 Open Access
 Total Downloads : 2627
 Authors : B G Naresh Kumar, Punith N, Bhyrav Raj B, Arpitha T P
 Paper ID : IJERTV6IS050488
 Volume & Issue : Volume 06, Issue 05 (May 2017)
 DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV6IS050488
 Published (First Online): 24052017
 ISSN (Online) : 22780181
 Publisher Name : IJERT
 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Assessment of Location of Centre of Mass and Centre of Rigidity for Different Setback Buildings
B G Naresh kumar
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Maharaja Institute of Technology Mysore Mandya, India
Bhyrav Raj B
UG Student, Department of Civil Engineering
Maharaja Institute of Technology Mysore Mandya, India
Punith N
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Maharaja Institute of Technology Mysore Mandya, India
Arpitha T P UG Student,
Department of Civil Engineering Maharaja Institute of Technology Mysore Mandya, India
Abstract Buildings are mainly classified into regular and irregular buildings. Nowadays due to our requirements and aesthetic point of view, we are making the buildings more irregular than regular. An irregular building is as a building that lacks symmetry and has a discontinuity in geometry (setback), mass or load resisting elements. The presence of structural irregularities has an adverse effect on the seismic response of the structure. The structural irregularity can be broadly classified as plan irregularities and vertical irregularities. In this present study, the effect of vertical irregularity on seismic response of a structure is studied. In particular, a setback in buildings are considered and behavior of the structure with respect to the location of the center of mass and center of rigidity is assessed using pushover analysis. The analysis tool used to assess the building is ETABS 2015.
Keywords Vertical irregularities, Centre of mass, Centre of rigidity, Setback, pushover, ETABS 2015.

INTRODUCTION
In the present scenario, structures are becoming manmade astonishing wonders. By considering the aesthetical point of view and based on our requirements structures are designed. While designing the structure, it is essential to consider earthquake load because it most dangerous unpredictable natural disaster. It is been observed that as the irregularity in the building increases deformation due to earthquake load also increases hence it is most important to design structure for earthquake load. As per IS 1893(Part1):2002 for earthquake resistant design of structure, there are two types of irregularities namely

Plan Irregularity

Vertical Irregularity

Plan Irregularity
The condition of being nonuniform in the plan of a structure is called plan irregularity. These can be characterized by five different types such as torsional, re entrant corners, diaphragms discontinuity, out of plane offset and nonparallel system for plan irregularity.

Vertical Irregularity
Structures having significant physical discontinuities in a vertical configuration or in their lateral force resisting systems are termed as vertically irregular structure. The vertical irregularities in structures are Stiffness irregularity, Mass irregular, Vertical geometric irregularity, Discontinuity in capacity.

Centre of Mass
The centre of mass is a position defined as the average position of all the parts of the system, weighted according to their masses. The distribution of mass is balanced around the centre of mass and the average of the weighted position coordinates of the distributed mass defines its coordinates. During an earthquake, accelerationinduced inertia forces will be generated at each floor level and it will act at a point, where the mass of entire story may be assumed to be concentrated. In a building having a symmetrical distribution of mass the positions of the centers of floor masses will not differ from floor to floor. However, irregular mass distribution over the height of a building may result in variation in centers of masses at various floors.

Centre of Rigidity
The centre of rigidity is a point at a particular story as the location of application of lateral load at that point will not produce rotation of that story. This definition is valid when the slab is modeled as a rigid diaphragm. A Diaphragm Constraint causes all of its constrained joints to move together as a planar diaphragm that is rigid against membrane deformation.
As a function of structural properties, the center of rigidity is independent of loading.

Setback Buildings
The Setback buildings are characterized by an immediate reduction in floor area with respect to the height of the building, with results in drop in stiffness, mass and strength. Heightwise changes in stiffness and mass provide the
dynamic characteristics of these buildings different from the regular building. Setback buildings show more deformation on seismic action than any other structure. These buildings exhibit more deformation even though the structure is designed under current seismic codes. This inferior performance due to seismic load has been allocated to the combined action of structural irregularities i.e., to the combined nonuniform distribution of mass, stiffness, and strength along the height of setback frames, and to concentrate on the inelastic action at setback level.
In this present study, we are focusing on the behavior of buildings with respect to the center of mass and centre of rigidity under the action of seismic load using pushover analysis on a setback buildings. Here we can observe the shifting of centre of mass and centre of rigidity with respect to different setback buildings as shown in figure 1. It is possible to evaluate the seismic performance of setback building accurately using ETABS 2015 software.
During analysis, ETABS automatically calculates this coordinate for each floor diaphragm. The diaphragm must be present and defined in the model.
Fig 2: Centre of rigidity


MATERIAL AND METHODS
The software used in the present study is ETABS2015 (Extended 3D Analysis of Building System). ETABS software was developed by CSI, Berkeley California. The method of analysis used is Nonlinear Static Analysis also known as Pushover Analysis. The first model is a regular model with equal elevation (figure 1 model 1). The second model is the setback model with floors are reduced at top right corner of its front elevation, in the similar manner model 3 and 4 are setbacked by reducing its floors. Both centre of mass and centre of rigidity models consist of 5 floors i.e., (G+4), with the floor heights being 3.5m each. Totally five bays are provided in xdirection and 3 bays are provided in ydirection with each bay size being 5m.The dimension of the columns being fixed at 230mm x 600mm and that of the beams at 230mm x 450mm at top stories and 230×300 at plinth level as shown in table 1. The beam and column dimensions are fixed as per IS 456: 2000. The column positions have so been fixed, that the spans of all the beams in both X and Y directions are kept same and equal to 5m. The roof modeling considered in the present study is a rigid diaphragm. For analyzing the center of mass and centre of rigidity of structure, the loading and the other parameters are kept same. Also, both the centre of mass and centre of rigidity models have been analyzed for rigid diaphragm condition.
Fig 1: Elevation of regular building (model 1) and setback buildings (model 2, 3 and 4)
For a given floor diaphragm, centre of rigidity is calculated through the following process:
Case 1 applies a globalX unit load to an arbitrary point, perhaps the centre of mass, such that the diaphragm rotates Rzx.
Case 2 applies a globalY unit load at the same point, causing rotation Rzy.
Case 3 applies a unit moment about globalZ, causing rotaion Rzz. These three load cases are shown in Figure 2.
Centre of rigidity (X, Y) is then computed as X = Rzy / Rzz and Y = Rzx / Rzz.

ANALYSIS
In this study, ETABS2015 software is used for the analysis of building model.
The structure was modeled in ETABS by considering the parameters shown in table.1. Model shown in figure 1 was subjected to both dead load and live loads to check the capacity of preliminary dimensions of the structural members of the building model. The seismic analysis is carried out only if all the members are safe with design check. If members are not safe, then the dimensions of the members are revised (should be as per IS 456: 2000). To carry out the pushover analysis, the nonlinear static load patterns and load cases are defined along X and Y directions. The mass source is defined by taking percentage of impact load (As per 1893 part1 2002) for the calculation of seismic load. Then the columns and beams are assigned with hinges based on the hinge properties taken from ASCE 4113 table. After
assigning hinges the model is checked for errors. Then the model is analyzed which is subjected to lateral pushover loads as per displacement control method. Run analysis after selecting to calculate centre of mass and rigidity. After the pushover analysis is complete, the push over results like centre of mass and centre of rigidity for all storeys is tabulated and reviewed.
TABLE I. PARAMETERS CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENT STUDY
Structure Type
Ordinary moment resisting frame
No. of storey
G+4
Typical storey height
3.5m
Type of building use
Public cum office building
Foundation type
Isolated footing
Seismic zone
V
Material properties
Grade of concrete
M20
Grade of steel
Fe500
Density of concrete
25 kN /m2
Member properties
Slab thickness
0.150m
Beam size
0.230m x 0.450 m
Plinth beam size
0.230m x 0.300 m
Column size
0.230m x 0.600m
Wall size
0.230m
Dead load intensities
Roof finishes
2.0 kN/m2
Floor finishes
1.0 kN/m2
Live load intensities
Roof
3.0 kN/m2
Floor
4.0 kN/m2
Earthquake live load on slab as per clause 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 of IS: 1893(Part1) 2002
Roof
0.25 x 3.0 = 0.75 kN/m2
Floor
0.5 x 4.0 = 2 kN/m2
But in the present study, we are analyzing the movement of centre of mass and centre of rigidity for setback buildings for the top storey obtained from pushover analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Results obtained from the analysis with regards to the shift in the position of center of mass and center of rigidity with respect to different models considered in the analysis. Table 2 shows the location of centre of mass with respect to X and Y directions for different models and table 3 shows the location of centre of rigidity with respect to X and Y directions for different models. In the tables, XCM and YCM represent the location of centre of mass with respect to X and Y directions respectively and similarly XCR and YCR represent the location of centre of rigidity with respect to X and Y directions respectively.
TABLE II. LOCATION OF CENTRE OF MASS FOR DIFFERENT
MODELS
MODEL TYPE
LOCATION OF CENTRE OF
MASS(m)
XCM
YCM
MODEL 1
12.5
7.5
MODEL 2
7.5
7.5
MODEL 3
5
7.5
MODEL 4
2.5
7.5
TABLE III. LOCATION OF CENTRE OF RIGIDITY FOR
DIFFERENT MODELS
MODEL TYPE
LOCATION OF CENTRE OF RIGIDITY(m)
XCR
XCR
MODEL 1
12.5
7.5
MODEL 2
9.9432
7.5
MODEL 3
6.794
7.5
MODEL 4
3.0192
7.5
Also, the Graph 1 and Graph 2 show the plots of locations/positions of centre of mass and center of rigidity for models 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Both the plots i.e. graph 1 and 2 have been plotted with respect to the location of the center (i.e. centers of mass and rigidity) at top storey along X and Y directions for the respective models.
Graph 1. Location of Centre of Mass with Respect to X and Y Axes
Graph 2. Location of Centre of Rigidity with Respect to X and Y Axes
From Graph 1 it can be observed that the value of centre of mass goes on reducing for model 1 to model 4 as the mass and the area of the models goes on reducing from model 1 to model 4. This due to the concentration of building towards the origin of the building. Similarly, Graph 2 indicates that the value of centre of rigidity goes on reducing for model 1 to model 4 as the mass and the area of the models goes on reducing from model 1 to model 4. This due to the concentration of building towards the origin of the building.

CONCLUSIONS
Nowadays the buildings with irregularities are more common because of the need or requirement of the individual and due to aesthetic appearance of the buildings. Also, the consideration of centre of mass and centre of rigidity while designing a structure for seismic loads plays a major role. From the present study it can be seen that for a vertical regular building the centre of mass and centre of rigidity were exactly at the centre of building in plan view. Whereas for a structure with vertical irregularities like setback buildings the location of centre of mass and centre of rigidity moves to a concentrated region or in other words the point moves towards the region of more area.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We acknowledge the principal and head of the department of our college, Maharaja Institute of Technology Mysore for providing an opportunity to publish an international journal. We also acknowledge International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology for helping in sharing the knowledge of the authors with other parts of the world through their journal. Also, we acknowledge each and every single author of our paper without which the paper would not have completed according to prescribed manner and according to the technical perspective.
REFERENCES

Anagnostopoulos S. A., Kyrkos M.T. and Stathopoulos K.G., " Earthquake Induced Torsion in Buildings: Critical Review and State of the Art ", Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics(ASEM13), September 812,2013.

Lucchini, G. Monti and S. Kunnath, "A Simplified Pushover Method for Evaluating the Seismic Demand in Asymmetric Plan MultiStorey Buildings", 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 1217, 2008.

Duggal S K, "Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures", Oxford University Press, 2009.

IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002," Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

Kazem Shakeri, Karim Tarbali, and Mohtasham Mohebbi, An adaptive modal pushover procedure for asymmetricplan buildings", Engineering Structures, March 2012.

Kenji Fujii, Yoshiaki Nakano and Yasushi Sanada, Simplified Nonlinear Analysis Procedure For Asymmetric Buildings ", 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 149, August 16, 2004.

Stathopoulos K. G. and Anagnostopoulos S. A., "Earthquake Induced Inelastic Torsion in Asymmetric Multistory Buildings", 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 558, August 16, 2004.

Vojko Kilar and Peter Fajfar "Simple PushOver Analysis of Asymmetric Buildings" Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, February 1997.