the fundamental period is a function of
the building height only, and the presence of structural irregularity is ignored. In general, the height
of the models with vertical setback irregularity shows the variation on both sides of the frame, and
the periods obtained will be less at a side with low height, which will result in a higher base shear.
Nevertheless, if the total height of the structure is considered in computing the fundamental
period of vibration, an un-conservative value of base shear will be obtained. The fundamental
periods of vibration for the majority of the existing building frames with vertical setback
irregularity come in the constant velocity region of the response spectrum presented in IS1893:2002
and EC8:2004. This region is very sensitive to variation of spectral acceleration and a minor
variation of the fundamental period of vibration will have a huge impact on the base shear obtained.
The presence of vertical setback irregularity induces, both mass and stiffness variations in a
building frame. These variations in the mass and stiffness will have the substantial effect on the
fundamental period of vibration.
The reduction in the mass reduces the fundamental period of vibration, and the stiffness
reduction increases it. This variation in the fundamental period of vibration affects the base shear.
To obtain the modified time period, the correction factor λ’, which is the ratio of Ti/ Tr has been
obtained for 305 building frames with different geometries, different bays and with different storey
height by time history analysis. The correction factor λ’ obtained is plotted against the proposed
irregularity index in the form of a graph. The relations between these parameters were obtained by
using a polynomial fit as shown in Figure 8.

0.9
λ’ = Ti/ Tr

0.8

0.7
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Irregularity Index (ηir)

Figure 8: Relationship between irregularity index and λ’= Ti/Tr

 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

Based on the polynomial fit, the correction factor is proposed as

, T 2
  i  4.4032ir  10.582ir  7.2936 (8)
Tr

And the modified time period can be expressed as

' 0.75
T   0.075h (9)

Figure 9, shows that the correction, at first decreases with increasing irregularity index, and
reaches its minimum value of 0.746, at this point ηir = 1.17, after this point the correction factor
increases with increasing irregularity index (ηir) up to a point at which ηir = 1.28, after this point, it
finally decreases up to the final point, at which ηir = 1.39. The correction factor varies between
0.746 – 0.94, which generally covers the majority of the setback buildings encountered in
practice. Also, the mean of ratio of Ti/Tr for some of the selected geometries from 1 to 5 bays is
shown in Table 5. This is done due to difficulty in presenting such a large number of data.
Moreover, the variation of correction factor and proposed irregularity index are least effected by
number of bays. However, the equations of corrected fundamental period are proposed on basis of
all the results (of 305 building models) for better accuracy.
Although, the corrected equation of the fundamental time period is based on results of the
large number of setback building models, it is very necessary to check its accuracy. For checking
the proposed equation, the correction factors for all the building models considered are computed
by both, proposed equation and by dynamic analysis. The comparison is plotted in a form of a graph
as shown in Figure 9.
From Figure 9, it can be seen that the results obtained by both methods are in close
agreement, and the correlation coefficient between the results of both methods was found to be
0.9866, which validates the accuracy of the proposed equation.

7. Applications of the proposed irregularity index

The presence of setback irregularity induces changes in mass and stiffness, thereby resulting
in change of seismic demands of the structure. It is very important to study the effect of setbacks on
seismic demands, to formulate the improved design philosophies. Deformation demands are one of
the principle forms of seismic demands on basis of which, the performance of the structure is

917
assessed. The seismic demands may be categorized into three types namely global demand, local
demand and storey level demand. The global demand is evaluated by computing the displacement
pattern with respect to the base shear at the roof of the building. The local demands refer to the
inelastic rotations at ends of the structural elements, and the storey demands refer to the inter storey
drift value at that particular storey. It is very important to study the effect of setbacks on thee
demands. For this purpose, building models shown in Figure 4a are analysed to determine the effect
of introduction of the setback on the deformation demands.

TABLE 5 VARIATION OF IRREGULARITY INDEX WITH TI/TR MEAN FOR SOME

SELECTED GEOMETRIES
G.No 6 STOREY 9 STOREY 12 STOREY 15 STOREY 18 STOREY

ηir Ti/Tr ηir Ti/Tr ηir Ti/Tr ηir Ti/Tr ηir Ti/Tr
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
1 1.0817 1.233 1.0947 1.246 1.109 1.146 1.1243 0.96 1.1399 0.896
5 1.0659 1.143 1.246 0.892 1.2603 0.931 1.2756 0.92 1.2912 0.864
9 1.0661 1.16 1.156 0.892 1.1703 0.882 1.1856 0.914 1.2012 0.882
13 1.0876 1.233 1.12 0.995 1.1223 1.04 1.1302 0.942 1.1458 0.889
17 1.0727 1.226 1.246 0.907 1.2603 0.894 1.2756 0.887 1.2912 0.903
21 1.0856 1.221 1.239 0.875 1.2533 0.894 1.2686 0.885 1.2842 0.91
25 1.0895 1.216 1.2225 0.898 1.2368 0.896 1.2521 0.861 1.2677 0.903
29 1.091 1.247 1.2175 0.902 1.2318 0.891 1.2471 0.882 1.2627 0.909
33 1.0973 1.233 1.2485 0.883 1.2628 0.858 1.2777 0.89 1.2933 0.908
37 1.1082 1.157 1.2345 0.92 1.236 0.876 1.2509 0.863 1.2658 0.933
41 1.108 1.15 1.2394 0.886 1.2408 0.886 1.2557 0.88 1.2706 0.933
45 1.095 1.267 1.2134 0.917 1.2148 0.913 1.2299 0.902 1.2452 0.937
49 1.0833 1.209 1.2684 0.885 1.2698 0.93 1.2849 0.9 1.3002 0.919
53 1.0949 1.21 1.2104 0.894 1.2118 0.93 1.2269 0.91 1.2422 0.933
57 1.0918 1.226 1.135 0.967 1.142 0.909 1.1147 1.051 1.125 0.97
61 1.0945 1.226 1.2274 0.913 1.2288 0.909 1.2439 0.907 1.2592 0.901
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

0.98
Ti/T r (Dynamic Analysis)
0.94

0.9

0.86

0.82

0.78
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95
Ti/Tr (Proposed Method)

Figure. 9: Correlation between fundamental time periods obtained by proposed method and
dynamic analysis

7.1 Global and Storey deformation demands

The global demand can be estimated from non-linear time history analysis, and these demands
correspond to the maximum deformation demands for regular and irregular structure (Figure 10).
The global demand for the selected setback structure and corresponding regular structure are
plotted on Figure 11. Figure 11 shows that the deformation demands increases in storeys with
setbacks i.e. 2, 3, 4,10,11,12. In the first storey, the drift ratio is 0.09 and, with the introduction of
setbacks in the second storey it creases abruptly by 20 %. The drift ratio shows a progressive
increase up to 30 % at the fourth storey, then it returns to its normal trend up to the ninth storey.
From tenth storey onwards, the drift ratio shows an abrupt increase of 27 %, due to introduction of
the setback and this trend continues up to the twelfth storey (till which the setbacks are present),
after which it returns to its normal pattern for the rest of the storey height. The similar pattern is
observed in case of the inter-storey drift ratio (IDR) profile, except the difference in percentage of
the increase. However, the regular structure does not show any abrupt increase in both drift and
IDR profiles. This may be due to the absence of the setback irregularity. Therefore, it can be said
that presence of setbacks increase the global and storey deformation demands.

919
 a) Irregular building b) Regular building
Figure 10: Building model considered for the analytical study

54
Regular
Storey Height (m)

45
S1
36

27

18

9
0.18 0.4 0.62 0.84 1.06
Root Drift Ratio

a)

54
Regular
Storey Height (m)

45
S1
36

27

18

9
0.21 0.43 0.65 0.87 1.09
Inter Storey Drift Ratio

b)

Figure 11: Variation of global and storey deformation demands for regular and setback structure a)
Root Drift ratio vs storey height b) Interstorey drift ratio Vs Storey height
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

7.2 Ductility Demand and behaviour factor

In general, ductility is defined as the ability of the structure to resist deformations beyond the
yield point without fracture. In earthquake engineering, the ductility is often expressed in terms of
demand and supply. The ductility demand may be defined as the maximum ductility that a structure
undergoes during an occurrence of an earthquake. The ductility demand depends upon both types of
structure and seismic excitation. The ductility supply may be defined as the ductility that a
structure can withstand without any fracture. The displacement ductility can be represented as the as
the ratio of maximum displacement to the displacement at the first yield of the structure.
d
 m (10)
dy

Where μ = displacement ductility, dm = Maximum displacement and dy = displacement at first yield

It is very interesting to study the variation of the ductility factor with different parameters like
number of storey, number of bays and setback irregularity, etc. Figure 12 shows the variation of the
ductility factor for a regular and a setback frame. From Figure 12, it can be seen that
the ductility factor increases with the number of storeys, with maximum value at the top storey for
both the frames. The ductility factor for both the frames are almost similar except at the stories
where the setback is present, i.e., 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12. In these stories, the ductility factor shows an
abrupt increase. Therefore, it can be concluded that the presence of a setback magnifies the ductility
demand.

54

Regular
Storey Height (m)

45
Irregular
36

27

18

9
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Maximum displacemnet Ductility (μmax)

Figure 12: Variation of ductility demand with storey height for regular and a setback structure

921
7.3 Behaviour factor

The behavior factor is a factor by which the forces and moments obtained from elastic
analysis need to be multiplied to apply them for seismic design process. EC8 has specified, different
values of behavior factor for different types of structures. In the present paper, the behaviour factor
is evaluated as the ratio of the scale factors of the earthquake at which maximum displacement is
obtained to the scale factor at which the first plastic hinge occurs.

7.4 Estimation of maximum interstorey drift along the frame height (H)

The inter storey drift can also be computed for the setback frames using correlation studies
between the inter storey drift and the proposed irregularity index obtained for 305 building models
used for the analytical study. The maximum inter storey drift ratio (Ir) can be obtained from the
following equation.

I r  2.89ir  0.001757 H  2.403 (11)

The above equation is proposed based on regression analysis and is valid for RC buildings
ranging from 6 -18 m, with the irregularity index ranging between 1.17 – 1.39. It is very necessary
to check the equation proposed. Figure 13 presents the comparison of inter storey drift obtained by
the proposed equation and by dynamic analysis. From comparison, it is found that the results of
both methods were found to be in close agreement with a correlation coefficient of 0.9912. Table 6
shows the mean of interstorey drift ratio and ductility factor for some of the selected geometries.
However, the equations are formulated based on the total results of all the building models for
better accuracy.

7.5 Estimation of maximum displacement ductility

As per EC8:2004, the maximum displacement ductility is calculated by equal displacement

rule which assumes the displacement ductility and behaviour factor as equal but, in actual case it is
not so. Therefore, based on the regression analysis, following equation is proposed to compute the
displacement ductility for the setback frames. The proposed equation is given as under

max  0.930  0.000369 H  0.189ir  0.0249q (12)

 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

The proposed equation needs to be checked for its accuracy. Figure 14 presents the comparison
between the maximum displacement ductility evaluated by both dynamic analysis and by the
proposed equation .On comparison, results of both methods are found to be in a close agreement
with a correlation coefficient of 0.9845.
Furthermore, the comparison between the maximum displacement ductility obtained by the
dynamic analysis, equal displacement rule and the proposed equation is presented in Figure 14.
From Figure 15, it can be clearly seen that the results of dynamic analysis and the proposed
equation are comparable whereas, the equal displacement rule overestimates the behaviour
maximum displacement ductility (Table 6).
Im (Dynamic Analysis)

1.7

1.4

1.1

0.8
0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2
Im (Proposed)

Figure 13: Comparison between maximum interstorey drift (Im) computed by the proposed method
and dynamic analysis

2.9
μ (Dynamic Analysis)

2.4

1.9

1.4

0.9
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

μ (Proposed Equation)

Figure 14: Comparison between maximum displacement ductility (μmax) computed by the proposed
method and dynamic analysis
923
 Dynamic
Storey Height (m) 54 Analysis

45 Proposed
Equation
36
27 Equal
Displacement
18 rule
1.2 1.41 1.62
Maximum Displacement ductility (Cm)

Figure. 15: Comparison of maximum displacement ductility by three methods

TABLE 6 VARIATION OF MEAN OF MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY (ΜMAX)

AND MAXIMUM INTERSTOREY DRIFT RATIO (IM) FOR SOME OF THE BUILDING
GEOMETRIES CONSIDERED
6 STOREY 9 STOREY 12 STOREY 15 STOREY 18 STOREY
G. No Im μmax Im μmax Im μmax Im μmax Im μmax

1 0.867 1.351 0.871 1.372 0.882 1.352 0.784 1.412 0.909 1.304
5 0.98 1.212 0.993 1.211 1.005 1.207 1.102 1.223 1.121 1.219
9 1.23 1.233 1.214 1.265 1.225 1.273 1.232 1.265 1.243 1.253
13 1.13 1.233 1.156 1.247 1.165 1.233 1.186 1.24 1.023 1.189
17 0.87 1.374 0.927 1.273 0.935 1.24 0.94 1.251 0.956 1.233
21 1.34 1.311 1.368 1.36 1.375 1.37 1.332 1.337 1.376 1.377
25 0.97 1.216 1.029 1.205 1.035 1.213 1.045 1.221 1.213 1.269
29 1.21 1.247 1.282 1.311 1.295 1.297 1.234 1.267 1.312 1.32
33 0.95 1.233 0.921 1.269 1.005 1.218 1.034 1.207 1.123 1.229
37 1.18 1.238 1.245 1.267 1.256 1.253 1.232 1.26 1.432 1.325
41 0.99 1.212 1.076 1.213 1.086 1.229 1.12 1.229 1.213 1.256
45 1.24 1.267 1.274 1.267 1.286 1.293 1.203 1.238 1.312 1.304
49 1.32 1.308 1.352 1.357 1.366 1.363 1.33 1.352 1.412 1.36
53 1.09 1.21 1.132 1.255 1.118 1.219 1.121 1.24 1.143 1.256
57 1.05 1.226 1.096 1.227 1.108 1.226 1.213 1.24 1.412 1.357
61 1.03 1.226 1.317 1.32 1.328 1.311 1.312 1.315 1.334 1.332
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

8. Verification studies on 2D building models

Although, the applicability of the proposed equation has been verified for building geometries
considered, it is very important to check the accuracy for some other building geometries different
from those considered for the analytical study. So, for the verification studies, the five eighteen
storey-building frames as shown in Figure 16, with bay width varying from 4 m to 12 m.

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

Figure 16: Elevation of different geometries of 18 storey test structures

The storey height is kept as 3.5 m. Modulus of elasticity of concrete is assumed as 2.55 x 107
KN/m and Poisson’s ratio is taken as 0.2. The building is assumed to be located in Zone-v as per IS
1893:2002. The importance and response reduction factors are assumed as 1.5 and 5 (S.M.R.F)
respectively. The loading is same as in case of previous building models. The beam dimensions are
considered as 0.4 m x 0. 5 m, while the column dimensions are assumed to be 0.4 m x 0.55 m. The
soil condition is assumed as hard soil. The results of study regarding the fundamental period of the
vibration were presented in Table 7. From the results of analytical study as presented in Table 7, it
can be seen that the values of the fundamental period of vibration obtained by the proposed method
depends upon the geometry of the building model whereas, the expression proposed by IS
1893:2002 and UBC 97 suggest same values for all the building models irrespective of building
geometry. Hence, the proposed equation effectively captures the variation of setback irregularity in
the building frames. The results of the fundamental time period obtained by the proposed method
were found to be comparable with results of results obtained from the dynamic analysis.

925
TABLE 7: EVALUATION RESULTS FOR STRUCTURES FOR TIME PERIOD AND BASE
SHEAR
Geometry Time Period (Sec) Base Shear (KN)
IS UBC Dynamic Proposed IS 1893 UBC Dynamic Proposed
1893 97 analysis Equation 97 analysis Equation
G1 0.074 0.029 0.0720 0.0722 4742.09 3225.07 4674.66 4681.41
G2 0.074 0.029 0.0712 0.0713s 3372.06 2211.24 3206.93 3209.49
G3 0.074 0.029 0.0673 0.0680 4725.77 3193.65 4500.68 4524.20
G4 0.074 0.029 0.0650 0.0655 3649.95 2466.61 3416.42 3429.39

The base shear obtained using computed fundamental period of vibration for different
building geometries were presented in Table 7. From Table 7, it can be seen that the base shear
evaluated by consideration of UBC 97 calculated fundamental period of vibration yielded the
maximum values of base shear. The results of base shear obtained by proposed method and
dynamic analysis are found to be comparable to all the four building geometries considered. Table 8
shows the comparison of Interstorey drift ratio and ductility factor for different building models
considered. The results obtained for these factors by dynamic analysis and proposed equation are
found to be in close agreement.

TABLE 8: EVALUATION RESULTS FOR STRUCTURES FOR INTERSTOREY DRIFT

RATIO AND MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY
Geometry Interstorey Drift Ratio(Im) Maximum displacement
Ductility

Dynamic Proposed Dynamic Proposed

analysis Equation analysis Equation

G1 1.232 1.245 1.341 1.394

G2 1.343 1.349 1.453 1.495

G3 1.126 1.143 1.234 1.278

G4 1.459 1.478 1.537 1.543

 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

9. Verification studies on 3D building models

The 3D building model used for verification study is presented in Figure 17.

a) b) c)

d) e)

Figure 17: Views of 3D regular and irregular building model considered. a) Front and side
elevation of regular building model b) Front elevation of irregular building model c) Side elevation
of irregular building model d) Typical 3D View of regular building e) Typical 3D View of
irregular building

The proposed correction for the fundamental time period for building models with the
setback irregularity are based on databank results obtained from the analysis results of 2D building
frames. So, it is very necessary to check the applicability of proposed equations for 3D building
models with setbacks. To achieve the above purpose, a 12 storey, 3D RC building model with a
setback along Z direction, which is the direction of the earthquake is modelled. The building is
designed as a 12 storied office building located in Chandigarh city (Seismic Zone –v with PGA = 0.

927
36g as per IS 1893:2002). The selected building with setback irregularity, and a similar regular
building without steps was analysed for input data, same as for 2D building models. The selected
properties of the 3D model are presented in Table 9.

TABLE 9: SELECTED PROPERTIES OF THE 3D BUILDING MODEL

S.No. STIFFNESS (K) MASS (M) Mode FREQUENCY(ω)

(KN/m) (KN) (Hz)

(Kirr) (Kreg) Mirr Mreg ωi ωr ωi ωr
(Eq.8) (Eq.8) Dynamic Dynamic
analysis analysis
1 149697 149697 1149.1 1149.1 1 11.61 11.42 11.63 11.56
2 140243 149697 1149.1 1149.1 2 13.03 12.94 13.07 13.01
3 140243 149697 1054.1 1149.1 3 15.13 15.03 15.19 15.06
4 139721 149697 1054.1 1149.1 4 17.69 17.6 17.81 17.62
5 139721 149697 959.04 1149.1 5 17.72 17.65 17.84 17.71
6 138657 149697 959.04 1149.1 6 18.95 18.6 19.01 18.67
7 138657 149697 959.04 1149.1 7 20.58 20.23 20.71 20.27

The approximate value of the natural frequency of vibration for the building was determined
from Eq. 7 by eigenvalue analysis. The beams and columns are modelled as the frame elements
with two nodes, with each node having two degrees of freedom. Slabs and Infill walls are modelled
as the four nodded surface elements. All exterior walls are assumed to be 0.23 m thick, and the
partition walls were assumed to be 0. 115m thick, and the density of concrete and brick is taken as
25 KN/m3 and 19.8 KN/m3 respectively.

The front and side elevation of regular and irregular 3D models are shown in Fig 12. The
results of both the analysis are presented in Table 7. The different parameters for the selected
building are presented in Table 9. The matrix operations to determine the natural frequency
of vibration as per Eq. 7 have been performed using MatLab software.
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

9.1 Calculations for computing the fundamental period of vibration

The values for calculation are taken from Table 9 and the detailed results of these
calculations are presented in Table 10. The calculations for fundamental period of vibration are
given below

(i) For building model with setback irregularity

The proposed irregularity as per Eq.6 is given by

Case a) Proposed equation

i 11.60
ir = = =1.015
r 11.42

' T
 ( Eq.8)  i  4.4032(1.015) - 10.582(1.015) + 7.2936 = 1.022
Tr

So, corrected fundamental period of vibration is given by

' 0.75 0.75

T(Eq.8) =  0.075h = 1.077 (0.075  21 ) = 0.751sec

Case b) Dynamic analysis

As per analysis results of E-Tabs software, the irregularity index is given by

i 11.63
ir (D) = = =1.006
r 11.56

Putting the values from Eq. 6 in eq. 2 we get the correction factor λ’ as

' T
 ( D)  i  4.4032(1.006) - 10.582(1.006) + 7.2936 = 1.077
Tr

So, corrected fundamental period of vibration is given by

' 0.75 0.75

T (D) =  0.075h = 1.077 (0.075  21 ) = 0.803 sec

929
(ii) For Regular building model

Case a) Proposed equation 2

i 11.42
ir (Eq.8) = = =1.00
r 11.42

' T
 (Eq.5))  i  4.4032(1) - 10.582(1) + 7.2936 = 1.11
Tr

Case b) Dynamic Analysis

i 11.56
ir (D) = = =1.00
r 11.56

' T
 ( D)  i  4.4032(1) - 10.582(1) + 7.2936 = 1.11
Tr

' 0.75 0.75

T (D) =  0.075h = 1.077 (0.075  21 ) = 0.792 sec

Table 10 results are pictorially presented in Figures 18 and 19.

TABLE 10: RESULTS OF THE SEISMIC RESPONSE PARAMETERS

S.No Parameters IS 1893 IS 1893 Proposed Dynamic Proposed Dynamic
Irregular Regular Eq.5 analysis Eq. 5 analysis
Irregular Irregular Regular regular

1 T (Sec) 0.73 0.73 0.751 0.792 0.820 0.820

2 Sa/g 1.369 1.369 1.329 1.262 1.219 1.219
3 Ah 0.0739 0.0739 0.0718 0.0681 0.0658 0.0658
4 W(KN) 7283.80 8044.19 7283.80 7283.80 8044.19 8044.19
5 Vb(KN) 538.27 594.46 523.08 496.02 529.30 529.30
6 Im - - 0.986 0.978 0.976 0.964
7 μmax - - 1.356 1.345 1.256 1.234
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

From Figure 18, it can be clearly seen that code equation overestimates the fundamental
period of vibration as compared to the dynamic analysis and proposed equation. However, the
results obtained from both methods were found to be in close agreement for setback structures.
Also, from Table 10 it is clearly evident that the ductility factor and interstorey drift ratio for the 3D
building model computed by proposed equation and dynamic analysis were found to be comparable.
Figure 19 shows a comparison of the fundamental period of vibration for both regular
and setback irregular structure by code and the proposed equation. It can be observed from Figure
18, that the code equation does not consider the irregularity aspect in computing the fundamental
period of vibration, and yields same results for both regular and irregular structure but the proposed
equation makes a clear distinction between the periods of both types of structures. Furthermore, it
can be observed that the introduction of setback irregularity results in shifting of spectrum
outwards, i.e. it results in an increase in the fundamental period of vibration thereby reducing the
base shear.

Figure 18: Spectrum of Irregular building by code equation, proposed equation and dynamic
analysis superimposed on EC 8 spectrum

931
Figure 19: Spectrum of both regular and irregular buildings by code and the proposed equation
superimposed on EC 8 spectrum

10. Conclusions

Buildings with the setback irregularity have not received much attention in previous
researches, and in the formulation of seismic design methodologies. In the present study, a detailed
analytical study has been carried out to overcome these shortcomings. The main conclusions were
as follows:
 To quantify the setback irregularity a parameter called ‘irregularity index’, is proposed. The
proposed irregularity index accounts for mass and stiffness changes due to the presence of
setbacks along the building height. The proposed parameter is based on dynamic response of
the building, and is found to be quite simple. The proposed irregularity index yielded better
results as compared to the existing measures adopted by codes and other research works
[Karavallis et al.] proposed, to quantify the setback irregularity.

 Based on the analytical studies, an empirical formula for modification of expression of the
time period proposed by existing code is proposed. The proposed formula is a function of
irregularity index. The results obtained from the proposed equation of the fundamental
period of vibration is compared with the results of dynamic analysis for four building
models with different location of setbacks. From analytical studies, it is found that the
fundamental period of vibration evaluated by the proposed method yielded the accurate
estimates of fundamental period and base shear, when compared with the results of dynamic
analysis. Furthermore, the proposed equation is checked for its applicability in case of 3D
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

building models. Results of study on a 3D building model obtained using proposed equation
and dynamic analysis are found to be in close agreement.

 The interstorey drift and displacement ductility are the important seismic response
parameters. The equations proposed for estimation of these quantities are based on results of
regression analysis conducted on the seismic response databank obtained from results of
analytical study conducted on a family of selected frames. The results of these proposed
equations are found to be in close agreement with the results of the dynamic analysis. The
proposed relation for estimating displacement ductility was comparable to results of
dynamic analysis, and yields better results as compared to the equal displacement rule
proposed by the EC 8.

 Finally, it can be said from the seismic design aspect that code equations yield lower base
shear than actual, hence result in unsafe design of irregular structure. Nevertheless, some
codes like EC8:2004, have made allowance for this aspect by introducing factors like
behaviour factor, by which seismic response parameters like shear and moment are
multiplied. The resulting values are then used for seismic design process, but still these
factors are only an approximation and a more precise method like the proposed method need
to be developed for safe and economical design of irregular structures.

Acknowledgement

The Authors acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Ministry of Human Resource
development (MHRD), Government of India, in this research work. The authors also thank the
Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra for providing the necessary facilities for
carrying out this research work.

References

ASCE 7:05 (2005) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 2005.
Andreas J. Kappos, AJ, and Stefanidou, S. (2010), “A deformation-based seismic design method for
3D R/C irregular buildings using inelastic dynamic analysis”, Bullitten of earthquake
engineering, 8:875-895.
Aranda, G.R. (1984), “Ductility Demands for R/C Frames Irregular in Elevation”, Proceedings of
the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, U.S.A, 4 pp.559-
566

933
Athanassiadou, C. and Bervanakis, S. (2005), “Seismic behaviour of R/C buildings with setbacks
designed to EC8”, in Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of
irregular and complex structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.
Athanassiadou, C.J. (2008), “Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation”, Eng.
Struct. 30 (5):1250-1261
Basu, D. and Gopalakrishnan, N. (2007), “Analysis for preliminary design of a class of torsionally
coupled buildings with horizontal setbacks”, Eng. Struct 30(5):1272-1291.
IS 1893. (2002), “Bureau of Indian Standards - Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings (Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi)”, New Delhi, India.
Duan, X.N. and Chandler, A.M. (1995), “Seismic torsional response and design procedures for a
class of setback frame buildings”, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn 24:761–777.
CEN (2004), “Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings”, European standard EN 1998-1, December 2004,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
E-Tabs 2009. Integrated software for structural analysis and design. Version 9.0. Computers &
Structures, Inc, Berkley
FEMA 356 (2000), “Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).- Prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”, Report FEMA 356, Washington
(DC); 2000.
Georgoussis, G .K. (2011), “Simplified dynamic analysis of eccentric buildings with a setback. 2:
the effect of stiffness irregularity”, The Struct. design of Tall and special buildings, 20(7):801-
815.
Humar J.L. and Wright, E.W. (1977), “Earthquake Response of Steel-Framed Multi-storey
Buildings with Set-Backs”, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn 5 (1): 15-39
International conference of Building officials (ICBO) (1997), “Uniform Building Code”, Vol.2,
Whittier, U.S.A
IBC (2003), “International code council (ICC)”, 2002, Illiniosis, International code council, Inc.
Kappos, A.J. and Scott, S.G. (1998), “Seismic assessment of an R/C building with setbacks using
nonlinear static and dynamic analysis procedures”, In: Booth ED (ed) Seismic design practice
into the next century. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Khoury 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 behaviour of
irregular and complex structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.
Karavasilis, T.L., Bazeos, N. and Beskos, D.E. (2008), “Seismic response of plane steel MRF with
setbacks: Estimation of inelastic deformation demands”, J.constrct. Steel. Res 64:644-654.
MATLAB (2008), “The language of technical computing, Version 5. Natick, Mass: The Mathworks
Inc, 1997
Mazzolini FM, Piluso V (1996) Theory and design of seismic resistant steel frames. London,
Newyork: FN & SPON an imprint of Chapman and Hall: 1996.
Moelhe JP (1984) Seismic Response of Vertically irregular structures. J.Struct. Eng. ASCE 110:
2002-2014.
National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), (1995), “National Building code of Canada”,
Published by National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Pacific Earthquake engineering Research centre (PEER) (2006), “Strong ground motion database
2006”, http://peer.berkley.edu/.
Pinto, D. and Costa, A. (1995), “Effects of vertical irregularities on seismic response of buildings”,
in Proceedings of tenth European conference on earthquake engineering, Rotterdam, A.A.
Balkema, 2, 913-918.
 Varadharajan, S. et al. Concrete Research Letters Vol. 5 (4)2014

Riddell, R. and Newmark, N.M. (1979), “Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems
subjected to earthquakes”, Structural research series no. 468. Urbana: Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Illinois; 1979.
Sarkar, P., Prasad, A.M. and Menon, D. (2010), “Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building
frames”, Eng. Struct., 32 (8):2175-2182.
Sehgal, VK, Saini B, Varadharajan S. (2011), “Seismic Response of Building Frames with Vertical
Setback and Stiffness irregularity”, IUP j. Struct. Eng iv (1): 51-64.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) (1999), “Recommended Lateral Force
Requirements and Commentary”, Sacramento (CA); 1999.
Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L. (2005). “Seismic performance of concentrically braced steel frames in
multistory buildings with mass irregularity’, Journal of Struct. Eng. ASCE, 131:1363–1375.
Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V.K., and Saini, B. (2012a), “Review of different structural
irregularities in buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering”, Structural engineering research
center (Govt. of India Enterprise) Chennai India, Vol. 39, No. 5, December 2012 - January
2013 pp. 393-418.
Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V.K., and Saini, B. (2012b), “Seismic response of multistory reinforced
concrete frame with vertical mass and stiffness irregularities”, The structural design of tall
and special buildings, Wiley publications , DOI: 10.1002/tal.1045.
Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V.K., and Saini, B. (2013a), “Determination of Inelastic deformation
demands of RC Moment resisting setback frames”, Archives of civil and mechanical
engineering,. Elsevier Publications, Vol.13, No.3, pp.370-393.
Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V.K., and Saini, B. (2013b), “Seismic response of multistory reinforced
concrete frame with vertical setback irregularities”, The structural design of tall and special
buildings, Wiley publications, DOI: 10.1002/tal.1147
Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V.K., and Saini, B. (2014), “Inelastic seismic response of RC Setback frames
designed as per EC8 and IS 456 Provisions”, Seismic response of multistory reinforced concrete
frame with vertical setback irregularities”, IUP Journal of structural engineering, Vol.7, No.3,
pp.1-21.
Wong C.M. and Tso, W.K. (1994), “Seismic Loading for Buildings with Setbacks”, Canadian J.
Civil. Eng 21(5): 863-871.
Wood SL (1992). Seismic Response of R/C Frames with Irregular Profiles. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE
118 (2): 545-566.

935