International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

Seismic Analysis Comparison of Regular and Vertically Irregular

RC Building with Soft Storey at Different Level
Rakshith Gowda K.R1, Bhavani Shankar2
1

PG Student, Dept. of Civil Engg. Srinivas School of Engineering, Mukka, Mangalore-574146

Asst Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg. Srinivas School of Engineering, Mukka, Mangalore-574146

ABSTRACT: The present investigation is to study the behavior of multi storyed RC 3-D frame regular building and
vertically irregular (stepped) building in which soft storeys are provided at different level for different load
combinations. Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are analyzed for earth quake loading as per IS 1893 (Part 1):2002
the various load combinations as per IS: 875 (part 5) are used for design of structure. ETABS (9.7.4) is used for
modeling and analysis RC buildings. It is necessary to study and to examine various alternative models of reinforced
concrete moment resisting frame building with soft storey at different level, the performance of all the building models is
observed in high seismic zone V. In the present paper an investigation has been made to study the behavior of RC frames
when subjected to static and dynamic earthquake loading. The result of bare frame, frame with infill, and different
location of soft storey provided are compared and conclusion are made in view of IS code. It is observed that, providing
infill improves earthquake resistant behavior of the structure when compared to soft storey provided.
Keywords: Soft storey, Masonry infill, Static and Dynamic Analysis, Storey displacement, Storey Drift, Seismic loads

1. INTRODUCTION
Constructions of multi-storeyed RC frame buildings are becoming increasingly common in urban India. Many such
buildings constructed in recent times have a special feature, because of the scarcity of land, the ground storey is left open
for the purpose of parking, that is columns in the ground storey do not have any partition walls (of either masonry or RC)
between them. Such buildings are often called open ground storey (OGS) buildings. A soft storey is one in which the
lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent of that in the storey above or less than 80 percent of average lateral stiffness of the
three storeys above. Soft storey is now a days unavoidable feature for the most of the urban multistory buildings for
vehicle parking, shops, etc. The open storey becomes soft and weak relative to the other storeys.
Vertical irregularities in buildings are very common feature in urban area. In most of situations, buildings become
vertically irregular at the planning stage itself due to some architectural and functional reasons. Among them Open ground
storey as well as stepped types of buildings are very common. During an earthquake, failure of structure starts at points of
weakness. This weakness arises due to discontinuity in mass, stiffness and geometry of structure. From the past
earthquakes it was evident that the major type of failure that occurred in soft storey buildings included snapping of lateral
ties, crushing of core concrete, buckling of longitudinal reinforcement bars etc,. The structures having this discontinuity
are termed as Irregular structures. Irregular structures contribute a large portion of urban infrastructure. Vertical
irregularities are one of the major reasons of failures of structures during earthquakes.

2. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL MODEL

In the present study two different buildings, regular and vertically irregular building in which soft storey are provided
at different storey level are modeled using ETABS (9.7.4) package and analyzed. The properties of the considered
building configurations in the present study are summarized below.

157
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

Modeling details of building

Plan Dimension
Spacing between frames
No of storeys
Storey height

5030m
5m along both the directions
G+14
3.5m

Building frame system

Building use
Foundation type
Seismic zone
Soil type

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

Commercial
Fixed
Zone Type-V
Medium soil

Importance factor (I)

Response Reduction Factor (R)

Damping Ratio
Material Properties
Grade of steel
Grade of concrete and its Youngs modulus M20
(E)
M25
M30
Density of concrete
Poissons ratio (of concrete)
Modulus of elasticity of infill
Compressive strength
Density of infill
Poissons ratio (of infill)
Structural members
Thickness of slab
Thickness of wall
Column size in different Storey 1-5
M20
storeys
Storey 6-10
M25
Storey 11-15
M30
Beam size in
Storey 1-5
M20
different storeys
Storey 6-10
M25
Storey 11-15
M30
Assumed Load Intensities
Dead Load
Roof
Floor
Live Load
Roof
Floor

3
5%
Fe 415
22.36106 KN/m2
25106 KN/m2
27.38106KN/m2
25 KN/m3
0.20
4675103 KN/m2
1.9 KN/m2
19 KN/m3
0.15
150 mm (M20 concrete)
200mm
0.75m0.4m
0.75m0.3m
0.6m0.25m
0.6m0.4m
0.6m0.3m
0.5m0.25m
2.0 KN/m2
2.0 KN/m2
1.5 KN/m2
4.0KN/m2

3. MODEL CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS

Following fourteen models are analyzed as special moment resisting frame using equivalent static analysis and
response spectrum analysis.

158
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

Fig 3.1: Regular Building (Type-1)

Model
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Fig 3.2: Irregular(Stepped) Building(Type-2)

Regular Building
Bare Frame
Full Masonry Infill
Soft Storey at Ground Floor
Soft Storey at First Floor
Soft Storey at Fourth Floor
Soft Storey at Ninth Floor
Soft Storey at Fourteenth Floor

Model
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Irregular(Stepped) Building
Bare Frame
Full Masonry Infill
Soft Storey at Ground Floor
Soft Storey at First Floor
Soft Storey at Fourth Floor
Soft Storey at Ninth Floor
Soft Storey at Fourteenth Floor

4. LOAD COMBINATIONS
The following load combinations are considered for the analysis:
Combination 1- (DL + LL + EQLX)
Combination 2- (DL + LL + EQLY)
Combination 3- (DL + LL + RSLX)
Combination 4- (DL + LL + RSLY)

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results are presented by plotting the graph for each models considered in the study. The analysis carried out is
equivalent static analysis and dynamic analysis (response spectrum analysis). The result of Storey displacement, Inter
storey drift, Base shear and Fundamental time period at the first mode is presented for all models. In this study regular
building is compared with irregular building, the performance of all the building models is observed in high seismic
zone V.

159
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

120.000
TOP STOREY DISPLACEMENT

100.000
80.000
60.000

TYPE-1

40.000

TYPE-2

20.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.1: Top Storey displacement of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-1
14.000
12.000
MAX DRIFT

10.000
8.000

Type-1

6.000

Type-2

4.000
2.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.2: Max Drift of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-1
35000.00
30000.00
BASE SHEAR

25000.00
20000.00

TYPE-1

15000.00

TYPE-2

10000.00
5000.00
0.00
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.3: Base Shear of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-1

160
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

TOP STOREY DISPLACEMENT

200.000
150.000
100.000

TYPE-1
TYPE-2

50.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.4: Top Storey displacement of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-2
30.000

MAX DRIFT

25.000
20.000
15.000

Type-1
Type-2

10.000
5.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.5: Max Drift of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-2
25000.00

BASE SHEAR

20000.00
15000.00
TYPE-1

10000.00

TYPE-2

5000.00
0.00
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.6: Base Shear of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-2

161
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

TOP STOREY DISPLACEMENT

70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000

TYPE-1

30.000

TYPE-2

20.000
10.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.7: Top Storey displacement of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-3
7.000
6.000
MAX DRIFT

5.000
4.000

Type-1

3.000

Type-2

2.000
1.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.8: Max Drift of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-3
30000.00

BASE SHEAR

25000.00
20000.00
15000.00

TYPE-1

10000.00

TYPE-2

5000.00
0.00
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.9: Base Shear of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-3

162
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

120.000

TOP STOREY DISPLACEMENT

100.000
80.000
60.000

TYPE-1

40.000

TYPE-2

20.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.10: Top Storey displacement of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-4
14.000
12.000
MAX DRIFT

10.000
8.000

Type-1

6.000

Type-2

4.000
2.000
0.000
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.11: Max Drift of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-4
20000.00

BASE SHEAR

15000.00
10000.00

TYPE-1
TYPE-2

5000.00
0.00
1

TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.12: Base Shear of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Load Combination-4

163
www.ijete.org

International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Engineering (IJETE)

Volume 1 Issue 6, July 2014, ISSN 2348 8050

3.5

TIME PERIOD

3
2.5
2

TYPE-1

1.5

TYPE-2

1
0.5
0
1

4
5
TYPES OF MODEL

Fig 5.13: Time Period of Type-1 and Type-2 building for Mode-1

6. CONCLUSION
1. The bare frame structure exhibits the maximum displacements and the structure with complete infill exhibits
minimum displacements compared to all other in both static and dynamic loading for both vertically regular and
irregular buildings.
2. The inter storey drift was observed to be maximum in vertically irregular structure when compared with that of
regular structure.
3. For regular frame the maximum inter storey was observed in bare frame static analysis in X- direction whereas in
model with 10th floor soft storey in Y-direction.
4. The Base shear values are observed to be more for the frames with complete infill, whereas the bare frame models
exhibit the minimum value in both X and Y-direction.
5. Hence it can be concluded that the buildings with complete infill exhibits the minimum displacement and the inter
storey drift in comparison with that of bare frame and all other models with different soft storey.
6. If the frame cannot be provided with complete infill, the soft storey can be provided in the 5th floor as the this
model exhibits comparatively less displacement and inter storey drift and 10th floor shall be avoided as this model
had maximum displacement and inter storey drift in comparison with the models with soft storey in other
locations.
7. The displacement is observed to be minimum in regular building when compared with the irregular building for
time period mode-1. Hence it can be concluded that the regular building is safer than irregular building.
REFRENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

P.B.Lamb and Dr R.S. Londhe. et al, Seismic Behavior of Soft First Storey, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering, Volume 4, Issue 5 (Nov. - Dec. 2012), PP 28-33
Md Irfanullah and Vishwanath.B.Patil. et al, Seismic Evaluation of RC Framed Buildings with Influence of
Masonry Infill Panel, IJRTE, Volume-2, Issue-4, September 2013.
A.S.Kasnale and Dr. S.S.Jamkar. et al, Study of Seismic performance for soft basement of RC framed
Buildings, IOSR Journal of Mechanical & civil Engineering, ISSN: 2278-1684.
Dr. Saraswati Setia and Vineet Sharma. Et al, Seismic Response of R.C.C Building with Soft Storey,
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, Vol.7 No.11 (2012).
N. Sivakumar, S. Karthik and S. Thangaraj. et al, Seismic Vulnerability of Open Ground Floor Columns in Multi
Storey Buildings, IJSER, Volume 1 Issue 3, November 2013, PP: 52-58.
IS: 1893 (Part 1): 2002 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of structures.

164
www.ijete.org