Earthquake Resistant Design of Low Rise Open Ground Storey Framed Building

IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 2 | Issue 07 | January 2016 ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Earthquake Resistant Design of Low Rise Open Ground Storey Framed Building Pratiksha Malviya M. Tech. Scholar Department of Civil Engineering Patel Institute of Technology, Bhopal

Devansh Jain Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering UIT-RGPV, Bhopal

Dr. Gyanendra Singh Professor Department of Civil Engineering Patel Institute of Technology, Bhopal

Abstract Vicinity of infill dividers in the edges changes the conduct of the building under parallel burdens. On the other hand, it is basic industry practice to overlook the solidness of infill divider for investigation of encircled building. Engineers trust that examination without considering infill firmness prompts a preservationist plan. Be that as it may, this may not be constantly genuine, particularly for vertically unpredictable structures with spasmodic infill dividers. Consequently, the displaying of infill dividers in the seismic investigation of confined structures is basic. Indian Standard IS 1893: introwith an augmentation component 2.5 in remuneration for the firmness brokenness. According to the code the segments and light emissions open ground story are to be intended for 2.5 times the story shears and minutes ascertained under seismic heaps of exposed casings (i.e., without considering the infill solidness). In any case, as experienced by the specialists at configuration workplaces, the augmentation variable of 2.5 is not reasonable for low ascent structures. This requires an evaluation and survey of the code prescribed augmentation variable for low ascent open ground story structures. Consequently, the target of this postulation is characterized as to check the pertinence of the duplication element of 2.5 and to examine the impact of infill quality and firmness in the seismic examination of low ascent open ground story building. Infill dividers can be demonstrated in business programming utilizing two-dimensional zone component with fitting material properties for direct versatile investigation.

However, this sort of demonstrating may not work for non -direct examination since the non-straight material properties for a two-dimensional orthotropic component is not extremely surely knew. Seismic assessment of a current strengthened cement (RC) encircled building would constantly require a non -straight investigation. Distributed writing around there prescribes a straight slanting strut way to deal with model infill divider for both direct (Equivalent Static Analysis and Response Spectrum Analysis) and nonlinear examinations (Pushover Analysis and Time History Analysis). A current RC confined building (G+3) with open ground story situated in Seismic Zone-V is considered for this study. This building is dissected for two unique cases: (a) considering both infill mass and infill solidness and (b) considering infill mass yet without considering infill firmness . Two separate models were produced utilizing busines s programming STAAD PRO. Infill weights were demonstrated through applying static dead load and comparing masses considered from this dead load for element examinations. Infill solidness was demonstrated utilizing an askew strut approach. Two distinctive b acking conditions, in particular altered end support condition and stuck end bolster condition, are considered to check the impact of bolster conditions in the duplication variables. Straight and non-direct examinations were did for the models and the outcomes were thought about. The examination results demonstrate that an element of 2.5 is too high to be in any way increased to the bar and section powers of the ground story of low -ascent open ground story structures. This study presume that the issue of op en ground story structures can't be recognized appropriately through flexible investigation as the firmness of open ground story building and a comparable uncovered edge building are practically same. Nonlinear examination uncovers that open ground story b uilding comes up short through a ground story component at a nearly low base shear and removal and the method of disappointment is observed to be fragile. Direct and nonlinear investigations demonstrate that backing condition impacts the reaction extensive ly and can be a critical parameter to choose the power intensification element.

Keywords: Infill Walls, Diagonal Strut, Open Ground Storey, Equivalent Static Analysis, Response Spectrum Analysis, Pushover Analysis, Low Rise Building _________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________

I. INTRODUCTION Because of expanding populace since the previous couple of years auto parking spot for private lofts in populated urban areas is a matter of real concern. Thus the pattern has been to use the ground story of the building itself for stopping. These sorts of buildings having no infill workmanship dividers in ground story, however infilled in every single upper storie, are called Op en

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

37

Earthquake Resistant Design of Low Rise Open Ground Storey Framed Building (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 07 / 009)

Ground Story (OGS) buildings. They are otherwise called 'open first story building' (when the story numbering begins with one starting from the earliest stage itself), 'pilotis', or 'stilted buildings'. It is truly imperative to deliver a computationa l model on which straight/nonlinear, static/dynamic examination is finished. The starting area of this part gives a rundown of different parameters characterizing the computational samples, the essential suppositions and the geometry of the chose building considered for this work.

Precise demonstrating of the nonlinear properties of different auxiliary components is truly imperative in nonlinear examination. In the present work, outline components were demonstrated with inelastic flexural pivots utilizing paint plastic model. An itemized depiction of the nonlinear demonstrating of RC edges is given in this part.

Infill dividers are demonstrated as equal slanting strut components. The last area of the section manages the computational model of the comparable strut including displaying nonlinearity.

II. M ETHODOLOGY The methodology worked out to achieve the above-mentioned objectives is as follows: 1) Review the existing literature and Indian design code provision for designing the OGS building 2) Select an existing building model for the case s tudy.

3) Model the selected building with and without considering infill strength/ stiffness. Models need to consider two types of end support conditions as mentioned above.

4) Linear analysis of the selected building model and a comparative study on the results obtained from the analyses.

5) Nonlinear analysis of the selected building model and a comparative study on the results obtained from the analyses.

6) Observations of results and discussions.

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Pushover investigation is completed for both of the two building models. To begin with pushover examination is ruined the gravity loads (DL+0.25LL) incrementally under burden control. The sidelong pushover examination (PUSH-X and PUSH-Y) is trailed the gravity pushover, under relocation control. The building is pushed in sidelong headings until the development of breakdown instrument. The limit bend (base shear versus rooftop removal) is acquired in X-and Y-headings and introduce. This obviously demonstrates that worldwide solidness of an open ground story building scarcely changes regardless of the fact that the firmness of the infill dividers is disregarded. In the event that there is no significant change in the firmness flexible base shear interest for the building will likewise not change extensively if the solidness of the infill dividers is overlooked. The variety of pushover bends in X-and Y-bearings is in concurrence with the direct investigation results exhibited in the past segment as to the variety of versatile base shear interest for diverse building models.

The above figures are the outcomes from the pushover investigation for stuck end support condition in both X -and Y-course separately. It is found that both of the greatest base shear and rooftop uprooting limit for without -infill case is higher than that of with-infill case. This is valid for both X-and Y-bearing push. Additionally, it is clear from these assumes that building displayed without infill firmness has more malleability contrasted with the building demonstrated with infill solidness.

Figure 1 (an) and (b) show plastic pivot dissemination in a run of the mill X-Z outline at breakdown under X-course push. It is clear that without-infill model uses the full limit of the building before breakdown as the pivots are uniformly circulated in all stories of the building. Though the plastic pivots, for with -infill model, are moved just in the ground story sections and building model comes up short by story system. There is a noteworthy contrast in method of disappointment for the two building models.

Comparative conclusion can be produced using the Y-bearing pushover examination

Fig. 1(a): Distribution of plastic hinges for WI building model

Fig. 1(b): Distribution of plastic hinges for WOI building model

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

38

Earthquake Resistant Design of Low Rise Open Ground Storey Framed Building (IJSTE/ Volume 2 / Issue 07 / 009)

IV. CONCLUSION Followings are the salient conclusions obtained from the present study: 1) IS code gives a value of 2.5 to be multiplied to the ground storey beam and column forces when a building bears to be planned as open ground level buildings or stilt building. The ratio of IR values for columns and DCR values of beams for both the support conditions and building models were found out using ESA and RSA and both the analyses supports that a factor of 2.5 is too eminent to be multiplied to the shaft and column forces of the ground floor. This is es pecially true for low-rise OGS buildings.

2) Problem of OGS buildings cannot be identified properly through elastic analysis as the stiffness of OGS building and Bare-frame construction are nearly same.

3) Nonlinear analysis reveals that OGS building fails through a ground storey mechanism at a comparatively low base shear and displacement. And the manner of failure is found to be brittle.

4) Both elastic and inelastic analyses show that the beams forces at th e ground storey reduce drastically for the presence o f infill stiffness in the adjacent storey. And design force amplification factor need not be applied to ground storey beams.

5) The linear (static/dynamic) analyses show that Column forces at the ground st orey increases for the presence of infill wall in the upper storeys. But design force amplification factor found to be much lesser than 2.5.

6) From the literature available it was found that the support condition for the buildings was not given much importa nce.

Linear and nonlinear analyses show that support condition influences the response considerably and can be an importan t parameter to determine the force amplification factor.

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

A. Asokan, (2006) Modelling of Masonry Infill Walls for Nonlinear Static Analysis of Buildings under Seismic Loads. M. S. T hesis, India n I nstitute o f T echnology Madras, Chennai.

Agarwal P. and Shrikhande M. (2006) Earthquake resistant design of structures, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Al-Chaar, G. (2002) Evaluating strength and stiffness of unreinforced masonry infill structures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. T echnica l Re p or t NO. ERDC/CERL T R-02-1. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Campaign. USA Al-Chaar, G., M. Issa and S. Sweeney (2002) Behaviour of masonry infilled non-ductile RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering. American society of Civil Engineers. 128(8). 1055-1063 Arlekar, J.N.; S. K. Jain and C.V.R Murty (1997) Seismic response of RC frame buildings with soft first storeys. Proceedin gs o f CBRI go lde n jubile e conference on natural hazards in urban habitat. New Delhi Asteris P. G. (2003) Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames. Journal of Structural Engineering. 129(8). 1071-1079 Chopra A. K. (1973) Earthquake resistance of buildings with a soft first storey.

Earthquake and Structural Dynamics. 1. 347-355 Chug, R. (2004) Studies on RC Beams. Columns and Joints for Earthquake Resistant Design. M. Tech Project Report. Indian I nsti tut e o f T e c hno logy Madras, Chennai. India .

Crisafulli F. J. (1999) Seismic Behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Canterbury. New Zealand.

Das, S. (2000) Seismic design of vertically irregular reinforced concrete structures. Ph.D. Thesis. North Carolina State University. Raleigh. NC Das, S. and J. M. Nau (2003) Seismic design aspects of vertically irregular reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Spectra . 19. 455-477 Deodhar, S. V. and A. N. Patel (1998) Ultimate strength of masonry infilled steel frames under horizontal lo ad. Jo ur nal o f St r uctur al E n gin ee r ing.

Structural Engineering Research Centre. 24. 237-241 Dhansekar, M. and A.W. Page (1986) the influence of brick masonry infill properties on the behaviour of infilled frames. Proc eedings of Institution of Civil Engineers. Part 2. 81. 593-605.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org

39