A Study on Seismic Wave Impacts and Structural Response in Mid-Rise RCC Buildings: A Case-Based ETABS Analysis

Abstract

This study investigates the seismic response of a G+8 reinforced concrete residential building located in India’s Zone III using ETABS software. The building is designed with earthquake-resistant features including shear walls, core walls, and moment-resisting frames, in accordance with IS 1893:2016 and IS 456:2000. Key structural parameters such as base shear, story displacement, and modal mass participation are analyzed. The results confirm that the structure satisfies seismic performance requirements with safe displacement limits and effective lateral load distribution. This case-based analysis highlights the significance of proper modeling and detailing in enhancing structural resilience against seismic impacts.

Introduction

Earthquakes pose serious risks to infrastructure, especially mid-rise reinforced concrete (RCC) buildings in seismic zones like India. This study analyzes the seismic performance of a G+8 RCC residential building in Seismic Zone III using ETABS software, following Indian codes IS 1893:2016 and IS 456:2000. The building employs shear walls, core walls, and moment-resisting frames to resist lateral seismic forces.

Key findings include:

• The building’s lateral displacements and inter-story drifts under seismic loads remain within code limits, indicating sufficient stiffness and stability.

• Base shear values from software closely match manual calculations, validating the model.

• Higher bending moments and shear forces occur at lower stories, where structural components are designed to handle these demands.

• Modal analysis shows that the first three vibration modes capture over 90% of mass participation, confirming accurate dynamic behavior representation.

• Design verifications confirm all structural members meet strength and ductility requirements as per relevant standards.

Overall, the integrated structural system provides balanced lateral strength, ductility, and redundancy, demonstrating effective earthquake-resistant design. The study highlights the value of advanced simulation tools like ETABS for optimizing seismic safety in mid-rise RCC buildings.

Conclusion

This study analyzed the seismic performance of a G+8 reinforced concrete residential building located in Seismic Zone III of India using ETABS software. The structural system incorporated shear walls, core walls, and a moment-resisting frame, and was designed according to IS 1893:2016 and IS 456:2000 standards. Key findings from the analysis include: 1) The maximum story displacement and inter-story drift remained within permissible IS code limits, ensuring structural safety under seismic loading (Table 6, Figure 4). 2) Base shear values calculated through ETABS closely matched manual calculations, validating the accuracy and reliability of the modeling process (Table 7). 3) Bending moments and shear forces were effectively distributed through structural components, particularly in the lower stories where force concentration is highest (Figures 5 and 6). 4) The first three mode shapes captured over 90% of the mass participation, confirming dynamic adequacy and ensuring realistic response predictions (Table 8, Figure 7). 5) Design checks confirmed that all critical members met strength and ductility requirements, with reinforcement detailing complying with IS code specifications (Table 9, Figure 8). In conclusion, the combination of ductile detailing, lateral load-resisting elements, and code-based ETABS modeling ensures safe and efficient performance of mid-rise RCC structures in moderate seismic zones. This study emphasizes the importance of integrated structural design and advanced analytical tools in improving resilience and minimizing seismic risk in residential buildings.

References

[1] Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). IS 1893 (Part 1): Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. New Delhi, India: BIS. [2] Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). IS 456: Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete. New Delhi, India: BIS. [3] Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). IS 13920: Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. New Delhi, India: BIS. [4] Bureau of Indian Standards. (1987). IS 875 (Parts 1 to 5): Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: BIS. [5] Computers and Structures Inc. (2021). ETABS user manual. Berkeley, CA: CSI. [6] Chopra, A. K. (2012). Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake engineering (4th ed.). Pearson Education. [7] Agarwal, P., & Shrikhande, M. (2006). Earthquake resistant design of structures. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. [8] Kumar, S., & Agarwal, P. (2012). Earthquake resistant design methodologies. International Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 3(4), 281–287. [9] Barmenkova, E. (2019). Design of base and foundation for earthquake-resistant buildings. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 661(1), 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/661/1/012002 [10] Ahmad, M. I., Mallick, R., Chakraborty, S., Guin, A., & Chakraborti, A. (2020). Fiber reinforced composites in seismic strengthening. Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 10(2), 56–62. [11] Venkataramana, K., & Shreyasvi, C. (2018). Seismic design and detailing of structures. In Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Management. [12] Paulay, T., & Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley. [13] Naeim, F. (Ed.). (2001). The seismic design handbook (2nd ed.). Springer. [14] Clough, R. W., & Penzien, J. (2003). Dynamics of structures (3rd ed.). Computers and Structures Inc. [15] Jaiswal, O. R., & Rai, D. C. (2006). Design and detailing of RC buildings for earthquake resistance. The Indian Concrete Journal, 80(1), 17–24. [16] Dutta, S. C., & Jain, S. K. (1999). Seismic response of medium-rise RC frame buildings with and without masonry infill walls. Earthquake Spectra, 15(2), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586050 [17] Rai, D. C., & Goel, S. C. (1997). Seismic evaluation and retrofitting of buildings (Report No. UMCEE 97-01). Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. [18] Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804) [19] Fardis, M. N. (2009). Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings. Springer. [20] Indian Roads Congress. (2017). IRC:6-2017: Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges, Section II – Loads and stresses. New Delhi, India: IRC. [21] Bozorgnia, Y., & Bertero, V. V. (2004). Earthquake engineering: From engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press. [22] National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). (2002). Handbook on seismic retrofitting of buildings. Government of India. [23] Kalantari, M., & Khoshnoudian, F. (2010). Comparison of static and dynamic analysis in seismic design of buildings. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(4), 469–480. [24] Sinha, S. N., & Roy, H. N. (2010). Reinforced concrete design (3rd ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill Education. [25] Murty, C. V. R. (2005). Earthquake tips: Learning earthquake design and construction. National Information Center of Earthquake Engineering (NICEE), IIT Kanpur. [26] Panagopoulos, G., & Fardis, M. N. (2001). Strength, ductility and seismic response of RC structures. Engineering Structures, 23(9), 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00017-6

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Nishikant Dogra, Abhishek Upadhyay. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.