International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol.7 No.

11 (2012)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

Seismic Response of R.C.C Building with Soft Storey

Dr. Saraswati Setia and Vineet Sharma

Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department NIT, Kurukshetra kurukshetra, India

e-mail: ss_s97@rediffmail.com
Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department. G.P. Nilokheri Haryana, India
e-mail: sha.vineet.s@gmail.com

Abstract
With urbanization and increasing unbalance of required space
to availability, it is becoming imperative to provide open
ground storey in commercial and residential buildings. These
provisions reduce the stiffness of the lateral load resisting
system and a progressive collapse becomes unavoidable in a
severe earthquake for such buildings due to soft storey. Soft
storey behavior exhibit higher stresses at the columns and the
columns fail as the plastic hinges are not formed on
predetermined positions. Thus, the vulnerability of soft storey
effect has caused structural engineers to rethink the design of a
soft storey building in areas of high seismicity. The present
analytical study investigates the influence of some parameters
on behavior of a building with soft storey. The modeling of
the whole building is carried out using the computer program
STAAD.Pro 2006. Parametric studies on displacement, inter
storey drift and storey shear have been carried out using
equivalent static analysis to investigate the influence of these
parameter on the behavior of buildings with soft storey. The
selected building analyzed through five numerical models.

Keywords— Multistory building, Seismic Analysis storey

Fig.1 Collapse of a building with soft storey Modica town, in
drift, storey shear, soft storey.
Southern Italy [1]

INTRODUCTION
SOFT STOREY BEHAVIOR
Reinforced-concrete framed structure in recent time has a
Many building structure having parking or commercial areas
special feature i.e. the ground storey is left open for the
in their first stories, suffered major structural damages and
purpose of parking etc. Such building are often called open
collapsed in the recent earthquakes. Large open areas with less
ground storey buildings or building on stilts. Open ground
infill and exterior walls and higher floor levels at the ground
storey system is being adopted in many buildings presently
level result in soft stories and hence damage. In such
due to the advantage of open space to meet the economical
buildings, the stiffness of the lateral load resisting systems at
and architectural demands. But these stilt floor used in most
those stories is quite less than the stories above or below. In
severely damaged or, collapsed R.C. buildings, introduced
Fig.2, the lateral displacement diagram of a building with a
‘severe irregularity of sudden change of stiffness’ between the
soft storey under lateral loading is shown.
ground storey and upper stories since they had had infilled
bricks walls which increase the lateral stiffness of the frame
by a factor of three to four times. In such buildings the
dynamic ductility demand during probable earthquake gets
concentrated in the soft storey and the upper storey tends to
remain elastic. Hence the building is totally collapsed due to
soft storey effect.
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol.7 No.11 (2012)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

known that the lateral force distribution along the height of a

building is directly related to mass and stiffness of each story.
If the P-∆ effect is considered to be the main reason for the
dynamic collapse of building structures during earthquakes,
accurately determined lateral displacements calculated in the
elastic design process may provide very important information
about the structural behavior of the system. Therefore dynamic
analysis procedure is required in many of the actual codes for
accurate distribution of the earthquake forces along the
building height, determining modal effects and local ductility
demands efficiently. Although some of the current codes
define soft storey irregularity by stiffness comparison of
adjacent floors, displacement based criteria for such
irregularity determination is more efficient, since it covers all
the mass, stiffness and force distribution concepts.

DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL MODELS

The open ground storey RC buildings exhibit several
advantages over conventional moment- resisting frames.
Fig.2 Soft storey behavior of a building structure under lateral However, the structural effectiveness of open ground storey
loading [2] construction is hindered because soft storey effect exhibit
higher stress at the column connection and are most likely to
During an earthquake, if abnormal inter-story drifts fail. In the present work a typical 6 storied RC frame building
between adjacent stories occur, the lateral forces cannot be is being modeled using the computer software STAAD PRO.
well distributed along the height of the structure. This 2006. The selection of building configuration is basically done
situation causes the lateral forces to concentrate on the storey as per IS: 456, 2000[4] and the loading details are taken as per
(or stories) having large displacement(s). In addition, if the IS: 875, 1987 part1 [5] & part2 [6]. The static analysis is then
local ductility demands are not met in the design of such a performed for the modeled RC frame building using the
building structure for that storey and the inter-storey drifts are computer software STAAD PRO. 2006 and the respective
not limited, a local failure mechanism or, even worse, a storey observations are studied. During the development of the
failure mechanism, which may lead to the collapse of the analytical models, several issues are taken into consideration.
system, may be formed due to the high level of load
deformation (P-∆) effects. Fig.3 displays the collapse
mechanism of such a building structure with a soft storey
under both earthquake and gravity loads.

Fig 4 Plan View of RC Building

In this work it is important to evaluate the existence of the

Fig.3 Collapse mechanism of a building structure having a soft soft storey behavior in this structure. For this reasons two
storey [2] dimensional models are selected for which the soft storey
behavior is easily detected. For this a typical rectangular
Lateral displacement of a storey is a function of stiffness, building is taken. Having five bays in X-direction each is of
mass and lateral force distributed on that storey. It is also 4.5m span, except the middle one which is of 3.0m span and
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol.7 No.11 (2012)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

the Z-direction there are 3 bays of 4m span each. Height of 2 5.449 2.375 0.48 0.887 0.147
each story is taken as 3.0m. Five models are generated with 1 2.666 2.262 0.4 0.385 0.068
this plan of the building by introducing different variation and GF 0 0 0 0 0
displacement, story drift, base shear and story shear are the
various parameters which are discussed here in this work. 8
In the present study six storied “residential type” open
ground RC frame building is considered. The size of the 6 model-1
column is 400mmX400mm, 450mmX450mm (for model-3 model-2
only ground storey column size is increased) and slab Storey 4
thickness is taken as 200mm for floor slabs as well as for the level model-3
roof slab. 2
model-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0 model-5
The section here deals with the observations and 0 5 10
Displacment (mm) 15
interpretations obtained from the static analysis. Equivalent
Fig.5 Displacement in X-Direction
static analysis is performed for five different models by using
the computer software. Model-1 is a bare frame. In model-2
masonry infill panels are introduced in upper floors, model-3
is similar to model-2 with only difference that column size of Displacement in Z-Direction
For easy comparison of the lateral displacement of the selected
ground storey is increased by 62% of model-2. Shear walls are
building, plots of the storey level displacement in Z-direction
introduced in central core and outer periphery in model-4 and
versus height are made for the five models, all imposed on the
5 respectively to minimize the soft storey effect. The response
same graph. These are presented in Fig.6. The displacement is
of any structure is a function of its seismic properties, namely
inversely proportional to the stiffness. Because Model1 has the
its mass and stiffness. So response of the five models is
smallest stiffness so it has the largest displacement. Each
investigated in terms of displacement and storey shear.
model is compared for displacement in Z-direction. In model-
2 the displacement is reduced by 75% in comparison to the
Displacement in X-Direction
model-1(bare frame). Also in model-3, 4 & 5 it is reduced by
For easy comparison of the lateral displacement of the selected
92%, 81%, and 95% respectively w.r.t to model-1 at top level.
building, plots of the storey level displacement in X-direction
The observation shows that the maximum reduction in
versus height are made for the five models, all imposed on the
displacement is in model-5(95%) in which a shear wall is
same graph. These are presented in Fig.5. The displacement is
introduced in X direction as well as in Z direction. Also
inversely proportional to the stiffness. Because Model1 has the
model-3(masonry infill in upper floors and with increased size
smallest stiffness so it has the largest displacement
of column of bottom story) shows a good amount of reduction
Each model is compared for displacement in X direction.
in displacement in Z direction. It means the stiffness of the
In model-2 the displacement is reduced by 78.73% in
first storey is made within order of equal to the stiffness of the
comparison to the model-1(bare frame). Also in model-3, 4 &
storey above for these two models. Displacement of the
5 it is reduced by 94.05%, 75.42%, and 96.46% respectively
building is more in Z-direction in comparison to the X-
w.r.t to model-1 at top level. The observation shows that the
direction. In model-5 the displacement is increased by 56% in
maximum reduction in displacement is in model-5(96.46%) in
Z-direction in comparison of displacement in X-direction at
which a shear wall is introduced in X direction as well as in Z
top level.
direction. Also model-3(masonry infill in upper floors and
with increased size of column of bottom story) shows a good
amount of reduction in displacement in X direction. It means Displacement in Z-direction of Corner Column
the stiffness of the first storey is made within order of equal to story model1 model2 model3 model4 model5
the stiffness of the storey above for these two models. With 6 13.59 3.378 1.104 2.527 0.714
the incorporation of masonry infill in upper floors 5 12.596 3.209 0.989 2.1 0.597
displacement of bare frame is reduced from 12.935 to 4 10.782 3.011 0.843 1.62 0.468
2.751mm. Further the increase in the column size (62% of 3 8.383 2.796 0.678 1.135 0.333
model-2) of ground storey, lateral displacement is reduced 2 5.639 2.576 0.509 0.681 0.204
from 2.752 to 0.77mm (approximately 72% reduction in 1 2.744 2.36 0.355 0.296 0.089
lateral displacement). If we compared the model-2 with GF 0 0 0 0 0
model-5, lateral displacement is reduced up to 83% as the
shear wall is provided in X-direction as well as in Z-direction.

Displacement in X-direction of Corner Column

storey model1 model2 model3 model4 model5
6 12.935 2.751 0.77 3.179 0.457
5 12.045 2.676 0.717 2.658 0.39
4 10.346 2.585 0.647 2.073 0.314
3 8.07 2.482 0.565 1.468 0.231
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol.7 No.11 (2012)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

7 in Z-direction is obtained for five models (Table IV) after

6 performing the analysis on computer program STAAD.Pro
model1 2006. Plots of the storey shear in Z-direction versus height
5 are made for the five models, all imposed on the same graph.
4 model2 These are presented in Fig.8. Storey shear in the base of model
Storey
2 and 3 is reduced by 75% and 86% when compared with
level 3 model3
model 1. But it is increased in model 4 and 5 in which a shear
2
model4 wall is used, which is due to increase in the seismic weight of
1 model 4 and 5. Model 3 has minimum storey shear among all
model5 five models. Model 1, 4, 5 have a gentle slope (Fig.8 ) which
0
means shear is increasing uniformly, but in model 2, 3 there is
0 5
Displacment10(mm) 15
an abrupt change storey shear at ground level which means
Fig.6 Displacement in X-Direction stiffness of the ground storey is less than the storey above.

Storey shear in Z Direction (kN)

Storey shear in X-Direction
The parameter which has been considered in this section to storey level Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5
study the soft story effect in the building is the storey shear. 5 237 13 9 181 211
Storey shear at each level in X-direction for earthquake force 4 735 37 28 375 627
in X-direction is obtained for five models (Table III) after 3 1408 67 52 601 1158
performing the analysis on computer program STAAD.Pro 2 2187 98 76 837 1799
2006. Plots of the storey shear in X-direction versus height 1 3020 122 82 1061 2483
are made for the five models, all imposed on the same graph. 0 3872 973 521 1242 3118
These are presented in Fig.7. Storey shear in the base of model
2 and 3 is reduced by 76% and 85% when compared with 6
model 1. But it is increased in model 4 and 5 in which a shear
wall is used, which is due to increase in the seismic weight of 5
Model1
model 4 and 5. Model 3 has minimum storey shear among all 4
five models. Model 1, 4, 5 have a gentle slope (Figure 4.5) Storey Model2
3
which means shear is increasing uniformly, but in model 2, 3 Level Model3
there is an abrupt change storey shear at ground level which 2
means stiffness of the ground storey is less than the storey 1 Model4
above.
0 Model5
storey shear in X Direction (kN) 0 2000 Shear
Storey 4000
(kN) 6000
storey level Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5
Fig.8 Storey shearin Z-Direction
5 237 7 7 256 270
4 735 20 21 847 821 CONCLUSIONS
3 1408 36 38 1648 1616 Lateral displacement is largest in bare frame with soft storey
2 2187 49 54 2584 2387 defect both for earthquake force in X-direction as well as in Z-
1 3020 77 66 3602 3253 direction for corner columns as well as for intermediate
0 3872 928 582 4687 4159 columns. Displacement of intermediate column is more by
0.02% and 0.04% in X and Z-direction respectively w.r.t.
6 corner column.
Minimum displacement for corner column is observed in
Model1 the building in which a shear wall is introduced in X-direction
4 as well as in Z-direction. But in case of intermediate column,
Storey Model2
displacement is minimum in building having masonry infill in
Level Model3 upper floors and with increased column stiffness of bottom
2
story in comparison to the building with shear wall in X-
Model4
direction as well as in Z-direction.
0 Model5 Building having masonry infill in upper floors and with
0 2000 Shear4000 6000 increased column stiffness of bottom story and building with
Storey (kN)
shear wall in core has a small first storey displacement of
Fig.7 Storey shearin X-Direction about 18% and 16% respectively of that of building having
masonry infill in upper floors only. This implies that crucial
Storey shear in Z-Direction displacement may be effectively reduced if the stiffness of the
The parameter which has been considered in this section to first storey is made with in the order of magnitude equal to the
study the soft story effect in the building is the storey shear. stiffness of storey above.
Storey shear at each level in Z-direction for earthquake force
 International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol.7 No.11 (2012)
© Research India Publications; http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer.htm

Building with masonry infill in upper floors only shows a

sudden change in slope of displacement in X-direction as well
as in Z-direction. This is because of abrupt change in storey
stiffness. Due to which greater strength is required for first
storey columns, which is minimized in building with masonry
infill in upper floors and with increased column stiffness of
bottom story by increasing the column size of first storey also
by incorporating masonry panel in central bay on all four
sides.
Buildings with shear wall in core and shear wall in X-
direction as well as in Z-direction have uniform displacement
because of shear wall. Which shows a gradual change of
stiffness between the lower soft storey and the upper floors
that is essentially required.
Buildings having masonry infill in upper floors and with
increased column stiffness of bottom story performance well
in case of storey shear. Storey shear is minimum in building
having masonry infill in upper floors and with increased
column stiffness of bottom story amongst of all five models
which is 15% of bare frame at first storey.

References

[1] Alberto Parducci, Fabrizio Comodini, (2005) “A

synergic dissipation approach to retrofit framed
structures with a soft first storey,” 9th world seminar
on seismic isolation, energy dissipation and active
vibration control of structures, Kobe, Japan published.
[2] M. A. Altuntop, “Analysis of building structures with
soft stories” Msc dissertation, Dept Civil Eng., Atilim
Univ.
[3] V. Sharma, “Seismic response of R.C.C building with
soft storey,” Mtech dissertation, Dept Civil Eng, NIT
kurukshetra, India.
[4] Indian Standard 456 2000, “Plain and reinforced
concrete-code of practice”, India.
[5] Indian Standard 875 1987 part 1, “Code of Practice for
design loads (other than earthquakes) for buildings and
structures,” India.
[6] Indian Standard 875 1987 part 2, “Code of Practice for
design loads (other than earthquakes) for buildings and
structures,” India.
[7] Samir Helou, Abdul Razzaq, (2008) “Dynamic
behavior of reinforced concrete structures with
masonry walls”, An-Najah univ. j. Res (N.Sc) vol. 22.