Seismic Evaluation and Modelling Techniques for Open Ground Storey Buildings

Pramodini Naik*, Satish Annigeri**
* Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Government Polytechnic, Bicholim, Goa, India.
** Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, KLE Technological University, Hubballi, Karnataka, India.
Periodicity:September - November'2018
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jste.7.3.14040

Abstract

Failure of Open Ground Storey (OGS) buildings in the past devastating earthquakes like Bhuj, in India (2001) has urged the designers to carry out seismic evaluation of existing buildings and design the new buildings to withstand major earthquakes without collapse. Pushover analysis is the most commonly adopted analytical approach for seismic performance evaluation, the accuracy of which lies in suitable modeling assumptions made. In this paper, an effort is made to arrive at a definite modeling strategy to be adopted for the typical OGS building system while performing Nonlinear Static Pushover (NSP) analysis. Three building models representing the lateral stiffness of the building were considered, namely OGS bare frame (model 1), OGS within fill stiffness consideration in the upper storeys (model 2), building with infill stiffness consideration in the upper storey's and modeling additional infill stiffness in the corner bays of OGS (model 3). Lateral load analysis was considered for two cases, namely ESA (Equivalent Static Analysis) and RSA (Response Spectrum Analysis). For modeling the lateral load and nonlinear hinge properties, four scenarios were considered, scenario-1 with ESA load pattern and default hinges, Scenario 2 – RSA and user defined hinges, Scenario 3 – ESA and user defined hinges, and Scenario 4 - RSA with user defined hinges. The findings of the study revealed that the commonly adopted “model 1 – scenario 1” criteria results in an inaccurate prediction of performance levels of demand earthquake. Amongst the three models studied, model 3 shows the highest base shear by about two times and lowest roof displacement (60%) compared to bare frame and hinge status in case of scenario 1 is overestimated compared to scenarios 2 to 4. Therefore, model 3-scenario 4 is a better modeling strategy among the three models studied.

Keywords

Performance Evaluation, Nonlinear analysis, Pushover analysis, Moment Curvature Analysis, OGS Buildings.

How to Cite this Article?

Naik, P., & Annigeri, S. (2018). Seismic Evaluation and Modelling Techniques for Open Ground Storey Buildings, i-manager's Journal on Structural Engineering, 7(3), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.26634/jste.7.3.14040

References

[1]. Applied Technology Council. (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. 2. Appendices. ATC.
[2]. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2000). Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete (IS 456: 2000). New Delhi, India.
[3]. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2002). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions for Buildings (IS 1893:2002). New Delhi, India.
[4]. CSI ETABS. (2005). Analysis Reference Manual, Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley, CA, USA
[5]. CSI ETABS Nonlinear Version 9.2.0 (1995). Extended three dimensional analysis of Building systems, Computers and structures Inc. Berkeley, CA, USA.
[6]. Das, D., & Murty, C. V. R. (2004). Brick masonry infills in seismic design of RC frame buildings. Part 2: Behaviour. Indian Concrete Journal, 78(8), 31-38.
[7]. Davis, R., Krishnan, P., Menon, D., & Prasad, A. (2004, August). Effect of infill stiffness on seismic performance of th multi-storey RC framed buildings in India. In 13 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
[8]. FEMA. (2000). Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
[9]. Inel, M., & Ozmen, H. B. (2006). Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Engineering Structures, 28(11), 1494-1502.
[10]. Kanitkar, R., & Kanitkar, V. (2004). Seismic performance of conventional multi-storey buildings with open ground floors for vehicular parking. Indian Concrete Journal, 78(2), 99-104.
[11]. Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2007). Stressstrain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(9), 728-739.
[12]. Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., & Jain, S. K. (2009). Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonryinfilled RC frames with open first storey. Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(8), 925-937.
[13]. Murty, C. V. R., & Jain, S. K. (2000, January). Beneficial influence of masonry infill walls on seismic performance of RC frame buildings. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, (Paper No. 1790).
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.