Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM66743
Volume:
10 |
8 |
Aug 2026
Pages:
1-8
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Structures
Deccan college of Engineering and technology
Structures
Deccan college of Engineering and technology
Structures
Deccan college of Engineering and technology
Structures
Deccan college of Engineering and technology
The seismic behavior of multi-storey reinforced concrete (RC) buildings is greatly influenced by the nature of the ground topography (whether flat or sloped) and the systems used to resist lateral loads. This study explores a G+17 RC building modelled on both level and sloping terrains, incorporating various shear wall configurations such as core, edge, corner, rectangular, L-shaped, T-shaped, and channel-shaped. Structural modeling and Response Spectrum Analysis are performed using ETABS in accordance with IS 1893:2002 for Seismic Zones III, IV, and V, considering Type II (medium) soil conditions. The materials used include M30 concrete and Fe500 reinforcement. The study evaluates critical response parameters such as storey displacement, storey drift, base shear, floor acceleration, and internal member forces. The analysis reveals that sloped terrains cause significant torsional coupling and increased lateral displacement due to uneven column heights and stiffness asymmetry. On flat terrain, centrally placed rectangular shear walls offer the best lateral stiffness. On sloped terrain, regular rectangular shear wall configurations are more effective than asymmetrical ones (L-, T-, and channel-shaped) in reducing torsional modes and differential drift demands.
KEYWORDS
This investigation yields key structural insights for high-rise RC building design: 1. Dynamic Scaling: Base shear, lateral force requirements, storey displacement, and inter-storey drift are directly proportional to the seismic zone factor (), with an increase of over from Zone III to Zone V. 2. Sloping Terrain Vulnerability: On sloped terrain, the difference in column lengths results in uneven stiffness, which directs torsional forces and stress concentrations towards the shorter columns. 3. Optimal Configuration: Rectangular shear walls located centrally deliver significant lateral stiffness and reduce torsional drift on flat terrain. On sloped ground, symmetrical placement of regular rectangular shear walls ensures greater stability than asymmetrical L-, T-, or channel-shaped configurations. 4. Member Force Profile: In the lower storeys, the variations in maximum bending moments, shear forces, and axial forces are concentrated, necessitating ductile detailing at these structural levels.
1. Parmar, D., Ponnappan, N., Thampi, A., & Prasanth, P. S. (2025). Seismic performance of various structural configurations for RC buildings on sloped terrain considering soil–foundation–structure interaction. Frontiers in Built Environment, 11, 1709068. 2. Vielma, J. C., et al. (2025). Evaluation of seismic design factors in reinforced concrete shear wall buildings constructed on sloped terrain. Applied Sciences, 15(11), 6209. 3. Gupta, V., & Rao, P. (2024). Seismic performance evaluation of RC buildings on sloping ground with different shear wall arrangements. Structures, 58, 105678. 4. Reddy, K., & Prakash, M. (2023). Response spectrum analysis of G+15 RC buildings in different seismic zones. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 12(3), 215–224. 5. Patel, H., Shah, D., & Mehta, R. (2022). Comparative study of RC buildings on plain and sloping ground under seismic loading. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 13(5), 85–96. 6. Singh, P., & Verma, S. (2022). Seismic behavior of multi-storey RC buildings with various shear wall configurations. Journal of Building Engineering, 52, 104487. 7. Kumar, S., & Sharma, N. (2021). Seismic performance assessment of RC buildings with different shear wall locations using ETABS. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 13(2), 145–156. 8. IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002. Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures - General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 9. IS 456: 2000. Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. IS 875 (Parts 1 & 2): 1987. Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Publication Date
8/17/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
3
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...