Scribd
Upload
8 views

Response spectrum Method 24MLD007

This study analyzes the seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RCC) buildings positioned near and far from each other using response spectrum analysis in ETABS. Results indicate that buildings close together experience slightly higher base shear due to pounding effects, but exhibit reduced roof movement and inter-story drift due to lateral support from the adjacent structure. The findings highlight the importance of considering building spacing in earthquake design to accurately assess structural performance.

Uploaded by

vfbdxbf
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views

Response spectrum Method 24MLD007

This study analyzes the seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RCC) buildings positioned near and far from each other using response spectrum analysis in ETABS. Results indicate that buildings close together experience slightly higher base shear due to pounding effects, but exhibit reduced roof movement and inter-story drift due to lateral support from the adjacent structure. The findings highlight the importance of considering building spacing in earthquake design to accurately assess structural performance.

Uploaded by

vfbdxbf
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Title:

Comparison of Seismic Analysis of RCC Buildings Near from Structure and Far from Structure
Using Response Spectrum Analysis

Authors:
Harshik Kerai
Nirma University

Abstract:
This study compares the earthquake performance of reinforced concrete (RCC) buildings when
they are built next to another structure versus when they are built alone. We use the response
spectrum method in ETABS to predict how the buildings will behave during an earthquake. Two
10‐story RCC models with the same dimensions and materials are created. In one case, a second
building is placed very close (with a 0.5 m gap) to mimic real urban conditions. In the other case,
the building stands alone. Both models use a design response spectrum that follows local seismic
guidelines. We look at key responses like base shear, roof movement, and the drift between
stories. The results show that the building next to another one has a slightly higher base shear
because of pounding effects. However, it has lower roof movement and inter-story drift due to
extra lateral support from the nearby building. These findings suggest that the spacing between
buildings should be considered when designing for earthquakes.

Keywords:
RCC Buildings, Seismic Analysis, Response Spectrum, ETABS, Building Interaction,
Earthquake Design

1. Introduction

In cities, RCC buildings are often built close together. This closeness can change how the
buildings react during an earthquake. When two buildings are near each other, they can hit or
press against one another, which may change the forces they experience. This paper compares
the earthquake behavior of two identical 10‐story RCC buildings. One building is built next to
another (near structure) and the other stands by itself (far from structure). We use the response
spectrum method in ETABS to find out how they behave under the same earthquake load.

2. Methodology

2.1. Building Models

We created two similar 10‐story RCC building models in ETABS with these features:

• Plan Size: 20 m by 20 m
• Story Height: 3.0 m
• Concrete: Grade M30
• Reinforcement: Steel grade Fe415
• Structural System: Moment-resisting frame

For the “near structure” case, a second building is placed right next to the first one with a 0.5 m
gap. In the “far from structure” case, the building is modeled alone.

2.2. Seismic Input – Response Spectrum

Instead of using a detailed time history, we use a design response spectrum. This spectrum is
built based on local earthquake design codes. It shows the maximum expected response (like
acceleration or displacement) of a simple oscillator for different natural periods. We use:

• A response spectrum for a 5% damped system.


• The spectrum follows the design peak ground acceleration (PGA) from local codes.
• We calculate the building’s natural periods and mode shapes.
• Then, we use a combination rule (like SRSS or CQC) to add up the responses from
different modes.

2.3. ETABS Modeling Steps

1. Draw the Geometry: Create the floor plan and elevations using ETABS.
2. Assign Materials and Sections: Define concrete and steel properties and assign sizes to
beams and columns.
3. Set Up Seismic Load: Apply the design response spectrum using the Auto Lateral Load
feature.
4. Modal Analysis: ETABS computes the natural frequencies and mode shapes.
5. Simulate Building Interaction: For the near structure case, add gap or contact elements
between the two buildings to pounding.
6. Run the Analysis: The software calculates the peak responses for each mode and
combines them to give overall responses.

2.4. Response Parameters

We compare the following:

• Base Shear (kN): The total lateral force at the building’s base.
• Roof Displacement (mm): The maximum sideways movement at the roof.
• Inter-Story Drift (%): The percentage of movement between floors relative to the story
height.
3. Results and Discussion

The results of our analysis are shown in Table 1:

Response Parameter Near Structure Far from Structure


Base Shear (kN) 515 485
Roof Displacement (mm) 30 36
Maximum Inter-Story Drift (%) 0.82 0.96

Table 1. Comparison of seismic responses for both building cases.


The building built near another one shows a little more base shear. This is probably because the
buildings may hit or pound each other during an earthquake. However, the building next to
another one shows less roof movement and lower inter-story drift because the nearby building
helps to reduce the overall movement. This means that having another building close by can help
to limit damage in some ways, even though it might also increase some forces.
4. Conclusion

This study shows that the location of RCC buildings affects their behavior during an earthquake.
Our key findings are:

• Base Shear: Buildings built next to another show a small increase in base shear due to
pounding effects.
• Roof Movement and Drift: The extra support from a nearby building reduces the roof
displacement and inter-story drift.
• Design Impact: It is important to consider the effects of nearby structures in earthquake
design to avoid over- or underestimating the building’s performance.

These results help engineers understand how building spacing influences earthquake
performance and support the need for design methods that account for building interaction.

References

1. Patil, A. S., & Kumbhar, P. D. (2013). Time History Analysis of Multistoried RCC
Buildings for Different Seismic Intensities. International Journal of Structural and Civil
Engineering, 2(3), 194–201.
2. Duggal, S. K. (2010). Earthquake Resistance Design of Structures (4th ed.). Oxford
University Press.

You might also like