A Major Project Report

On

ANALYSIS OF G+5 BUILDING USING SAP

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirement for the award of degree

in
BACHELOR OF TECHONOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted by

J VENKATESH BABU (17911A0122)

MADI AKSHITHA REDDY (17911A0129)
CHAVAN AKSHAY LAXMAN (16911A0114)
KORE SANKO SWAROOP (16911A0129)

Under the Esteemed Guidance Of

Mr. G SATYA PRAKASH
Assistant Professor

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

VIDYA JYOTHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(An Autonomous Institution)
Accredited by NBA, Approved by AICTE, New Delhi & Permanently Affiliated to JNTUH
Aziz Nagar Gate, Chilkoor Balaji Road, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500075.
VIDYA JYOTHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(An Autonomous Institution)
Aziz Nagar Gate, C.B Post, Chilkur Road – 500075

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “ANALYSIS OF G+5

BUILDING USING SAP” has been submitted by the following students in
partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of “Bachelor of Technology” in
Civil Engineering to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad,
during the academic year 2017 - 2021. The results embodied in this project
report have not been submitted to any other university or institute for the award
of any degree.

J VENKATESH BABU (17911A0122)

MADI AKSHITHA REDDY (17911A0129)
CHAVAN AKSHAY LAXMAN (16911A0114)
KORE SANKO SWAROOP (16911A0129)

Project Guide, Head of the Department

Mr. G Satya Prakash Dr. Pallavi Badry
(Assistant Professor) (Professor & HOD)

External Examiner
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is by the blessings of the god almighty that we are able to complete our investigation
studies successfully and present this work for which we internally indebted.

It affords us an immense pleasure to acknowledge with gratitude the help and able guidance
rendered to us by the host of people, to whom we owe a substantial measure for the
fulfillment of this project work.

First, we would like to thank our advisor and project guide, Mr. G Satya Prakash Assistant
Professor, for his advice, support and mentorship. His/her encouragement has strongly
motivated us to accomplish this work.

We would like to express our gratitude to the Head of the Department, Dr. Pallavi Badry,
for her valuable suggestions, scholarly guidance and constant encouragement throughout our
graduate studies and project work.

We wish to express our respect and gratitude to the Principal Dr. A. Padmaja garu and
Director Dr. E. Sai Baba Reddy garu, for their support and encouragement and lending our
all the facilities required to proceed our study.

We are grateful to our entire teaching faculty and non-teaching staff for their assistance and
their kind cooperation throughout our graduation course.

Last but not the least this project is dedicated to our family, for without their blessings
nothing would have been possible.

We our self highly obliged to have every one’s support and encouragement that made great
efforts towards the pursuit of our education.
 ABSTRACT

Many urban multi storey buildings in India today have open ground story as an unavoidable
aspect, basically to generate parking or reception lobbies. The upper storey has brick infilled
wall panel with various opening percentage in them. These types of buildings are not
desirable in seismically active areas because various vertical irregularities are induced in such
buildings which have performed consistently poor during past earthquakes.

Key Words: Open ground storey, infill walls, non‐structural element, bare frame, infill
stiffness, Time History method, SAP 2000.
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 01

1.2 Typical Masonary Infilled Buildings 04

1.3 Open Ground Storey(OGS) Building 05

1.4 Study Area 06

1.5 Objectives of the Thesis 07

1.6 Scope of the study 07

1.7 Methodology 08

1.8 Organization of Thesis 09

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 10

2.2 Provisions in Various Codes 10

2.2.1S Code 1982-2002 recommendations 10

2.2.2 Conventional Design Practice 11

2.2.3 Provisions in other codes 11

2.3 Concepts 12

2.4 Behavior in the presence of Infill wall 14

2.5 Summary 18

3 GEOMETRY AND ANALYSIS OF BUILDING

3.1 General 18

3.2 Example showing how to analyze a building in SAP2000 19

3.2.1 Material 19

3.3 Boundary Condition 21

3.4 Loading 21

3.5 Mode shapes for framed building 23

 3.6 Mode shale for Soft Storey Building 24

4 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction 27

4.2 Ground motions considered 27

4.3 Response of the framed structure – El Centro 29

4.4 Response of a framed structure – Uttarkashi 31

4.5 Response of the Soft Storied Structure – El Centro 34

4.6 Response of the Soft Storey Structure - Uttarkashi 35

5 RESULTS & DISCUSSION 36

6 CONCLUSION 40

REFERENCES 41

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure : 1.1 Showing some typical examples of open ground storey building 02
Figure : 1.2 Showing some common examples of failure of OGS building during 02
earthquake in the past
Figure : 1.3 Showing behaviour of infilled frame building 05
Figure : 1.4 Showing difference in behaviour between bare, infill & OGS building frame 06
Figure : 2.1 Showing the behaviour of infill frame 07
Figure : 3.1 Soft Storey Building Model 18
Figure : 3.2 Assigning Material Properties for Column & beam section 19
Figure : 3.3 Assigning Material Properties for defined section 20
Figure : 3.4 Assigning boundary conditions for defined section 21
Figure : 3.5 First 12 mode shapes of Framed building 23
Figure : 3.6 First 12 mode shapes of Soft Storey building 25
Figure : 4.1 Two ground motions considered for this study, a. El Centro earthquake, b. 28
Uttarkashi earthquake
Figure : 4.2 Showing various joints in Numerical modal 29
Figure : 4.3 A Graph shows Response of El Centro Ground Motion in X – direction for 30
framed structure
Figure : 4.4 A Graph shows Response of El Centro Ground Motion in Y – direction for 30
framed structure
Figure : 4.5 A Graph shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in X – direction for 31
framed structure
Figure : 4.6 A Graph shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in Y – direction for 32
framed structure
Figure : 4.7 A Graph shows Response for El Centro Ground Motion in X - direction for 33
Soft Storeyed structure
Figure : 4.8 A Graph shows Response for El Centro Ground Motion in Y - direction for 33
Soft Storeyed structure
Figure : 4.9 A Graph shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in X - direction for 34
Soft Storeyed structure Response
Figure : 4.10 A Graph shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in Y - direction 34
for Soft Storeyed structure Response
 LIST OF TABLES
Table : 3.1 Time period and Frequency of Twelve Mode shapes for Framed 24
building

Table : 3.2 Time period and Frequency of Twelve Mode shapes for Soft Storey 26
building

Table: 4.1 Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of structure in X & Y 31

direction for El Centro Ground Motion

Table: 4.2 Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of structure in X & Y 32

direction for Uttarkashi Ground Motion

Table: 4.3 Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of structure in X & Y 33

direction for El Centro Ground Motion

Table: 4.4 Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of structure in X & Y 35

direction for Uttarkashi Ground Motion

Table: 5.1 Showing the response for Soft Storey in X & Y direction 36

Table : 5.2 Showing the response for Bare Framed Building in X & Y direction 36

Table : 5.3 Showing the response for Soft Storey in X & Y direction 37

Table : 5.4 Showing the response for Bare Framed Building in X & Y direction 37

Table : 5.5 Showing the response for R.C.C Infilled Brick Masonry framed in X & 38
Y direction

Table : 5.6 Showing the response for R.C.C Infilled Building without Soft Storey 38
in X & Y direction

CHAPTER
1
 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

A soft story building is a multi-story building in which one or more floors have windows,
wide doors, large unobstructed commercial spaces, or other openings in places where a shear
wall would normally be required for stability as a matter of earthquake engineering design. A
typical soft storey building is an apartment building of three or more stories located over a
ground level with large openings, such as a parking garage or series of retail businesses with
large windows.

Open ground storey (also known as soft storey) buildings are commonly used in the urban
environment. Now a days since they provide parking area which is most required. This type
of building shows comparatively a higher tendency to collapse during earthquake because of
the soft storey effect. Large lateral displacements get induced at the first floor level of such
buildings yielding large curvatures in the ground storey columns. The bending moments and
shear forces in these columns are also magnified accordingly as compared to a bare frame
building (without a soft storey). The energy developed during earthquake loading is
dissipated by the vertical resisting elements of the ground storey resulting the occurrence of
plastic deformations which transforms the ground storey into a mechanism, in which the
collapse is unavoidable. The construction of open ground storey is very dangerous if not
designed suitably and with proper care. This paper is an attempt towards the study of the
comparative performance evaluation of three OGS buildings case studies.

1|Page
 Fig 1.1 Showing some typical examples of open ground storey building.

Marina earthquake 1989 Taiwaan earthquake Dali City 1999

Fig.1.2 Showing some common examples of failure of OGS building during earthquake in
the past.

Modern seismic codes just neglect the effects of non-structural infill walls during analysis.
Conventional practice neglects the effect of infill stiffness by assuming that this would give
some conservative results, Fardis and Panagiotakos (1997). However this is not true in the
2|Page
case of columns present in the open ground storey. Many codes (e.g., IS 1893- 2002, EC -8,
IBC ) recommended a factor to take care for the magnification of bending moments and shear
forces. Scarlet (1997) studied the quantification of seismic forces in OGS buildings proposing
a multiplication factor for bare shear for soft-storey type of building. This procedure requires
the analysis of OGS framed building by modelling the infill walls considering their stiffness.
The proposed multiplication factor ranges from 1.86 to 3.28 as the number of storeys
increases from six to twenty. Fardis et. al. (1999) observed that the bending of the columns in
the more infilled storey (first storey of OGS building) under the lateral load is in an opposing
direction to that of the less infilled storey (ground storey). Bared on this observation, an
alternate capacity design rule was proposed for the beams present at the top (first floor level)
of the less infilled storey i.e. ground storey. According to this rule, the demand on the beams
in the first floor should also be increased, depending on the capacity of the columns in the
first storey.

IS 1893-2002 recommends a factor 2.5 accounting for the magnification of the forces in the
ground storey of an OGS building. According to the clause, the shear forces and bending
moments in the ground storey columns, obtained from the bare frame analysis are to be
multiplied by a factor 2.5. The factor is to take care for the increase in the forces in the
ground floor columns due to the presence of soft-storey. There are many such open ground
storey buildings existing in the India which have been designed with earlier codes. Such
buildings are designed only for gravity load condition. But as per the present code, both
seismic lateral loads and the magnification factor shall be considered while designing any
building. But the surveys of some existing buildings in India comments that there are existing
OGS buildings that are designed for seismic lateral loads as per design code but not by
considering the magnification factor of value 2.5. It was recognized subsequently that the MF
of value 2.5 should not be applied to the beams as because this is likely to result in the
formation of ‘strong beam-weak column’ situation (with the plastic hinge forming at the
column end, rather than the beam end). The clause was amended in the year 2005 as follows:
It is not advisable to design the beams of the soft-storey also to design for higher storey
shears as recommended by the above clause. Strengthening of beams will further increase the
demand on the columns, and deny the plastic hinge formation in the beams. These
recommendations have met with some resistance in design and construction practice due to
the congestion of heavy reinforcement in the columns. Hence the aims of this thesis are to
3|Page
review the design provisions for OGS buildings, to study their behaviour and also to provide
a rational approach to enable the design of ground storey columns in OGS buildings.

The behaviour of OGS framed building is totally differently as compared to a bare framed
building (without any infill) or a fully infilled framed building under lateral loads. The bare
frame is much less stiffer than a fully infilled frame; it resists the applied lateral load through
frame action and shows well-distributed plastic hinges at failure condition. But when this
frame is fully infilled, truss action is introduced. A fully infilled frame shows lesser inter-
storey drift, though it attracts higher bare shear (due to increased stiffness). A fully infilled
frame yields lesser force in the frame elements and hence dissipates greater amount of energy
through infill walls. The strength and stiffness of infill walls in infilled frame buildings are
ignored during the structural modelling in conventional design practice. The design in such
cases will generally be conservative in the case of fully infilled framed building than others.
But things will be somewhat different for an OGS framed building. OGS building being
slightly stiffer than the bare frame, has larger storey drift (especially in the ground storey),
and fails due to soft storey-mechanism at the ground floor. Therefore, it may not be
conservative to ignore strength and stiffness of infill wall while designing OGS buildings.
The failure pattern observed in the buildings during the Jabalpur earthquake in 1997 showed
higher vulnerability of OGS buildings. Some reinforced concrete framed building which
collapsed partially, had open ground storey on one side, and brick infill walls on the other
side.

1.2 TYPICAL MASONRY INFILLED BUILDINGS

Typical masonry infilled frames contain infill walls throughout the building in all storeys
uniformly. Although infill walls are known to provide the stiffness and strength to the
building globally, these are considered as ‘non-structural’ by design codes and are commonly
ignored in the design practice for more convenience. The presence of infill walls in a framed
building not only enhance the lateral stiffness in the building, but also alters the transmission
of forces in beams and columns, as compared to the bare frame. In a bare frame, the
resistance to lateral force occurs by the development of bending moments and shear forces in
the beams and columns through the rigid jointed action of the beam-column joints. In the case
of infilled frame, a substantial truss action can be observed, contributing to reduced bending
4|Page
moments but increased axial forces in beams and columns, (Riddington and Smith, 1977;
Holmes, 1961).The infill in each panel behaves somewhat like a diagonal strut as shown in
Fig. below.

a) Infilled frame b) Deformed frame c) Equivalent strut model

Fig.1.3 showing behaviour of infilled frame building

Hence these infill walls are beneficial to the building, only when they are evenly placed in
plan and elevation. These infill walls come to rescue the structure at worst lateral loads such
as seismic loading and wind loading owing to its high stiffness and strength.

1.3 OPEN GROUND STOREY (OGS) BUILDINGS

The presence of infill walls in the upper storeys of the OGS building increases the stiffness of
the building, as seen in a typical infilled framed building. Due to increase in the stiffness, the
bare shear demand on the building increases while in the case of typical infilled frame
building, the increased bare shear is shared by both the frames and infill walls in all the
storeys. In OGS buildings, where the infill walls are not present in the ground storey, the
increased bare shear is resisted entirely by the columns of the ground storey, without the
possibility of any load sharing by the adjoining infill walls.

5|Page
The increased shear forces in the ground storey columns will induce increase in the bending
moments and curvatures, causing relatively larger drifts at the first floor level. The large
lateral deflections further results in the bending moments due to the P- effect. Plastic hinges
gets developed at the top and bottom ends of the ground storey columns. The upper storeys
remain undamaged and move almost like a rigid body. The damage mostly occurs in the
ground storey columns which is termed as typical ‘soft-storey collapse’. This is also called a
‘storey-mechanism’ or ‘column mechanism’ in the ground storey as shown in the figures
below. These buildings are vulnerable due to the sudden lowering of stiffness or strength
(vertical irregularity) in the ground storey as compared to a typical infilled frame building.

Fig 1.4 showing difference in behaviour between bare, infill and OGS building frame

1.4 STUDY AREA

The accurate analysis of the OGS buildings requires the modelling of such building frames
with infill walls for its stiffness and strength. There are many implications of considering
infill walls in the OGS buildings but our aims for the case study or the area of our concern are
stated below:

6|Page
a) The project illustrates a simple computer-bared analysis technique called Time history
analysis for performance-bared design of building frameworks subjected to earthquake
loading.
b) This technique is commonly bared on the conventional displacement method of elastic
analysis under constant gravity loads and incrementally increasing lateral loads.
c) Such inelastic analysis procedures help to demonstrate how building really performs by
identifying the failure modes and the potential for progressive collapse. For this there should
be a clear need to assess the design guidelines recommended by various codes. Existing
recommendations for the design of OGS buildings do not depend on the factors such as
number of storeys, number of bays, type and the number of walls present, etc.

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE THESIS

From the above discussion the objectives of the present study can be figure out as follows:
To study the behaviour of Open Ground Storey buildings analysed considering the
magnification factor (M.F.) suggested by various codes (Indian & UBC Code).
To study the performance and behaviour of the typical OGS buildings using Time history
analysis.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Open ground storey (OGS) buildings have been most common nowadays and are constructed
heavily in high populated countries like India since they provide much needed parking space
in an urban environment.
Failures observed in past earthquakes proved that the collapse in such buildings is
predominantly due to the formation of soft-storey mechanism in the columns of the ground
storey building.
The scope of this project are summarized as:
RC framed Buildings, which is regular in plan
G+7 storey buildings without barement and shear wall.
Infill walls non-integrated with RC frames.
Concept of out of plane action of masonry not taken into account
Asymmetric arrangement of the infill walls neglected
7|Page
 The effect of soil structure interaction is ignored
Flexibility of floor diaphragms rejected
The bare of the column is assumed to be fixed and hinged.
a) The study of this project deals with two different types of support conditions commonly
used in analysis and design i.e. frame without walls and frame with walls. All other types of
support conditions are ignored. Soil-structure interaction is also ignored for the present study.
b) Number of storeys and number of bays in two orthogonal horizontal directions have a
great effect on the lateral load resisting behaviour of the OGS buildings. However, the
conclusions drawn in the present study are bared on the case study 8 storeyed buildings.
c) It is assumed that the infill panels don’t have any window and door openings while
modelling the infill walls.
d) Only the plastic flexural hinge is considered for modelling the frame elements as the
building is designed as per current design codes of practices which assumes no shear failure
will precede the flexural failure.
e) In the present study building models are analysed using linear static analysis, dynamic
analysis and linear static (Time history) analysis. Although nonlinear dynamic analysis being
superior to other analysis procedures, and is kept outside the scope of the present study due to
time limitation.

1.7 METHODOLOGY

The methodology followed out to achieve the above-mentioned objectives is as follows:

(i) Review of the existing literatures by different researchers and also by the Indian design
code provision for designing the OGS building
(ii) Selecting the building models for the case study.
(iii) Modelling of the selected buildings with and without considering their infill strength and
stiffness. Models need to consider the above mentioned two types of end support conditions.
(iv) Performing linear analysis of the selected building models and a comparative study on
the results obtained from the analyses.
(v) Finally the observations of results and discussions.

8|Page
1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

This introductory chapter (Chapter 1) gives a brief introduction towards the importance of the
seismic evaluation of OGS buildings by considering the MF and the reason why they are
adopted by the designers despite of the fact that they are more vulnerable during earthquake.
The need, objectives and scope of the proposed project work are identified along with the
methodology that will be followed to carry out the work.

Chapter 2 presents the literature survey on the behaviour of OGS buildings with and without
infill walls during earthquake, along with the description of the selected building and the
structural modelling parameters and modelling of infill walls.
Chapter 3 describes about the modelling of the building considering with and without walls at
bottom of the selected building. Any how modelling of the structure by using SAP2000 has
been carried out.
Chapter 4 presents the process how time history analysis had been carried out and the
response at particular selected joints 2, 4, 7 and 9 of the building values in both X and Y
direction are mentioned.

9|Page
 CHAPTER
2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Here in this chapter we will be discussing about three different sub topics. In the very first
unit we will discuss an overview of existing design provisions for OGS buildings as per
various design codes. In the next one we will discuss about different concepts and literatures
given by the researchers some of them are: (Scarlet, 1997; Kaushik, 2006; Fardis et. al.,1999;
Arlekar et. al., 1997; Hashmi and Madan, 2008) bared on the open ground storey building
frame and finally in the last unit we will discuss about the behaviour of OGS in the presence
and absence of the infill wall.

2.2 PROVISIONS IN VARIOUS CODES

2.2.1 IS code 1893-2002 recommendations

The OGS buildings is considered to be as extreme soft-storey type of buildings in most of the
practical situations, and shall be designed considering special provisions so as to increase the
stiffness in lateral direction or strength of the soft/open ground storey. A dynamic analysis is
suggested which includes the strength and stiffness effects of infill walls and also the
inelastic deformations of members, particularly suggested in those soft-storey of such
buildings. The members in the soft/open storey shall be designed as per suggested by the
codes considered in this project. However, IS 1893-2002, does not give any explicit
recommendations on the modelling of the infills for the open ground storey building frame.

In the absence of infill wall, more accurate analysis such as dynamic analysis, an equivalent
static lateral load analysis neglecting the infill walls, that is, a bare frame analysis, can be
employed provided the bending moments and the shear forces in the critical members
10 | P a g e
(columns in the ground storey) shall be enhanced by the factor as recommended by the code.
The code recommendation to magnify the above forces for the equivalent static analysis (bare
frame) for the columns in the soft/open storey is by a factor of 2.5. This multiplication factor
will be responsible for compensating the vertical irregularity of the building frame.

2.2.2 Conventional design practice

Conventional design practice follows the equivalent static analysis i.e. linear static analysis,
ignoring the stiffness of the infill walls. This bare frame analysis as suggested by the design
code, is preferable because the modelling of infill walls is much required for the design office
environment. Moreover, inelastic dynamic analysis, which includes the degradation of
stiffness and strength of infill walls can be quite complicated. A check on the stiffness ratio
(k0/k1, where k0 and k1 are the stiffness in the lateral direction of ground storey and first
storey respectively), will almost invariably, yield at a value less than 0.7 in OGS buildings.
Hence the shear forces and bending moments of the ground storey columns, calculated from
an equivalent static analysis of the bare frame ignoring the stiffness of infill walls, should be
multiplied by a factor of 2.5 for design purposes as suggested by the code. In some of the
cases, especially in the presence of infill walls with large openings, the OGS frame may
resemble to be vertically regular as per the code, and strictly, as per the code, no
multiplication of column forces in the ground storey is required. An approach similar to IS
1893 -2002 is followed by the European codes, except that the expression used for the
multiplication factor being different.

2.2.3 Provisions in other codes

The provisions given in other design codes are discussed here in this unit. EC 8 (2004)
recommends some additional design guidelines for building with vertical irregularity which
arises due to the presence of infill walls. Although quantitative limit criteria has not been
suggested by EC 8 (2004) to check the vertical irregularity, as in other codes. If in case there
is a drastic reduction of infill walls in any storey compared to the adjoining storeys, seismic
forces in the less infilled storey i.e. ground storey of OGS building shall be increased by a
multiplication factor (MF) as given by the following expression,

11 | P a g e
 MF=( 1+ ΔVRw/VB )

Where ΔVRw being the total reduction in the lateral resistance of masonry infill wall in the
ground storey as compared to that in the upper storey. As there is no infill wall present in the
ground storey of an OGS building, ΔVrw is equal to the resistance of masonry in the first
storey itself. VB being the design bare shear of the building. The ratio of strength of the
masonry infill in the first storey to the design bare shear of the same building governs the
multiplication factor, MF. The term q is known as the behaviour factor and is expected to fall
in between 1.5 to 4.7, Kaushik (2006). Hence the MF will be as high as 4.7 in certain cases.
According to Fardis and Panagiotakos (1997), the MF factor value suggested by EC 8 (2004)
is such a high that it may lead to over-reinforcement in the columns of the ground storey.

2.3 Concepts given by (Scarlet, 1997; Kaushik, 2006; Fardis et. al.,1999; Arlekar et. al.,
1997; Hashmi and Madan, 2008) and others

Fardis et. al. (1999) noted out that the MF proposed by the EC 8 (2004) expression not only
results to higher seismic forces and reinforcements to the building frame but also lacks a
rational basis. Due to these reasons, despite of its general effectiveness in protecting the
columns of the soft ground storey buildings, MF proposed by Euro code needs to be revised.
A revision was also proposed in this study at the end bared on capacity bared design for the
beams of the open ground storey.
Kaushik (2006) commented that the ambiguity in the use of expression given by EC 8 (2004)
for infilled building frames. It is seen that the natural time period of vibration of the infilled
building frames suggested by EC 8 (2004) for the estimation of bare shear is an inverse
function of the total area of the infill walls in the ground storey frame. For OGS type of
buildings, the natural time period of vibration becomes unrealistically much higher due to
zero value of area of infill wall in the ground storey. However, he is unable to mention it
clearly whether this expression for natural time period of vibration can be used for OGS
buildings or not.
ASCE 7 (2005) and IS 1893 (2002) provides the similar kind of definitions and assumptions
for the classification of vertical irregularity. ASCE 7 (2005) does not permit the buildings
with extreme irregularity such as OGS buildings with more than two storeys or building
height being more than 9 m.
12 | P a g e
SEAOC (1994) recommends a multiplication factor of 3R/8 (average value of response
reduction factor, R = 8) for OGS buildings, Scarlet (1997). This will result a value of MF of
around three. It is also clear from the above expression that the MF is completely
independent and is no related with that of the amount of irregularity present in the building.
Kaushik (2006) performed a comprehensive survey of the approaches of various codes in
dealing with the vertical irregularity, and hence showed that BCDBSS (1987), SII (1995),
FCEACR (1986) and NBC (1995b) are not consistent and applicable with regard to the
design of OGS buildings.

BCDBSS (1987) suggests that any storey is a soft-storey if the lateral stiffness is less than
50% of that of adjacent storey. The beams and columns of the ground storey building frame
shall be designed for three times the design seismic force corresponding to regular bare frame
with an addition of 50% increment in the bare shear.

According to the SII (1995), a storey is considered to be as a soft storey, if the lateral stiffness
is less than 70% of that of the storey above, or less than 80% of average stiffness of three
storeys above, also which contains less than half of the length of the infill walls, as compared
to the storey above it, at least in one of its principal directions. A storey is differentiated as a
weak storey if the lateral shear capacity in any direction is less than 80% of that of the storey
above in the same direction. This code allows soft or weak storey, including the open ground
storey, only in buildings with lower or medium ductility levels. The design forces for weak or
flexible storey members, and for the members in the storey just above and below, are required
to be increased by a factor 0.6R, where R being the response reduction factor. For masonry
infilled RC frame buildings, R is taken as 3.5 for low ductility level, and 5.0 for medium
ductility level. Therefore, the beams and columns of the soft/weak storey building frame
along with that of the adjacent storeys are required to be designed for the value of at least 2.1-
3.0 times the design forces for regular storey, depending upon the level of ductility. SII
(1995) grants the design of extremely weak storeys whose shear resistance being less than
65% of that of the adjacent storey, in buildings having height up to 2 storeys or 9m,
whichever is less. The height restriction is compensated if the total strength of weak storey in
the lateral direction and adjacent storeys above and below is more than 0.75R times the
seismic design bare shear of that building.

13 | P a g e
NBC (1995b) limits the vertical irregularity of a building frame using some rules. And according
to him there should be at least two lateral load resisting walls present along the two principal
directions at any level of the building. He provided a clear idea from the observation of various
code provisions that there is no consensus among different codes to address the vertical
irregularity arising due to open storeys, although some provisions being similar.

2.4 BEHAVIOUR IN THE PRESENCE OF INFILL WALL

Under lateral load condition the frame and the infill wall tends to stay intact initially. As the
lateral load is increased the infill wall gets separated from the surrounding frame at the
unloaded (tension) corner, but at the compression corners the infill walls remaining still intact
in position as previously. The length over which the infill wall and the frame are intact in
position is called the length of contact. Load transfer in the wall occurs through an imaginary
diagonal which acts like a compression strut member. Due to this behaviour of the infill wall,
they can be modelled as an equivalent diagonal strut by connecting the two compressive
corners diagonally. The property of the stiffness should be such that the strut is active only
when subjected to compression. Thus, only under lateral loading one diagonal will be
operating at a time. This new and unique concept was first put forward by Holmes (1961).

Fig 2.1 showing the behaviour of infill frame

14 | P a g e
The effect of slip and interface friction between the frame and the infill wall was first
investigated by Mallick and Severn (1967) using finite element analysis method. The infill
panels were simulated by means of linear elastic rectangular finite elements, with dual
degrees of freedom present at each of the four corner nodes. Interface between frame and
infill was modelled accordingly and contact length was calculated. The slip between the
frame and the infill was taken into account by considering frictional shear forces in the
contact region using link element. Each node of this element has altogether two degrees of
freedom in the translational direction. The element was now able to transfer compressive and
bond forces, but was incapable of resisting tensile forces.

Rao et. al. (1982) performed theoretical and experimental studies on infilled frames with
opening strengthened by lintel beams. He concluded that the lintel over the opening does not
provide any influence on the lateral stiffness of an infilled frame.

Karisiddappa (1986) and Rahman (1988) verified the effect of openings and their location
on the behaviour of single storey RC frames with brick infill walls. There are many such
studies on infilled frames under cyclic and dynamic loading condition.

Choubey and Sinha (1994) examined the effect of various parameters such as separation of
infill wall from frame, plastic deformation, stiffness and energy dissipation of infilled frames
under cyclic loading condition.

Arlekar et.al (1997) reported the behaviour of RC framed OGS building when subjected to
seismic loads. A four storeyed OGS building was analyzed using Equivalent Static Analysis
and Response Spectrum Analysis method to figure out the resultant forces and displacements.
This thesis verifies that the behaviour of OGS frame is quite different from that of the bare
frame. The effect of the parameters such as plan aspect ratio, relative stiffness, and number of
bays on the behaviour of infilled frame was examined by Riddington and Smith (1997).

Scarlet (1997) provided the qualification of seismic forces in OGS buildings. A

multiplication factor only applicable for OGS building was proposed for the bare shear of the
building. This procedure requires the modelling of the stiffness of the infill walls in the
15 | P a g e
analysis. The study proposed that as the multiplication factor ranges from 1.86 to 3.28 as the
number of storey increases from six to twenty.

Deodhar and Patel (1998) noted that even though the brick masonry in infilled frame are
non-structural element, they can have considerable influence on the lateral response on the
designed building.

Davis and Menon (2004) concluded that the presence of masonry infill panels in a building
frame modifies the structural force distribution significantly in an OGS building frame. The
total shear force of the building increases as the stiffness of the building increases in the
presence of masonry infill at the upper floor of the building. Apart from this they also
concluded that the bending moments in the ground floor columns increase approximately by
more than two folds, and the mode of failure is basically by the soft storey mechanism i.e. by
the formation of hinges in ground floor columns of the building frames.

Das and Murthy (2004) commented that the presence of infill walls in a structure, generally
bring down the damage resulted by the RC framed members of a fully infilled frame during
earthquake shaking. The columns, beams and infill walls of lower stories are comparatively
more vulnerable to damage than those in upper stories.

Asokan (2006) examined how the presence of masonry infill walls in the frames of a
building behaves due to the lateral stiffness and strength of the structure. This research put
forwarded a plastic hinge model for infill wall to be used during nonlinear performance bared
analysis of a building which concludes that the ultimate load (UL) approach along with the
proposed hinge property providing a better estimate of the inelastic drift of the building.

Hashmi and Madan (2008) performed a non-linear time history analysis along with
pushover analysis of OGS buildings. The study comments that the MF as suggested by IS
1893(2002) for such buildings is adequate for preventing collapse.

Sattar and Abbie (2010) in their study pointed out that the pushover analysis showed an
increase in initial stiffness, strength, and energy dissipation of the infilled frame as compared
to the bare frame analysis, despite of the wall’s brittle failure modes. Likewise, dynamic
16 | P a g e
analysis results concluded that the fully infilled frame has the lowest collapse risk and the
bare frames were found to be the most vulnerable to earthquake-induced collapse
comparatively. The better collapse performance of the fully-infilled frames is limited with the
larger strength and energy dissipation of the system which is resulted due to the added walls.
There are numerous such research efforts available on this topic seismic behaviour of OGS
buildings and also on the modelling of the infill walls for linear and nonlinear analysis.

2.5 SUMMARY

This chapter briefly discusses the previous work performed on the area of seismic behaviour
of the open ground storey RC buildings and modelling of the infill walls as equivalent
diagonal strut. From these published work it has to be concluded that that even though the
brick masonry in infilled frame are intended to be non-structural in behaviour, they have a
considerable influence on the lateral response of the building. The concept of having
multiplication factor is to increase the design forces of ground storey columns and beams of
OGS buildings which is a function of storey numbers. IS 1893:2002 (Part-1) proposal for
multiplication factor of 2.5 may not be appropriate for the building in Indian condition.

17 | P a g e
 CHAPTER
3
GEOMETRY AND ANALYSIS OF BUILDING

3.1 GENERAL

To perform any sort of analysis i.e. linear/non-linear, static/dynamic it’s necessary to develop
a computational model. Hence in this chapter we will discuss the parameters defining the
computational models, the basic assumptions and the geometry of the selected building
considered for this study. A detailed description on the nonlinear modelling of RC building
frames is discussed in this chapter.

Figure 3.1 Soft Storeyed Building Model

18 | P a g e
3.2 Example showing how to analysis a building in SAP2000

3.2.1 MATERIAL
a) Concrete
d) Click the + (plus) symbol beside the down arrow of the Material drop-down
list to access the Add material property form.
e) Click add new material access the material property data form. (Step 4)
f) Select region and material type and grade of concrete.
Steel (Fe 415)

(vi) Click on Concrete Reinforcement

(vii) Click the + (plus) symbol beside the down arrow of the Material drop-down list to
access the Add material property form.
(viii) Click add new material access the material property data form. (Step 5)
(ix) Select region and material type as Rebar and select Fe 415 HYSD Steel.

Figure 3.2 Assigning Material Properties for column and beam section

19 | P a g e
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3.3 Assigning Material Properties for defined section

20 | P a g e
3.3 Boundary Conditions

Figure: 3.4 Assigning Boundary Conditions for defined section

3.4 Loading

The structural design is carried out as per the latest versions of Indian Standard codes
published by Bureau of Indian Standards. Various design codes and standards referred
are:
− IS 456 for Plain and Reinforced Concrete
− IS 875 Part 1, 2, 3 & 5 for dead load, live load, wind load and combinations
− SP 34 for detailing of reinforcement

Loads considered

(i) Self-Weight of members

(ii) Wall Load
(iii)Slab Live Load ( as per IS 875 Part II)
a. Residential: 3 KN/m2
b. Commercial/public buildings: 5 KN/m2
(iv) Stair/Lift/Ramp Load

Following densities and load values are considered for design:

3
(i) Density of Reinforced concrete: 24 KN/m
3
(ii) Density of brick masonry : 18.85 KN/m
3
(iii)Density of earth : 18 KN/m

21 | P a g e
 2
(iv) Superimposed Live Load : 5 KN/m
2
(v) Floor Finishes : 1.5 KN/m

Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. (IS 1893-2002) Clause 6.3.1.2
Partial safety factors for limit state design of reinforced concrete and pre-stressed concrete
structures.

In the limit state design of reinforced concrete structures, the following load combinations
are to be accounted for:

(i) 1.5(DL+IL)
(ii) 1.2(DL+IL±EL)
(iii)1.5(DL±EL)
(iv) 0.9DL±1.5EL

3.5 Mode shapes for framed Building

As a characterstic behavior of any structure depends on its mode shapes, which actually
depends on the gemometrys, material and boundry condition, the same has been done for
structural considered only Framed G+7 Storey.

22 | P a g e
 Figure: 3.5 First 12 mode shapes of Framed building (M = mode numbers, T = time period,
F = frequency of the concerned mode)
The model analysis is carried for the building numerical model, as shown in figure:
15. As building material is reinforcement concrete, the damping of the structure is considered
to be 5% the first ten mode shapes obtained for the building are shown in the figure. The first
mode indicates the building has a natural frequency of 2.62hz, which Is approximately 0.431
seconds of time period.
As seen in the figure as the mode number increasing, the frequency is also increasing
till the tenth mode. The variations in time periods of obtained ten mode shapes is gradnally
decread except the time period of secound and third mode shape which is differed by almost
51% .

23 | P a g e
 Table: 3.1 Time Period And Frequency of Twelve Mode Shapes for Framed Building

MODE SHAPE TIME PERIOD FREQUENCY

M1 0.556 1.795

M2 0.476 2.096

M3 0.435 2.296

M4 0.184 5.410

M5 0.156 6.391

M6 0.144 6.925

M7 0.106 9.225

M8 0.089 11.201

M9 0.085 11.738

M10 0.078 12.789

M11 0.097 14.336

M12 0.063 15.638

3.6 Mode shapes for Soft Storey Building

As a characterstic behavior of any structure depends on its mode shapes, which actually
depends on the gemometrys, material and boundry condition, the same has been done for
structural considered Soft Stoey at Ground Floor for a G+7 Storey.

24 | P a g e
 Figure: 3.6 First 12 mode shapes of Soft Storeyed building (M = mode numbers, T = time
period,
F = frequency of the concerned mode)

25 | P a g e
 Table: 3.2 Time Period And Frequency of Twelve Mode Shapes for Soft Storey Building

MODE SHAPE TIME PERIOD FREQUENCY

M1 0.526 1.898

M2 0.477 2.094

M3 0.432 2.310

M4 0.174 5.723

M5 0.156 6.383

M6 0.143 6.991

M7 0.101 9.880

M8 0.088 11.292

M9 0.084 11.887

M10 0.072 13.752

M11 0.067 14.858

M12 0.063 15.638

The model analysis is carried for the selected building and has been observed that as
the mode number is increasing, the frequency is also increasing till the twelvth mode. The
variations in time periods of obtained for this 12 mode shapes is gradnally decreased except
the time period of secound and third mode shape which is differed by almost 51% .

26 | P a g e
 CHAPTER
4
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

Earthquake causes different shaking intensities at different locations and the damage induced
in buildings at these locations is also different. Thus, there is necessary to construct a
structure which is earthquake resistance at a particular level of intensity of shaking a
structure, and not so much the magnitude of an earthquake. Even though same magnitudes of
earthquakes are occurring due to its varying intensity, it results into dissimilar damaging
effects in different regions. Therefore, it is necessary to study variations in seismic behaviour
of multistoried RC framed building for different seismic intensities in terms of various
responses such as lateral displacements and base shear. It is necessary to understand the
seismic behavior of buildings having similar layout under different intensities of earthquake.
For determination of seismic responses, it is necessary to carry out seismic analysis of the
structure using different available methods.

Time History is a record of the ground acceleration at defined time segments for a specific
earthquake in a certain direction. The record is usually normalized and therefore needs to be
multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

4.2 Ground motions considered

Linear time history analysis (THA) is carried out for three ground motions viz. A). 1940 El
Centro earthquake ground motion which occurred in the Imperial Valley having a moment
magnitude of 6.9 and maximum perceived intensity of X on the Mercalli intensity scale and
first major earthquake recorded by a strong-motion seismograph. B) Third ground motion is
th
of 1991 in October 20 Uttarkashi earthquake of moment magnitude 6.8 occurred within the
main thrust system of Himalayas.

27 | P a g e
 Figure 4.1. Two ground motions considered for this study, a. El Centro earthquake, b.
Uttarkashi earthquake

28 | P a g e
 Figure 4.2. Shows Various Joints in Numerical Modal

All three ground motions are show in Figure-4.1 to understand the response for building
structure few joints have been selected. Figure-4.2 shows the building structural with
highlighted joint locations where response is taken and plotted there four joints 2, 4, 7, and 9
are taken for the existing structure.
For all the three ground motions considered, the response of building are calculated in terms
of x and y displacements, as both the stiffness are completely different. Figure-4.2 show the
numerical models developed using SAP2000 with extruded view. And time history of Two
ground motions are carried for Building numerical model.

4.3 Response of the Framed structure – El Centro

The minimum displacement of the parking structure in X-direction at joint 2, 4, 7 and 9 are
-0.00108m, -0.00369m, -0.006854m, and -0.00789m respectively. Where as in Y-direction
-0.000643m, -0.00234m, -0.00452m and -0.00531m respectively.

29 | P a g e
The maximum displacement of the parking structure in X-direction at joint 2, 4, 7 and 9 are
0.000978 m, 0.00324m, 0.00582m, and 0.00663m respectively. Where as in Y-direction
0.000523m, 0.00191m, 0.00377m and 0.00443m respectively.

Framed Structure Response for El Centro Ground motion in X – direction

Figure 4.3. A Graph Shows Response for El Centro Ground Motion in X-direction for
framed structure

Framed Structure Response for El Centro Ground motion in Y – direction

Figure 4.4. A Graph Shows Response for El Centro Ground Motion in Y-direction for
framed structure

30 | P a g e
Table 4.1. Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of Structure in X and Y direction for El
Centro Ground Motion

El Centro Ground Motion

Joint
X max X min Y max Y min
2 0.000978 -0.00108 0.000523 -0.000643
4 0.00324 -0.00369 0.00191 -0.00234
7 0.00582 -0.00685 0.00377 -0.00452
9 0.00663 -0.00789 0.00443 -0.00531

The variation in response of the building at various joints is increasing gradually.

4.4 Response of a Framed Structure – Uttarkashi

The minimum displacement of the Super Structure in X-direction at joint 2, 4, 7 and 9 are
-0.00636m, -0.0208m, -0.0367m and -0.0416m respectively. Where as in Y-direction -
0.00372m, -0.0132m, -0.0248m, and -0.0293m respectively.

The maximum displacement of the parking structure in X-direction at joint 2,4, 7, and 9 are
0.00691, 0.0225, 0.0408 and 0.0469 respectively. Where as in Y-direction 0.00359m,
0.0132m, 0.0257m and 0.0323 respectively.

Framed Structure Response for Uttarkashi Ground motion in X – direction

Figure 4.5. A Graph Shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in X-direction for
framed structure

31 | P a g e
Framed Structure Response for Uttarkashi Ground motion in Y- direction

Figure 4.6. A Graph Shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in Y-direction for
framed structure

Table 4.2. Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of Structure in X and Y direction for
Uttarkashi Ground Motion

Uttarkashi Ground Motion

Joint
X max X min Y max Y min
2 0.00690 -0.00636 0.00359 -0.00372
4 0.0225 -0.02038 0.0132 -0.0132
7 0.0408 -0.03677 0.0257 -0.0248
9 0.0469 -0.04162 0.0323 -0.0293

The variation in response of the building at various joints is increasing gradually.

4.5 Response of the Soft Storied structure – El Centro

The minimum displacement of the parking structure in X-direction at joint 2, 4, 7 and 9 are
-0.00140m, -0.0041m, -0.00733 and -0.00838 respectively. Where as in Y-direction -
0.000932m, -0.0031m, -0.00558 and -0.00681 respectively.

The maximum displacement of the parking structure in X-direction at joint 2, 4, 7 and 9 are
0.00134m, 0.00378m, 0.00656m and 0.00746m respectively. Where as in Y-direction
0.0008042m, 0.00259m, 0.00464m and 0.00534m respectively.

32 | P a g e
Soft Storey Structure Response for El Centro Ground motion in X – direction

Figure 4.7. A Graph Shows Response for El Centro Ground Motion in X-direction for Soft
Storyed structure

Soft Storey Structure Response for El Centro Ground motion in Y – direction

Figure 4.8. A Graph Shows Response for El Centro Ground Motion in Y-direction for Soft
Storeyed Structure

Table 4.3. Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of Structure in X and Y direction for
El Centro Ground Motion

El Centro Ground Motion

Joint
X max X min Y max Y min
2 0.00134 -0.00141 0.0008042 -0.0009324
4 0.00378 -0.0041 0.00259 -0.0031
7 0.00656 -0.00733 0.00464 -0.00582
9 0.00746 -0.00838 0.00534 -0.00681

The variation in response of the building at various joints is increasing gradually.

33 | P a g e
4.4 Response of the Soft Storey structure – Uttarkashi

The minimum displacement of the Super Structure in X-direction at joint 2, 4, 7 and 9 are
-0.00854m, -0.0237m, -0.0400m and -0.0450m respectively. Where as in Y-direction -
0.00529m, -0.0168m, -0.0302m and -0.0352m respectively.

The maximum displacement of the parking structure in X-direction at joint 2,4, 7, and 9 are
0.00935m, 0.0268m 0.0474m and 0.0542m respectively. Where as in Y-direction 0.0055m,
0.0173m, 0.0308m and 0.0358m respectively.

Soft Storey Structure Response for Uttarkashi Ground motion in X – direction

Figure 4.9. A Graph Shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in X-direction Soft
Storey Structure Response

Soft Storey Structure Response for Uttarkashi Ground motion in Y- direction

Figure 4.10. A Graph Shows Response for Uttarkashi Ground Motion in Y-direction Soft
Storey Structure Response

34 | P a g e
 Table 4.4. Shows Maximum and Minimum Response of Structure in X and Y direction for
Uttarkashi Ground Motion

Uttarkashi Ground Motion

Joint
X max X min Y max Y min
2 0.00935 -0.00854 0.00555 -0.00529
4 0.02681 -0.02376 0.01734 -0.03026
7 0.04748 -0.04006 0.03084 -0.03026
9 0.05423 -0.04508 0.03583 -0.03524

The variation in response of the building at various joints is increasing gradually.

35 | P a g e
 CHAPTER
5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION’S

Overall Study of the project give us the following results were observed.

For Elcentro Earthquake two joints are considered and the response is noted for framed
building and also for soft storey which are as follows:-

Table 5.1 Showing the response for Soft Storey in X & Y direction

ELCENTRO EARTH QUAKE RESPONSE FOR SOFT STOREYED BUILDING

X DIRECTION Y DIRECTION
SL.NO JOINT MAXIMUM MINIMUN MAXIMUM
MINIMUN
RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE
RESPONSE (m)
(m) (m) (m)

1 JOINT 2 -0.00141 0.00134 -0.000932 0.000804

2 JOINT9 -0.00838 0.00746 -0.00681 0.00534

For Soft storey building at joint 2 maximum displacement is found to be 0.00141m in X

direction and at joint 9 is 0.00838m in X direction.

Table 5.2 Showing the response for Bare Framed Building in X & Y direction

ELCENTRO EARTH QUAKE RESPONSE FOR BARE FRAMED BUILDING

X DIRECTION Y DIRECTION

MINIMUN MAXIMUM MINIMUN MAXIMUM

SL.NO JOINT
RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE
(m) (m) (m) (m)

1 JOINT 2 -0.00108 0.000978 -0.000643 0.000523

2 JOINT9 -0.00789 0.00663 -0.00531 0.00443

36 | P a g e
For Framed building at joint 2 maximum displacement is found to be 0.001081m in X
direction and at joint 9 is 0.00789m in X direction.

Table 5.3 Showing the response for Soft Storey in X & Y direction

UTTARKASHI EARTH QUAKE RESPONSE FOR SOFT STOREYED BUILDING

X DIRECTION Y DIRECTION

MAXIMUM MINIMUN MAXIMUM

SL.NO JOINT MINIMUN
RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE
RESPONSE (m)
(m) (m) (m)

1 JOINT 2 -0.00854 0.00935 -0.00529 0.00555

2 JOINT9 -0.04508 0.05423 -0.03524 0.03583

For Soft storey building at joint 2 maximum displacement is found to be 0.00935m in X

direction and at joint 9 is 0.05423m in X direction.

Table 5.4 Showing the response for Bare framed in X & Y direction

UTTARKASHI EARTH QUAKE RESPONSE FOR BARE FRAMED BUILDING

X DIRECTION Y DIRECTION

MINIMUN MAXIMUM MINIMUN MAXIMUM

SL.NO JOINT
RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE
(m) (m) (m) (m)

1 JOINT 2 -0.00636 0.0069 -0.00372 0.00359

2 JOINT9 -0.0416 0.0469 -0.0293 0.0302

For Framed building at joint 2 maximum displacement is found to be 0.0069m in X direction

and at joint 9 is 0.0469m in X direction.

37 | P a g e
 Table 5.5. Showing the response for R.C.C Infilled Brick Masonary framed in X & Y
direction

ELCENTRO EARTH QUAKE RESPONSE FOR R.C FRAMED INFILLED BUILDING WITHOUT
SOFT STOREY
X DIRECTION Y DIRECTION

MINIMUN MAXIMUM MINIMUN MAXIMUM

SL.NO JOINT
RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE
(m) (m) (m) (m)

1 JOINT 2 -0.00114 0.00105 -0.000845 0.000739

2 JOINT9 -0.00813 0.00699 -0.00658 0.0051

For R.C.C framed Infilled building at joint 2 maximum displacement is found to be 0.00114
in X direction and at joint 9 is 0.00813m in X direction.

Table 5.6 Showing the response for R.C.C framed Infilled building without soft storey
in X & Y direction

UTTARKASHI EARTH QUAKE RESPONSE FOR R.C framed INFILLED BUILDING WITHOUT SOFT
STOREY
X DIRECTION Y DIRECTION

SL.NO JOINT MINIMUN MAXIMUM MINIMUN MAXIMUM

RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE
RESPONSE (m)
(m) (m) (m)

1 JOINT 2 -0.00673 0.00576 -0.00472 0.00449

2 JOINT9 -0.0415 0.0507 -0.0348 0.0359

For R.C.C Infilled Brick Masonry building at joint 2 maximum displacement is found to be
0.00673 in X direction and at joint 9 is 0.0507m in X direction.

38 | P a g e
From the cases considered for Uttarkashi and El centro earthquakes. From above result it can
be seen that displacement of soft storey building is more than that of framed building. Soft
storey effect contributes to reduction of stiffness in building due to which overall response is
increasing.

FUTURE SCOPE
The present work can also be analysed by using Non-linear Static and Dynamic approches,
which will be able to find the exact deformation of the Soft Storey. The work can be
extended from Residence building to Commercial building. The study can be done with the
help of Push over Analysis to get exact deflection, deformation and also stiffness of the
building. The present work can be further studied by comparing highrise buildings and also
for different Earthquake Response.

39 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

 Study of soft storey building is essential in current scenario. Most of the buildings in
Indian metro city are found soft Storeyed.
 SOFT STORED buildings are considered vulnerable in earthquake prone areas.
 It is important to safeguard building, avoiding soft storey and following building bye laws
and using design codes.
 From above result, it can be seen that displacement of soft storey buildings is more than
that of RC framed in-filled building. Soft storey effect contributes to reduction of
stiffness in building due to which overall response of the building at particular joint is
increasing.
 From the above case study it has been found that for R.C Framed Infilled Building is
0.0507m at joint 9 for Uttarkashi Earthquake when compared to Soft Storey Building.
 Corner walls can be provided to the building for the better performance and increase the
life time of the building.
 Since the behaviour of the soft storey is very different during earthquake
 For this reason, in regions where the risk of earthquakes is high, soft storeys should be
avoided, if necessary, earthquake resistant design should be done starting from the
design stage through the stage of occupancy.
 Present soft storeys should be examined and if necessary, should be reinforced.
 In constructions where it is necessary to build a soft storey, lateral rigidity of this
particular storey should be brought to the rigidity level of the other storeys. To be able
to do this, the number of columns and shear walls should be increased. Because of this
increase, longitudinal and lateral reinforcement should also be increased. These raise the
cost of the construction. Soft storey is an irregularity which affects the behaviour of a
construction during a quake and also increases the construction costs. For this reason,
soft storeys should be avoided as much as possible. In case it is necessary, by the
controls to be performed as a result of calculation made, irregularities can be eliminated
as follows:
 Building additional walls
 Increasing the rigidity of the columns and the shear walls on the soft store
40 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

 Wiki.csiamerica.com

 Sapinformations.blogspot.in

 en.wikipedia.org: Structural Analysis, SAP 2000, IS Code, RCC Design, etc.

 V.Varalakshmi, G. Shiva Kumar and R. Sunil Sarma, Analysis and Design of G+3
residential building, mini project report, Marri Laxman Reddy Institute of
Technology and Management, Dundigal, Hyderabad, India-2014.

 P. Jayachandran and S. Rajasekaran, Structural Design of Multi-story Residential

Building for in Salem, India, mini project report, PSG College of Technology,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India-2006.

 Mahesh Suresh Kumawat and L.G. Kalurkar, Analysis and Design of multistory
building using composite structure-2014.