Evaluation Seismic Response For Soft Storey Building Retrofitted With Infill

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/341888131
Evaluation Seismic Response for Soft Storey Building Retrofitted with Infill,
Steel Bracing and Shear Wall
Article · May 2020

DOI: 10.46610/JOST.2020.v05i02.001
CITATIONS READS
10 1,539
2 authors:
Dhiraj Ahiwale Rushikesh Khartode

Vidya Pratishthan’s, College of Engineering, Baramati Vidya Pratishthan’s, College of Engineering, Baramati
21 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Energy-consuming Elements View project
Mix Proportioning of High Strength Concrete using Manufactured Sand View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dhiraj Ahiwale on 29 June 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of e-ISSN: 2581-950X
Structural Technology Volume-5, Issue-2 (May-August, 2020)
www.matjournals.com https://doi.org/10.46610/JOST.2020.v05i02.001
Evaluation Seismic Response for Soft Storey Building Retrofitted with

Infill, Steel Bracing and Shear Wall
Dhiraj D Ahiwale*1, Rushikesh R Khartode1
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Vidya Pratishthan’s Kamalnayan Bajaj Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Baramati, Pune, India
*Corresponding Author: dhiraj.ahiwale@vpkbiet.org
ABSTRACT Keywords-- Capacity curve, open ground storey,

Open ground construction is quite prevalent performance point, pushover analysis
from last 25 years in metropolitan India.
Buildings with open ground stories are to be
particularly exposed to collapse, and severe INTRODUCTION
damage under earthquake excitation. Although,
many buildings constructed in recent times have The building damage or collapse may be
been observed adverse effect during Bhuj occurred during minor, moderate and major
earthquake. In present work, twelve storied earthquakes. The structure has to survive such level
building are taken into account and the of earthquake ground motion without collapse of
performance of structure evaluated by using structural framework, but possibly some structural
pushover analysis in SAP 2000 software. The as well as non-structural damage. In India open
analytical results discussed in the nature of ground construction is quite prevalent from last 25
capacity curve, structure performance point and years and its adverse effect was observed for open
plastic hinge development pattern. Result ground storey building failed during Bhuj
indicated that, there are formations of plastic earthquake (Fig. 1). The Pushover analysis has been
hinges at ground storey column level. To widely studies by the researchers since the 1994
counteract the total collapse of soft storey Northridge Earthquake and other major earthquakes
structures, there is need to retrofit the open around the world. The objective of pushover
storey. Therefore, the alternative measures are analysis is to develop design methodologies that
recommended to get better the reaction of soft produce seismic performance of structures under
storey like RC shear wall, steel bracing, and stated levels of seismic hazards.
infill wall.
Figure 1: Collapse of open ground storey building during Bhuj earthquake.
1 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

Kashid has been attempted to develop the Form analysis conclusions were drawn that the top
method for seismic analysis in Indian code IS 1893- deflection was reduced and reached within the
2002 and for that followed Federal Emergency permissible deflection after providing the RC shear
Management Agency (FEMA) code of America [1]. wall [6]. Maheri and Akbari researched seismic
Golghate et al. conclude that the pushover analysis performance factor for steel X bracing and knee
gives failure or damages in members more bracing RC framed structures. The impacts of
accurately under seismic loading [2]. certain parameters influencing the estimation of R
Fredrick and Oretaaa introduced the factor, including the height of the frame, applied
seismic weakness appraisal of soft storey load and the type of bracing system were
asymmetrical structures utilizing performance based considered. It was discovered that the last two
seismic design. In this investigation, they have parameters have a progressively confined impact on
expected that the properties and structural members the R values [7].
for each storey are constant. The investigation has According to the literature review, a little
discovered that uncertainties in vertical work has been completed by researcher identified
irregularities are the limitation of seismic interest. with finding seismic response assessment of
For soft storey structures, the centralization of existing RCC structure with open storey utilizing
seismic interest is the place the soft storey is found. performance based seismic design. Along these
Information from the performance based seismic lines, it is proposed to think about the retrofitting of
design is transformed into score modifiers for the open storey utilizing RC shear wall, steel bracing,
shifting soft storey seriousness which might be and infill wall. Subsequently, the present research
utilized for starter hazard evaluation apparatus [3]. means to deliberate the impacts of RC shear wall,
Dolsek and Fajfar contemplated a four- storey steel bracing, and infill wall subjected to seismic
strengthened concrete frame with brick work infill, effect on structures. Four distinctive basic cases
with and without openings were considered. A were used to assess the exhibition of structure
correlation has been made with the performance of during seismic occasion.
the bare frame. The examinations result presumed
that the infill can totally change the movement of DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
destruction all through the structure. The infill can
beneficially affect the structural reaction, gave that The twelve storey reinforced concrete
they are put consistently all through the structure, SMRF force-resisting system is used in this study in
and that they don't cause shear failures of column order to evaluate performance point of structure.
sections [4]. Inel and Ozmen exhibited the potential All the building models consist of RC SMRF in
contrasts in the after effects of Pushover both orthogonal directions and have the same floor
examination because of default and user-defined plan geometry as illustrated in Fig. 2. All selected
nonlinear segment properties. The inner frames of 4
models have five bays with 6.0 m spacing in
and 7- storey structures were considered in
horizontal direction and with 5.0 m spacing in
nonlinear static examinations to address low-and
transverse direction. The model storey has a height
medium rise RC structures for study nonlinear static
assessment [5]. Kadid and Boumrkik assessed the of 3.5 m. The design live load was taken as 1.5
presentation of framed structures under future kN/m2 on roof floor and 3.0 kN/m2 on all other
anticipated seismic event; a performance based floors. The design dead load was calculated for a
seismic design has been led. Three framed slab thickness of 150 mm. The concrete slab has
structures with 5, 8 and 12 stories separately were been modeled and defined as a rigid diaphragm. All
analyzed to accomplish this target. The outcomes columns and beams have rectangular cross-sections
got from this examination indicated that of different sizes. Element sizes have been
appropriately designed frames performed well determined based on linear analysis. All concrete
under seismic loads [6]. elements are designed according to IS 456–2000
Bhunia and Ramjiyani studied the RCC [22] and the gravity loads along with live loads as
medium rise building of 15 stories under seismic per IS 875 (Part II). The unit weight of reinforced
events in zone V as per Indian code provision. concrete was taken as 25kN/m3. All reinforced
Total three cases were investigated (a) bare frame concrete elements have a concrete compressive
model (b) RC shear wall at outer bays in short strength of 25 MPa. A concrete damping ratio of
direction (c) RC shear walls at inner bays in shorter 5% has been selected in SAP 2000. For illustration,
direction. A wide column frame analogy method Fig. 3 shows elevations of both lateral force-
was employed to model shear wall. The outcome resisting systems of the SMRF building with twelve
were distinguished between bare frame model and
stories. The building is located in seismic zone-V
RC shear wall at inner side and outer side to find
with resting on medium soil strata.
out the location of RC shear wall in the structure.

Figure 2: Plan of Building.
Elevation of building 3-D view of building

Figure 3: Elevation of building on Plain ground.
MODELLING OF STRUCTURE IN SAP2000 modulus of elasticity- 13800 MPa, density- 20

kN/m3, poisson’s ratio: 0.2
In all the models, the support condition is
assumed to be fixed. All the slabs are considered as Modeling of infill wall
shell element. The infill walls were provided below
all the beams except the first floor beams. The Modeling of masonry infill in structure
thickness of wall considered as 230 mm. The masonry wall demonstrated as proportionate
material properties of masonry infill wall are propped outlines with masonry infill supplanted by
equivalent diagonal strut [20] as appeared in Fig. 5.

Figure 4: Effective dimension of infill [20].
The flexible in-plane solidness of a strong Where;

Emt sin 2
unreinforced brick work infill board before splitting
with an equivalent diagonal compression strut of 4
width (Weff) is given by condition 1 and 2. 4 EcIchm
λh = (2)
Weff  0.175  h hcol 
0.4
rm
(1)
Z-
Plane
X - Plane
Figure 5: SAP model considering infill wall as equivalent strut.

PUSHOVER METHODOLOGY uses sequential elastic analysis, superimposed to

approximate force-displacement diagram of the
The capacity spectrum method of general structure. The yielding resistance of
pushover analysis procedure is discussed below. members reduced by modified mathematical model
and again lateral forces applied to get additional
Capacity Curve yielding in members. A typical capacity curve is
shown in Fig. 6. The pushover capacity curve
The individual member capacity governs approximate structures behaviour after exceeding
the capacity of structure. So as to work their elastic limit.
out capacities beyond the elastic limits, some sort
of nonlinear analysis is required. This procedure
Figure 6: Capacity Curve.
Capacity spectrum using modal analysis. The capacity curve is

transformed to obtain the capacity spectrum curve
The spectral acceleration and spectral using the modal shape vectors, participation factors
displacement of the equivalent single degree of and modal masses obtained from a modal analysis
freedom structure is obtained from the conversion of the structure. A typical capacity spectrum is as
of the base shear and displacement of the structure shown in Fig. 7.
Figure 7: Capacity spectrum.
Demand Curve earthquake ground motion. Tracking this motion

at whenever step to work out structural design
The horizontal displacement patterns are requirements is impractical. For a given structure
complex which may vary with time according to the and a ground motion, the displacement demands are

estimate of the utmost expected response of the ground motion. It is given by spectral acceleration
building during the bottom motion. Demand (Sa) Vs. Time period (T) as shown in Fig. 8.
curve may be a representation of the earthquake
Figure 8: Demand curve.
Demand spectrum response spectrum-Sa vs. Sd format). A typical

demand spectrum is as shown in Fig. 9.
The Demand curve is converted into
demand spectrum (acceleration displacement
Figure 9: Elastic response spectrum.
Performance point after superimposing the capacity spectrum and

demand spectrum curve which is shown in Fig. 10.
The performance point is the intersection
Figure 10: Performance point.

Pushover analysis using SAP 2000 software force is applied on building then the force is
developed in strut which acts like a compression
A building frame is modeled in SAP2000. strut. Axial hinge is provided at the centre of the
The member properties are assigned and the model strut. Yield force is calculated based on formulae
is loaded from slabs, beams, columns, walls, given in FEMA 356 [20]. Based on these values of
ceilings, finishes and these loads are calculated by acceptable criteria of hinge are calculated. Axial
using conventional methods according to IS 456– properties are defined based on nonlinear properties
2000 [22] and the gravity loads along with live such as yield force, displacement control parameter
loads as per IS 875 (Part II). A gravity analysis is and acceptance criteria. After the analysis pushover
carried out then the lateral loads and their vertical curve hinge formation pattern at performance point
distribution on each floor level are determined as can be obtained and they are studied to get the
per IS 1893 [19]. After assigning all properties to required parameters.
model, the gravity analysis is carried out. The
model is then unlocked and push load is defined in ANALYTICAL RESULTS
the load case. Pushover hinges in terms of Capacity curves and seismic performance point of
allowable plastic rotations are defined. The building
program includes several built-in default hinge
properties, available in some programs based on the Capacity curves and general graph of
FEMA-356 [20] and ATC-40 guidelines. In this seismic performance point for gravity designed 12
study, only the moment hinges have been defined at storied buildings in both X and Y directions are
both the ends of beam and axial load and bi-axial appeared in Fig. 11 to 14 respectively. Results
moment hinges have been defined at the column explored that the value of base shear increases and
ends. The moment-rotation relations and the roof displacement decreases at performance point
acceptance criteria for the performance levels of the when open storey retrofitted with infill, steel
hinges are obtained from FEMA356 [20] and are bracing and shear wall respectively in X and Y
directly taken from the SAP2000 as auto hinges. In direction.
this study, wall is considered as strut. If the lateral
Figure 11: Capacity curve of open ground storey, open ground storey retrofitted with infill, shear wall and steel
bracing in X direction.
Figure 12: Capacity curve of open ground storey, open ground storey retrofitted with infill, shear wall and steel
bracing in Y direction.

Figure 13: Seismic performance point of building in X direction for open storey.
Figure 14: Seismic performance point of building in Y direction for open storey.

Comparison of results open ground storey retrofitted with infill, steel

bracing and shear wall respectively. The minor
Comparison of open ground storey with change in roof displacement is observed for three
three retrofitting strategies between time period, retrofitting strategies. It is also observed that,
base shear, roof displacement, and ductility at ductility decreased by 13%, 18%, 21% in X-
performance point are shown in Fig. 15 to 18 direction and 16%, 18%, 23% in Y- direction when
respectively. It is observed that the value of open ground storey retrofitted with infill, steel
fundamental time period reduced by 6%, 11%, 20% bracing and shear wall respectively.
and base shear increased by 9%, 15%, 27/% when
Figure 15: Comparison of Time period at performance point for various retrofitting strategies.
Figure 16: Comparison of base shear at performance point for various retrofitting strategies.
Figure 17: Comparison of roof displacement at performance point for various retrofitting strategies.

Figure 18: Comparison of ductility at performance point for various retrofitting strategies.
Hinge formation pattern (B) - immediate occupancy (IO). Also it is observed

that buildings are failed at open ground storey
The hinge formation patterns at columns due to formation of hinges at that level
performance point for 12 storied building in X and range which is not acceptable criteria for columns.
Y direction are shown in Fig. 19 to Fig. 22. The In case of buildings retrofitted with steel bracing
open ground storey and building retrofitted with and shear wall shows that hinges not developed in
infill failed to give the performance of operational column.
Figure 19: Hinge formation for open ground storey in X and Y direction.
Figure 20: Hinge formation for open ground storey retrofitted with infill in X and Y
direction.

Figure 21: Hinge formation for open ground storey retrofitted with shear wall in X and Y
direction.
Figure 22: Hinge formation for open ground storey retrofitted with steel bracing in X
and Y direction.
CONCLUSIONS and steel X braces.

 Three different strengthening systems adopted
The pushover analysis of twelve storied to improve the seismic performance of
RC frame building with open ground storey deficient buildings. The performance of
retrofitted with infill, steel bracing and shear wall is building is improved to desired level when
carried out using SAP 2000. Following conclusions shear wall placed in outer bay.
can be made
 The infill provided at corner of open ground REFERENCES
storey showed the less performance of
structure in X and Y direction. 1. Nilesh M Kashid (2011), “Performance based
 The maximum base shear carrying capacity is seismic analysis for buildings in India”,
noted in case of shear wall at performance Earthquake Engg., Available at:
point. https://www.engineeringcivil.com/performance
 At performance point, maximum roof -based-seismic-analysis-for-buildings-in-
displacement is observed in case of infill wall india.html.

2. Golghate K, Baradiya V and Sharma A. doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465 (97)00016-4.

(2013), “Pushover Analysis of 4 Storey’s 11. AS Moghdam and W K Tso (2000), “Pushover
Reinforced Concrete Building”, Int. J. of Latest analysis of asymmetric and set-back multi-story
Trends in Engg. and Tech., Volume 2, Issue 3, buildings”, Proc. of the 12th World Conf. on
pp. 80-84, Available at: https://pdfs. Earthqu. Engg., Available at: http://www.
semanticscholar.org/169e/0f24be436ea480b77 iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/1093.pdf.
fbeed92f019c8dba3be.pdf. 12. Kormaz KA, Demir F. and Sivri M. (2007),
3. Adrian Fredrick C Dyaam and Andres Winston “Earthquake assessment of R/C structures with
C Oretaaa (2015), “Seismic vulnerability masonry infill walls”, Int. J. of Sci. & Tech.,
assessment of soft story irregular building Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 155-164, Available at:
using pushover analysis”, Proce. Engg., https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/25c2/7b42a83
Volume 125, pp. 925-932, Available at: 9e255862eecb2b017c94978740f60.pdf.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/169e/0f24be43 13. Kaushik HB, Rai DC and Jain SK (2009),
6ea480b77fbeed92f019c8dba3be.pdf. “Effectiveness of Some Strengthening Options
4. Dolsek M and Fajfar P. (2000), “Soft story for Masonry Infill RC Frames with Open First
effects in uniformly infill reinforced concrete Storey”, J. of Struct. Engg., Volume 135, Issue
frames”, J. of Earthqu. Engg., Volume 5, Issue 8, pp. 925-937, Available at: https://
1, pp. 1-12, Available at: ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%2
doi.org/10.1080/13632460109350383. 90733-9445%282009%29135%3A8%
5. Inel M and Ozmen H B (2008), “Effect of infill 28925%29.
walls on soft story behavior in mid-rise RC 14. Maheri M R and Sahebi A. (1997), “Use of
buildings”, The 14th World Conf. on Earthq. steel bracing in reinforced concrete frames”,
Engg., Beijing China, Volume 5, Issue 4, Engg. Struct., Volume 19, Issue 12, pp. 1018-
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ 1024, Available at: doi.org/10.1016/S0141-
publication/323259154_Effect_of_Infill_Walls 0296 (97)00041-2.
_in_Performance_of_Reinforced_Concrete_Bu 15. Chopra A K and Goel R K. (2001), “A modal
ilding_Structures. pushover analysis procedure to estimate
6. Anshuman Dipendu Bhunia and Bhavin seismic demands for buildings”, Earthquake
Ramjiyani (2011), “Solution of shear wall Engg. Struct. Dynamics, Volume 31, Issue 3,
location in multi- story building”, Int. J. of Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Civil and Struct. Engg., Volume 2, Issue 2, doi/abs/10.1002/eqe.144.
Available at: doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202010128. 16. Fajfar P and Fishinger M. (1988), “N2-A
7. Maheri MR and Akbari R. (2003), “Seismic method for nonlinear seismic analysis of
behavior factor R for steel X-braced and knee- regular buildings”, Proc. of the 9th World Conf.
braced RC buildings”, Engg. Struct., Volume on Earthquake Engg. Tokyo., Volume 5, pp.
25, Issue 12, pp. 1505–1513, Available at: 111-116, Available at: https://www.iitk.ac.in/
doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296 (03)00117-2. nicee/wcee/article/9_vol5_111.pdf.
8. Haque S and Khan MA (2008), “Seismic 17. Fajfar P and Gaperesic P., “The N2 method for
vulnerability of columns of RC framed the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings”,
buildings with soft ground floor”, Int. J. of J. of Earthqu. Engg. and Struct. Dynamics,
Mathe. Models and Methods in Appld. Sci., Volume 25, pp. 31-46, Available at:
Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 364-371, Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002
http://www.naun.org/main/NAUN/ijmmas/mm /%28SICI%291096-
mas-101.pdf. 9845%28199601%2925%3A1%3C31%3A%3
9. Lu Y, Tassios TP, Zhang GF and Vintzileou E AAID-EQE534%3E3.0.CO%3B2-V.
(1999), “Seismic Response of Reinforced 18. Ismaeil M, Sobaih M and Akl A. (2015),
Concrete Frames with Strength and Stiffness “Seismic Capacity Assessment of Existing RC
Irregularities”, ACI Struct. J. Tech. Paper., Buildings in the Sudan by using Pushover
Volume 96, Issue 2, pp. 221-229, Available at: Analysis”, Open J. of Civil Engg., Volume 5,
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Seismic pp. 154-174, Available at: doi.org/10.
-Response-of-Reinforced-Concrete-Frames- 4236/ojce.2015.52016.
with-Lu-Tassios/979073642dd1de6f1234f1 19. IS 1893 (Part I, 2016), “Criteria for Earthquake
7a4d4fd86af5e69cc0. Resistant Design of Structures Part I General
10. Yoshimura M. (1997), “Nonlinear analysis of a Provisions and Buildings”, Bureau of Indian
reinforced concrete building with a soft first Standards, New Delhi, Available at:
story collapsed by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.1893.
earthquake”, J. of Cement and Concr. Compo., 1.2002.pdf.
Volume 19, pp., 213-221, Available at: 20. FEMA 356 (2000), “Prestandard and

Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 27943857/SAP2000_Integrated_Finite_Eleme

Buildings”, Federal Emergency Management nt_Analysis_and_Design_of_Structures_BASI
Agency, Washington D.C., Available at: C_ANALYSIS_REFERENCE.
https://www.conservationtech.com/FEMA- 22. IS 456 (2000), “Code of Practice for Plain and
publications/FEMA356-2000.pdf. Reinforced Concrete”, Bureau of Indian
21. CSI SAP 2000 V-15 (1998), “Integrated finite Standards, New Delhi, Available at:
element analysis and design of structures Basic http://www.iitk.ac.in/ce/test/IS-
analysis reference manual”, Computers and codes/is.456.2000.pdf.
Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA,
Available at: https://www.academia.edu/
View publication stats

Evaluation Seismic Response For Soft Storey Building Retrofitted With Infill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation Seismic Response For Soft Storey Building Retrofitted With Infill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation Seismic Response For Soft Storey Building Retrofitted With Infill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article · May 2020

Dhiraj Ahiwale Rushikesh Khartode

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Energy-consuming Elements View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Evaluation Seismic Response for Soft Storey Building Retrofitted with

*Corresponding Author: dhiraj.ahiwale@vpkbiet.org

ABSTRACT Keywords-- Capacity curve, open ground storey,

Figure 1: Collapse of open ground storey building during Bhuj earthquake.

1 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

2 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

Figure 2: Plan of Building.

Elevation of building 3-D view of building

MODELLING OF STRUCTURE IN SAP2000 modulus of elasticity- 13800 MPa, density- 20

3 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

Figure 4: Effective dimension of infill [20].

The flexible in-plane solidness of a strong Where;

Figure 5: SAP model considering infill wall as equivalent strut.

4 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

PUSHOVER METHODOLOGY uses sequential elastic analysis, superimposed to

Figure 6: Capacity Curve.

Capacity spectrum using modal analysis. The capacity curve is

Figure 7: Capacity spectrum.

Demand Curve earthquake ground motion. Tracking this motion

5 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

Figure 8: Demand curve.

Demand spectrum response spectrum-Sa vs. Sd format). A typical

Figure 9: Elastic response spectrum.

Performance point after superimposing the capacity spectrum and

Figure 10: Performance point.

6 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

7 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

8 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

Comparison of results open ground storey retrofitted with infill, steel

9 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

Hinge formation pattern (B) - immediate occupancy (IO). Also it is observed

10 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

CONCLUSIONS and steel X braces.

11 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

2. Golghate K, Baradiya V and Sharma A. doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465 (97)00016-4.

12 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 27943857/SAP2000_Integrated_Finite_Eleme

13 Page 1-13 © MAT Journals 2020. All Rights Reserved

View publication stats

You might also like