IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF OPEN GROUND STOREY REINFORCED

CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Gautham. A1, K. Gopikrishna2

1
M.Tech Student, NIT Warangal, [email protected]
2
Assistant Professor, NIT Warangal.

Abstract
Open ground storey (OGS) buildings are the most common type of building configurations witnessed particularly in the urban
areas due to their inherent functional advantages (Viz., basement/underground parking facilities in Apartment and Commercial
complexes). These categories of buildings usually referred as soft storey buildings. These configurations have shown poor seismic
performance across the world due to sudden drop in stiffness and strength in open ground storey. Several open ground storey
buildings have collapsed even during Bhuj earthquake in 2001 emphasising the need to understand its seismic behaviour. This led
to special considerations of specification of large design forces in IS1893 part1 for the soft storey compared to the rest of the
structure. These considerations increased the shear capacity of weak storey columns to prevent collapse and subsequent loss of
life. Hence, the present study is focussed on simulating the open ground storey buildings. Non-linear static analysis (Pushover) is
performed using the response spectrum specified in the IS code. Further, the importance of masonry infill wall and its
contribution for strengthening the open ground storey is also discussed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------***-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. INTRODUCTION of the OGS can be captured only by modelling the stiffness

of the infill walls in the upper storeys[2].
Reinforced concrete framed structures are most common
type of building configurations witnessed particularly in Hence the present study is focussed on studying the seismic
urban and semi-urban areas in India. These structural behaviour of open ground storey building with and without
configurations have non- structural masonry infill walls in consideration of infill walls using commercial software
between the frame structures. Further, the ground storey in package SAP2000. Further, the contribution of the infill wall
most of the structures is kept free due to provision of ample in enhancing the seismic performance level of OGS when
parking space in high rise residential and commercial placed strategically in ground floor is studied. It can be
complexes, leading to soft storey structures.It has been observed from the results that when the infill walls are
clearly established in literature that these types of structural placed strategically as described in model S3 without much
configurations have suffered extensive structural damage affecting the functionality of the structure, the performance
during past earthquakes throughout the world. This is of the structure has increased significantly without collapse.
mainly attributed due to sudden reduction in strength and
stiffness at the open ground storey [1]. Further, the
2. DESCRIPTION OF MODEL AND ANALYSIS
concentration of damage on the ground storey columns are
attributed to the plastic hinge formation both at top and 2.1 Geometry
bottom of the columns. Conventionally these open ground
storey structures (OGS) are analysed ordinary moment The building model is as shown in the Fig.2 having 5 bays
resisting frame (OMRF) without masonry infill walls. The in the X and Y directions with a bay width of 5m. The
presence of infill walls in the upper floors and ground floor building is a residential building having G+5 floors with 3m
being free from infill walls cause sudden drop in stiffness in storey height. Infill walls of thickness 230mm are located in
the ground storey columns and subjected to large the outer frames in each floor except the ground floor. The
deformations and higher shear forces making them plan of the building is kept symmetrical in both orthogonal
vulnerable during earthquakes. Hence, while designing these directions to avoid the torsion irregularity. The building
flexible ground storey columns, IS1893 (2002) part1 permits elements are modelled using SAP2000. The columns are of
simplified analysis by enhancing the shear force and uniform size of 300mm x 600mm while the dimensions of
bending moments in open ground storey columns by a the beams are 230mm x 450mm. The response spectrum is
magnification factor of 2.5. These considerations increased adopted as per IS 1893 part1 for seismic zone II and soil
the shear capacity of weak storey columns to prevent type II.
collapse and subsequent loss of life. But the real behaviour

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Special Issue: 13 | ICISE-2015 | Dec-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 162
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Figure.1(a): plan of the model Figure.1(b): OGS model

2.2 Material Properties Where Em is modulus of elasticity of the masonry infill, E fis
the elastic modulus of frame, t is the thickness of the infill
M30 grade of concrete and Fe415 grade of reinforcing bars material, h and L are the height and length of the masonry
are used for all the members considered under study. Unit infill respectively. Iband Icare the moments of inertia of the
weights of concrete and masonry are 25kN/m2 and beam and column respectively.
17.65kN/m2 respectively. Modulus of elasticity of masonry
is taken as 3.5GPa with a poisons ratio of 0.17. 3. MODELS CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS
2.3Modelling of masonry infill walls A total of seven models are considered for analysis:
 Bare frame: - RCC frame taking the weight of
Stafford Smith formulated the expression for computing the infill but neglecting the effect of infill stiffness.
width of equivalent diagonal strut for modelling infills. The  OGS frame: - Effect of stiffness is considered
parameters αL and αH are estimated on the basis of a beam excepting the ground storey.
on elastic foundation. He proposed the following equations  Fully infill model:-Effect of stiffness considered
to compute the value of αL and αH which depend upon the for each floor.
relative stiffness of the frame and the infill. [5]  S1:-OGS frames strengthened by the addition of
60% infill walls at ground storey.
 S2:- OGS model with 40% infill in the open storey
in the interior bays.
 S3:- OGS model with 40% infill in the soft storey
in the exterior bays.
 IS frame:- OGS frame with ground storey columns
designed for a MF of 2.5 (increased dimensions of
ground storey columns: 600mm x 850mm).

(a)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Special Issue: 13 | ICISE-2015 | Dec-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 163
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

(b)

(c)
Figure.2:S1 (a); S2 (b); S3 (c)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Infill walls possess large lateral stiffness and hence draw a
considerable share of the lateral load.
The seismic analysis of all the RC framed models as
described in section 2 is carried out using SAP 2000
Comparison of Performance levels
software. Response spectrum chosen for the analysis
corresponds to zone II and having a soil type II simulating  From the push over analysis results of the OGS
the ground conditions at Warangal city. Further, nonlinear model, it can be seen that the ground storey
static analysis (Push over) is performed using capacity columns are weak and show highest storey drift at a
spectrum method along with performance levels defined in performance level of Life Safety (LS) based on
ATC-40 to understand its seismic performance storey drift ratios given in ATC40.
characteristics.  The IS modified frame is found to improve the
performance of the structure, but the ground storey
Comparison ofbare frame and OGS frame columns still undergo large lateral displacements
and develop plastic hinges.
It can be observed from the capacity curve (push-over
 Push over analysis results of the three strategies
curve) that the initial stiffness of the OGS frame is 7.5 times
(S1, S2 and S3) indicates their performance levels
the stiffness of the bare frame. This increase in stiffness of
and table.1indicates the performance points and
the frame is attributed to the diagonal compression strut
performance levels of the OGS frame, the
action of the infill walls when subjected to lateral loads.
strengthened frames S1, S2, S3, the IS modified
frame and also the fully infilled frame.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Special Issue: 13 | ICISE-2015 | Dec-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 164
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Figure.3:hinge formation in OGS frame(left) ; performance point for OGS frame(right)

Building Performance point (kN,mm) Performance state

OGS frame (8260,7.41) Life Safety

S1 (8228,0.16) Immediate Occupancy
S2 (7627,0.535) Immediate Occupancy
S3 (8630,0.24) Immediate Occupancy
Fully infill frame (FI) (8058,0.11) Immediate Occupancy
IS frame (7298.5,1.171) Damage control
Table.1: Performance point and Performance states

 From table.1 it is clear that even though the IS frame improves the performance of the OGS model; the deformation is
still high.
 The deformationsof the strengthened models are lower and offer better performance than the IS frame. Strategies S1 and
S3 significantly improves the performance state of the OGS from Life Safety to Immediate Occupancy.

Comparison of storey drifts

 The plot showing the inter-storey drifts vs. storey number is developed for each model as shown in Fig.5.
 The OGS frame has large inter-storey drift in the first floor having a performance level of Collapse Prevention (CP).
 The IS modified frame though it increases the performance of the structure, still lies in the IO – LS range (Damage
Control).
 The storey drift for S1 and S3 are uniform while for S2, the first storey shows higher storey drift.

Inter-storey drift
5
OGS
interstorey drift(%)

4
S1
3 S2
2 S3
1 IS frame
0 IO
0 2 4 6 8 LS
storey number CP

Figure.4:Inter-storey drifts

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Special Issue: 13 | ICISE-2015 | Dec-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 165
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

Comparison of Stiffness
 The initial stiffness obtained from the capacity curve for fully infilled frame is the highest having a value of 8433kN/mm.
 In S1, 60% of the open area in the ground floor is filled with infill and the corresponding stiffness is 8215kN/mm (i.e.
96% of FI) while the percentage of open area infilled in S2 and S3 are 40% and their corresponding stiffness values are
66% and 96% respectively.
 It is evident from these results that S2 has comparable stiffness to the FI at 40% infill area while S1 takes 60% of the
open area.

Capacity curves
2000000
base shear(kN)

1500000
FI
1000000
500000 S1
0 S2
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 S3
roof displacement(m)

Figure.5: Building capacity curves

Comparison of time period

Figure.7shows the variation of time period of vibrationvs mode numberfor the OGS frame as well as the strengthened frames. It
can be seen that the presence of infill in the structures reduces the time period of vibration of the structure.

Time period
8
Mode number

6 OGS
4 S1
2
0 S2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 S3

time period(sec) FI

Figure.6:time period vs. mode number

5. CONCLUSION  The modification factor of 2.5 given in IS 1893

part1 is found to improve the performance of the
This study highlights the poor seismic performance of a OGS frame but still produces large displacements
building with soft ground storey. Seismic analysis of in the soft storey.
models with soft storey was performed and effect of infill in  The time periods of the infilled frames are less than
improving the stiffness of the bare frame was observed. the OGS frame due to the increased stiffness
From the seismic analysis of the various models considered, offered by the infills.
the following conclusions are drawn.  Out of the three strategies considered, S1 frame
 The effect of masonry infill is found to increase the gave the best results in terms of capacity and
lateral stiffness of the bare frame structure by a performance point but occupies 60% of the open
magnification factor of 7.5. space limiting its functionality.
 The OGS frame is found to be at a performance  Both S1 and S3improve the stiffness of the OGS
state of Life Safety as per the storey drift ratios frame to the level of 96% of the fully infilled
given in ATC40. Hence strengthening strategies are frame. But S3 has less than 50% of its ground
adopted to increase the performance state of the storey level restricted (40%) thereby improving
OGS frame. functionality as compared with S1.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Special Issue: 13 | ICISE-2015 | Dec-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 166
IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308

NOTATIONS Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology,

Volume 4, Issue 4, eISSN: 2319-1163
 αH and αL – horizontal and lateral projection of the [3] L. Teresa Guevara – Perez (2012) – “ Soft storey and
diagonal strut Weak Storey in Earthquake Resistant Design: A Multi-
 θ – angle the diagonal strut makes with the Dimensional Approach” Proceedings of the 15th World
horizontal. Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa.
 Em and Ef– modulus of elasticity of masonry and [4] C V R Murthy, Sudhir K Jain (2000) – “ Beneficial
frame respectively. influence of masonry infill walls on seismic
 FI – fully infilled frame performance of RC Frame Buildings” Proceedings of
 h – height of the infill wall the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
 Ib and Ic – moment of inertia of beam and frame. Auckland, New Zealand
 L – length of the infill wall [5] Vindhya Bhagawan, G.V. Sowjanya, Chethan Kumar B,
 OGS – Open Ground Storey Sandheep Kumar D.S (2014) – “Seismic Performance
 S1, S2, S3 – strengthening strategies 1, 2 and 3. of Friction Pendulum bearing by considering Storey
 t – thickness of the masonry infill drift and lateral displacement” International Journal of
 W – width of equivalent diagonal strut Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume 3,
Issue 8, eISSN: 2319-1163.
REFERENCES [6] IS 1893 Part 1 (2002) “Indian Standard Criteria for
[1] Thusar. K. Padhy, A Meher Prasad, DevdasMenon Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, Bureau of
(2010) – “Seismic Performance Assessment of Open Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Ground Storey Buildings” Journal Of Structural [7] Applied Technical Council (1996) “ Recommended
Engineering, Vol. 37, No. 2, 117-124. methodology for seismic evaluation and retrofitting of
[2] D.J.Chaudari,Prajakta T. Raipure, (2015) – “ Fragility buildings” Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City,
Analysis of Open Ground storey RC Building designed California.
using various multiplication factors” International

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 04 Special Issue: 13 | ICISE-2015 | Dec-2015, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 167