Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building frames
Pradip Sarkar
a
, A. Meher Prasad
b,
, Devdas Menon
b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Orissa 769 008, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 November 2009
Received in revised form
10 March 2010
Accepted 15 March 2010
Available online 20 April 2010
Keywords:
Geometric irregularity
Stepped building
Fundamental period
Regularity index
Modal participation factor
a b s t r a c t
Stepped building frames, with vertical geometric irregularity, are now increasingly encountered in
modernurbanconstruction. This paper proposes a newmethodof quantifying irregularity insuchbuilding
frames, accounting for dynamic characteristics (mass and stiffness). The proposed regularity index
provides a basis for assessing the degree of irregularities in a stepped building frame. This paper also
proposes a modification of the code specified empirical formula for estimating fundamental period for
regular frames, to estimate the fundamental time period of the stepped building frame. The proposed
equation for fundamental time periods is expressed as a function of the regularity index. It has been
validated for various types of stepped irregular frames.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In multi-storeyed framed buildings, damage from earthquake
ground motion generally initiates at locations of structural
weaknesses present in the lateral load resisting frames. In
some cases, these weaknesses may be created by discontinuities
in stiffness, strength or mass between adjacent storeys. Such
discontinuities between storeys are often associated with sudden
variations in the frame geometry along the height. There are many
examples [1,2] of failure of buildings in past earthquakes due to
such vertical discontinuities.
A common form of vertical discontinuity arises from reduction
of the lateral dimension of the building along its height. This
building category is labelledas stepped building inthis paper. This
building form is becoming increasingly popular in modern multi-
storey building construction mainly because of its functional and
aesthetic architecture. In particular, such a stepped form provides
for adequate daylight and ventilation for the lower storeys in
an urban locality with closely spaced tall buildings. This type of
building form also provides for compliance with building bye-law
restrictions related to floor area ratio (practice in India). Fig. 1
shows a typical example of a stepped building located in urban
India (New Delhi).
Stepped buildings are characterised by staggered abrupt
reductions in floor area along the height of the building, with

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 44 2257 4260; fax: +91 44 2257 5286.
E-mail address: prasadam@iitm.ac.in (A.M. Prasad).
consequent drops inmass, strengthandstiffness (not necessarily at
the same rate). Height-wise changes in stiffness and mass render
the dynamic characteristics of these buildings different from the
regular building. Design codes have not given particular attention
to the stepped building form. This is perhaps due to the paucity of
research on stepped buildings reported in the literature.
This paper discusses some of the key issues regarding analysis
and design of stepped buildings. In the present study, a new
approach for quantifying the irregularity in stepped building
is proposed. It accounts for properties associated with mass
and stiffness distribution in the frame. This approach is found
to perform better than the existing measures to quantify the
irregularity. The empirical equations of fundamental period given
in the design codes are function of building height, which is
ambiguous for a stepped building. Based on free vibration analysis
of 78 stepped frames with varying irregularity and height, this
study proposes a correctionfactor to the empirical code formula for
fundamental period, to render it applicable for stepped buildings.
2. Design code perspective on stepped building
The stepped building form is recognised by several design
codes, such as IS 1893:2002 [3] and ASCE 7:2005 [4], as a typical
form of vertical geometric irregularity that merits special design
consideration. As per IS 1893:2002, such building forms are to be
treated as vertically irregular when the lateral dimension of the
maximum offset (A) at the roof level exceeds 25% of the lateral
dimension of the building at the base (L), as shown in Fig. 2(a). As
per ASCE 7:2005, when the horizontal dimension of the building in
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.03.020
2176 P. Sarkar et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182
Fig. 1. A typical stepped building located in New Delhi, India.
any story (L
i
) is more than 130% of that in an adjacent story (L
i+1
)
this building will be considered as vertically irregular as shown
in Fig. 2(b). Evidently, the codes consider the ratio of geometric
lateral dimension of one storey of a building to the other storey
as a parameter to define vertical geometric irregularity. This does
not account for the offsets in the other floors. Also, the definitions
of vertical geometric irregularity in design codes do not account for
gradual variation in irregularity. Moreover, they treat all kinds of
geometrically irregular buildings as one category.
The codes [35] recommend dynamic analysis for the design
of all buildings with irregular form. The codes also require
the base shear obtained in the dynamic analysis (and thereby,
other response quantities) to be scaled up to the base shear
corresponding to the fundamental period as per the code specified
empirical formula. For example, the fundamental natural period of
vibration, T (in seconds), of a moment resisting frame of overall
height h (in meter) without brick infill, as per IS 1893:2002 (and
Eurocode 8) is given by:
T = 0.075h
0.75
. (1)
However, this empirical equation of fundamental period (Eq. (1))
is a function of overall building height and does not account for
the stepped variations in height, applicable for stepped buildings.
It is seen from analysis that the fundamental period of a stepped
building changes when the nature of stepped configuration
changes even although the height remains unchanged. Generally,
the time period decreases with increased irregularity due to
stepping. In many cases, this can lead to significant under-
estimation of base shear particularly for tall buildings whose
fundamental time period falls in the constant velocity region of
the response spectrum.
3. Literature review
There is very limitedpublishedliterature available onthe lateral
load resisting behaviour of stepped moment resisting frames. An
extensive literature survey has revealed only three journal papers
in this area, of which two were published very recently (2008).
Researchers are now beginning to give attention to this category
of building frames. Two of these papers [6,7] deal with concrete
frames, while the third paper [8] deals with steel frames. All
three research papers conclude that the higher mode participation
is significant in these buildings. Also, the inter-storey drifts for
stepped building are expected to be more in the upper floors and
less in the lower floors, compared to similar regular buildings
without steps.
Karavasilis et al. [8] proposed an alternative approach to
quantify the irregularity in a building frame due to the presence
a
b
Fig. 2. Vertical geometric irregularity according to (a) IS 1893:2002 and (b) ASCE
7:2005.
Fig. 3. Frame geometry for definition of irregularity indices by Karavasilis et al. [8].
of steps. This paper defines two irregularity indices for stepped
buildings,
s
, and
b
(for storey-wise and bay-wise stepping
respectively) as follows:

s
=
1
n
s
1
n
s
1

1
L
i
L
i+1
(2a)

b
=
1
n
b
1
n
b
1

1
H
i
H
i+1
(2b)
where, n
s
is the number of storeys of the frame and n
b
is number
of bays at the first storey of the frame. H
i
and L
i
are height and the
width of the ith storey as shown in Fig. 3.
The indices proposed by Karavasilis et al. [8] represent the
irregularity in stepped frame in an improved manner compared
to the code procedures. However, it is not convenient to use two
indices to represent the irregularity of the same stepped building.
Moreover, these indices are based on geometrical considerations
alone. It is assumed that the column and beam sizes are uniform
throughout their length and masses are uniformly distributed
along the height and width of the frame. But this may not be the
case in practical buildings.
4. Proposed method of quantifying irregularity
The purpose of the present study is to address the specific
stepped irregularity of the framed building. 78 building frames
representing varying degree of stepped irregularity are considered
for the study. All the building models considered here have four
bays (in the direction of earthquake) with a uniform bay width
of 6 m. It should be noted that bay width of 4 m6 m is the
usual case, especially in Indian and European practice. However,
the results were checked for frames with different number of bays
and it has been observed that number of bays do not affect the
building response significantly. Seven different height categories
P. Sarkar et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182 2177
Fig. 4. Fundamental period versus height scatter of the selected frames
superimposed by the empirical boundaries presented by Goel and Chopra [9].
Fig. 5. Typical building models considered for the present study.
were considered for the study, ranging from 6 to 18 storeys,
with a uniform storey height of 3 m. These building frames
include different (equal and unequal) step heights and widths.
The fundamental period (T) versus total height (H) variation
of the selected frames are kept consistent with the empirical
relationships presented by Goel and Chopra [9] as shown in
Fig. 4. This ensure that the models selected for this study can be
interpretedas being representative of general moment resisting RC
frame behaviour for six to eighteen-storey levels, as established by
Goel and Chopra [9].
The results presented here are limited to 23 building frames
having three different building geometries with different stepped
irregularities due to the successive reduction of one bay and one
step height of one storey (S1), two storeys (S2) and three storeys
(S3), at the top of the building as shown in Fig. 5. The regular
frame (R), without any step, is also included. Additional studies
carried out on 55 building frames are available elsewhere [10].
Although all of these stepped building frames have identical
geometric irregularity as per the definition of IS 1893:2002 (A/L =
0.75) and ASCE 7:2005 (|L
i
/L
i+1
|
max
= 200%), these frames
clearly show significantly different responses. Fig. 6 shows the
elastic displacement and inter-storey drift profiles respectively
for 15 storey buildings. These figures show that the design code
procedure of considering A/L (or L
i
/L
i+1
) ratio alone to define
irregularity is not appropriate.
Ideally, the stiffness and mass distributions in the frame have to
be considered in quantifying the irregularity of a stepped building.
Studying the dynamic properties of regular building, it is found
that the participation of the first mode is dominant. However,
when the vertical irregularities (steps in the building frame) are
introduced, it is observed that as the irregularity increases, the
first-mode participation decreases with increased participation on
some higher modes. This is reflected in the histogram shown in
Fig. 7, whichpresents the normalisedmodal participationfactors in
8-storey frames for the four categories, R, S1, S2andS3, considering
as many as 50 modes, of which the first 10 modes are shown. It can
be seen that irregularity in the stepped frame can be captured by
the relative first mode participation factor. Accordingly a regularity
index () is proposedto quantify the irregularity of a steppedframe,
as follows:
=

1

1,ref
(3)
where,
1
is the 1st mode participationfactor for the steppedframe
under considerationand
ref
is the 1st mode participationfactor for
the similar regular building frame without steps (R). Approximate
values of these two factors can be obtained from simple static
analyses, using the concept of Rayleigh [11] as follows:

1
=
{d
j
}
T
[M]{1}
{d
j
}
T
[M]{d
j
}
=

m
j
d
j

m
j
d
2
j
(4a)
where d
j
is the floor displacement at jth floor when the seismic
weight, m
j
g applied as lateral loads at the corresponding floor
levels (Fig. 8). These displacement values are normalised, or scaled,
with respect to the mass matrix such that:
{d
j
}
T
[M]{d
j
} =

m
j
d
2
j
= 1. (4b)
As shown in Fig. 9, the results generated by this method turned out
to be fairly accurate when compared with the first mode shape as
generated by free vibration analysis.
For any stepped building, the value of the regularity index ()
will be less than unity as the first mode participation factor will
always be less than that of a regular building. This index accounts
for properties associated with mass and stiffness distributions in
the frame. It is also interesting to observe howthe regularity index
varies with number of stories. The result of a series of analysis
carried out on frames with number of storeys ranging from 618
are summarised in Fig. 10. Following inference may be drawn from
this figure:
(i) Regularity index increases with increase in number of storeys,
the rate of increase being stiffer when the number of storeys
per step increases.
(ii) For any given number of storeys, the regularity index is least
when the number of storeys per step is largest.
Thus, it is seen that the proposed irregularity index is able to
capture effectively the irregularity caused due to the various
geometrical stepped configurations. Table 1 shows some selected
building models from among the 78 frames considered in the
study, their fundamental periods and the amount of irregularity
2178 P. Sarkar et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182
a b
Fig. 6. Elastic response of 15-storey stepped frames.
Table 1
Characteristics of some selected building frames.
Frame ID Fundamental period (s) Amount of irregularity
IS 1893 (2002) ASCE 7 (2005) Irregularity indices (Karavasilis et al. [8]) Proposed regularity index ()

s

b
R-6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S1-6 0.79 0.75 2.00 1.37 1.26 0.84
S2-6 0.77 0.75 2.00 1.40 1.50 0.69
R-8 1.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S1-8 1.20 0.75 2.00 1.26 1.17 0.89
S2-8 1.14 0.75 2.00 1.26 1.61 0.74
S3-8 1.16 0.75 2.00 1.29 1.70 0.65
R-10 1.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S1-10 1.31 0.75 2.00 1.20 1.13 0.91
S2-10 1.22 0.75 2.00 1.20 1.36 0.77
S3-10 1.23 0.75 2.00 1.20 2.39 0.69
R-12 1.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S1-12 1.47 0.75 2.00 1.17 1.10 0.94
S2-12 1.35 0.75 2.00 1.17 1.26 0.82
S3-12 1.38 0.75 2.00 1.17 1.61 0.70
R-15 1.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S1-15 1.73 0.75 2.00 1.13 1.08 0.96
S2-15 1.59 0.75 2.00 1.13 1.19 0.89
S3-15 1.56 0.75 2.00 1.13 1.36 0.78
R-18 2.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S1-18 2.35 0.75 2.00 1.11 1.06 0.96
S2-18 2.14 0.75 2.00 1.11 1.14 0.91
S3-18 2.07 0.75 2.00 1.11 1.26 0.82
Fig. 7. Modal participation factor in 8-storey building frames.
as per IS 1893:2002, ASCE 7:2005, Karavasilis et al. [8] and the
proposed method.
These 23 frames cover a wide fundamental period range of
0.77 s2.63 s. From these examples, it is seen that the proposed
regularity index provides relatively good measure of stepped
irregularity which is found to vary from0.65 to 1.0. The irregularity
index proposed by Karavasilis et al. [8] performs better than IS
1893:2002 and ASCE 7:2005, but has a disadvantage of requiring
two indices (
s
ranging from 1.0 to 1.40,
b
ranging from 1.0 to
2.39). It may also be noted that unlike the proposed regularity
index () the other three measure do not account for mass and
stiffness distribution.
5. Estimation of fundamental time period for stepped building
As explained earlier, design codes [35] recommend dynamic
analysis for irregular buildings including stepped buildings, with
the base shear scaled up to the value corresponding to the
fundamental period as per the code specified empirical formulas.
These formulas, however, have been developed for regular
buildings and are a function of building height only.
P. Sarkar et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182 2179
Fig. 8. Typical loading for static analysis to find first mode shape for 15-storey S2
frame.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the first mode shape for 15-storey S2 frame.
Fig. 10. Variation of regularity index with number of storeys.
For a stepped building, the height is not constant. It varies from
one side to the other side of the frame. The building height at
the lower side is likely to under-estimate the actual time period,
and consequently over-estimates the base shear. Conversely, if we
consider the overall building height, we will get anun-conservative
estimate of the base shear. Table 1 shows that generally the
fundamental period decreases with the increased irregularity
Fig. 11. Shift in time period and spectral acceleration due to stepped irregularity
(design spectrum, IS 1893).
Fig. 12. Variation of time period ratio with regularity index.
when the overall building height is the same. Most of the stepped
buildings are high-rise multi-storeyed and their period fall in the
constant velocity region of the response spectrum, where the
spectral acceleration value is very sensitive to the fundamental
period. A slight reduction in the fundamental period in this region
results in a considerable increase in the design base shear as shown
in Fig. 11. In this study, an attempt has been made to improve
the code-based empirical equation for estimating the fundamental
period to make it useful for the stepped building.
In a stepped building, both mass and stiffness decrease
with decreasing regularity index (). Reduction of mass reduces
the building fundamental period, whereas reduction of stiffness
increases the fundamental period. So, the fundamental period
does not have a monotonic relation with the regularity index.
Ratio of the fundamental period of stepped frame (T) to that of
similar regular frame without step (T
ref
) obtained from the modal
analysis [12] of 78 stepped frames with varying regularity indices
and building height are plotted and shown in Fig. 12. It is seen
that the number of bays has only minor effect on the building
fundamental period (Fig. 13). Based on a polynomial fit for these
data, the following correction to the code empirical formula [3] for
building fundamental period is proposed for stepped buildings:
T = 0.075h
0.75
(5a)
=
T
T
ref
= [1 2(1 )(2 1)] for 0.6 1.0 (5b)
where h = overall building height (in meter) and = regularity
index.
2180 P. Sarkar et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182
Fig. 13. Variation of time period ratio with number of bays.
Fig. 14. Correlation between predicted and computed correction factor (k).
Fig. 12 shows that the correction factor () initially decreases
with decreasing regularity index (i.e., increasing irregularity) and
it shows minimum value of correction factor when the regularity
index () reaches 0.75 and then it increases with decreasing
regularity index. It is to be noted that the correction factor in
Eq. (5b) is based on the stepped building frames with regularity
index ranging from 0.6 to 1.0, which generally covers the stepped
buildings encountered in practice.
The correction factor calculated using Eq. (5b) matches closely
with the exact value obtained from the free vibration analysis
results. Fig. 14 presents the correlation between the predicted
correction factor using Eq. (5b) and the actual time period ratio
computed from the free vibration analysis. The average ratio of
predicted to actual correction factor for 78 samples is 0.993 and the
correlation coefficient between the actual and predicted correction
factor is found to be 0.96.
6. Example of an existing building
As the above formulations are based on two-dimensional
building models (plane frames), it is instructive to check the
applicability of the proposed equations for a three-dimensional
model of an existing building. For this purpose, Delhi Secretariat
building, one of the five life-line buildings identified as part of the
Delhi Government Earthquake Safety Initiative [13], is considered.
It is a ten-storeyed office building located in New Delhi (Seismic
Zone IV with designed PGA = 0.24 g as per IS 1893:2002). It is a
a
b
Fig. 15. Geometry of Delhi Secretariat building: (a) floor framing plan for a typical
lower storey and (b) elevation of a typical frame along Y-direction.
Y-shaped building with 3 wings and a central core; all of these four
parts are structurally separated. The wings are identical in shape,
each representing a stepped building. One of these three wings is
selected for the present study. Fig. 15 presents the typical floor
framing plan and the elevation of the selected building. Structural
details of this building can be available in the literature [14]. It can
be noted that this building has 11 bays in the direction of stepped
irregularity with non-uniform step height and step width.
Selected stepped building and a similar regular building
(without steps) were analysed, applying their seismic mass as
lateral load at every storey as explained in Fig. 8. Approximate first
mode participation factors for these two buildings were calculated
using the Eq. (4a). This displacement values are normalised with
respect to the mass matrix, as explained earlier. The regularity
index for the stepped building was calculated using Eq. (3) and
the calculation is presented in Table 2. The regularity index for
the selected stepped building (Delhi Secretariat building) is given
by =
81.54
88.02
= 0.926. Alternatively, regularity index can be
calculated directly from free vibration analysis results. Table 3
represents the period and participating mass ratio for the first
three modes of two buildings (selected stepped building and
similar regular building without steps) along Y-direction. Since the
stepped irregularity exists only in Y-direction, the behaviour of the
building in this direction alone is considered in this case study.
This table demonstrate the reduction in the fundamental period
and the first mode participation factor for the stepped building,
compared to the similar regular building without step. The ratio
of the first mode participation factor of these two building (refer
Table 3) gives the regularity index as
eigen
=
80.38
86.98
= 0.924,
which almost identical to the value obtained from normalised
static displacement due to mass proportional lateral loading. The
normalised displacement profile using the static analysis as per
Fig. 8 is plotted along with the normalised fundamental mode
shape along Y-direction for the stepped building and the similar
regular building are shown in Fig. 16. This figure shows that the
P. Sarkar et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182 2181
Table 2
Calculation of regularity index for Delhi Secretariat building.
Storey Stepped building Similar regular building (ref.)
m
j
(t) d
j
(m) m
j
d
j
(t m) m
j
d
2
j
(t m
2
) m
j
(t) d
j
(m) m
j
d
j
(t m) m
j
d
2
j
(t m
2
)
10 180 0.0163 2.93 0.05 850 0.0141 12.01 0.17
9 580 0.0158 9.18 0.15 850 0.0139 11.81 0.16
8 650 0.0153 9.93 0.15 850 0.0135 11.45 0.15
7 750 0.0145 10.88 0.16 850 0.0128 10.90 0.14
6 850 0.0135 11.45 0.15 850 0.0119 10.07 0.12
5 850 0.0122 10.33 0.13 850 0.0106 8.98 0.09
4 850 0.0105 8.94 0.09 850 0.0090 7.68 0.07
3 850 0.0086 7.31 0.06 850 0.0073 6.21 0.05
2 850 0.0066 5.64 0.04 850 0.0056 4.75 0.03
1 1050 0.0047 4.95 0.02 1050 0.0039 4.15 0.02
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81.54 1.00 88.02 1.00

1
81.54 88.02
=
1
/
1,ref
0.926 1.0
a
b
Fig. 16. Comparison of static displacement shape and fundamental mode shape for (a) selected stepped building and (b) similar regular building.
Table 3
Modal analysis results.
Selected stepped building (Delhi Secretariat building)
Mode T (s) Modal participation factor (kN s
2
) Mass participation, U
y
(%)
1 0.95 80.38 87
2 0.33 27.16 10
3 0.20 13.26 2
Similar regular building (ref.)
1 1.09 86.98 87
2 0.35 29.63 10
3 0.19 13.18 2
static analysis with seismic weight as lateral load can capture the
fundamental mode shape (and thereby the first mode participation
factor) very closely. It can also be observed that both the static
analysis and free vibration analysis results in similar value of
regularity index for this building.
Fundamental periodof the steppedbuilding as per the empirical
formula given by IS 1893:2002 considering its overall height (i.e.,
h = 35.125 m):
T
a
= 0.075h
0.75
= 1.08 s.
Using the proposed correction (refer Eqs. (5a) and (5b)) the period
can be calculated as:
T
a
= 0.075h
0.75
[1 2(1 )(2 1)] = 0.94 s.
Fundamental period along Y-direction from the free vibration
analysis, T
a
= 0.95 s (refer Table 3).
It shows that the proposed equation can predict the fundamen-
tal period in a stepped building accurately even for three dimen-
sional model of the stepped building.
Table 4 shows the comparison of the fundamental time-period,
spectral acceleration and the design base shear for the building.
In Table 4, S
a
/g is the spectral acceleration, A
h
= (ZIS
a
)/(2Rg)
is the design horizontal seismic co-efficient [3]; W is the seismic
weight of the building and V
B
= A
h
W is the design base
shear. Delhi Secretariat building is located in zone IV (i.e., seismic
zone factor Z = 0.24) and considered to be an ordinary moment
resisting framed building (R = 3). The importance factor (I) is
taken as 1.0. This table demonstrates that using IS 1893:2002
specified equation for fundamental period may underestimate
the design base shear considerably like the present case study.
However, the proposed equation estimates a value of base shear
that matches closely with the modal analysis results. Fig. 17
presents the building fundamental periods in the design spectrum
when different analysis methods are used.
7. Conclusions
Stepped building frames constitute a category of vertical
irregularity, whose seismic behaviour has not received adequate
attention in existing research and code formulation. In this paper,
a detailed study has been carried out to address this shortcoming.
The salient conclusions are as follows:
(1) A measure of vertical irregularity, suitable for stepped
buildings, called regularity index, is proposed, accounting for
the changes in mass and stiffness along the height of the
2182 P. Sarkar et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 21752182
Table 4
Comparison of design base shear.
Selected stepped building (Delhi Secretariat building) Similar regular building (computational model)
IS 1893:2002 equation Proposed equation Computational model
Fundamental period (s) 1.08 0.94 0.95 1.09
S
a
/g 1.26 1.45 1.43 1.25
A
h
0.0504 0.0580 0.0572 0.0500
W (kN) 73200 73200 73200 85400
V
B
(kN) 3690 4246 4188 4270
Fig. 17. Comparison of fundamental periods.
building. This is simple in concept, and is shown to perform
better than existing measures.
(2) An empirical formula (modification of the existing code
formula for regular RC framed building) is proposed to
calculate the fundamental time period of stepped building, as
a function of regularity index. This has been validated by free
vibration analysis, performed on 78 stepped frames.
(3) A case study of an existing stepped building located at New
Delhi demonstrates that the proposed correction to the code
specified empirical formula results in an accurate estimate of
the fundamental period, even for three dimensional building
models.
References
[1] Inel M, Ozmen HB, Bilgin H. Re-evaluation of building damage during recent
earthquakes in Turkey. Eng Struct 2008;30:41227.
[2] Kim SJ, Elnashai AS. Characterization of shaking intensity distribution and
seismic assessment of RC buildings for the Kashmir (Pakistan) earthquake of
October 2005. Eng Struct 2009;31:29983015.
[3] IS 1893 part 1. Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2002.
[4] ASCE 7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American
Society of Civil Engineers; 2005.
[5] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part-1: general
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee
for Standardization (CEN); 2004.
[6] Wood SL. Seismic response of RC frames with irregular profiles. J Struct Eng,
ASCE 1992;118(2):54566.
[7] Athanassiadou CJ. Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in
elevation. Eng Struct 2008;30:125061.
[8] Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE. Seismic response of plane steel MRF with
setbacks: estimation of inelastic deformation demands. J Constr Steel Res
2008;64:64454.
[9] Goel RK, Chopra AK. Period formulas for moment resisting frame buildings.
J Struct Eng, ASCE 1997;123(11):145461.
[10] Sarkar P. Seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete stepped building frames.
Ph.D. thesis. Chennai: Indian Institute of Technology Madras; 2009.
[11] Rayleigh JWSB. The theory of sound. New York: Dover; 1945.
[12] SAP 2000. Integrated software for structural analysis and design. Version 11.0.
Berkeley (California): Computers & Structures, Inc.; 2007.
[13] Delhi earthquake safety initiative for lifeline buildings: a project for
model seismic evaluation and retrofitting of five lifeline buildings in Delhi.
http://www.quakesafedelhi.net/ (Jan. 23, 2007).
[14] IIT Madras project report. Pushover analysis of Delhi secretariat building.
Players building project. Public Works Department. Govt. of Delhi. May 2006.