International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056

Volume: 04 Issue: 04 | Apr -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF BOTTOM RIGID BEAM STOREY AND

INTERMEDIATE SOFT STOREY HAVING MOMENT TRANSFER BEAMS
Sujeet Patil1, Prof. Vishwanath B Patil2,
1P
G Student
2Associate
Professor
Dept. of civil Engineering, PDACE Kalaburagi-585102

---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Usually RC framed high rise building structures The present study has 10 different models of 21 storey
are designed neglecting the effect of masonary infill walls . having 5 bays of 11 mts in X-direction and 14 bays of 6 mts
Wheras the masonary infill walls are used for partition . The in Y-direction And a bottom storey height of 10 mts and 2.2
masonary infill walls are treated as non-strucutural elements mts of intermediate soft storey( 11th storey) and 3.2
. RC frame structures having open first storey is known as remaining all storeys.
soft storey . The intermediate soft storey is such an element
where it is left open as service soft storey without infill . DATA VALUES
Therefore the soft storey located at the lower part of high Zone 5TH
rise building experience severe seismic forces being acting soil strength Medium
on them . In satellite bus stop where bottom soft storey Response reduction factor 5
height is more than double height , will have more Importance factor 1
undesirable impact by the seismic forces . Meanwhile the
Modulus of elasticity of brick masonary 35X105kn/m2
soft storey located in the upper part of high rise building
Youngs modulus of M25 concrete,E 25X106 KN/M2
does not significantly effect the overall performance
compared to the performance of the fully infill frame. Young’s modulus of M35 concrete,E 35X106 KN/M2
Density of brick masonary 20
Key Words: Satellite bus stop, seismic analysis of building, GRADE OF CONCRETE
Soft storey, moment transfer beams, shear walls. For beams and slabs M25
For columns and Shear walls M35
1.INTRODUCTION LOADS
Floor finish 2 kn/m2
impose loads 4 kn/m2
The designing methodology of the structure , in India has led SLAB THICKNESS
to the structure being more susceptible to seismic hazards . storeys 1 to 15 150 mm
This has led to the consideration of seismic load into the
storeys 16 to 21 125mm
design to give a safe and durable design to the building . The
various lateral load resisting systems used are 1] Bare frame COLUMN SIZE
2] shear wall 3] bracings. In high rise buildings the major storeys 1 to 15 0.9X1.5 m
matter of concern are the lateral loads , these lateral loads storeys 16 to 21 0.75X1.5 m
can induce vibrations , stresses and can cause seismic lateral
sway of the structure. Due to increase in slenderness , the BEAM SIZE
sway is also dominating, comparatively with high rise Main beams (y -direction) 0.3X0.9 m
building. Moment transfer beams(x-direction) 0.3X0.6 m
In satellite bus stops the probability of all the undesirable Edge beams 0.3X0.6 m
effects are very severe due to the height of soft storey is Bottom main beams ( y-direction) 0.3X1.5 m
double than usual, in order to avoid all undesirable effects Thickness of masoanry wall 0.23 m
various types of shear walls are incorporated in the project.
Thickness of concrete wall 0.23 m
Table 1: Description of structural model
2. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL MODEL

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 840
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 04 | Apr -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

3. MODELS FOR ANALYSIS

A total of 10 models being analyzed by Time History Analysis
(THA) using ETABS 2016.

-MODEL 1:Bare frame without shear walls and masonary

infills.
-MODEL 2:Bare frame with C type shear wall.
-MODEL 3:Bare frame with L type shear wall.
-MODEL 4:Bare frame with I type shear wall.
MODEL 7 MODEL 8
-MODEL 5:Bare frame with Swasthika type shear wall.
-MODEL 6:Frame with masonary infill walls .
-MODEL 7:Frame with masonary infill along with C type
shear wall.
-MODEL 8:Frame with masonary infill along with L type
shear wall.
-MODEL 9:Frame with masonary infill along with I type
shear wall.
-MODEL 10:Frame with masonary infill along with Swasthika
type shear wall.
MODEL 9 MODEL 10

Fig 1: Models

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Ten models have been analyzed by Time History
Analysis[THA] ] for parameters such as fundamental time
period, base shear, storey displacement, storey drift & storey
acceleration. The highest values from the model are taken
for comparision. The various results are listed below.
4.1 Fundamental Time period.
Fundamental time period (in sec)
MODEL 1 MODEL 2
MODEL No Time Period
1 9.998
2 2.216
3 2.612
4 2.23
5 2.219
6 1.841
7 1.318
8 0.431
MODEL 3 MODEL 4 9 1.3
10 0.352
TABLE 2: Fundamental time period for various models.

MODEL 5 MODEL 6

Fig 2: Time period v/s model no. of all the models.

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 841
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 04 | Apr -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

All objects have natural time period, which means the time Base shear in KN
MODEL NO.
taken by the object to move to and fro. We can see when the THA
pendulum is pushed it moves to and fro at its own pace , with 1 80020.2368
its own time period, same way the ground also moves in the 2 71660.6646
same time period. This can become a serious problem if the 3 68201.3202
ground and the building experiences the same time period. 4 73840.2182
5 76829.622
Resonance is said to occur if the ground and building
6 201650
oscillates at the same time period. This is the state of time
7 244927
when disasters are said to occur if the time period of ground 8 193590
and building matches and are equal. A smaller building will 9 252539
swing back and froth quickly, and the taller building will 10 229786
move back and froth bit slow comparatively. Therefore less Table 4: comparision of highest values of base shear along y-
time period will be more catastropic. Therefore height of the direction by THA.
building is the important component in time period.
From table 1 time period for for model 1 is 9.998,
which is very large compared to all other models . For model
2,3,4,5 the time period reduces by 77.83%, 73.87%,77.69%,
77.80% respectively. The time period further reduces for
model 6,7,8,9,10, comparing to the model 1 by 81.58%,
86.81%,95.69%, 86.99%, 96.48% respectively.
From table 1 the time period by ETABS values are
differing for different models . Thus it can be concluded that
presence of concrete shear wall and brick masonary infill Fig4: Base shear v/s model in y-direction.
walls considerably reduces the time period of the building. 4.3 Storey Displacement
Displacements in mm
4.2 Base shear MODEL NO.
THA
Base shear in
MODEL NO. KN 1 417.451
THA 2 114.3
1 28744.9095 3 144.9
2 69625.9284 4 111.6
3 54668.5065 5 100
4 66770.676 6 56.6
5 80124.7796 7 74.6
6 68638.4977 8 10.4
7 120358.1666 9 76.3
8 189906.4118 10 10.5
9 133275.1369 Table 5: comparision of highest values of displacements in x-
10 208395.8281 direction by THA.
Table 3: comparision of highest values of base shear among
all the models by THA.

Fig 5: Displacements v/s model in x-direction.

Fig3: base shear v/s model in x-direction.

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 842
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 04 | Apr -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

4.4 Storey Drift

MODEL NO. Displacements in mm
Drift in m
THA MODEL NO.
THA
1 99.488
1 0.010781
2 101.1
2 0.002756
3 98 3 0.003333
4 100.7 4 0.002659
5 99.7 5 0.002491
6 55.3 6 0.003452
7 33.4 7 0.002359
8 7 8 0.000354
9 34.1 9 0.002407
10 7.7 10 0.000296
Table 7: Comparision of highest values of Drift along X-
Table 6: comparision of highest values of displacements in Y- direction by THA.
direction by THA

Fig 7: Drift values v/s models along X-direction.

Fig 6: Displacements v/s models in Y-direction. Drift in m

MODEL NO.
THA
The maximum displacements at every storey with respective
1 0.000965
to the ground storey is given in the tabulated format from
2 0.001278
ETABS. The graph are also given in the form of charts to 3 0.00159
understand the behaviour of the building along X & Y 4 0.001395
direction. 5 0.001342
Model 1 has highest displacements values along X-direction 6 0.003769
compared to the other models .Due to the added shear walls 7 0.002222
in model 2,3,4,5 the displacements values are reduced to 8 0.001052
72.62%, 65.28%, 73.26%, 76.04% respectively. Due to the 9 0.002554
added masoanry infills to the models 6,7,8,9,10 the 10 0.001044
displacement values are reduced to 86.44%, 82.12%, Table 8: comparision of highest drift values along Y-direction
by THA.
97.05%, 81.72%, 97.48% respectively. The displacements
values are not so drastically varying along the Y-direction as
in the case of X-direction . This can also reveal that due to
higher stiffness along the Y-direction the dislacements
values are least and varies gradually as per the stiffness of
the structure.
Thus it can be concluded that inclusions of shear wall and
masonary infills the drift and displacements values can be
reduced in Reinforced concrete buildings .

Fig 8: Drift values v/s models in Y-direction.

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 843
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 04 | Apr -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

The permissible storey drift according to the IS1893-2002 is 4 2155.55

limited to the 0.004 times the storey height. So that the very 5 1815.87
minimum damage take place when earthquake occur. The 6 2435.42
drift for various building models along longitudnal and 7 3397.12
transverse direction obtained by ESA shown in above table. 8 3614.65
By comparing all the models, we can say that bare 9 3777.15
frame model experience more drift than the frame with 10 5724.4
masonary infill and shear wall. The drift values is more at the Table 10: comparision of highest values of acceleration
bottom soft storey and it goes on reducing as we go up the (mm/sec2) in Y-direction by THA.
higher stories, and it dips slightly at the intermediate soft
storey . If stiffness is more than the drift values are less.
Hence we can conclude that shear wall and masonary infiil
will significantly reduces the drift values.

4.5 Storey Acceleration.

MODEL NO. Acceleration in mm/sec2

THA
1 2095.84
2 2173.63
3 2215.42
4 2340.61
Fig10: acceleration along Y-direction.
5 2387.99
6 1878.44
7 3075.02 5. CONCLUSIONS:
8 3860.97
9 3712.32 1. Fundamental time period decreases when the effect
10 4607.32
Table 9: comparision of highest value of acceleration in X- of masonry infill wall and concrete shear wall is
direction of all the models by THA. considered.
2. The RC frame model 1(bare frame) having highest
value of time period compared to masonry infill
with soft Story.
3. Fundamental time period decreases when the
stiffness of masonry infill and concrete shear wall is
considered.
4. The time period of model 10 is least due to increase
in stiffness by both masonary infill and also shear
Fig 9: acceleration along X-direction . wall.
From table 9 we can conclude that model which is stiffened 5. The presence of masonry infill and shear wall in the
with masoanry infill and to which swasthika type shear wall
structure reduces the Story drifts.
is provided ,showing highest storey acceleration among all
other models in the X-direction 6. Story displacements are more for the bare frame
model and the inclusion of shear wall reduces the
Acceleration in mm/sec2 displacements.
MODEL NO.
THA
1 1797.63
2 2005.08
3 1957.79

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 844
 International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 04 | Apr -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

7. Providing shear wall at all end corners of the 7. Hiten L. Kheni, Anuj K. Chandiwala” Seismic
Response of RC Building with Soft Stories”,
building in X and Y direction significantly improves
International Journal of Engineering Trends and
all parameters in the analysis. Technology, Volume 10, Number 12 ,Apr 2014 .
8. Murali Krishna“ Optimum Location of Different
8. Seismic base shear is considerably more for
Shapes of Shear Walls in Unsymmetrical High Rise
masonry infill and shear wall models as compared Buildings”, International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology, Vol. 3 Issue 9, September-
with bare frame model.
2014 .
9. The Story drifts are found within the limit as 9. Haroon Rasheed Tamboli and Umesh.N.Karadi”
Seismic Analysis of RC Frame Structure with and
specified by the code IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.
without Masonry Infill Walls”, Indian Journal Of
10. The storey masonary infill and also with swasthika Natural Sciences, Vol.3 , Issue 14,October2012
10. Manju G“ Dynamic Analysis of Infill’s on R.C
type shear wall has got highest value of storey
.Framed Structures”, International Journal of
acceleration along X & Y direction. Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 9, September 2014 .
REFERENCES

1. Suchita Hirde and Ganga Tepugade “ Seismic

Performance of Multistorey Building with Soft
Storey at Different Level with RC Shear Wall
“International Journal of Current Engineering and
Technology Accepted 30 May 2014, Available online
01 June 2014, Vol.4, No.3,June 2014.
2. Mohammed khaja moinuddin and prof Vishwanath
B patil ”seismic evaluation of R.C.Framed high rise
structural system with the effect of ground and
intermediate soft storey” In International Journal of
engineering research & technology has accepted
volume 3, issue 08, august 2014.
3. Mohammed Tosif Ahmed “Seismic performance
evaluation of multi-storeyed r c framed structural
system with the influence of ground & top soft
storey”, International Journal of Engineering
Research and Applications ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 4,
Issue 8( Version 1), August 2014, pp 133-138 .
4. Shrikanth Bhairagond and Prof. Vishwanath. B.
Patil, Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storyed Building
with Underneath Satellite Bus Stop and
Intermediate Service Soft Story Having Floating
Columns. IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific
Research & Development| Vol. 3, Issue 05, 2015 |
ISSN (online): 2321-0613.
5. Sunil Kumar Kalyani and Vishwanath B Patil,
Seismic Analysis of MultiStory Building with
Underneath Satellite Bus-Stop having Floating
Columns with Top Soft Story. IJSTE - International
Journal of Science Technology & Engineering |
Volume 2 | Issue 01 | July 2015 ISSN (online): 2349-
784X.
6. K. H. Abdelkareem, F. K. Abdel Sayed, M. H. Ahmed”
Equivalent strut width for modeling r.c. infilled
frames”, N. AL-Mekhlafy et al., Equivalent strut
width for modeling R.C. infilled frames, pp. 851 -
866

© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 845