BEHAVIOUR OF RANDOMLY INFILLED RC FRAMES WITH

SOFT GROUND FLOOR SUBJECTED TO SEISMIC LOADING

Submitted by

Md. Taskin Alam

Submitted to the

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL)

May, 2014
The Thesis Titled “ Behaviour of Randomly Infilled RC Frames with Soft Ground
Floor Subjected to Seismic Loading” Submitted by Md. Taskin Alam, Roll No:
040504327P, Session : April/2005; has been accepted as satisfactory in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Civil
Engineering (Structural) on 26th May, 2014.

BOARD OF EXAMINERS

____________________________
Dr. Khan Mahmud Amanat Chairman
Professor (Supervisor)
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-1000.

____________________________
Dr. A.M.M Taufiqul Anwar
Professor and Head Member (Ex-Officio)
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-1000.

____________________________
Dr. Mohammad Al Amin Siddique
Assistant Professor Member
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-1000.

____________________________
Dr. Sarah Tahsin Noor
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Asia Pacific
House- 8/A, Road-7 Member (External)
Dhanmondi , Dhaka-1205

ii
 DECLARATION

It is hereby declared that except for the contents where specific reference have been
made to the work of others, the studies contained in this thesis is the result of
investigation carried out by the author. No part of this thesis has been submitted to
any other University or educational establishment for a Degree, Diploma or other
qualification (except for publication).

Signature of the Candidate

________________________
(Md. Taskin Alam)

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Thanks to Almighty Allah for His graciousness, unlimited kindness and with the
blessings of Whom the good deeds are fulfilled.

The author wishes to express her deepest gratitude to Dr. Khan Mahmud Amanat,
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, for his continuous
guidance, invaluable suggestions and affectionate encouragement at every stage of
this study.

A very special debt of deep gratitude is offered to the author’s parents, wife and
daughter for their continuous encouragement and cooperation during this study.

iv
 ABSTRACT
Multistoried masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frame with open
ground floor is a common building construction practice in Bangladesh. Masonry
infills in upper floors make the corresponding floors stiffer; resulting stiffness
irregularity in RC frames. Consequently stress concentration occurs at open ground
floor level in the event of any seismic load. But, this interaction of masonry infill
panels with frame elements is often neglected in the conventional design analysis of
such structures. Therefore, an extensive analysis has been performed in the present
study to determine the seismic performance of masonry infilled RC soft story
buildings and to propose appropriate mitigating measures against their earthquake
vulnerability.
In the numerical analysis, several soft story 2D frames with variation in floor
and span numbers, infill percentages, slenderness of frames as well as randomness of
infill positions have been considered to investigate their corresponding seismic
performances. The infills are modeled as equivalent diagonal struts. Beams and
columns are modeled using two-dimensional elastic frame element. Considered loads
during the analyses are dead load, live load, earthquake load and their combinations.
Earthquake loads have been applied following both the equivalent static force method
(ESFM) and the dynamic response spectrum method (RSM). The base shear, sway
pattern and drift demand etc. are evaluated and compared following ESFM as well as
RSM. In addition, slenderness of frame and base shear ratio is compared with
percentage of infill.
Numerical analysis has revealed sudden increases of sway at soft ground floor
level whereas it decreases gradually in the upper floors due to presence of infills. The
presences of infills stiffen the upper floors resulting major deflection at ground floor
level. Also the base shear is significantly increased in presence of structurally active
infill as compared to static analysis. This soft story behavior has been clearly
identified in dynamic analysis while conventional static analysis cannot predict such
behavior. It has been observed from analysis that randomness in the distribution of
infill shows no effect on base shear value. Also the observations clearly indicate that
the ground floor columns in soft story buildings are, in general, significantly under-
designed for seismic loads found from ESFM and vulnerable during earthquake.
Finally based on the findings of the present study, a magnification factor has
been proposed as a function of number of floors to magnify the base shear, moment
and shear force found from ESFM. It is expected that design of ground floor columns
based on magnified moments and forces will safeguard the soft story buildings from
catastrophic failure at the event of earthquakes.

v
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Brick masonry or unreinforced brick partition wall is commonly used in reinforced

concrete structure. Masonry can be considered as a composite material built of relatively
strong brick units and weak mortar joints. Since they are usually considered as non-
structural elements, their interaction with the bounding frame is often ignored in the
design. Neglecting the presence of infill in the calculation of structures subject to
horizontal loads leads to an evaluation of stresses in the frames which often far from the
real situation and may compromise safety.
In Bangladesh, like other developing countries, construction of multistoried building with
soft stories for car parking or other utility services is common. These building are
designed as RC frame structures without considering the structural action of infill located
on the upper floors. Since the mass is concentrated at upper floors, it makes upper floors
heavier than the ground floor and creates the action of inverted pendulum. Infill on the
upper floors makes the floors much stiffer in resisting the lateral seismic loads compared
to open ground floor. As a result, collapse of ground floor occurs during earthquake or
lateral load.

1.2 OBJECTIVES WITH SPECIFIC AIM AND POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

The objective of the study is to investigate the seismic vulnerability of soft ground floor
columns of typical RC frames having randomly distributed infill of various amounts on
the upper floors. Based on comparative study of the results obtained using equivalent
static force method and more rational response spectrum method, an attempt shall be
made to provide some simple guidelines for a safer design of soft story columns. The
objectives of this study, more specifically, are as follows:

i. To develop finite element models of a series of 2D building frames

including infills on the upper floors keeping the ground floor free from
infill.

1
 ii. To analyze these building frames where infill is applied randomly in frame
panel and 15 numbers of software run are applied to find average base
shear using conventional Equivalent Static Force Method (ESFM) as well
as Response Spectrum Method (RSM).

iii. To investigate the effect of various amount of infill on base shear, sway
pattern, storey drift and moment of building frames considering various
parameters i.e. % of infill, slenderness of building frame, number of span,
bay and floors.

iv. To make a comparison between the two methods; Equivalent Static Force
Method and Response Spectrum Method available in BNBC, 1993 to
calculate the earthquake base shear, sway pattern and drift characteristics.

v. To investigate possible structural behavior of ground floor columns under

seismic loading (as a soft story) in presence of infill on upper floor.

vi. To determine possible remedies if the vulnerability of such buildings due

to earthquake loads is significant.

1.3 OUTLINE METHODOLOGY

To carry out the study, 2D models of reinforced concrete frame will be considered. The
ground floor will be kept free of infill to consider the case of soft story. Infill of varying
numbers will be applied on the upper floors randomly to account for the diverse pattern
of partition walls found in real buildings. For a systematic numerical analysis, ANSYS 10
software will be used to model the RC frame and the infill walls. Considering the
geometrical and material properties of the infill panel equivalent strut properties
(geometrical and mechanical) would be calculated. The infill would be modeled as
diagonal bracings.
The analysis will be carried out for different span lengths and span numbers, number of
floors and floors heights etc. For each frame, the effect of different percent of infill on
upper floor panels will be studied. For each percentage of infill panels, several random
distributions will be studied. Each model frame will be subjected to earthquake loading

2
based on equivalent static force method as well as response spectrum method.
Comparison of the results from these two methods will provide us with information on
the magnification of base shear on the soft story columns. Based on these information
found from the study, an attempt shall be made to provide a guideline for safer design of
the columns of soft ground story.

1.4 ASSUMPTIONS FOR MODELING

The investigation is based on the following assumptions :

 Material is linearly elastic and isotropic
 Infill is considered to be present in the frame in a random manner. The number of
infill panels ranges from no-infill condition to 80% of the frame panels.
 All dead and live loads are taken in vertical direction while only earthquake load
is taken as lateral
 Infill is modeled as diagonal strut with material properties of brick
 Dead load including infill (partition wall) mass contribution is modeled as mass
element with vertical acceleration only.
 Weight of infill is taken as per actual percentage of infill.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

The thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the present study while
Chapter 2 focuses on the review of relevant theories, methods of analysis and behavior of
RC frame with infill. Chapter 3 illustrates the methodology of developing finite element
modeling by software named ANSYS. Chapter 4 is organized with analysis and
discussion on the results based on various parameters i.e. bases shear, sway, drift
demand, percentage of randomly distributed infill, number of span, number of bay etc.
Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of the present study and recommendations for future
investigation and extension of this work.

3
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Bangladesh is a densely populated country. Accommodation is one of the prime needs

for this huge population. Due to this reason, a huge number of multistoried buildings are
being constructed for providing accommodation. Usually the ground floor is kept open
for car parking and guest lounge provision. Thus the ground floor experiences a soft
story behavior which is vulnerable for the building. A typical soft ground floor is shown
below in figure 2.1a.

Fig.2.1a A Building with soft ground floor

The Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 1993) classifies a soft story as one
whose lateral stiffness is less than 70% of the story immediately above or below as or less

4
than 80% as stiff as the average stiffness of the three floors above it. Hence irregularities
of lateral stiffness in vertical direction are occurred. This is due to presence of infills on
upper floors while keeping the ground floor open. Thus soft ground floor column
becomes weak and less capable to withstand lateral force like earthquake force due to
stress concentration at soft ground floor columns. This may leads to structural damage or
failure, which in turn results in the collapse of the structure.
Fig.2.1b shows soft story mechanism where there is infill in the upper floors by keeping
the ground floor open. Thus stress is concentrated to the ground floor and consequently
makes the ground floor weaker to withstand the upper floor load.

Fig.2.1b Soft story mechanism

2.2 RESPONSE OF MASONRY INFILLED RC FRAME UNDER LATERAL

LOAD

The major requirement of using masonry infill (MI) wall includes partitioning, providing
building envelop, avoiding fire hazard, temperature and sound barrier etc. Stiffness is
developed on the upper floors due to interaction between masonry infilled walls and the
surrounding frame when lateral force acts on the structure. This stiffening action is
usually not considered design of structure.

5
The presence of MI in RC frames changes the lateral-load transfer mechanism of the
structure from predominant frame action to predominant truss action (Murty and Jain
2000), as shown in Fig. 2.2, which is responsible for reduction in bending moments and
increase in axial forces in the frame members.

Fig. 2.2 Change in lateral load transfer mechanism due to masonry infills (Murty and
Jain 2000).

Masonry infill walls confined by reinforced concrete (RC) frames on all four sides play a
vital role in resisting the lateral seismic loads on buildings. The behavior of masonry
infilled frames has been extensively studied (Murty and Jain 2000; Smith and Coul, 1991;
Moghaddam and Dowling 1987 ) in attempts to develop a rational approach for design of
such frames. Experimentally MI walls was found to have a very high initial lateral
stiffness and low deformability (Moghaddam and Dowling 1987).

The beneficial effects of the interaction between masonry infills and structural elements
for seismic performance of existing frame buildings were noted in previous studies.
Researchers have concluded that proper use of infills in frames could result in significant
increases in the strength and stiffness of structures subjected to seismic excitations
(Mehrabi et al. 1996, Klingner and Bertero 1978, Bertero and Brokken, 1983). However,
the locations of infill in a building must be carefully selected to avoid or minimize
torsional effects as well as soft story effect. Architectural restrictions have to be
considered when assigning these locations.

6
The high in-plane rigidity of the masonry wall significantly stiffens the relatively flexible
frame. Therefore, a relatively stiff and tough bracing system is resulted. The wall braces
the frame partly by its inplane shear resistance and partly by its behavior as a diagonal
bracing strut as shown in Fig. 2.3.

Fig.2.3 Interactive behavior of frame and infill

The frame of Fig. 2.4 shows such mode of behavior. When the frame is subjected to
horizontal loading, it deforms with double-curvature bending of the columns and beams.
The translation of the upper part of the column in each story and the shortening of the
leading diagonal of the frame cause the column to lean against the wall as well as to
compress the wall along its diagonal. It is roughly analogous to a diagonally braced
frame, shown in Fig. 2.4

7
 Fig. 2.4 Analogous braced frame

The nature of the forces in the frame can be understood by referring to the analogous
braced frame shown in fig. 2.4. The windward column or the column facing the seismic
load first is in tension and the leeward column or the other side of the building facing
seismic load last is in compression. Since the infill bears on the frame not as exactly a
concentrated force at the corners, but over the short lengths of the beam and column
adjacent to each compression corner, the frame members are subjected also to transverse
shear and a small amount of bending. Consequently the frame members or their
connections are liable to fail by axial force or shear and especially by tension at the base
of the windward column.

The potential modes of failure of masonry infilled frame structure are occurred due to the
interaction of infill walls with frame.

The failure criteria are mentioned below:

 Tension failure of tensioning column due to overturning moments.

 Flexure or shear failure of the columns.
 Compression failure of the diagonal strut.

8
  Diagonal tension cracking of the panel and
 Sliding shear failure of the masonry along horizontal mortar beds.

Failure modes are described by the figures 2.5 and 2.6. The perpendicular tensile stresses
are caused by the divergence of the compressive stress trajectories on the opposite sides
of the leading diagonal as they approach the mid region of the infill. The shear failure of
wall steps down through the joints of masonry and participated by the horizontal shear
stresses in the bed joints. The diagonal cracking is initiated at and spreads from the
middle of the infill, where the tensile stresses are a maximum, tending to stop near the
compression corners, where the tension is suppressed the diagonal cracking of the wall is
through the masonry along a line or line parallel to the loading diagonal and caused by
tensile stresses perpendicular to the loading diagonal. The perpendicular tensile stresses
caused by the divergence of the compressive stress trajectories on opposite sides of the
loading diagonal as they approach the middle region of the infill. The diagonal cracking
is initiated and spreads from the middle of the infill while the tensile stresses are at
maximum tending to stop near the compression corners, where the tension is suppressed.

Fig. 2.5 Modes of infill failure

9
 Fig. 2.6 Modes of frame failure

2.3 COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF

INFILL PANEL

Modeling of RC structures along with infill panels are based mainly on finite
element methods and sophisticated material models. The modeling of infill panel
with reinforced concrete frame can be broadly categorized into two approaches: a)
equivalent diagonal strut approach and b) continuum approach.

2.3.1 Review of Past Analytical Studies

The first published research on modeling of infill panel as an equivalent diagonal
strut was by Holmes (1961). He proposed a method for predicting the deformations
and strength of infilled frames based on the equivalent diagonal strut concept.
According to his assumption the infill wall acts as a diagonal compression strut, as
shown in Fig. 2.7(a), of the same thickness and elastic modulus as the infill with a
width equal to one-third the diagonal length. He also concluded that, at the infill

10
failure, the lateral deflection of the infilled frame is small compared to the
deflection of the corresponding bare frame.

Fig. 2.7(a) The diagonal compression Fig. 2.7 (b) Material modeling of
strut of masonry infill masonry infill as diagonal strut

Riddington and Smith (1977) conducted an extensive series of plane stress finite
element analyses of laterally loaded infilled frames.Barua and Mallick (1977) used
FE to analyze infilled frames and their technique was similar to the method
proposed by Sachanski (1960) except that a finite element technique was used to
determine stiffness coefficients of the boundary nodes of the infill. Dawe and
Charalambous (1983) presented a finite element technique where standard beam and
membrane elements were used to model the frame and the infill wall, respectively.
Liauw and Kwan (1983, 1985) developed a plastic theory of non-integral (without
shear connectors) infilled frames in which the stress redistribution towards collapse
was taken into account and the friction is neglected for strength reserve. The theory
was based on the findings from non-linear finite element analysis and experimental
investigation. Seah (1998) suggested an analytical technique, in which the steel
frame was modeled using elastic beam-column elements connected with nonlinear
rotational, shear, and nominal springs.

Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) proposed a method of analyzing masonry infilled steel
frames subjected to in-plane loading. The method utilized the data generated from
previous experiments as well as the results of a series of non-linear FE analyses. The

11
proposed method accounts for both the elastic and plastic behavior of infilled frames
and predicts the strength and stiffness of the infilled frames. The method also accounted
for various parameters like different wall aspect ratios and different beam to-column
stiffness and strength.

Madan et al. (1997) further extended the work of Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) by
including a smooth hysteretic model for the equivalent diagonal strut. The proposed
analytical development assumes that the contribution of masonry infill panel as
shown in Fig. 2.8(a) to the response of the infilled frame can be modeled by
replacing the panel by a system of two diagonal masonry compression struts as
shown in Fig. 2.8(b).

Fig. 2.8 (a) Masonry infilled frame sub-assemblage in masonry infill panel frame

Fig. 2.8 (b) Masonry infill panel in frame structure

12
Arlekar, Jain and Murty (1997) highlighted the importance of explicitly recognizing the
presence of the open ground floor in the analysis of the building. The error involved in
modeling such buildings as complete bare frames, neglecting the presence of infills in the
upper floor, is brought out through the study of an example building with different
analytical models.
The stress strain relationship for masonry in compression as shown in Fig. 2.8(c) is
used to determine the strength envelope of the equivalent strut. The individual
masonry struts are considered ineffective in tension.

Fig. 2.8 (c) Constitutive model for masonry infill panel by Madan et. al. (1997)

But the combination of both diagonal struts provides a lateral load resisting
mechanism for the opposite lateral directions of loading. The lateral force -
deformation relationship for the structural masonry infill panel is assumed to be a
smooth curve bounded by a bilinear strength envelope with an initial elastic
stiffness until the yield force Vy , and there on a degraded stiffness until the

maximum force Vm , is reached shown in Fig. 2.8(d). The corresponding lateral

displacement values are denoted as uy and u m respectively.

13
 Fig. 2.8 (d) Strength envelope for masonry infill panel by Madan et. al. (1997)

Considering the masonry frame of Fig. 2.8 (d), the maximum lateral force Vm , and the

corresponding displacement u m , in the infill masonry panel (Madan et al.,1997) are

vtl' 0.83tl '

Vm (Vm )  Ad f m' cos    (2.1)
(1  0.45 tan  ) cos  cos 

   m' Ld
u (u )  (2.2)
cos 
m m

in which t = thickness of the infill panel; l' = lateral dimension of the infill panel; f m'

= masonry prism strength;  ' = corresponding strain;  = inclination of the diagonal

strut;  = basic shear strength of masonry; and Ad and Ld = area and length of the
equivalent diagonal struts respectively. These quantities can be estimated using the
formulations of the "equivalent strut model" proposed by Saneinejad and Hobbs
(1995). The initial stiffness K0 of the infill masonry panel may be estimated using the
following formula Madan et al. (1997),

V
K 0  2( m ) (2.3)
um

14
The degradation of strut stiffness from K 0 to K1 was assumed to be a bilinear curve
by Madan et al. (1997). A more rational degradation path would be a smooth curve
shown by the heavy solid line in Fig. 2.8 (d). The form of the curve is suggested as
given below,

( K 0  K1 )u
V   K 1u (2.4)
K 0  K1 2 12
[1  { u} ]
V0

K 0  K1
Where, V0  V y (2.5)
K0

Huang (2005) studied the structural behaviors of low-to-midrise concrete buildings of

various configurations with emphases on dynamic properties, internal energy, and the
magnitude and distribution of seismic load. Several idealized models were made to
represent different structural configurations including pure frame, frames with fully or
partially infilled panels, and frames with a soft story at the bottom level, and comparisons
were made on the fundamental periods, base shear, and strain energy absorbed by the
bottom level between these structures.
M. Helen Santhi, G. M. Samuel Knight (2005) studied two single-bay, three-storied space
frames, one with brick masonry infill in the second and third floors representing a soft-
story frame and the other without infill were designed and their 1:3 scale models were
constructed according to non-seismic detailing and the similitude law.
Rodsin (2005) evaluated the potential seismic performance of building with soft story in
an area of low to moderate seismicity regions (such as Australia) by a displacement-
based method involving a push-over analysis.
Nagae (2006) studied six storied reinforced concrete building and focused on seismic
response of the soft ground floor based on the results on dynamic response analysis.
Amanat and Hoque (2006) studied the fundamental periods of vibration of a series of
regular RC framed buildings using 3D FE modeling and modal eigenvalue analysis
including the effects of infill. It has been found that when the models do not include
infill, as is done in conventional analysis, the period given by the analysis is significantly

15
longer than the period predicted by the code equations justifying the imposition of upper
limit on the period by the codes. However, when the effect of infill is included in the
models, the time periods determined from eigenvalue analysis were remarkably close to
those predicted by the code formulas. It is also observed that the randomness in the
distribution of infill does not cause much variation of the period if the total amount of
infilled panels is the same for all models. It is also observed that varying total amount of
infilled panels causes some changes in the determined period. Based on the findings of
the study, some guidelines are suggested for determining the period. The findings of the
study have showed a practical way to determine the fundamental period of RC frames
using rational approaches like modal analysis, and eliminate the necessity of imposing
code limits as mentioned earlier.
Haque and Amanat (2008) studied behavior of buildings with soft ground floor. They
studied the behavior of the columns at ground level of multistoried buildings with soft
ground floor subjected to dynamic earthquake loading. Study was done both in ESFM
and RSM. For ESFM, lateral sway is almost same for first soft story irrespective of
presence of structurally active infill in the upper stories. According to the study, in
presence of infill, there is a significant increase in total base shear. For six storied
building base shear increases by about 65 percent. For nine and twelve storied building
this figure is approximately 113% in both cases. Displacement profiles for both ESFM
and RSM have a sudden change of slope at first floor level. The inter-story drift demand
is largest in the ground story for all the models for both ESFM and RSM. The mode
shape changes significantly when infill is present in the building. Vibration frequency
gets almost double when infill is present in the model. Since frequency is significantly
increased, it is quite natural that earthquake force on the building would also significantly
increase. Thus the study has shown a significant changes in the dynamic characteristics of
a building when infill is present.
Haque and Amanat (2009) further made an extensive computational study to find out the
behavior of soft storied building as well as their seismic vulnerability. According to their
study, the difference of inter story moment and forces are very large. This is due to higher
value of shear force and moments at ground floor level which lowered at first floor due to
presence of infill. As an example, response spectrum gives shear force and bending

16
moment almost three times higher in soft ground floor than in first floor for an interior
column of 6 storied with 50% infill condition. For ESFM, lateral sway is almost same for
first soft story irrespective of presence of structurally active infill in the upper stories. In
the case of RSM, lateral sway of soft ground story increases with the increase in the
number of infilled panels in the upper stories. Sway in upper stories decreases with
increase of infilled panels due to increased stiffness of those floors. For the six story
model, the drift demand increases up to 45% (11mm for no infill condition to 16mm for
70% infilled condition) for ground floor columns. For nine storied model, the increase in
drift demand is about 77% (11mm for no infill condition to 19.5mm for 70% infill
condition). Similarly for twelve storied building the drift demand is increased by about
75%.The sway characteristics as revealed by response spectrum method clearly shows
that the drift demand of columns of open ground floor are much higher than that
predicted by conventional equivalent static force method. It is observed that as percent of
infilled panels is inceased from 10% to 70%, base shear increases by about 27%
(2.49×106 to 2.94×106 kN) to 66% (2.49×106 to 4.15×106 kN) for a six storied building.
For nine storied building this magnification of base shear is in the range of 23% to 122%.
Similarly, for the twelve storied building the magnification of total base shear is between
20% to 126%.Thus the study shown that base shear is approximately doubled for RC
framed buildings with open ground floor.
Hasnain (2009) studied this phenomenon of soft story building. He determined the effect
of randomly distributed infills on seismic base shear for RC buildings with soft ground
floor. In spite of providing an extensive analysis, his study is also limited due to the
following issues:
 Constant beam and column size.
 Application of partition wall load as a constant.
 Equal distribution of total number of infill along the span and bay.
Quayum, Iasmin and Amanat (2009) analyzed RC frames with open ground floor. It was
found that the structural responses i.e base shear, column axial force, moment, natural
period do not change appreciably by the ESFM analysis for random infill distributions,
while they increase noticeably in the RSM analysis.

17
R. Tasmim and K.M.Amanat (2013) investigated RC frame structure having various
percentages of masonry infill on upper floors with no infill and 20% infill on ground
floor. The application of infill has been done randomly and the effect of seismic load has
been investigated. From the investigation, it has been found that random (irregular)
distribution of infill does not cause any significant variation in base shear for commonly
occurring range of infill percentage on upper floors (40% and above). Rather than it is the
total amount of infill that affects the base shear obtained from dynamic analysis. They
showed that a small amount of infill (maximum 20%) application on ground floor
normally causes an insignificant reduction on base shear value when compared with the
same obtained for fully open ground floor. It has been also found that base shear ratio
does not vary significantly with the span number or length, rather than it mainly depends
on the number of floors. They suggested a simple expression for base shear ratio as a
function of the number of floors which may be used a base shear magnifier. The base
shear obtained from ESFM method may be magnified with the suggested base shear
multiplier (base shear ratio) to obtain a rational estimation of the base shear for RC
framed building with soft ground floor subjected to seismic loading.

2.3.2 Review of Past Experimental Studies

Experimental works of studying infill panels were conducted in the period of very
early ages and researches for these are still continuing. Experiment was conducted
by Thomas (1953) and Wood (1958) in the United Kingdom. According to the test
the result provided ample testimony that a relatively weak infill can contribute
significantly to the stiffness and strength of an otherwise flexible frame.
Sachanski (1960) performed tests on model and prototype infilled frames. Based on
his test results he proposed an analytical model in which he analyzed contact forces
between the frame and the infill by assuming their mutual bond to be replaced by
thirty redundant reactions.
Smith (1962) conducted a series of tests on laterally loaded square mild steel frame
models infilled with micro-concrete. Monitoring the model deformations during the
tests showed that the frame separated from the infill over three quarters of the length of
each frame member. These observations led to the conclusion that, the wall could be
replaced by an equivalent diagonal strut connecting the loaded corners.

18
Mallick and Severn (1967) introduced an iterative technique whereby the points of
separation between the frame and the infill, as well as the stress distribution along
the length of contact between the frame and the infill, were obtained as an integral
part of the solution.
Mainstone (1971) presented results of series of tests on model frames with infills of
micro-concrete and model brickwork along with a less number of full-scale tests. He
found that factors such as the initial lack of fit between the infill and the frame and
variation in the elastic properties and strength of the infill can result in a wide variation
in behavior even between nominally identical specimens.

Liauw and Lo (1988) conducted a series of tests on a number of small-scale models

of micro concrete infilled steel frames.
Mehrabi and Shing (1997) developed a cohesive dilatants interface model to
simulate the behavior of mortar joints between masonry units as well as the
behavior of frame to panel interface, and a smeared crack finite element formulation
has been used to model concrete in the RC frame and masonry units in the infill
panels.
Ghosh and Amde (2002) verified the design of infilled frames to resist lateral loads on
buildings in terms of their failure modes, failure loads and initial stiffness using
procedures proposed by Riddington (1984) and Pook and Dawe (1986). This
verification is made by comparing the results of the analytical procedures of the
previous authors with those of a new finite element model for installed frames, which
are verified using experimental results.

2.4 EARTHQUAKE EFFECT ON SOFT STORIED BUILDINGS

Although soft story provide spaces for car parking and other utilities services but are
inherently poor systems due to sudden drop in stiffness and strength in the ground story.
In the current practice, stiff masonry walls Fig. 2.9(a) are neglected and only bare frames
are considered in design calculations Fig. 2.9(b).

19
 (a) (b)

Fig. 2.9 Open ground story building a) actual building b) building being assumed in
current design practice

The mode shapes and the corresponding contribution of different modes depend upon the
amount and location of infills in the frame because of their high initial stiffness, as shown
in Fig. 2.10, where a single frame of the ten-story building is shown.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2.10 Effects of masonry infills on the first mode shape of a typical frame of a ten
story RC building a) Displacement profile b) Fully infilled frame c) Open ground
floor frame (EERI, 2001)

In case of a fully infilled frame, lateral displacements are uniformly distributed

throughout the height as shown in Fig. 2.10(a and b). On the other hand, in the case of
open ground floor buildings, most of the lateral displacement is accumulated at the

20
ground level itself because this floor is the most flexible due to absence of infills (Fig.
2.10 c). Similarly, the seismic story shear forces and subsequently the bending moments
concentrate in the open ground story, instead of gradually varying as in fully infilled
frame (Fig. 2.10 c and b).

Due to the presence of walls in upper stories makes them much stiffer than the open
ground story. Thus, upper story move almost together as a single block and most of the
horizontal displacement of the building occurs in the soft ground story itself. In common
language, this type of buildings can be explained as a building on chopsticks. Thus, such
buildings swing back-and-forth like inverted pendulums during earthquake shaking (Fig.
2.11), and the columns in the open ground story are severely stressed. If the columns are
weak (do not have the required strength to resist these high stresses) so that they do not
have adequate ductility, they may be severely damaged which may even lead to collapse
of the building.

Fig. 2.11 Soft story building act as an inverted pendulum

From the previous history across the world it is being observing that open ground-
story buildings have consistently performed poorly during earthquakes . A
significant number of buildings with soft story have collapsed (i.e. during 1999
Turkey, 1999 Taiwan, 2001 Bhuj (India) and 2003 Algeria earthquakes, San
Fernando 1971 etc.) Alarming amount of damage to the buildings with open
basements for parking has been reported during the Northridge Earthquake on

21
January 17, 1994, as well as Great Hanstin Earthquake of Kobe 1995. Typical
examples of such collapses are shown in Figs. 2.12 through 2.15.

Fig. 2.12 Soft story collapse of the ground floor of a multistoried building; Kobe, 1995

Fig. 2.13 Large deflection in soft story due to earthquake; Bhuj 2001

22
Fig.2.14 Sway mechanisms are often inevitable with soft ground floors; Izmit, Turkey 1999

Fig. 2.15 Failure because of the effect of soft story mechanism; Los Angles, 1994

2.5 BUILDING CODES

Guideline for the design and construction requirements is the building codes which
ensure public safety from structural failure and loss of life and wealth. Because of the
differences in magnitude of earthquake, geological formations, construction types,
Structure types (Height vs Width), Percentage of infill, economical development and
other features the seismic design aspects are different in different building codes. The
national building codes of different countries can be classified in two broad categories
for our discussion. First are those Codes do not consider the features of Masonry Infill

23
walls while designing RC frames and the others are those consider the features of
Masonry Infill walls while designing RC frames.

2.5.1 Building Code without Considering Soft Story Phenomenon

A very few codes specifically recommend isolating the MI from the RC frames such that
the stiffness of MI does not play any role in the overall stiffness of the frame (NZS-3101
1995, SNIP-II-7-81 1996). As a result, MI walls are not considered in the analysis and
design procedure. The isolation helps to prevent the problems associated with the brittle
behavior and asymmetric placement of MI. Another group of national codes prefers to
take advantage of certain characteristics of MI walls such as high initial lateral stiffness,
cost-effectiveness, and ease in construction. These codes require that the beneficial
effects of MI are appropriately included in the analysis and design procedure and that the
detrimental effects are mitigated. In other words, these codes tend to maximize the role of
MI as a first line of defense against seismic actions, and to minimize their potential
detrimental effects through proper selection of their layout and quality control.
Most national codes recognize that structures with simple and regular geometry perform
well during earthquakes, and unsymmetrical placement of MI walls may introduce
irregularities into them. These codes permit static analysis methods for regular short
buildings located in regions of low seismicity. However, for other buildings, dynamic
analyses are recommended, in which it is generally expected but not specifically required
that all components imparting mass and stiffness to the structure are adequately modeled.
Most codes restrict the use of seismic design force obtained from dynamic analysis such
that it does not differ greatly from a minimum value that is based on the code-prescribed
empirical estimate of natural period. This restriction prevents the design of buildings for
unreasonably low forces that may result from various uncertainties involved in a dynamic
analysis.

Natural period of vibration is an important parameter in the building code equations for
determining the design earthquake force by any kind of equivalent static force method.
Natural periods of vibration of buildings depend upon their mass and lateral stiffness.
Presence of non-isolated MI walls in buildings increases both the mass and stiffness of
buildings; however, the contribution of latter is more significant. Consequently, the

24
natural periods of an MI-RC frame are normally lower than that of the corresponding
bare frame. Therefore, the seismic design forces for MI frames are generally higher than
those for the bare frames. Although, all national codes explicitly specify empirical
formulae for the fundamental natural period calculations of bare RC frames, only a few
specify the formulae for MI-RC frames.

Several codes—IS-1893 (2002); NBC-105 (1995); NSR-98 (1998); Egyptian code

(1988); Venezuelan code (1988); Algerian code (1988); ESCP-1 (1983)—suggest using
an empirical formula given by Eqn 2.6 to calculate the natural period of MI-RC frames,
Ta in sec.

0.09h
Ta  (2.6)
d

where h is the height of the building (in meter) and d the base dimension of building (in
meter) at the plinth level along the considered direction of the lateral force.

For Ta estimation, French code (AFPS-90 1990) recommends using the most unfavorable
of Eqn. 2.6 and the following equation that is specified for masonry buildings:

h h
T  0.06 (2.7)
d 2d  h

In Eqn. 2.6 and 2.7, total base width of buildings is used to calculate Ta , which may not
be appropriate. For example, d will be equal to the total base dimension for all the frames
in Fig. 2.16 irrespective of the distribution of MI in the frame. However, for frame in Fig.
2.16c, it is more appropriate to consider d' as the effective base width, rather than total

width d of the building. Therefore, Eqn. 2.6 and 2.7 may not estimate correct Ta values
for different frames shown in Fig. 2.16.

25
 Fig. 2.16 Different arrangements of masonry infill walls in RC frame

2.5.2 Building Code Considering Soft Story Phenomenon

Vertical irregularities are introduced into MI-RC frames due to reduction or absence of
MI in a particular story compared to adjacent stories. In general, this gives rise to mass,
stiffness, and strength irregularities along height of buildings. A few national codes
penalize beams and/or columns of the irregular stories, as they are required to be
designed for higher seismic forces to compensate for the reduction in the strength due to
absence of MI in the irregular stories.

The Indian seismic code (IS-1893 2002) requires members of the soft story (story
stiffness less than 70% of that in the story above or less than 80% of the average lateral
stiffness of the three stories above) to be designed for 2.5 times the seismic story shears
and moments, obtained without considering the effects of MI in any story. The factor of
2.5 is specified for all the buildings with soft stories irrespective of the extent of
irregularities; and the method is quite empirical. The other option is to provide symmetric
RC shear walls, designed for 1.5 times the design story shear force in both directions of
the building as far away from the center of the building as feasible.

Costa Rican code (1986) requires that all structural-resisting systems must be continuous
from the foundation to the top of buildings, and stiffness of a story must not be less than
50% of that of the story below.

26
2.6 JUSTIFICATION OF PRESENT STUDY

In fact, with most of the buildings constructed without considering seismic

resistance, a moderate earthquake could be fatal in populated, unplanned cities like
Dhaka. At the backdrop of earthquake vulnerability of structures, the construction of
buildings with soft ground story is considered to be even more hazardous. This
particular hazardous construction cannot be avoided because of compelling planning
and utility requirements. As such developing an improved seismic design for such
building structure would ensure a higher degree safety against seismic hazard.

Total seismic base shear as experienced by a building during an earthquake is

dependent on its natural period; the seismic force distribution is dependent on the
distribution of stiffness and mass along the height. In buildings with soft ground story,
the upper story being stiff undergoes smaller inter-story drift. But the inter-story drift in
the soft ground story is large, which in turn, leads to concentration of forces at the
connections of the story above accompanied by large plastic deformations. In
addition, the columns of the soft stories dissipate most of the energy developed
during the earthquake. In this process the plastic hinges are formed at the ends of
columns, transforming into the soft story mechanism. When this occurs in a lower
story, the collapse is unavoidable.
Conventional design is based on static analysis. The basic assumption in static
analysis is that only the first mode of vibration of buildings governs the dynamics and the
effects of higher modes are not significant; therefore, higher modes are not considered in
the analysis. Thus, irrespective of whether the building is regular or irregular, static
analysis is incapable of capturing the true dynamic behavior of soft storied building.
Therefore a detailed parametric study involving parameters i.e. comparison of base
shear, sway, and drift on ratio of building height versus length (H/L), No of bays, and
percentage of randomly distributed infill are justified. Such study shall lead to better
understanding of the behavior of soft storied building.

27
 CHAPTER 3

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the finite element modeling of reinforced concrete 2D frame with
soft story in presence of masonry infill. Selection of element type for modeling this 2D
frame including beam, column, and infill is described with proper support condition.
Effect of infill is also compared with bare frame. To model the masonry infill, link
element is taken as diagonal strut and for load application, mass element is chosen
accordingly. For the analysis both equivalent static force method and response spectrum
method (RSM) is considered. The comparison of effect of infill between ESFM and RSM
is performed to assess the structural characteristics of soft story.

3.2 SOFTWARE USED FOR ANALYSIS

Finite element analysis tools or packages are readily available in the civil engineering
field. They vary with the extent of degree of complexity, usability and versatility.
Among them ABAQUAS, DIANA, ANSYS, ETABS, STRAND, ADINA, FEMSKI,
and STAAD etc are commonly used. ANSYS 10.0 has been used for this research
work.

3.3 ASSUMPTIONS FOR MODELING

In reality RC is a composite material with embedded steel reinforcement in concrete.

Below assumptions are considered for the present study:

 We assumed linearly elastic homogeneous material for the RC frame that is

always steel reinforced in reality.
 According to ACI recommendation, the analysis results for RC frame are accurate
enough for this simplification only if appropriate properties of concrete are
considered.
 The structural property of masonry infill is modeled as diagonal strut.

28
3.4 PROPERTIES OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENT

The properties of structural component used in this study are described below:

3.4.1 ELEMENT Properties

The beams and columns are modeled with common two dimensional frame element
termed BEAM3 from the ANSYS library. It is basically a two noded frame element
having two displacements and one rotational degree of freedom at each node. All beams
and columns are rectangular in shape and their dimensions can be easily varied in the
code. In this model, the dimension of the internal and external columns can be varied
independently.

3.4.2 MASS21 (Structural Mass) for load application

In this present study, dead loads were considered as the self weight of the structure
(including beam, column, floor finish, partition wall and slab), uniformly distributed
dead load on floor from partition wall and occupancy. These dead loads were converted
to equivalent mass and distributed over the beams. In actual condition, the mass is
distributed continuously over the beams. In analyzing, the mass needs to be distributed as
lump mass at some points. Increased number of lump mass gives more accuracy. In this
model, MASS21 from ANSYS library was used to model the lump mass.

3.4.3 LINK8 (3-D Spar or Truss) for diagonal strut

In this model, infill was modeled as diagonal strut. LINK1 from ANSYS library was used
to model the diagonal strut. As LINK1 is a uniaxial tension-compression member, it is
not needed to mesh.

In the present study, we are using ESFM and RSM for earthquake analysis. Both methods
are linear elastic method. Therefore orientation of the diagonal strut shall not have any
significance effect on the overall lateral deflection of the frame or base shear. Due to
difference in orientation the struts may be either in tension or in compression. This shall
effect the local force distribution in beams and columns where the diagonal strut is
connected. However the overall structural behavior in terms of lateral sway or base shear
shall remain unaffected. Therefore under the present scope of the study, orientation of
diagonal strut is not major concern.

29
3.5 MESHING

In reality, loads are distributed uniformly over floors and so on the beams. In finite
element method, uniformly distributed loads are converted into point loads and applied at
the nodes. For this reason mesh density is an important criterion to get good results from
finite element analysis. As the number of elements is increased, the time for calculation
and computation is also increased. The beams were divided into 4 elements and the
column was modeled using single element.

In this study, 2D plane frame has been used to model beams and columns. The stiffness
formulation of this element is based on the exact solution of the governing fourth order
differential equation in flexure. For this reason this element can produced frame results
(axial force, shear force and moment) accurately even if a single element is used for a
beam or column. Therefore mesh density analysis is not essential for the present study.
For the purpose of convenience in distributing the mass element, the beams are divided
into 04 (four) elements only.

3.6 CHOICE OF MODEL TO DEVELOP MASONRY INFILL

There are several analytical models of infill available in the literature, which can be
broadly categorized as (a) continuum models and (b) diagonal strut models described
in the 2nd chapter. For the type of work presented in this study, the diagonal strut
model of Saneinejad and Hobbs (1995) has been found to be more suitable. This
model has been successfully used by Madan et al. (1997) for static monotonic loading
as well as quasi-static cyclic loading. They have also successfully verified the model
by simulating the experimental behavior of tested masonry infill frame sub-

assemblage. The initial stiffness K 0 of the infill masonry panel is calculated using the
formula given by Madan et al. (1997) which is discussed in article 2.3.1 of this thesis.

3.7 SUPPORT CONDITIONS

At foundation level all column ends are considered to act under fixed support condition
with all degrees of freedom of the support being restrained.

30
3.8 LOADS ACTING ON THE STRUCTURE

Various load cases were considered to find the behavior of multistoried RC 2D frame
with open soft ground floor. Basic Load cases considered as Dead Load (DL), Live Load
(LL), and Earthquake Load (EL). These load cases are combined according to BNBC,
1993.

The Basic load cases are:

 Dead Load (D)

 Live Load (L)
 Earthquake Load, EQ (Static)
 Earthquake Load, EQ (Response Spectrum)
Dead Load (D): Dead load is the vertical load due to the weight of permanent structural
and non structural components of a building. For the present study only self weight of
beams, columns and slabs are considered as dead load case of the structure.

All vertical loads except self weight of beam, columns and slab are applied as mass on
the structure. Total vertical load for floor finish applied on the structure is 1.437
kN/m2.Total vertical loads for partition wall is variable and is dependent upon the number
of floor, number of span, infill thickness (175 mm) and floor height. Floor finish (FF)
and Partition wall (PW) loads are applied as mass of the structure and applied at the
nodes.

Live Load (L): The temporary load acting on structure as occupancy load is called live
load and considered as uniformly distributed surface load (valuing 1.9155 kN/m2) in
vertical direction.

Earthquake Load (E): Earthquake load is applied and analyzed in two methods.
Equivalent static force method is used for static analysis and response spectrum method
for dynamic analysis. Combinations of loads are considered such as:

 1.4D
 1.4D+1.7L
 1.05D+1.275L+1.4E(static)
 1.05D+1.275L-1.4E(static)

31
  1.05D+1.275L+1.4E(RSM)
 1.05DL+1.275LL-1.4EL(RSM)

3.9 ANALYSIS OF EARHQUAKE LOAD

Two methods are used to compare the results of seismic load.

 Static analysis (Equivalent static Force Method, ESFM)
 Dynamic Response Analysis (Response Spectrum Method, RSM )

For performing dynamic analysis, it is a prerequisite to determine natural frequencies and

mode shape of a structure. Modal analysis is one which determines these two properties.

3.9.1 EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE METHOD (ESFM)

To calculate seismic lateral forces ESFM is used according to BNBC, 1993. This edition
formulated identical approximate formula for calculating period of structure. The
empirical relationship for base shear calculation is

ZIC
V  W (3.1)
R

Where,

Z = Seismic zone coefficient

I = Structure importance coefficient

R = Response modification coefficient for structural system

W = Total seismic load

C = Numerical coefficient given by the relation

1.25S
C 2 (3.2)
3
T

T = Fundamental period of vibration in sec

S = Site coefficient for soil characteristics

For regular concrete frames, period T may be approximated as

3
T  0.073(hn ) 4
(3.3)

32
 Where, hn = Height of structure above base in meter

3.9.2 MODAL ANALYSIS

Each structure has its different mode shapes at different frequencies. Modal analysis
show how a structure vibrates through its different frequencies and produce different
mode shape. The goal of modal analysis in structural mechanics is to determine the
natural mode shapes and frequencies of an object or structure during free vibration.
Modal Analysis is related with structural frequency. It is pseudo dynamic analysis
depending on elastic property. So, modal analysis is not suitable for Non-linear
analysis.
Modal analysis helps the determination of the vibration characteristics of structure. It
is an essential part of any elastic dynamic analysis process. The natural frequencies
and mode shapes of a structure are important parameters in the design of a structure
for dynamic loading conditions. They are also required for spectrum analysis or mode
superposition harmonic or transient analysis. Modal analysis is done as a linear type
analysis. Any nonlinearity such as plasticity and contact (gap) elements are ignored
even if they are defined. There are several mode extraction methods:

 Subspace
 Block Lanczos
 Power Dynamics
 Reduced Method
 Unsymmetric
 Damped

In this analysis Block Lanczos method (Wilson, 2002) is used to extract the mode.
The modes that are considered, at least 90 percent of the participating mass of the
structure is included in the calculation of response for each principal horizontal
direction. To review mode shapes in the postprocessor the modes must be expanded.
In the single point response spectrum the modal expansion can be performed after the
spectrum analysis based on the significance factor.

33
3.9.3 DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS (RSM)
The dynamic response method conforms to the criteria established is BNBC. The mass
and mass moment of inertia of various components of a structure required for dynamic
analysis should be calculated based on the seismic dead load W. The ground motion
representation should be one having 20% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.

Response spectrum method (RSM) is used to analysis dynamic responses of a structure

subjected to lateral loadings. In this method, multiple modes of response of a structure are
taken into account. A response spectrum is simply a plot of the peak or steady-state
response (displacement, velocity or acceleration) of a series of oscillators of varying
natural frequency that are forced into motion by the same base vibration. From the
resulting plot we can assess the pick of the natural frequency for a particular mass of the
linear structure. To get the dynamic impact all significant modes should be considered.
The number of mode considered should be at least the number of floors. One such use is
in assessing the peak response of buildings to earthquakes. The science of strong ground
motion may use some values from the ground response spectrum (calculated from
recordings of surface ground motion from seismographs) for correlation with seismic
damage.
If the input used in calculating a response spectrum is steady-state periodic, then the
steady-state result is recorded. Damping must be present, or else the response will be
infinite. For transient input (such as seismic ground motion), the peak response is
reported. Some level of damping is generally assumed, but a value will be obtained even
with no damping.
For single degree freedom system the peak response can be determined directly from the
response spectrum for the ground motion without carrying out a response history
analysis. But for multiple degrees freedom system the peak response determined directly
from the response spectrum for the ground motion is not identical to the RHA result. For
this reason response spectrum analysis procedure is for structures excited by a single
component of ground motion; thus simultaneous action of the other two components is
excluded and multiple support excitations is not considered.

According to BNBC, the response spectrum to be used in the dynamic analysis shall be
any one of the following:

34
  Site specific design spectra: A site specific response spectra shall be developed
based on the geologic, tectonic, seismologic, and characteristics associated with
the specific site. The spectra shall be developed for a damping ratio of 0.05 unless
a different value is found to be consistent with the expected structural behavior at
the intensity of vibration established for the site.
 Normalized response spectra: In absence of a site-specific response spectrum, the
normalized response spectra shall be used in the dynamic analysis procedure as
shown in Figure 3.1.

In absence of a site specific response spectrum the normalized response spectra given in
Fig. 3.1 should be used in the dynamic analysis procedure. The analysis should include
peak dynamic response of all modes having a significant contribution to total structural
response. Peak modal response should be calculated using the ordinates of the
appropriate response spectrum curve which corresponds to the modal periods. Maximum
modal contributions should be combined in a statistical manner to obtain an approximate
total structural response. This is used in the present analysis. Response Spectrum Method
is universally accepted method (Wilson, 2002) for design of structure based on dynamic
analysis. A few important aspects of Response Spectrum Method are described below.

Fig. 3.1 Normalized Response Spectra for 5% Damping Ratio (BNBC, 1993)

35
 Number of modes: In case of modal analysis different mode shapes for probable
vibration pattern are encountered. Different mode shapes have different
frequencies of vibration. Some of the modes are closely spaced showing similar
pattern of vibration.
All significant modes must be included in the analysis of response spectrum. The
modes that are considered, at least 90 percent of the participating mass of the
structure is included in the calculation of response for each principal horizontal
direction. To review mode shapes in the postprocessor the modes must be
expanded. In the single point response spectrum the modal expansion can be
performed after the spectrum analysis based on the significance factor.
 Combination of the modes: The peak member forces, displacements, story
forces, shears and base reactions for each mode shall be combined using
established procedures in order to estimate resultant maximum values of these
response parameters. When two dimensional models are used for analysis, modal
interaction effects shall be considered when combining modal maximum.
Different mode combination methods for single point response spectrum analysis;
such as

- Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS),

- Complete Quadratic combination (CQC),

- Double Sum (DSUM), Grouping (GRP),

- Naval Research Laboratory Sum (NRLSUM).

Among all these methods CQC method is found suitable for the analysis. The
reason is described in article 3.10.

 Scaling of results: Base shear for a given direction determined by response

spectrum is different from the base shear obtained by equivalent static force
method. It should be adjusted which is termed as scaling of results. Scaling of
base shear is done according to Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC,
1993). Base shear of response spectrum is scaled so that this is equal with base
shear found from static analysis. As all corresponding parameters including

36
 deflections, member forces and moments changes in proportion to the adjusted
base shear, scaling is done for 0% infill only. And for other percentage of
structurally active infill the same scale factor is used to study effect of infill.

3.10 METHOD OF MODAL COMBINATION

The most conservative method that is used to estimate a peak value of displacement or
force within a structure is to use the sum of the absolute of the modal response values.
This approach assumes that the maximum modal values, for all modes, occur at the same
point in time. Another very common approach is to use the Square Root of the Sum of the
Squares, SRSS, on the maximum modal values in order to estimate the values of
displacement or forces. The SRSS rule for modal combination developed in E.
Rosenblueth’s Ph.D. thesis (1951) is

1
N  2
r0    rn20  (3.7)
 n1 

the peak response in each mode is squared, the squared modal peaks are summed, and the
square root of the sum provides an estimate of the peak total response. This modal
combination rule provides excellent response estimates for structures with well separated
natural frequencies. This limitation has not always been recognized in applying this rule
to practical problems, and at times it has been misapplied to systems with closely spaced
natural frequencies such as piping systems in nuclear power plants and multistory
buildings with unsymmetrical plan. For three dimensional structures, in which a large
number of frequencies are almost identical, this assumption is not justified.

The relatively new method of modal combination is the Complete Quadratic

Combination (CQC) method (Wilson, Kiureghian and Bayo, 1981) that was first
published in 1981 is applicable to a wider class of structures as it overcomes the
limitations of the SRSS rule. It is based on random vibration theories and has found wide
acceptance by most engineers and has been incorporated as an option in most modern
computer programs for seismic analysis. The peak value of a typical force can now be
estimated, from the maximum modal values, by the CQC method with the application of
the following double summation equation:

37
 1
 N N  2
r0     in rio rno  (3.8)
 i 1 n 1 

each of the N 2 terms on the right side of this equation is the product of the peak

responses in the i th and the n nth modes and the correlation coefficient  in for these two

modes;  in varies between 0 and 1and  in =1 for i = n . Thus Eqn. 3.8 can be rewritten as
1
  2
 N N N 
r0    rn20    in rio rno  (3.9)
 n 1 i 1 n 1
  
 in 

to show that the first summation on the right side is identical to the SRSS combination
rule of Eqn. 3.7.

3.11 DIFFERENT MODE SHAPES:

Since modal analysis has been performed hence different mode shapes for probable
vibration pattern are encountered. Different mode shapes have different frequencies of
vibration. Some of the modes are closely spaced showing similar pattern of vibration.
Here some well distinguished mode shapes are featured to give some ideas about the
different modes of vibration in dynamic analysis.

a) 1st Mode Shape b) 2nd Mode Shape c) 3rd Mode Shape

38
d) 4th Mode Shape e) 5th Mode Shape f) 6th Mode Shape

g) 7th Mode Shape h) 8th Mode Shape i) 9th Mode Shape

j) 10th Mode Shape k) 11th Mode Shape l) 12th Mode Shape

Fig 3.2 Mode shapes of a 6 storied building

39
3.12 STUDY PARAMETERS

The main objective of this thesis is to study seismic effect of a 2D frame with random
infill keeping the ground floor as a soft story. For a wide range of analysis several
multiple storied frames with variable span length has been analyzed. Storied considered
for this study are 6 storied, 9 storied,12 storied,15 storied and 18 storied with variable
span length i.e. 2 spanned,4 spanned,6 spanned,8 spanned and 10 spanned frame has
been analyzed separately by ANSYS10. Analysis has been done by considering
varying percentage of infill i.e. 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% which applied
randomly. For a particular height of frame with fixed span length, a particular amount of
infill is applied randomly. This process is repeated for 15 times and results are taken each
time. Then the average value is considered for base shear and sway.
A reinforced concrete moment resisting 2D frame with open ground story and un-
reinforced brick infill walls in the upper story is chosen for this study is shown in fig.-
3.3. The building is considered to be located in seismic zone II and intended for
residential use. The dimensions of structural components were assumed relatively and the
material parameters were taken accordingly for normal concrete.

Fig. 3.3 Finite Element modeling of total structure

40
Table 3.1: Values of parameters of the generalized reference model

Sl No. Parameter Value/Dimension

01 Span length 7000 mm
02 Bay width 5000 mm
03 Floor height 3000 mm
04 Slab thickness 177.80 mm
05 Floor finish 1.437 k N/m2
06 Live load 1.9155 k N/m2
07 Beam Width 300mm
08 Beam Height Span length /14
09 Column as per design requirement
10 Gravitational acceleration 9810 mm/sec2
11 Number of story 6 , 9, 12, 15 and 18
12 Height of each story 3m
13 Height of ground floor 4m
14 Number of span 2 to 10
15 Number of Bay 1
Concrete properties
16 Modulus of elasticity of concrete 21530 N/mm2
17 Poisson’s ratio 0.2
18 Density of concrete 2.44 ton/ m3
19 Unit weight 24 kN/m3
Infill properties
20 Thickness 175mm
21 Amount of Infill 0% , 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%
22 Infill Pattern Randomly Distributed

41
3.12.1 EXAMPLE OF LOAD CALCULATION:

Frame Parameters

Height of column below Grade Beam, H1 =2m

Height of column of Ground Floor, H2 =4m

Height of column of other floor, FH =3m

Slab thickness, t = 0.1778 m

Infill Thickness, INFLTH = 0.175 m

Bay Width, BAYW =5m

Span Length, SPANL =7m

No. of span, NSPAN =2

No. of bay, NBAY =1

No. of floors, NFLOOR =6

Infill % = 20 %

Unit weight of Concrete, u = 24 kN/m3

Beam Parameters

Internal Beam Parameter

Beam Height, BHL = SPANL/14 or BAYW/14 or 0.3 m (whichever is greater)

= 0.5 m or 0.357 m or 0.3 m

Here, appropriate value is = 0.5 m

Beam Width, BWL = 0.3 m

Beam Height, BHT = SPANL/14 or BAYW/14 or 0.3 m (whichever is greater)

= 0.5 m or 0.357 m or 0.3 m

Here, appropriate value is = 0.5 m

Beam Width, BWT = 0.3 m

42
Load Calculation

a) Weight of Floor Finish, FF = 30 psf = 1.437 kN/m2

Total weight of floor finish, WFF = FF⨯SPANL⨯BAYW⨯NSPAN⨯NFLOOR

= 603.54 kN

c) Weight of Live Load, LL = 40 psf = 1.9155 kN/m2

Total weight of live load, WLL = LL⨯SPANL⨯BAYW⨯NSPAN⨯NFLOOR

= 804.525 kN

d) Weight of Partition wall

Total no of infill panel for drawing infill,

NPANEL=NSPAN (NFLOOR-1) = 10 (except ground floor)

No of infill, NINFILL = NINT (NPANEL⨯percent/100) = 2

Wt of a single infill, WTINF1=SPANL⨯FH⨯INFLTH⨯U = 88.2 kN

Total weight of infill, WTINFLT=NINFILL⨯WTINF1 = 176.4 kN

Weight of Infill per floor, WTINFPF=WTINFLT/NFLOOR = 29.4 kN / floor

Weight of partition wall, PW=WTINFPF/ (NSPAN⨯SPANL⨯BAYW) = 0.42 kN/m2

e) Weight of Slab

Total weight of Slab, WS = h⨯SPANL⨯BAYW⨯u⨯NSPAN⨯NFLOOR = 1792.224 kN

f) Weight of Beam

Wt of Longitudinal Beam = (BHL⨯BWL)⨯SPANL⨯u⨯NSPAN⨯NFLOOR = 302.4 kN

Wt of Transverse Beam = (BHL⨯BWL)⨯BAYW⨯ u ⨯(NSPAN+1)⨯NFLOOR = 324

kN

Total Weight of Beam = 626.4 kN

Column Parameters:

Wt of (floor finish + partition wall + slab) acting on ground floor column ,

Wfps = (FF+PW+ (h⨯1⨯1⨯u))⨯SPANL⨯BAYW⨯NFLOOR = 1286 kN

43
Wt of beam (longitudinal + transverse) acting on ground floor column,

Wb = ((BAL⨯SPANL⨯U)+(BAT⨯BAYW⨯U))⨯NFLOOR = 259.2 kN

Dead load acting on ground floor column, DLC= (Wfps + Wb) = 1545.21 kN

Live load acting on ground floor column

LLC=LL⨯SPANL⨯BAYW⨯NFLOOR = 402.26 kN

Total load acting on ground floor column

Pu = (1.4⨯DLC+1.7⨯LLC)⨯1.5 = 4270.71 kN (1.5 is Arbitrary to account for the

effect of lateral load))

Fcp = 2.068e4 = 20687.79 kN/m2 (Concrete strength assumed as 3000 psi

which turned into kn/m2)

Roh=0.02 (Steel Ratio, assumed)

Fi=0.7

Fy=4.138e5 = 413755.93 kn/m2 (Steel yield strength assumed as 60,000 psi

which turned into kn/m2)

Stirrup number = 3

Ccover = 0.038 (Clear cover assumed as 1.5 in)

Bar no = 6

Internal Column Parameters :

Agi = Pu / (0.8⨯0.7⨯(0.85⨯Fcp+Roh⨯(Fy-0.85⨯Fcp))) ( Internal Column area in mt )

= 0.29897 m2

ICH= √(Agi) = 0.54678 m ≥ 0.3 m (ICH=Internal column thickness)

ICH = 0.54678 m

ICW=ICH = 0.54678 m (ICW= Internal column Width)

External Column Parameter:

Age = (Pu⨯0.5) / (0.8⨯0.7⨯ (0.85⨯Fcp + Roh⨯(Fy-0.85⨯Fcp))) (Ext. Column area, m)

= 0.14948 m2

44
ECH= √ (Age) = 0.38663 m ≥ 0.3 m (ECH=Ext. Column Thickness)

ECH = 0.38663 m

ECW=ECH = 0.38663 m

Grade Beam Parameter :

GCH=ICH = 0.54678 m (Column Height below grade beam)

GCW=ICW =0.54678 m (Column width below grade beam)

GBH=ICH = 0.54678 m (GBH=Grade beam height)

GBW=ICW = 0.54678 m (GBW=Grade beam width)

g) Weight of Grade Beam

Wt. of Grade Beam in Longitudinal Direction,

WGBL = (GBH⨯GBW)⨯SPANL⨯u⨯NSPAN = 100.455 kN

Wt. of Grade Beam in Transverse Direction,

WGBT = (GBH⨯GBW) ⨯BAYW⨯u⨯ (NSPAN+1) = 107.631 kN

Total Weight of Grade Beam, WGB = 208.086 kN

h) Weight of column under Grade Beam

Internal Column, WGCI = GCW⨯GCH⨯H1⨯ u ⨯ (NSPAN-1) = 14.35079 kN

External Column, WGCE = GCW⨯GCH⨯H1⨯u⨯2 = 28.70158 kN

Total Wt. of column under grade beam, WGC = WGCI+WGCE = 43.052 kN

i) Weight of column above grade beam/ground floor

Internal Column, WICg = ICA⨯H2⨯u⨯(NSPAN-1) = 28.701 kN

External Column, WECg = ECA⨯H2⨯u⨯2 = 28.701 kN

Total wt. of column above grade beam, WCg = WICg + WECg = 57.403 kN

j) Weight of column above ground floor

Internal Column , WIC = ICA⨯FH⨯u⨯(NSPAN-1)⨯(NFLOOR-1) = 107.631 kN

45
External Column, WEC = ECA⨯FH⨯u⨯2⨯(NFLOOR-1) = 107.631 kN

Total wt. of column above ground floor, WC = WIC + WEC = 215.262 kN

Now total weight of the structure,

W = WFF+WTINFLT+WS+WB+WGB+WGC+WCg+WC
= 3722.368 kN

Earthquake Parameter:

Z =0.15 (Siesmic zone coefficient for zone-2, BNBC Table 6.2.22)

I=1 (Structure Importance Coefficient)

R=8 (Response modification coeffcient for structural system)

S = 1.5 (Site coefficient for soil characterstics)

Ct = 0.073

hn = H2+(NFLOOR-1)⨯FH = 19 (Height in meters above the ground to level n)

Structure Period, T = Ct ⨯ (hn)3/4 = 0.664

C = 1.25⨯S / (T)2/3 = 2.463 < 2.75 (OK)

Now Design Base Shear , V = ZICW / R = 171.882 kN

The additional lateral force assume to approximate the effects of higher nodes of
structural vibration, Ft

If, T > 0.7 second then Ft = 0.07⨯T⨯V ≤ 0.25V

or else if T≤ 0.7 then Ft = 0

Since, T = 0.664 < 0.7 So, Ft = 0

Wt of the portion of the building assumed to be lumped at level x, Wx

W1 = Wbelowgradebeam = WGB+WGC = 251.1388 kN

Wt. of ground floor,

W2 = Wground = WFF/NFLOOR + WTINFLT/NFLOOR + WB/NFLOOR +

WS/NFLOOR + WCg

= 590.497 kN

46
 Wt. of Other Floor,

W3 = Wi = WFF/NFLOOR + WPW/NFLOOR + WB/NFLOOR + WS/NFLOOR + WC /

(NFLOOR-1) = 576.146 kN

Determination of Each Story Forces:

The magnitude of each story force ,

𝑉−𝐹𝑡 𝑊𝑥ℎ𝑥
Fx = 𝑛 ……………… (1)
𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖ℎ𝑖

Now from the equation (1), various values can be summarized in a table as below :

Table 3.2 Storey Forces acting on study frame for ESFM

Base Shear,
Story No. Wi / hi Wx / hx V⨯Wx⨯hx Fx
V
1 3542.98 3542.94 171.882 608967.61 13.02
2 5185.31 5185.32 171.882 891262.76 19.06
3 6913.75 6913.76 171.882 1188350.35 25.42
4 8642.19 8642.20 171.882 1485437.93 31.77
5 10370.63 10370.64 171.882 1782525.52 38.13
6 12099.07 12099.07 171.882 2079613.11 44.48
∑ Wi / hi = 46753.93 ∑ Fx = 171.88

Again the base shear and storey forces found from software analysis are given below,

Base Shear :

And Storey Forces :

This is equal to the value found from above manual calculation. (Checked).

47
 Fig.3.4 Story Forces determined by ESFM method.

3.12.2 DEFORMED SHAPES FOR DIFFERENT LOADING PATTERN:

Fig. 3.5 (a) Deflected shape due to EQ for 40%infill of 6 storied frame.

48
Fig. 3.5 (b) Deflected shape due to EQ for 40%infill of 9 storied frame.

Fig. 3.5 (c) Deflected shape due to EQ for 40%infill of 12 storied frame.

49
Fig. 3.5 (d) Deflected shape due to EQ for 40%infill of 15 storied frame.

Fig. 3. 5 (e) Deflected shape due to EQ for 40%infill of 18 storied frame.

50
3.12.3 STUDY OF MEMBER FORCES
Shear force, axial force and bending moment diagram for a frame of 9 storied building
are shown in Fig. 3.6. Comparison of frames without infill and with 50% infill is
presented here for both equivalent static force method and response spectrum method.
These diagrams reveal the nature of forces and moments developed in the columns.

a-1 Axial force (Bare Frame) ESFM b-1 Axial force (Bare Frame) RSM

a-2 Shear force (Bare Frame) ESFM b-2 Shear force (Bare Frame) RSM

51
a-3 Bending Moment (Bare Frame) ESFM b-3 Bending Moment (Bare Frame) RSM

a-4 Axial force (50% Infill) ESFM b-4 Axial force (50% Infill) RSM

52
 a-5 Shear force (50% Infill) ESFM b-5 Shear force (50% Infill) RSM

a-6 Bending Moment (50% Infill) ESFM b-6 Bending Moment (50% Infill) RSM

Fig.3.6 Moment and Force diagram of 9 storied frame for ESFM & RSM loading.

53
The findings from these figures can be summarized as follows.

Axial Force Diagram: For the case of frame without infill, the axial force is very
nominal. But for 50% infill, it shows that there is a prominent effect of infill for
earthquake loading. Value is significant for response spectrum method. In RSM for 50%
structurally active infill, it is found that axial force is significant above ground floor while
for bare frame it is insignificant. The reason is that floor finish and partition load is
applied on the structure as mass and infill is placed as diagonal strut. So this diagonal
struts increases the axial force. As earthquake loading is applied laterally so values of
axial force is not much.

Values of shear force and bending moment are much higher for response spectrum
loading. For this reason mixed frame action does not show any effect for shear force and
bending moment.

Shear Force Diagram: For shear force, the diagram shows major change in force in
upper stories due to presence of infill. In upper stories the shear force decreases and
almost becomes zero while in ground floor the shear force increases. Fig. 3.6a (2) gives
shear force 103KN for model without infill in a ground floor column for ESFM whereas
for the same column with 50% infill this value is 126 KN, has shown in fig 3.6b (2) in
ESFM. The value in RSM is 304 KN has shown in fig.3.6b (5).

The infill makes the structure stiffer to deflect. As shown in the mode shape 1 deflection
is concentrated in the open ground floor only. Presence of infill stiffens the upper stories
which makes deflection concentration and so shear concentration in the open ground
floor.

Bending Moment Diagram: Bending moment increases in the first ground floor
whereas reduces in upper floors after placement of infill. Infill is placed as diagonal strut
which stiffens the structure. As a result bending moment decreases in those stories where
infill is placed.

As shear force increases in the open ground floor due to presence of infill in upper floors,
consequently bending moment shows same pattern of change. Due to pendulum effect
deflection is concentrated in ground floors so the moment is also concentrated.

54
3.13 Random distribution of infill:

Infill position plays a significant role to contribute on structural modification. In current

2D analysis the random infill position is featured for each case so that base shear can be
found for different position of infill after each time run.

Fig.3.7 Different patterns of 40% random infill application (6 storied building)

55
Fig.3.8 Different patterns of 40% random infill application (12storied building)

56
3.14 REMARKS

Total analysis procedure of the present study starting from software used, elements used
for Finite Element Modeling to the applied loads and load cases for observing the effect
of soft ground floors are described in this chapter. Finally parameters of reference models
are described and analyzed with some parameter i.e. Vavg(rsm)/Vesfm, Height/Length,
Base Shear and Sway pattern. The analysis is based on the comparison between without
infill and variable percentage of randomly distributed infill.

57
 CHAPTER 4

PARAMETRIC STUDY AND DISCUSSION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Seismic performance of a soft story 2D frame has been analyzed in the current study
considering varying percentage of randomly distributed infill on the upper floors. Other
parameters i.e. building height, numbers of span, load combination etc are also
considered in the study. The parameters are selected in such a way that practical behavior
of RC frame is reflected in the model. Results of analyzing of varying parameters are
described in this chapter. The effect of randomly applied varying percentage of infill i.e
0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% has been studied for 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 storied frame
with open ground floor. The effect on base shear due to various number of span with
respect to height of the frame i.e. slenderness of frame (frame height versus length, H/L)
is also considered both in static (ESFM) and dynamic (RSM) method. Results were
compared for base shear, drift, sway, base shear versus slenderness of frame.

4.2 STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS FOR MODELS

Presence of infill in the structures changes the mass and stiffness. Base shear of building
during earthquake is dependent on its natural period; whereas the time period of a
building is basically a function of its mass and stiffness. Thus any structural or building
parameter that changes the stiffness of mass shall have influence on the period as well as
base shear and sway. In the present study the varying parameters are percentage of infill,
frame height and number of span.
The values of parameters for reference model have been described in the article 3.12 in
Table 3.1. As per that reference 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 storied 2D frame models are studied
with different infill percentages to observe soft ground floor effect due to lateral force.

4.3 PARAMETERS OF MODELS FOR FRAMES

For the current 2D frame, 15 times software run were executed (except bare frame) for a
particular height of frame with certain amount of randomly distributed infill. Then an

58
average value of base shear was taken from all of those 15 results. For each frame the
columns are designed considering all design loads. Considered load cases are dead load,
live load, earthquake load. The infill is placed as diagonal strut model. The infill
percentages are 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80%. Number of span considered as 2, 4, 6, 8
and 10 spanned for a particular height of the frame i.e; 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 storied.
Various parameters of these buildings are given a tabular form in Table 4.1.
Infill and mass locations are so placed to avoid accidental torsional effects following
Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 1993). According to BNBC to avoid
accidental torsion the vertical lateral load resisting elements should be parallel to or
symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the lateral force-resisting system. Each
infill is applied as mass on the structure and the infill effect is placed as diagonal strut.

Table 4.1: Parameters of Study Frames

Parameters Values
Number of bay 1
Number of span 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10
Number of story 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18
Span×Bay (mm) 7000×5000
st
Height of story (mm) (1 floor to top 3000
floor)
Height of ground floor (mm) 4000
Ht of col under Grade Beam(mm) 2000
Beam height (mm) Max. of Span length/14 or Bay width /14 or
300
Beam Width (mm) 300
Column (External and Internal) size
As per design
(mm×mm)
Height of grade beam (mm) As per design
Infill Thickness (mm) 175
Slab thickness (mm) 177.80
Infill Percentage (%) 0% , 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%
No. of run for each span with respect to
fixed % of infill 15

59
4.3.1 Effect of randomness of infill on base shear
Infill has been applied randomly and base shear value is taken for the same application.
In this way software has run for 15 times. Each run is a combination of fixed height,
fixed span and fixed percentage of infill, just changing the infill location each times.
Then bar chart has plotted using those base shear value.

Table 4.2: Base shear variation of 9 storied with 10 spanned frame for random
application of Infill (in different percentage) with soft ground floor

Upper floor infill

percentage 20% 40% 60% 80%
1659 2507 2738 2954
Base shear values by RSM 1961 2227 2747 2959
for different patterns of infill 1757 2403 2719 2957
application 1721 2179 2735 2945
(KN) 1745 2451 2722 2951
1792 2294 2737 2964
1655 2372 2735 2949
1772 2427 2749 2951
1880 2341 2753 2960
1831 2358 2750 2949
1704 2362 2732 2955
1714 2266 2738 2946
1768 2446 2747 2946
1846 2420 2751 2944
1681 2156 2726 2957

Average Base shear by RSM

(KN) 1766 2347 2739 2952
Maxima (KN) 1961 2507 2753 2964
Minima (KN) 1655 2156 2719 2944
Standard deviation 82.64 100.19 10.44 5.92
Percentage (%) variation
with Avg. 4.68 4.27 0.38 0.20

60
 4000

3500

3000

Base Shear (V), KN 2500

1961

1880

1846
1831
1792

1772

1768
1757

1745
1721

1714
1704

1681
1659

1655
2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.1 Variation of Base Shear for 20% Infill 9 Floor10 Spanned Frame

4000

3500

3000
2507

2451

2446
2427

2420
2403

2372

2362
2358
2341
2294

2266
2227

2179

2156
2500
Base Shear (V), KN

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.2 Variation of Base Shear for 40% Infill 9 Floor10 Spanned Frame

61
 4000

3500

2753

2751
2750
2749

2747
2747
2738

2738
2737
2735

2735

2732

2726
2722
2719
3000

Base Shear (V), KN 2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.3 Variation of Base Shear for 60% Infill 9 Floor10 Spanned Frame

4000

3500
2753

2751
2750
2749

2747
2747
2738

2738
2737
2735

2735

2732

2726
2722
2719

3000

2500
Base Shear (V), KN

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.4 Variation of Base Shear for 80% Infill 9 Floor 10 Spanned Frame

62
 Table 4.3: Base shear variation of 18 storied with 6 spanned frame for random
application of Infill (in different percentage) with soft ground floor

Upper floor
infill
percentage 20% 40% 60% 80%
1727 2363 2897 3362
Base shear 1677 2356 2913 3418
values by RSM 1673 2471 2862 3366
for different 1810 2300 2895 3367
patterns of infill 1745 2346 2926 3373
application 1620 2210 2927 3415
(KN) 1678 2454 2899 3421
1670 2258 2927 3417
1668 2252 2855 3453
1705 2396 2936 3386
1724 2389 2887 3391
1677 2334 2873 3385
1807 2369 2896 3398
1719 2381 3004 3418
1851 2437 2931 3375

Average Base shear

RSM( KN) 1717 2354 2909 3396
Maxima (KN) 1851 2471 3004 3453
Minima (KN) 1620 2210 2862 3362
Standard deviation 61.35 72.27 35.31 25.51
Percentage (%)
variation with Avg. 3.57 3.07 1.21 0.75

4000

3500

3000

2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

1851
1810

1807
1745
1727

1724

1719
1705
1678
1677

1677
1673

1670

1668
1620

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.5 Variation of Base Shear for 20% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame

63
 4000

3500

3000

2471

2454

2437
2396

2389

2381
2369
2363

2356

2346

2334
2300

2258

2252
2210
2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.6 Variation of Base Shear for 40% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame

4000

3500
3004
2936

2931
2927
2926

2927
2913

2899
2897

2896
2895

2887

2873
2862

2855

3000

2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.7 Variation of Base Shear for 60% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame

64
 4000

3453
3421
3418

3418
3417
3415

3398
3391
3386

3385

3375
3373
3367
3366
3362
3500

3000

2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

2000

1500

1000

500

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run

Fig.4.8 Variation of Base Shear for 80% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame

From the results obtained (shown in table 4.2 and table 4.3 and fig.4.1 to fig. 4.8) we find
that value of base shear does not change significantly due to the change of infill location
for a certain percentage of infill. When the infill percentage is increased i.e 60% or 80%,
then the variation of base shear is insignificant. Hence an average value of base shear has
taken from the values of 15 numbers of software run.

4.3.2 Effect of Variation of Infill Percentage on Story Sway

In the present study, lateral force (earthquake force) is considered which has dominant
effect. Story sway due to earthquake is compared here.

First earthquake load is applied in one direction. Sway is plotted for the frame for the
load cases. Two load cases are considered for earthquakes i.e. load case-3 for static load
(ESFM) and load case-4 for response spectrum (RSM). Sway for Equivalent Static Force
Method (ESFM) and Response Spectrum Method (RSM) is shown in fig.4.9 to 4.18

65
 7

4
Story No.

No Infill
2
20% Infill
40% Infill
1 60% Infill
80% Infill

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.9 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 6 storied and 4 spanned Frame by ESFM

4
Story No.

No Infill
2
20% Infill
40% Infill
1 60% Infill
80% Infill

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.10 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 6 storied and 4 spanned Frame by RSM

66
 10

6
Story No.

3 No Infill
20% Infill
2 40% Infill
60% Infill
1 80% Infill

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm
Fig.4.11 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 9 storied and 4 spanned Frame by ESFM

10

6
Story No.

3 No Infill
20% Infill
2 40% Infill
60% Infill
1 80% Infill

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.12 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 9 storied and 4 spanned Frame by RSM

67
 14

12

10

8
Story No.

No Infill
4 20% Infill
40% Infill
2
60% Infill
80% Infill
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.13 Story Sway for Diff. % Infill of 12 storied and 4 spanned Frame by ESFM

14

12

10

8
Story No.

6
No Infill
4 20% Infill
40% Infill
2 60% Infill
80% Infill
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.14 Story Sway for Diff. % Infill of 12 storied and 4 spanned Frame by RSM

68
 16

14

12

10
Story No.

6
No Infill
4 20% Infill
40% Infill
2 60% Infill
80% Infill
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.15 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 15 storied and 4 spanned Frame by ESFM

16

14

12

10
Story No.

6
No Infill
4 20% Infill
40% Infill
2 60% Infill
80% Infill
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.16 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 15 storied and 4 spanned Frame by RSM

69
 20

18

16

14

12
Story No.

10

6 No Infill
20% Infill
4 40% Infill
60% Infill
2
80% Infill
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.17 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 18 storied and 4 spanned Frame by ESFM

20

18

16

14

12
Story No.

10

6 No Infill
20% Infill
4 40% Infill
60% Infill
2
80% Infill
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm

Fig.4.18 Story Sway for Diff. Infill percent of 18 storied and 4 spanned Frame by RSM

70
Findings from the graphs are stated below:

 Sway increases suddenly at first floor in RSM method while it is not significant in
ESFM. The abrupt changes in the slope of the profile are due to the stiffness
irregularity between the ground floor and upper floors

 Sway remains almost same both for ESM and RSM method for bare infilled
frame for a particular height irrespective of number of span. This means that sway
is not influenced by number of span or analytical method (i.e. ESFM or RSM) if
the frame does not contain any infill.

 The infill act as equivalent diagonal strut which is responsible to increases the
story stiffness. Both for ESFM and RSM lateral sway is the highest for frame with
0% infill and it reduces gradually with the increase of infill due to increased
stiffness of the story for the presence of infill.

 Sway profiles for both ESFM and RSM have a sudden change of slope at first
floor level. The inter-story drift demand is largest in the ground story for all the
models for both ESFM and RSM.

 Lateral sway is almost same for soft story irrespective of percentage of

structurally active infill in the upper stories. This scenario is same for ESFM and
RSM method.

 Sway value in RSM method is always higher than the value found from ESFM
method. For 6 storied 2 spanned frames with 60% infill, ESFM shows 7mm sway
for soft ground floor while it is 14mm for RSM. For 9 storied frame these values
are 6mm and 12mm respectively, for 12 storied frame it is also 8 mm and 10 mm
respectively, for 15 storied frame it is 3mm and 7mm respectively and for
18storied frame it is 2mm and 5mm respectively. So it is found that sway
determined by dynamic method is always higher than the value found from static
analysis due to the consideration of pendulum effect.

 Variation of sway between top floor and ground floor due to various percentage
of infill (40% and more) is not significant for 6 and 9 storied frame. But for 12

71
 storied or more, the variation is significant, top floor deviated significantly than
ground floor. The variation is prominent in RSM method.
4.3.3 Effect of Span Length & Infill Percentage on Story Drift

Story drift for ESFM and RSM method are determined for height of 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18
floor with varying number of span starting from 2 to 10 with an incremental value of 2.
Then the graph are plotted as story number versus drift (mm) for ESFM and RSM
method as shown below from Fig. 4.19 to 4.34.
7

20% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

6
20% Infill 4 span (RSM)
5

4
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig. 4.19 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infil 6 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

40% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

6
40% Infill 4 span (RSM)
5

4
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.20 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 6 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

72
 7

60% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

6
60% Infill 4 span (RSM)
5

4
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.21 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 6 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

80% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

6
80% Infill 4 span (RSM)
5

4
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.22 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 6 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

73
 10

9 20% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

8 20% Infill 4 span (RSM)
7

6
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.23 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 9 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

10

9 40% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

8 40% Infill 4 span (RSM)
7

6
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.24 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 9 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

74
 10

9 60% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

8 60% Infill 4 span (RSM)
7

6
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.25 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 9 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

10

9 80% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

8 80% Infill 4 span (RSM)
7

6
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.26 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 9 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

75
 14

12 20% Infill 4 Span (ESFM)

20% Infill 4 Span (RSM)
10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10-3 )

Fig.4.27 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 12 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

14

40% Infill 4 Span (ESFM)

12
40% Infill 4 Span (RSM)
10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10-3 )

Fig.4.28 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 12 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

76
 14
60% Infill 4 Span (ESFM)
12
60% Infill 4 Span (RSM)

10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10-3 )

Fig.4.29 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infil 12 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

14
80% Infill 4 span (ESFM)
12
80% Infill 4 span (RSM)

10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10-3 )

Fig.4.30 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infil 12 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

77
 16

14 20% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

20% Infill 4 span (RSM)

12

10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.31 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infil 15 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

16

14 40% Infill 2 span (ESFM)

40% Infill 2 span (RSM)

12

10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.32 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infil 15 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

78
 16

14 60% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

60% Infill 4 span (RSM)

12

10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.33 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infil 15 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

16

14 80% Infill 4 span (ESFM)

80% Infill 4 span (RSM)

12

10
Story No.

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.34 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infil 15 Floor and 4 spanned Frame

79
From the above figures from 4.19 to 4.34, it has been seen that drift value is higher in the
soft ground floor. Since infills are located on the upper stories keeping the ground floor
open, hence load concentration occur at ground floor. Thus ground floor becomes weaker
than other floors and deflection occurs severely.
The findings from the graphs are mentioned below:
For 6 storied Frame
 For a 6 storied frame, drift is higher in the soft ground floor with comparison to
other floor for all spanned (i.e 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and infill percentage.
 Drift value is highest for 2 spanned 40% infilled frame. For ESFM this value is
2.125 and for RSM is 3.35.Since the frame is 2 spanned hence it experiences as
slender frame and thus deflection is higher for this 2 spanned slender frame.

For 9 storied Frame

 For all percentage of infill, drift is higher for 2 spanned frames both for ESFM
and RSM method. This is due to slenderness of the frame.
 Highest value is obtained from ground floor. The value is 1.55 found for 40%
infilled frame for ESFM method. For RSM method it is 2.85.

For 12 storied Frame

 For 20% infill and 2 spanned frames, Drift is higher in 5th floor for both ESFM
and RSM method and the values are 1.6 and 2.35 respectively. And these are the
highest value.
 For other percentage of infill of different spanned except 2 spanned frames, drift
is higher in the ground floor level.

For 15 storied Frame

 For 20% infill and 2 spanned frames, Drift is higher in 5th floor for both ESFM
and RSM method and the values are 1.55 and 2.2 respectively. This is similar to
12 storied frames. For other spanned from 4 to 10, drift is higher in 2nd floor.
 For other percentage of infill with different span, drift is higher in ground floor.

80
For 18 storied Frame

 For 20% and 40% infill and 2 spanned frames, Drift is higher in 6th floor for both
ESFM and RSM method and the values are 1.55 and 2.2 respectively. For other
spanned from 4 to 10, drift is higher in 2nd floor.
 For other percentage of infill with different spanned frame, Drift is higher in soft
ground floor.

Based on the above findings, highest drift values are summarized below in table 4.4

Table 4.4 Maximum drift values for different floor level

Number of Percentage of
Floor level
span Infill Highest Highest
Sl. Frame corresponding
corresponding corresponding Value Value
No Height to highest
to highest to highest (ESFM) (RSM)
value
value value
1 6 Storied Ground Floor 2 40% 2.125 3.35

2 9 Storied Ground Floor 2 40% 1.55 2.85

3 12 Storied 5th Floor 2 20% 1.6 2.35

4 15 Storied 5th Floor 2 20% 1.55 2.2

5 18 Storied 6th Floor 2 20% & 40% 1.55 2.2

4.3.4 Effect of Slenderness (H/L) on Base shear

Slenderness of frame i.e. value of height by span length (H/L) has an effect on the base
shear found by ESFM and RSM. Base shear for ESFM and RSM method are determined
for certain height of 6, 9,12, 15 and 18 floor with varying number of span from 2 to 10
with a incremental value of 2. Then the graph are plotted as Base shear versus H/L as
shown below from fig. 4.35 to 4.39

81
Fig. 4.35 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 6 Floor

Fig. 4.36 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 9 Floor

82
Fig. 4.37 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 12 Floor

Fig. 4.38 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 15 Floor

83
 Fig.4.39 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 18 Floor

Findings from the graph are as below:

 Value of base shear in RSM method is always higher than the value found in
ESFM method considering slenderness of frame, percentage of infill and number
of spans.
 For a value of H/L 3.929 (i.e. slender frame), the ratio of Vavg(rsm) / Vesfm is
found 1.4 for 18 storied frame with 20% infill. Whereas the value is almost 2.0 for
the same frame having 80% of infill. So, base shear in RSM is significant for
higher percentage of infill. This is due to more load is applied for infill and thus
increases base shear.

4.3.5 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L

Slenderness of frame i.e. value of height by span length (H/L) has compared here to find
the effect on the base shear by ESFM and RSM method. Base shear for ESFM and RSM
method are determined for frame with floor height 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 floors with varying

84
 number of span starting from 2 to 10 with an incremental value of 2. Then the graph are
plotted as Base shear versus H/L as shown below from fig. 4.40 to 4.59

0.1
3.20 3.20
0.2
2.80 2.80
0.3
2.40 2.40

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

0.4
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.00
0.52.00 1.68 1.67 1.64 1.67
1.51 1.53
0.61.60 1.43 1.44 1.43 1.60
1.29 10 span
8 span
0.71.20 10 span 1.20 6 span
8 span
6 span 4 span
0.80.80 4 span 0.80 2 span
2 span
0.90.40 0.40
0.10
0.00 0.00
1.357 0.679 0.452 0.339 0.271 1.357 0.679 0.452 0.339 0.271
Ratio, H/L Ratio, H/L

Fig.4.40 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for Fig.4.41 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for
20% Infill 6 Floor 40% Infill 6 Floor

3.20 3.20

2.80 2.80

2.40 2.40
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.00 2.00 1.82 1.77

1.72 1.73 1.73 1.72 1.71 1.76 1.75 1.74
1.60 1.60
10 span 10 span
1.20 8 span 1.20 8 span
6 span 6 span
0.80 4 span 0.80 2 span
4 span
2 span
0.40 0.40
0.00
0.00
1.357 0.679 0.452 0.339 0.271 1.357 0.679 0.452 0.339 0.271
Ratio, H/L Ratio, H/L

0.11
Fig.4.42 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for Fig.4.43 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for
60% Infill 6 Floor 80% Infill 6 Floor

85
 3.20 3.20

2.80 2.80

2.40 2.40 2.19 2.22

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.13 2.14

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.00 1.78 1.77 2.00 1.79
1.65 1.73
1.60 1.49 1.60
10 span 10 span
1.20 8 span 1.20 8 span
6 span 6 span
0.80 4 span 0.80 4 span
2 span 2 span
0.40 0.40

0.00 0.00
2.000 1.000 0.667 0.500 0.400 2.000 1.000 0.667 0.500 0.400

Ratio, H/L Ratio, H/L

0.13
0.12
Fig.4.44 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for Fig.4.45 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for
20% Infill 9 Floor 40% Infill 9 Floor

3.20 3.20
0.14
2.80
0.15 2.80 2.44 2.44 2.45 2.51 2.54 2.52 2.52 2.51
2.31 2.39
0.16 2.40 2.40
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

0.17 2.00 2.00

10 span
1.60 1.60
10 span
8 span 8 span
0.18 1.20 1.20
6 span 6 span
0.19 0.80 4 span 4 span
0.80 2 span
2 span
0.20 0.40 0.40
0.21 0.00 0.00
2.000 1.000 0.667 0.500 0.400 2.000 1.000 0.667 0.500 0.400

Ratio, H/L Ratio, H/L

0.22

Fig.4.46 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for 60% Fig.4.47 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for
0.23
Infill 9 Floor 80% Infill 9 Floor
0.24

86
 3.20 3.20

2.80 2.80
2.35 2.38
2.40 2.40 2.26 2.30
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

1.99
2.00 2.00 10 span
1.51 1.44
1.60 1.43 1.43 1.60 8 span
1.29
8 span 10 span 6 span
1.20 1.20
6 span 4 span
0.80 4 span 0.80
2 span 2 span
0.40 0.40

0.00 0.00
2.643 1.321 0.881 0.661 0.529 2.643 1.321 0.881 0.881 0.529
Ratio, H/L Ratio, H/L

Fig.4.49 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for

Fig.4.48 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for 40% Infill 12 Floor
20% Infill 12 Floor

3.20 3.05 3.05 3.10

3.20 2.96
2.74 2.77 2.79
2.80 2.66 2.80 2.66

2.29 2.40
10 span
2.40 10 span
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

8 span 2.00 8 span

2.00

1.60 6 span 1.60 6 span

1.20
4 span 1.20
4 span
0.80
0.80 2 span 2 span
0.40
0.40
0.00
0.00
2.643 1.321 0.881 0.881 0.529
2.643 1.321 0.881 0.881 0.529
Ratio, H/L
Ratio, H/L

Fig.4.50 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L Fig.4.51 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L
For 60% Infill 12 Floor For 80% Infill 12 Floor

87
 3.20 3.20

2.80 2.80
2.42 2.43
2.35
2.40 2.24

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.40
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.00 1.82 1.85 1.87 2.00 1.85

1.74
1.55 1.60
1.60 10 span
10 span
1.20
8 span
1.20 8 span 6 span
6 span 4 span
0.80 2 span
0.80 4 span
2 span
0.40
0.40
0.00
0.00
3.286 1.643 1.095 0.821 0.657
3.286 1.643 1.095 0.821 0.657
Ratio, H/L
Ratio, H/L

Fig.4.52 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L Fig.4.53 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L
for 20% Infill 15 Floor For 40% Infill 15 Floor

3.17 3.21
3.20 3.20 3.10
2.98
2.79 2.83 2.84
2.80 2.71
2.80

2.40 2.31
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.14 2.40
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.00 2.00

1.60 10 span 1.60

8 span 10 span
1.20 1.20
6 span 8 span
4 span 6 span
0.80 2 span 0.80 4 span
0.40
2 span
0.40
0.00
0.00
3.286 1.643 1.095 0.821 0.657
3.286 1.643 1.095 0.821 0.657
Ratio, H/L
Ratio, H/L

Fig.4.54 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L 0.25 Fig.4.55 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L
For 60% Infill 15 Floor for 80% Infill 15 Floor

88
 3.20 3.20

2.80 2.80
2.43 2.50
2.40 2.40 2.30
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.05
2.00 1.84 1.88 1.89 1.92
2.00
1.58
1.60 1.41 10 span 1.60
8 span 10 span
1.20 1.20 8 span
6 span 6 span
4 span 4 span
0.80 2 span 0.80
2 span
0.40 0.40

0.00 0.00
3.929 1.964 1.310 0.982 0.786 3.929 1.964 1.310 0.982 0.786
Ratio, H/L Ratio, H/L
Fig.4.56 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L Fig.4.57 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L
For 20% Infill 18 Floor For 40% Infill 18 Floor

3.23 3.26
3.20 3.15
2.91 2.93 3.20 3.00
2.85
2.74
2.80 2.80

2.40 2.40
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.05
2.00 1.76 2.00

1.60 1.60
10 span 10 span
1.20 1.20 8 span
8 span 6 span
0.80 6 span 0.80 4 span
4 span 2 span
2 span 0.40
0.40

0.00 0.00
3.929 1.964 1.310 0.982 0.786
3.929 1.964 1.310 0.982 0.786
Ratio, H/L
Ratio, H/L

Fig.4.58 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for Fig.4.59 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L for
60% Infill 18 Floor 80% Infill 18 Floor

89
Findings of the above graph are mentioned below:

Frame height up to 10 floors

 For frame with infill percentage of 20% and 40% , the value Vavg (rsm) / Vesm is
high for spanned 4 to 10. For 2 spanned frames the value is quite lower.
 For 60% and 80% infill the value Vavg (rsm) / Vesm are almost same for all spanned
frame i.e effect of increasing span length after 6 spanned is not so prominent on
base shear value.

Frame height above 10 floors

 The value Vavg (rsm) / Vesm increase gradually with the increase of span length.
 The above increment is prominent for 4 spanned to 10 spanned frames with
respect to 2 spanned frames. From the graph it has been found that for a frame of
18 floor with 80% infill, the value Vavg (rsm) / Vesm is 2.05 for 2 spanned frame. But
for the same frame with 4, 6, 8, 10 spanned, the values are 3.00, 3.15, 3.23, 3.26
respectively.

4.3.6 Base Shear Magnification VS Percentage (%) Infill

Base shear magnification is the ratio of base shear value of response spectrum method
(RSM) and equivalent static force method (ESFM). It is denoted as  0 which is defined
below by the eqn. 4.1

V RSM ( Avg .)
0  ( V ESFM
) (4.1)

90
 2.00 3.00
1.72 1.77
1.80 1.64 2.52
2.50 2.41
1.60
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm 1.42 2.09
1.40

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.00
1.20 1.68
1.00
1.00 1.50
0.80 1.00
0.60
1.00

0.40
0.50
0.20
0.00 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Percentage (%) of Infill Percentage (%) of Infill

Fig.4.60 Base shear magnification vs % Infill Fig.4.61 Base shear magnification vs % Infill
6 storied frame. 9 storied frame.

3.50 3.50
2.96 2.95
3.00 3.00
2.65 2.66
2.50 2.26 2.50 2.26
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.00 1.73 2.00 1.76

1.50 1.50
1.08 1.05
1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Percentage (%) of Infill Percentage (%) of Infill

Fig. 4.62 Base shear magnification vs % Infill Fig. 4.63 Base shear magnification vs % Infill
12 storied frame. 15 storied frame.
0.26
0.273.50
2.94
3.00
2.64
Vavg (rsm) / Vesm

2.50
2.17
2.00 1.79

1.50
1.00
1.00

0.50

0.00
0 20 40 60 80

Percentage (%) of Infill

Fig. 4.64 Base shear magnification vs % Infill

18 storied frame.
0.28
91
Base shear magnification has determined for 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 storied frame. Infill was
applied as 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%. Here value of magnification factor,  0 is adopted as
average from the value of magnification factor of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 spanned frame. Then
the graphs are plotted as magnification factor versus percentage of infill which is shown
from Figure 4.60 to 4.64.

It has been observed from Figure 4.60 to 4.64 that the base shear magnification were
almost the same for 12, 15 and 18 storied frame with presence of 20%, 40% , 60%, 80%
infill. So, the variation in base shear magnification is not significant for higher storied
(i.e. 12, 15 and 18 storied) frame. The value differs slightly for 9 storied frame where as
the value is the lowest for 6 storied frames.

4.4 PROPOSAL FOR BASE SHEAR MAGNIFICATION

Figure 4.65 shows the variation of base shear ratio,  0 , for different amount of infill on
upper floors for 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 storied frame. It has been found from the figure 4.60
to 4.65 that base shear magnification is almost same for 12, 15 and 18 storied frame.
Hence base shear magnification for 12th storied frame is considered here as the highest
value and this represents as the value of 15th and 18th storied frame. Except for 20% infill
on upper floors, it can be observed that in all other cases the relation between  0 and
number of floors is almost a linear one. It is also observed that for 40%, 60% and 80%
amount of infill, the relationship between  0 and number of floors remains in a narrow
band. From practical experience as well as indicated by other researchers (Amanat and
Hoque, 2006), the most probable percentage amount of structurally active infill in a real
RC framed building shall be between 40% to 60%. Therefore, we can derive a
relationship between base shear ratio,  0 , and number of floors by considering average
base shear value corresponding to 40% and 60% infill. Then a graph is plotted as base
shear ratio for 50% infill versus number of floors which is shown in fig.4.65. A simple
linear regression suggests that,

92
Base shear magnification,  0 = 0.129 Nf + 0.97 ≤ 2.52 (4.2)

Where Nf = Number of floor (6 Nf 18)

3.5
β̥ = 0.129 Nf + 0.97 ≤ 2.52
3
Base shear magnigfication, β̥

2.5

1.5
20% Infill
40% Infil
1 60% Infil
80% Infil
0.5 50% Infill (6 to 12 floor)
50% Infill (15 to 18 floor)
0 Linear (50% Infill)

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Numbers of floors, Nf
Fig. 4.65 Base shear magnification,  0 , as a function of number of floors and percent
amount of Infill.

The above simplified expression for base shear ratio,  0 as function of only the number

of floors of a building, Nf (where 6 Nf 18), shall enable a designer to rationally

estimate the appropriate base shear for commonly occurring RC framed buildings with
open (soft) ground floor using the conventional static force method (ESFM) by simply
multiplying the obtained base shear ratio,  0 , obtained from the above equation 4.2. Thus

 0 , may be considered as a magnification factor to be applied to the base shear obtained

from equivalent static force method to get a reasonable estimate of the correct base shear.
This shall lead to a safe design of the columns of building with soft ground floor.

In order to use for design purpose we may increase it by 10% for additional safety (Goel
and Chopra 1997, Goel and Chopra 1998). Thus we denote the finally suggested
multiplier as

  1.1 0 (4.3)

93
Thus the equation 4.1 can be rewritten as

 = 0.15 Nf + 1.1 ≤ 2.77 (4.4)

Thus the design procedure would be to determine base shear on the basis of conventional
Equivalent Static Force Method (ESFM) and analyze the structure for shear, axial force
and moment in the conventional manner. The above equation 4.4 of magnification factor
derived from base shear may consider applying for moment and shearing for soft storied
column since moment and shear is increased with the increase of base shear. Then at the
time of load combination we can apply the factor  obtained from eqn. 4.4 to get the
design shear and moment for ground floor columns as follows.

1.05D+1.275L+  1.4E (Static) (4.5)

1.05D+1.275L-  1.4E (Static) (4.6)

The above combination shall replace the conventional combination related to earthquakes
for the design of open ground floor columns. It should be kept in mind that combinations
related to other types of loading (wind load) should also be considered in the design
process of ground floor columns.

4.5 APPLICABILITY OF ESFM FOR SOFT GROUND FLOOR BUILDING

Earthquake is always a dynamic phenomenon capturing the true structural behavior

during earthquake, thus measures a full transient dynamic analysis involving natural non-
linearity, time dependent ground acceleration etc. Such analysis is, even by present
standards is extremely complicated, time consuming and the results are quite difficult to
interpret and therefore such analysis is generally not recommended for a common design
practices. Instead, an easier method called ESFM (equivalent static force method) has
been formulated by researchers and accepted in design codes. ESFM method is purely
intended for the purpose of design only. And it has its own scopes and limitations. For
example it is only applicable for a building having regular stiffness characteristics. This
method is not, as defined in codes, applicable for soft story buildings. Due to presence of
open ground floor such building are becoming more common. However due to absence of
definite code provisions for such structures and due to the complexity involved in
dynamic analysis, design engineers are in most cases applying, though inappropriate,

94
ESFM. In the preceding section the inappropriateness of ESFM has been elaborately
identified. In order to overcome this limitation of ESFM for soft story building, a
proposal for base shear magnification factors, has been suggested. When the shall
be used to modify the moments and shears due to earthquake application of
equivalent static force method, a more rational and safer design would be obtained
and the limitations of ESFM would be overcome.

95
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL

In the present study a wide range of computational analysis has been performed on
reinforced concrete frame having various percentage of masonry infill on upper floors
with soft ground floor. The application of infill has been applied randomly and the effect
of seismic load has been investigated. The analysis was carried for multistoried 2D
frames for different percentage of infill on upper floors. For each individual case at least
15 runs have been made to study the variation on base shear for randomly applied infill.
Static (ESFM) analysis does not reflect actual dynamic behavior of a structure subjected
to lateral loading. Hence the analysis is performed by both ESFM and RSM so that a
comparison can be made on the actual masonry infilled reinforced concrete soft story
behavior with the current design practice. Based on the investigation, modification factor
has been recommended on various cases of infill application. This modification factor
might help the designers to adopt in their designing in order to stay in safe side during
earthquake.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS

The investigation of this study indicates a different characteristic behavior of infilled RC

frame with open ground floor. The summary of the findings can be tabulated as follows:
 Randomness of distribution of structurally active infill has no effect on base shear
value.
 The value of base shear increases with the increase of floors, span and percentage of
infill. Because these parameters are related to the increase of the dead load of the
total structure.
 Sway increases suddenly at soft ground floor level whereas it decreases on the upper
floors due to the presence of infill in upper floors. In presence of infill in upper story
the sway pattern shows a major change. The presence of infill makes the upper floor
rigid and as a result the major deflection is concentrated in the ground floor.

96
 Drift demand is high for soft story frame in response spectrum method (RSM). This
drift demand increases with the increase of frame height, percentage (%) of infill and
number of span.
 For tall buildings (i.e. 12 storied or more) with 4 to 10 spanned frame, magnification
of base shear is almost same whereas the value is quite lower for 2 spanned frame.
 Equivalent static force method is incapable of predicting the soft story behavior even
in presence of infill in the analysis model.
 The finding of the study i.e. base shear magnification factor can help designer to
produce safe design of buildings with open ground floor.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The behavior of RC framed buildings with open ground floor has been presented in this
thesis. Based on the findings suggestion is made which is elaborated in chapter 4. The
proposed suggestion is to magnify the base shear by a factor, based on the number of
floor of the structure. Since moment and shear are increased with the increase of base
shear, hence the magnification factor is applicable for moment and shear of soft story
column. Then the designing of ground floor columns will be safer to withstand the
intensified earthquake force resulting from the shaking of much stiffer upper floors.

5.4 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY

The study of soft ground floor with structurally active infill has been performed under
limited scope. Other variables and parameters may include for further study before
applying in practical field of civil engineering. Advancement of present study is
recommended here to compare the result as a factor of safety. The following fields
related to this study can be considered for further analysis;

 The model was considered to be linearly elastic. To be more realistic with

the results a finite element analysis with non linear material properties can
be performed.
 Equivalent strut model is used in this study to represent the infill. The
behavior of structure using other models of infills can be studied..

97
 The asymmetric building frames can be studied under the variables
considered for symmetric frames.
 Presence of openings in infill like window or door can be considered in
analysis.
 Torsional effect has not considered in this investigation. Hence, further
study can be performed considering this torsional effect.

98
 REFERENCES

AFPS-90, (1990) ―Recommendations for the Redaction of Rules Relative to the Structures
and Installations Built in Regions Prone to Earthquakes‖, French Association of
Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France.

Algerian Seismic Code (1988) ―Algerian Earthquake Resistant Regulations‖, Ministry of

Town planning and Construction, Algiers, Algeria.

Amanat, K.M and Hoque, E. (2006) ―A Rationale for Determining the Natural Period
of RC Building Frames Having Infill‖ Engineering Structures, Vol. 28, pp. 495-502.

Arlekar, J. N., Jain, S.K., Murty, C.V.R., (1997) ―Seismic Response of RC Frame
Buildings with Soft First Storeys‖ Proceedings of the CBRI Golden Jubilee Conference
on Natural Hazards in Urban Habitat, New Delhi.

Barua, H. K., and Mallick, S. K. (1977) ―Behavior of Mortar Infilled Steel Frames
Under Lateral Load" Building and Environment, Pergamon Press, UK. Vol. 12, pp.
263-272.

Bertero, V., and Brokken, S., (1983) ―Infills in Seismic Resistant Building,‖ Journal of the
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No 6, June, pp 1337-1361.

BNBC, (1993) Housing and Building Research Institute and Bangladesh Standards and
Testing Institution, Bangladesh National Building Code.

Costa Rican Seismic Code, (1986) ―Seismic Code of Costa Rica‖, Federal College of
Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Dawe, J. L., and Charalambous, P. D., (1983) ―Finite Element Analysis for Wall-Frame
Interaction‖ Proceedings, Eight International Loadbearing Brickwork Symposium,
British Ceramic Society, Stoke-on-Trent. UK.

99
EERI, (2001) ―Annotated Images from the Bhuj, India Earthquake of January 26‖, (CD).
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.

Egyptian Seismic Code, (1988) ―Regulations for Earthquake Resistant Design of

Buildings in Egypt‖, Egyptian Society for Earthquake Engineering, Cairo, Egypt.

ESCP-1, (1983) ―Code of Practice for Loading, Ethiopia‖, Ministry of Urban

Development and Housing, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ghosh, A.K., Amde, A.M., (2002) ―Finite Element Analysis of Infilled Frames‖,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 7, pp. 880-889.

Goel RK, Chopra AK., (1997) ―Period formulas for moment resisting framed buildings‖
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE; Vol. 123, No. 11.

Goel RK, Chopra AK., (1998) ―Period formulas for concrete shear wall buildings‖
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE; Vol. 124, No. 4.

Haque, S, Amanat, K.M., ―Seismic Vulnerability of Columns of RC Framed Buildings

with Soft Ground Floor,‖ International Journal Of Mathematical Models And Methods In
Applied Sciences, NAUN, Issue 3, Vol. 2, 2008, ISSN: 1998-0140.

Haque, S. and Amanat, K.M., ―Strength and Drift Demand of Columns of RC Framed
Buildings with soft Ground Story,‖ Journal of Civil Engineering, The Institution of
Engineers, Bangladesh. Vol. CE 37, 2009, pp. 99-110.

Hasnain . J , (2009) ―Effect of Randomly Distributed Infills on Seismic Base Shear for
RC Buildings with Soft Ground Floor”, B.Sc. thesis, Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology, Department of Civil Engineering.

100
Holmes, M., (1961) "Steel Frames with-Brickwork and Concrete Infilling" Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 19, pp. 473-47S.

Huang, S., (2005) ―Seismic behaviors of reinforced concrete structures with soft Story‖,
The 3rd International Conference on Structural Stability and Dynamics, June 19-22,
Kissimmee, Florida.

IS-1893, (2002) Bureau of Indian Standards, Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures—Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth
Revision), New Delhi, India.

Klingner, R. E., and Bertero, V. V., (1978) ―Earthquake Resistance of Infilled Frames,‖
Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. ST6, June, pp. 973-989.

Liauw, T. C. and Kwan, K. H., (1985) ―Unified plastic analysis for infilled frames.‖
Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No.9, 1985, pp. 1861-1876.

Liauw, T. C., and Lo, C.Q., (1988) ―Multi-bay Infilled Frames without Shear
Connectors.‖ ACI Structural Journal, July-August, pp. 423-428.

Madan, A., Reinhorn, A. M., Mander, J. B. and Valles, R. E., (1997) ―Modeling of
Masonry Infill Panels For Structural Analysis.‖ ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 123, No. 10, October, pp. 1295-1297.

Mainstone, R. J., (1971) ―On the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames.‖
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Supplement IV, pp 57-90.

Mallick, D. V., and Severn, R. T., (1967) ―The Behavior of Infilled Frames under Static
Loading.‖ Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 38, pp. 639-656.

101
Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and Noland, J. N., (1996) ―Experimental
Evaluation of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames‖, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 122, No. 3, March, pp 228-237.

Mehrabi, A.B., Shing, P.B., (1997) ―Finite Element Modeling of Masonry Infilled RC
Frames.‖ ASCE Journal of Structural Division, Vol.123, No. ST05, pp. 604-613.

Moghaddam, H. A., and Dowling, P. J., (1987) ―The State of the Art in Infilled Frames‖,
Imperial College of Science and Technology, Civil Eng. Department, London, U.K,
ESEE Research Report No. 87-2.

Murty, C. V. R., and Jain, S. K., (2000) ―Beneficial influence of masonry infills on
seismic performance of RC frame buildings‖, Proceedings, 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, Paper No. 1790.

Nagae, T., (2006) ―Performance assessment for reinforced concrete buildings with soft
first stories‖, Annuals of disaster prevention, Kyoto University, No. 49 C.

NBC-105, (1995) ―Nepal National Building Code for Seismic Design of Buildings in
Nepal‖, Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, Department of Buildings,
Kathmandu, Nepal.

NSR-98, (1998) ―Colombian Standards for Seismic Resistant Design and Construction‖,
Bogota, Colombia.

NZS-3101, (1995) ―Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures‖, Part 1,
Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

Pook, L. L., and Dawe, J. L., (1986) ―Effects on Interface Conditions Between a
Masonry Shear Panel and Surrounding Steel Frame.‖ Proc., 4th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Univ. of New Brunswick Press, Fredericton. N.B., Canada, pp. 910-921.

102
Quayyum, S, Nazmul, I.M., Iasmin, M.M., Amanat, K.M., ―Effects Of Randomly
Distributed Infill On The Columns Of Reinforced Concrete Frames With Soft Ground
Storey,‖ Volume: 10, Issue: 3(2010) pp. 555-569.

Riddington, J. R., and Smith, B. S., (1977) ―Analysis of Infilled Frames Subjected to
Racking with Design Recommendations.‖ The Structural Engineer, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp.
263-268.

Riddington, J.R., (1984) ―The Influence of Initial Gaps in Infilled Frame Behavior.‖
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, England.

Rodsin, K., (2005) ―Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Soft-Storey Buildings

in Low to Moderate Seismicity Regions‖ Ph.D. thesis, University Of Melbourne,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

Rosenblueth,E., (1951) ―A Basis for Seismic Design,‖ Ph.D. Thesis, University of

Illinois, Urbana,Ill.

Tasmim, R. and Amanat, K.M. (2013) ―A rational estimation of earthquake base shear
for buildings with soft ground floor,‖ Journal of Civil Engineering, The Institution of
Engineers, Bangladesh (IEB). Vol. CE 41(1), 2013, pp. 71-80.

Sachanski, S., (1960) ―Analysis of the Earthquake Resistance of Frame Buildings Taking
into Consideration the Carrying Capacity of the Filling Masonry‖ Proceedings of the
Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, Tokyo, pp. 2127-2141.

Saneinejad, A. and Hobbs, B., (1995) ―Inelastic Design of Infilled Frames‖. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 4, April, pp. 634-643.

Santhi, M.H., Knight, G.M., (2005) ―Evaluation of seismic response of soft-storey infilled
frames‖ Computers and concrete, Vol. 2, No. 6, December.

103
Seah, C.K., (1998) ―A Universal Approach for the Analysis and Design of Masonry
Infilled Frame Structures.‖ Ph.D. thesis, 1998. The University of New Brunswick,
Canada.

Smith, B. S. and Coull (1991) A Infilled-Frame Structures, Tall Building Structures

Analysis and Design, John Wiley & Sons, inc. 168-174.

Smith, B.S., (1962) ―Lateral stiffness of infilled frames‖ ASCE Journal of Structural
Division, Vol. 88, No. ST6, pp. 183-199.

SNIP-II-7–81, (1996) ―Building Code on Construction in Seismic Areas‖, The Ministry

for Construction of Russia, Moscow, Russia.

Thomas, F. G., (1953) ―The Strength of Brickwork.‖ The Structural Engineer, Part 2, Vol.
36, pp. 35-41.

Venezuelan Seismic Code, (1988) Regulations for Earthquake Resistant Buildings,

Comision De Normas Industriales, Covenin, Caracas, Venezuela.

Wilson, E. L., (2002) ―Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures, A

Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering‖, Third Edition,
Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, USA, ISBN 0-923907-00-9.

Wilson, E. L., A. Der Kiureghian and E. R. Bayo., (1981) "A Replacement for the SRSS
Method in Seismic Analysis," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol. 9.
pp. l87-l92.

Wood, R.H., (1958) ―The Stability of Tall Buildings.‖ Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 11, pp. 69-102.

104
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Caption Page No.
2.1a A Building with Soft Ground Floor 4
2.1b Soft Story Mechanism 5
2.2 Change in Lateral Load Transfer Mechanism due to Masonry Infill 6
(Murty and Jain 2000)
2.3 Interactive Behavior of Frame and Infill 7
2.4 Analogous Braced Frame 8
2.5 Modes of Infill Failure 9
2.6 Modes of Frame Failure 10
2.7a The Diagonal Compression Strut of Masonry Infill 11
2.7b Material Modeling of Masonry Infill as Diagonal Strut 11
2.8 a Masonry Infilled Frame Sub-Assemblage in Masonry Infill Panel Frame 12
2.8 b Masonry Infill Panel in Frame Structure 12
2.8 c Constitutive Model for Masonry Infill Panel by Madan et. al. (1997) 13
2.8 d Strength Envelope for Masonry Infill Panel by Madan et. al. (1997) 14
2.9 Open Ground Story Building
(a) Actual Building 20
(b) Building being Assumed in Current Design Practice 20
2.10 Effects of Masonry Infills on the First Mode Shape of A Typical Frame of A
Ten Story RC Building (EERI,2001)
(a) Displacement Profile 20
(b) Fully Infilled Frame 20
(c) Open Ground Floor Frame 20
2.11 Soft Story Building Act as an Inverted Pendulum 21
2.12 Soft Story Collapse of the Ground Floor of A Multistoried Building; 22
Kobe, 1995
2.13 Large Deflection in Soft Story Due to Earthquake; Bhuj 2001 22
2.14 Sway Mechanisms are often Inevitable with Soft Ground Floors; 23
Izmit, Turkey 1999
2.15 Failure Because of the Effect of Soft Story Mechanism; Los Angles, 1994 23
2.16 Different Arrangements of Masonry Infill Walls in RC Frame 26
3.1 Normalized Response Spectra for 5% Damping Ratio (BNBC, 1993) 35
3.2 Mode Shapes of A 6 Storied Building 39
3.3 Finite Element Modeling of Total Structure 40
3.4 Story Forces Determined by ESFM Method 48

vi
3.5 (a) Deflected Shape due to EQ For 40% Infill of 6 Storied Frame 48
3.5 (b) Deflected Shape due to EQ For 40% Infill of 9 Storied Frame 49
3.5 (c) Deflected Shape due to EQ for 40% Infill of 12 Storied Frame 49
3.5 (d) Deflected Shape due to EQ for 40% Infill of 15 Storied Frame 50
3.5 (e) Deflected Shape due to EQ for 40% Infill of 18 Storied Frame 50
3.6 Moment and Force Diagram of 9 Storied Frame for ESFM & RSM Loading
a-1 Axial Force (Bare Frame) ESFM 51
b-1 Axial Force (Bare Frame) RSM 51
a-2 Shear Force (Bare Frame) ESFM 51
b-2 Shear Force (Bare Frame) RSM 51
a-3 Bending Moment (Bare Frame) ESFM 52
b-3 Bending Moment (Bare Frame) RSM 52
a-4 Axial Force (50% Infill) ESFM 52
b-4 Axial Force (50% Infill) RSM 52
a-5 Shear Force (50% Infill) ESFM 53
b-5 Shear Force (50% Infill) RSM 53
a-6 Bending Moment (50% Infill) ESFM 53
b-3 Bending Moment (50% Infill) RSM 53
3.7 Different Patterns of 40% Random Infill Application (6 storied building) 55
3.8 Different Patterns of 40% Random Infill Application (12storied building) 56
4.1 Variation of Base Shear for 20% Infill 9 Floor10 Spanned Frame 61
4.2 Variation of Base Shear for 40% Infill 9 Floor10 Spanned Frame 61
4.3 Variation of Base Shear for 60% Infill 9 Floor10 Spanned Frame r 62
4.4 Variation of Base Shear for 80% Infill 9 Floor 10 Spanned Frame 62
4.5 Variation of Base Shear for 20% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame 63
4.6 Variation of Base Shear for 40% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame 64
4.7 Variation of Base Shear for 60% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame 64
4.8 Variation of Base Shear for 80% Infill 18 Floor 6 Spanned Frame 65
4.9 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 6 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by ESFM 66
4.10 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 6 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by RSM 66
4.11 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 9 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by ESFM 67
4.12 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 9 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by RSM 67
4.13 Story Sway for Diff. % Infill of 12 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by ESFM 68
4.14 Story Sway for Diff. % Infill of 12 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by RSM 68
4.15 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 15 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by ESFM 69
4.16 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 15 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by RSM 69

vii
4.17 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 18 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by ESFM 70
4.18 Story Sway for Diff. Infill Percent of 18 Storied and 4 Spanned Frame by RSM 70
4.19 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 20% Infill 6 Floor and 4 spanned 72
Frame
4.20 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 40% Infill 6 Floor and 4 spanned 72
Frame
4.21 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 60% Infill 6 Floor and 4 spanned 73
Frame
4.22 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 80% Infill 6 Floor and 4 spanned 73
Frame
4.23 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 20% Infill 9 Floor and 4 Spanned 74
Frame
4.24 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 40% Infill 9 Floor and 4 spanned 74
Frame
4.25 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 60% Infill 9 Floor and 4 spanned 75
Frame
4.26 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 80% Infill 9 Floor and 4 spanned 75
Frame
4.27 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 20% Infill 12 Floor and 4 spanned 76
Frame
4.28 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 40% Infill 12 Floor and 4 spanned 76
Frame
4.29 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 60% Infill 12 Floor and 4 spanned 77
Frame
4.30 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 80% Infill 12 Floor and 4 spanned 77
Frame
4.31 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 20% Infill 15 Floor and 4 spanned 78
Frame
4.32 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 40% Infill 15 Floor and 4 spanned 78
Frame
4.33 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 60% Infill 15 Floor and 4 spanned 79
Frame
4.34 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs. RSM for 80% Infill 15 Floor and 4 spanned 79
Frame
4.35 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 6 Floor 82
4.36 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 9 Floor 82
4.37 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 12 Floor 83

viii
4.38 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 15 Floor 83
4.39 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 40% Infill 18 Floor 84
4.40 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 20% Infill 6 Floor 85
4.41 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 40% Infill 6 Floor 85
4.42 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 60% Infill 6 Floor 85
4.43 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 80% Infill 6 Floor 85
4.44 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 20% Infill 9 Floor 86
4.45 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 40% Infill 9 Floor 86
4.46 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 60% Infill 9 Floor 86
4.47 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 80% Infill 9 Floor 86
4.48 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 20% Infill 12 Floor 87
4.49 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 40% Infill 12 Floor 87
4.50 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 60% Infill 12 Floor 87
4.51 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 80% Infill 12 Floor 87
4.52 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 20% Infill 15 Floor 88
4.53 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 40% Infill 15 Floor 88
4.54 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 60% Infill 15 Floor 88
4.55 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 80% Infill 15 Floor 88
4.56 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 20% Infill 18 Floor 89
4.57 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 40% Infill 18 Floor 89
4.58 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 60% Infill 18 Floor 89
4.59 Base Shear Magnification vs. H/L for 80% Infill 18 Floor 89
4.60 Base Shear Magnification vs. % Infill 6 Storied Frame 91
4.61 Base Shear Magnification vs. % Infill 9 Storied Frame 91
4.62 Base Shear Magnification vs. % Infill 12 Storied Frame 91
4.63 Base Shear Magnification vs. % Infill 15 Storied Frame 91
4.64 Base Shear Magnification vs. % Infill 18 Storied Frame 91
4.65 Base Shear Magnification, as a Function of Number of Floors and 93
Percent Amount of Infill

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Caption Page No.

3.1 Values of parameters of the generalized reference model 41
3.2 Storey Forces acting on study frame for ESFM 47
4.1 Parameters of study frames 59
4.2 Base shear variation of 9 storied with 10 spanned frame for random application 60
of Infill (in different percentage) with soft ground floor
4.3 Base shear variation of 18 storied with 6 spanned frame for random application 63
of Infill (in different percentage) with soft ground floor
4.4 Maximum drift values for different floor level 81

x
 ABBREVIATIONS

ESFM - Equivalent Static Force Method.

RSM - Response Spectrum Method.
FE - Finite Element
RC - Reinforced Concrete
BNBC - Bangladesh National Building Code
E - Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
K - Stiffness of the structure
fm´ - masonry prism strength
Vm - maximum lateral force
um - Displacement corresponding to the lateral force
Ad - Area of equivalent diagonal strut
Ld - Length of equivalent diagonal strut
ρ - Density
σ - Poisson’s ratio
V - Design base shear
Z - Seismic zone coefficient
I - Coefficient of structural importance
C - Numerical coefficient
R - Response modification factor for structural system
W - Total seismic Dead load
T - Time period of natural vibration
S - Seismic zone coefficient
DL - Dead Load
LL - Live load
PW - Partition wall
MI - Masonry Infill

xi
 Appendix-A

Variation of Base Shear of 6, 12 and 15 storied frame with different

number of span.
 Table 4.4: Base shear variation of 6 storied with 8 spanned frame for random
application of Infilll (in different percentage) with soft ground floor

Upper floor Infilll

percentage 20% 40% 60% 80%
1044 1086 1259 1358
Base shear values 944 1185 1270 1357
by RSM for 887 1182 1272 1353
different patterns 1067 1131 1263 1358
of Infilll 998 1111 1274 1356
application 1004 1132 1271 1357
(KN) 972 1151 1272 1351
898 1170 1268 1359
917 1138 1272 1357
981 1188 1270 1358
909 1182 1273 1357
1071 1180 1266 1354
1079 1099 1272 1353
849 1180 1270 1350
795 1178 1267 1357

Average Base
shear by RSM
(KN) 961 1153 1269 1356
Maxima (KN) 1079 1188 1274 1359

Minima (KN)
795 1086 1259 1350
Standard
deviation 82.61 33.29 3.95 2.70
Base shear by
ESFM (KN) 666 702 739 775
Modification
Factor 1.44 1.64 1.72 1.75

Appendix-A A-2
 4000 4000

3500 3500

3000 3000

2500 2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

Base Shear ( V), KN

2000 2000

1188
1185

1182

1182

1180

1180

1178
1170
1151

1138
1132
1131

1111

1099
1079
1071

1086
1067
1044

1500 1500
1004
998

981
972
944

917

909
898
887

849

795
1000 1000

500 500

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No. of Random Run No. of Random Run

Fig.4.66 Variation of Base Shear for 20% Infilll 6 Floor8 Spanned Frame Fig.4. 67 Variation of Base Shear for 40% Infilll 6 Floor8 Spanned Frame

4000 4000

3500 3500

3000 3000

2500 2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

Base Shear ( V), KN

2000 2000

1358
1357
1358

1358

1359
1357

1357
1357

1357
1356

1354

1353
1353

1351

1350
1274

1273
1272

1272

1272

1272
1271

1270
1270

1270
1268

1267
1266
1263
1259

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run No. of Random Run

Fig.4.68 Variation of Base Shear for 60% Infilll 6 Floor8 Spanned Frame Fig.4.69 Variation of Base Shear for 80% Infilll 6 Floor8 Spanned Frame

Appendix-A A-3
 Table 4.5: Base shear variation of 12 storied with 8 spanned frame for random
application of Infilll (in different percentage) with soft ground floor

Upper floor Infilll

percentage 20% 40% 60% 80%
1722 2357 2768 3476
Base shear values by RSM 1674 2551 3066 3412
for different patterns of Infilll 1697 2305 2922 3334
application 1925 2401 2764 3394
(KN) 1712 2318 3085 3498
1776 2477 2966 3347
1692 2404 2806 3260
1630 2460 2987 3497
1822 2235 3007 3378
1667 2386 2850 3476
1863 2248 2870 3412
1783 2239 3147 3335
1728 2502 2901 3365
1621 2170 2996 3421
1776 2345 2915 3435

Average Base shear by RSM

(KN) 1739 2360 2937 3403
Maxima (KN) 1925 2551 3147 3498
Minima (KN) 1621 2235 2764 3260
Standard deviation 82.41 106.01 110.78 65.90
Base shear by ESFM (KN) 950 1005 1062 1116

Modification Factor 1.83 2.35 2.77 3.05

Appendix-A A-4
 4000 4000

3500 3500

2551
3000 3000

2502
2477

2460
2404
2401

2386
2357

2345
2318
2305

2248

2239
2235

2170
2500 2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

Base Shear ( V), KN

1925

1863
1822

1783
1776

1776
1728
1722

1712
1697

1692
1674

1667
1630

1621
2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run No. of Random Run

Fig.4.70 Variation of Base Shear for 20% Infilll 12 Floor 8 Spanned Frame Fig.4.71 Variation of Base Shear for 40% Infilll 12 Floor8 Spanned Frame

4000
4000

3498

3497
3476

3476

3435
3421
3412

3412
3394

3378

3365
3347

3335
3334
3147

3260
3085
3066

3500
3007

2996
2987
2966
2922

2915
2901
2870

3500
2850
2806
2768

2764

3000
3000
2500
Base Shear ( V), KN

Base Shear ( V), KN

2500
2000 2000
1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

No. of Random Run No. of Random Run

Fig.4.72 Variation of Base Shear for 60% Infilll 12 Floor8 Spanned Frame Fig.4.73 Variation of Base Shear for 80% Infilll 12 Floor8 Spanned Frame

Appendix-A A-5
 Table 4.6: Base shear variation of 15 storied with 8 spanned frame for random
application of Infilll (in different percentage) with soft ground floor

Upper floor Infilll

percentage 20% 40% 60% 80%
1952 2881 3489 3985
Base shear values by RSM 1856 2826 3361 4038
for different patterns of Infilll 1951 2851 3478 3994
application 2052 2613 3419 3964
(KN) 2044 2800 3395 4091
2091 2870 3497 4097
2074 2784 3449 4085
2011 2792 3324 4114
2006 2835 3370 4068
1970 2628 3537 4072
1939 2832 3475 4150
2128 2926 3481 4052
2041 2690 3350 4068
1810 2706 3381 4049
2071 2669 3518 4084

Average Base shear by RSM

(KN) 2000 2780 3435 4061
Maxima (KN) 2091 2926 3537 4150
Minima (KN) 1810 2669 3324 3964
Standard deviation 84.78 93.08 65.23 48.08
Base shear by ESFM (KN) 1083 1150 1214 1280
Modification Factor 1.85 2.42 2.83 3.17

Appendix-A A-6
 4000 4000

3500 3500

2926
2881

2870
2851

2835

2832
2826

2800

2792
2784

2706
2690

2669
2628
2613
3000 3000

2128
2091

2074

2071
2052

2044

2041
2500 2500

2011

2006
Base Shear ( V), KN

Base Shear ( V), KN

1970
1952

1951

1939
1856

1810
2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No. of Random Run No. of Random Run

Fig.4.74 Variation of Base Shear for 20% Infilll 15 Floor 8 Spanned Frame Fig.4.75 Variation of Base Shear for 40% Infilll 15 Floor 8 Spanned Frame

6500
3537

3518
4000
3497
3489

3481
3478

3475
3449
3419

3395

3381

6000
3370
3361

3350
3324

3500 5500
5000

4150
4114
4097
4091

4085

4084
4072
4068

4068
4052

4049
4038

3994
3985

3964
3000
4500
Base Shear ( V), KN

Base Shear ( V), KN

2500 4000
3500
2000
3000
1500 2500
2000
1000 1500
500 1000
500
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No. of Random Run
No. of Random Run

Fig.4.76 Variation of Base Shear for 60% Infilll 15 Floor 8 Spanned Frame Fig.4.77 Variation of Base Shear for 80% Infilll 15 Floor 8 Spanned Fram

Appendix-A A-7
Appendix-A A-8
 Appendix-B

Effect of Variation of Infilll Percentage on Story Sway

 7 7

6 6

5 5
Story No.

Story No.
4

3 3
No Infill No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
2 40% Infill 2 40% Infill
60% Infill 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.78 Story Sway of 6 storied and 2 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.79 Story Sway of 6 storied and 2 spanned Frame by RSM

7 7

6 6

5 5
Story No.

Story No.
4 4

3 3

2 No Infill 2 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
1 60% Infill 1 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.80 Story Sway of 6 storied and 6 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.81 Story Sway of 6 storied and 6 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-2
 7 7

6 6

5 5

Story No.
Story No.

4 4

3 3

2 No Infill 2 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
1 60% Infill 1 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.82 Story Sway of 6 storied and 8 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.83 Story Sway of 6 storied and 8 spanned Frame by RSM

7 7

6 6

5 5

Story No.
4
Story No.

3 3

2 No Infill 2 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
1 60% Infill 1 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.84 Story Sway of 6 storied and 10 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.85 Story Sway of 6 storied and 10 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-3
 10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

Story No.
Story No.

5 5

4 4
No Infill No Infill
3 20% Infill 3 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
2 60% Infill 2 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.86 Story Sway of 9 storied and 2 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.87 Story Sway of 9 storied and 2 spanned Frame by RSM

10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

Story No.
Story No.

5 5

4 4

3 No Infill 3 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
2 2
40% Infill 40% Infill
1
60% Infill 1 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.88 Story Sway of 9 storied and 6 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.89 Story Sway of 9 storied and 6 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-4
 10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

Story No.
Story No.

5 5

4 4

3 No Infill 3 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
2 2
40% Infill 40% Infill
60% Infill 1 60% Infill
1
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.90 Story Sway of 9 storied and 8 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.91 Story Sway of 9 storied and 8 spanned Frame by RSM

10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7

6 6

Story No.
Story No.

5 5

4 4

3 No Infill
3 No Infill
20% Infill
20% Infill 2
2 40% Infill
40% Infill
60% Infill
60% Infill 1
1 80% Infill
80% Infill
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Sway, mm
Sway, mm

Fig. 4.92 Story Sway of 9 storied and 10 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.93 Story Sway of 9 storied and 10 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-5
 14 14

12 12

10 10

8
Story No.

Story No.
6 6

4 No Infill 4 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
2 40% Infill 2 40% Infill
60% Infill 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.94 Story Sways of 12 storied and 2 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.95 Story Sway for of 12 storied and 2 spanned Frame by RSM

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8
Story No

Story No
6 6
No Infill No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
4 4
40% Infill 40% Infill
60% Infill 60% Infill
2 2
80% Infill 80% Infill

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.96 Story Sway of 12 storied and 6 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.97 Story Sway of 12 storied and 6 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-6
 14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8
Story No.

Story No.
6 6
No Infill No Infill
4 20% Infill 4 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
2 60% Infill 2 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.98 Story Sway of 12 storied and 8 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.99 Story Sway of 12 storied and 8 spanned Frame by RSM

14
14

12
12

10
10

Story No.
8
Story No.

6 6

No Infill No Infill
4 4
20% Infill 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
2 60% Infill 2
60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.100 Story Sway of 12 storied and 10 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.101 Story Sway of 12 storied and 10 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-7
 16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

Story No.
Story No.

8 8

6 No Infill 6 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
4 40% Infill 4 40% Infill
60% Infill 60% Infill
2 80% Infill 2 80% Infill

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.102 Story Sway of 15 storied and 2 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.103 Story Sway of 15 storied and 2 spanned Frame by RSM

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10
Story No.

Story No.
8 8

6 6
No Infill No Infill
4 20% Infill 4 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
2 60% Infill 2 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.104 Story Sway of 15 storied and 6 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.105 Story Sway of 15 storied and 6 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-8
 16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

Story No.
Story No.

8 8

6 6
No Infill No Infill
4 20% Infill 4 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
2 60% Infill 2 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.106 Story Sway of 15 storied and 8 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.107 Story Sway of 15 storied and 8 spanned Frame by RSM

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

Story No.
Story No.

8 8

6 6

No Infill No Infill
4 4
20% Infill 20% Infill
40% Infill 40% Infill
60% Infill 2 60% Infill
2
80% Infill 80% Infill
0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.108 Story Sway of 15 storied and 10 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.109 Story Sway of 15 storied and 10 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-9
 20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 No Infill 8 No Infill
6 20% Infill 20% Infill
6
40% Infill 40% Infill
4 60% Infill 4 60% Infill
80% Infill 80% Infill
2 2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.110 Story Sway of 18 storied and 2 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.111 Story Sway of 18 storied and 2 spanned Frame by RSM

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 8

6 No Infill 6 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
4 40% Infill 4 40% Infill
60% Infill 60% Infill
2 2
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.112 Story Sway of 18 storied and 6 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.113 Story Sway of 18 storied and 6 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-10
 20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 8

6 No Infill 6 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
4 40% Infill 4 40% Infill
60% Infill 60% Infill
2 2
80% Infill 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.114 Story Sway of 18 storied and 8 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4.115 Story Sway of 18 storied and 8 spanned Frame by RSM

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 8

6 No Infill 6 No Infill
20% Infill 20% Infill
4 40% Infill 4 40% Infill
60% Infill 60% Infill
2 80% Infill 2 80% Infill
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sway, mm Sway, mm

Fig. 4.116 Story Sway of 18 storied and 10 spanned Frame by ESFM Fig. 4. 117 Story Sway of 18 storied and 10 spanned Frame by RSM

Appendix-B B-11
 Appendix- C

Effect of Span Length & Infilll Percentage on Story Drift

Appendix-C
 7 7

20% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 20% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

6 6
20% Infill 2 span (rsm) 20% Infill 6 span (RSM)
5 5

4 4
Story No.

Story No.
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.118 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 6 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.119 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 6 Floor and 6 spanned Frame

7 7

20% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 20% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

6 6
20% Infill 8 span (RSM) 20% Infill 10 span (RSM)
5 5

4
Story No. 4
Story No.

3 3

2 2

1
1

0
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10 -3 )
Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.120 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 6 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Fig.4.121 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 6 Floor and 10 spanned Frame

Appendix-C C-2
 7 7

40% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 40% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

6 6
40% Infill 2 span (RSM) 40% Infill 6 span (RSM)
5 5

4 4
Story No.

Story No.
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.122 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 6 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.123 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 6 Floor and 6 spanned Frame

7 7

40% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 40% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

6 6
40% Infill 8 span (RSM) 40% Infill 10 span (RSM)
5 5

Story No.
4
Story No.

3 3

2
2

1
1

0
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10 -3 )
Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.124 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 6 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Fig.4.125 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 6 Floor and 10 spanned Frame

Appendix-C C-3
 7 7

60% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 60% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

6 6
60% Infill 2 span (RSM) 60% Infill 6 span (RSM)
5 5

4 4
Story No.

Story No.
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.126
Error! NoComparison of Drift
text of specified styleESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 6 Floor and 2 spanned Frame
in document..2 Fig.4.127
Error! No Comparison of Drift
text of specified style ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 6 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
in document..1

7 7

60% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 60% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

6 6
60% Infill 8 span (RSM) 60% Infill 10 span (RSM)
5 5

4 4
Story No.

3 Story No. 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! NoComparison
Fig.4.128 text of specified styleESFM
of Drift in document..3
vs RSM for 60% Infill 6 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No text
Fig.4.129 of specified
Comparison of style
Driftin document..4
ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 6 Floor and 10 spanned Frame

Appendix-C C-4
 7 7

80% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 80% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

6 6
80% Infill 2 span (RSM) 80% Infill 6 span (RSM)
5 5

4 4
Story No.

Story No.
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.130
Error! NoComparison of Drift
text of specified styleESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 6 Floor and 2 spanned Frame
in document..5 Fig.4.131
Error! No textComparison of Drift
of specified style ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 6 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
in document..6

7 7

80% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 80% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

6 6
80% Infill 8 span (RSM) 80% Infill 10 span (RSM)
5 5

4 4
Story No.

Story No.
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.132
Error! NoComparison of Drift
text of specified styleESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 6 Floor and 8 spanned Frame
in document..8 Fig.4.133
Error! No textComparison of Drift
of specified style ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 6 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
in document..7

Appendix-C C-5
 10 10

9 20% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 9 20% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

8 20% Infill 2 span (RSM) 8 20% Infill 6 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6
Story No.

Story No.
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.134 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 9 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.135 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 9 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..9

10 10

9 20% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 9 20% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

8 20% Infill 8 span (RSM) 8 20% Infill 10 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6

Story No.
Story No.

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! NoComparison
text of specified style ESFM
in document..10 Error! No text of specified style in document..11
Fig.4.136 of Drift vs RSM for 20% Infill 9 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Fig.4.137 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 9 Floor and 10 spanned Frame

Appendix-C C-6
 10 10

9 40% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 9 40% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

8 40% Infill 2 span (RSM) 8 40% Infill 6 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6
Story No.

Story No.
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.138 Comparison
Error! No of Drift
text of specified styleESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 9 Floor and 2 spanned Frame
in document..12 Fig.4.139 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 9 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..13

10 10

9 40% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 9 40% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

8 40% Infill 8 span (RSM) 8 40% Infill 10 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6
Story No.

5
Story No. 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! NoComparison
Fig.4.140 text of specified styleESFM
of Drift in document..14
vs RSM for 40% Infill 9 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.141 of specified of
style in document..15
Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 9 Floor and 10 spanned Frame

Appendix-C C-7
 10 10

9 60% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 9 60% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

8 60% Infill 2 span (RSM) 8 60% Infill 6 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6
Story No.

Story No.
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.142 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 9 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.143 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 9 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..16 Error! No text of specified style in document..17

10 10

9 60% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 9 60% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

8 60% Infill 8 span (RSM) 8 60% Infill 10 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6
Story No.

Story No.
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! NoComparison
Fig.4.144 text of specified styleESFM
of Drift in document..18
vs RSM for 60% Infill 9 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.145 of specified of
style in document..19
Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 9 Floor and 10 spanned Frame

Appendix-C C-8
 10 10

9 80% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 9 80% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

8 80% Infill 2 span (RSM) 8 80% Infill 6 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6

Story No.
Story No.

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! No text of specified style in document..21

Fig.4.146
Error! NoComparison of Drift
text of specified styleESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 9 Floor and 2 spanned Frame
in document..20 Fig.4.147 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 9 Floor and 6 spanned Frame

10 10

9 80% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 9 80% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

8 80% Infill 8 span (RSM) 8 80% Infill 10 span (RSM)
7 7

6 6
Story No.

5 Story No. 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.148 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 9 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.149 of specified style in document..23
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 9 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..22

Appendix-C C-9
 14 14

20% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 20% Infill 6 Span (ESFM)

12 12
20% Infill 2 span (RSM) 20% Infill 6 Span (RSM)
10 10

Story No.
8
Story No.

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Drift, ( x10 -3 )
Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.150 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 12 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Error!
Fig.4.151
No textComparison of Drift
of specified style ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 12 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
in document..24
Error! No text of specified style in document..25

14 14
20% Infill 8 Span (ESFM) 20% Infill 10 Span (ESFM)
12 12
20% Infill 8 Span (RSM) 20% Infill 10 Span (RSM)
10 10

8 8
Story No.

Story No.
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! No text of specified style in document..27

Fig.4.152 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 12 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Fig.4.153 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 12 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..26

Appendix-C C-10
 14 14

40% Infill 2 Span (ESFM) 40% Infill 6 Span (ESFM)

12 12
40% Infill 2 Span (RSM) 40% Infill 6 Span (RSM)
10 10

8 8
Story No.

Story No.
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.154 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 12 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.155 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 12 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..29 Error! No text of specified style in document..28

14 14

40% Infill 8 Span (ESFM) 40% Infill 10 Span (ESFM)

12 12
40% Infill 8 Span (RSM) 40% Infill 10 Span (RSM)
10 10

8 8
Story No.

Story No.
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! No text of specified style in document..31

Fig.4.156 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 12 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Fig.4.157 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 12 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..30

Appendix-C C-11
 14 14

60% Infill 6 Span (ESFM)

60% Infill 2 Span (ESFM) 12
12
60% Infill 6 Span (RSM)
60% Infill 2 Span (RSM)
10 10

Story No.
8
Story No.

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.158 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 12 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.159 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 12 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..33 Error! No text of specified style in document..32

14 14
60% Infill 8 Span (ESFM) 60% Infill 10 span (ESFM)
12 12
60% Infill 8 Span (RSM) 60% Infill 10 span (RSM)

10 10

8
Story No.
8
Story No.

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.160 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 12 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.161 of specified style in document..35
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 12 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..34

Appendix-C C-12
 14 14

80% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 80% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

12 12
80% Infill 2 span (RSM) 80% Infill 6 span (RSM)

10 10

8 8
Story No.

Story No.
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.162 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 12 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.163 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 12 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..37 Error! No text of specified style in document..36

14 14
80% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 80% Infill 10 span (ESFM)
12 12
80% Infill 8 span (RSM) 80% Infill 10 span (RSM)

10 10

8 8
Story No.

Story No.
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.164 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 12 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error!
Fig.4.165
No textComparison of Drift
of specified style ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 12 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
in document..39
Error! No text of specified style in document..38

Appendix-C C-13
 16 16

14 20% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 14 20% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

20% Infill 2 span (RSM) 20% Infill 6 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

Story No.
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.166
Error! NoComparison of Drift
text of specified styleESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 15 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Error!
in document..41 Fig.4.167
No textComparison of Drift
of specified style ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 15 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
in document..40

16 16

14 20% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 14 20% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

20% Infill 8 span (RSM) 20% Infill 10 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

8 Story No. 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.168 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 15 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.169 of specified style in document..43
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 15 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..42

Appendix-C C-14
 16 16

14 40% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 14 40% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

40% Infill 2 span (RSM) 40% Infill 6 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

Story No.
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.170 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 15 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.171 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 15 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..45 Error! No text of specified style in document..44

16 16

14 40% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 14 40% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

40% Infill 8 span (RSM) 40% Infill 10 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

8 Story No. 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Error! No text of specified style in document..47

Fig.4.172 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 15 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Fig.4.173 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 15 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..46

Appendix-C C-15
 16 16

14 60% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 14 60% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

60% Infill 2 span (RSM) 60% Infill 6 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

Story No.
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.174 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 15 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.175 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 15 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..49 Error! No text of specified style in document..48

16 16

14 60% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 14 60% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

60% Infill 8 span (RSM) 60% Infill 10 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

8 Story No. 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.176 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 15 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error!
Fig.4.177
No textComparison of Drift
of specified style ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 15 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
in document..51
Error! No text of specified style in document..50

Appendix-C C-16
 16 16

14 80% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 14 80% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

80% Infill 2 span (RSM) 80% Infill 6 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

Story No.
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.178 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 15 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.179 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 15 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..53 Error! No text of specified style in document..52

16 16

14 80% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 14 80% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

80% Infill 8 span (RSM) 80% Infill 8 span (RSM)

12 12

10 10
Story No.

8 Story No. 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.180 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 15 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.181 of specified style in document..55
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 15 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..54

Appendix-C C-17
 20 20

18 20% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 18 20% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

16 20% Infill 2 span (RSM) 16 20% Infill 6 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.182 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 18 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.183 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 18 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..57 Error! No text of specified style in document..56

20 20

18 20% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 18 20% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

16 20% Infill 8 span (RSM) 16 20% Infill 10 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

10 Story No. 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.184 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 18 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.185 of specified style in document..59
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 20% Infill 18 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..58

Appendix-C C-18
 20 20

18 40% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 18 40% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

16 40% Infill 2 span (RSM) 16 40% Infill 6 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.186 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 18 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.187 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 18 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..61 Error! No text of specified style in document..60

20 20

18 40% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 18 40% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

16 40% Infill 8 span (RSM) 16 40% Infill 10 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

10 Story No. 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.188 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 18 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.189 of specified style in document..63
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 40% Infill 18 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..62

Appendix-C C-19
 20 20

18 60% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 18 60% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

16 60% Infill 2 span (RSM) 16 60% Infill 6 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.190 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 18 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.191 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 18 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..65 Error! No text of specified style in document..64

20 20

18 60% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 18 60% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

16 60% Infill 8 span (RSM) 16 60% Infill 10 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

10 Story No. 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.192 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 18 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.193 of specified style in document..67
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 60% Infill 18 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..66

Appendix-C C-20
 20 20

18 80% Infill 2 span (ESFM) 18 80% Infill 6 span (ESFM)

16 80% Infill 2 span (RSM) 16 80% Infill 6 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

Story No.
10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.194 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 18 Floor and 2 spanned Frame Fig.4.195 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 18 Floor and 6 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..69 Error! No text of specified style in document..68

20 20

18 80% Infill 8 span (ESFM) 18 80% Infill 10 span (ESFM)

16 80% Infill 8 span (RSM) 16 80% Infill 8 span (RSM)
14 14

12 12
Story No.

10 Story No. 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Drift, ( x10 -3 ) Drift, ( x10 -3 )

Fig.4.196 Comparison of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 18 Floor and 8 spanned Frame Error! No textComparison
Fig.4.197 of specified style in document..71
of Drift ESFM vs RSM for 80% Infill 18 Floor and 10 spanned Frame
Error! No text of specified style in document..70

Appendix-C C-21
 Appendix-D

Effect of Variation of Slenderness (H/L) on Base shear

Appendix-D
 Fig.4.198 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 20% Infill 6 Floor Fig.4.199 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 60% Infill 6 Floor

Fig.4.200 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 80% Infill 6 Floor Fig.4.201 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 20% Infill 9 Floor

Appendix-D D-2
 Fig.4.202 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 60% Infill 9 Floor Fig.4.203 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 80% Infill 9 Floor

Fig.4.204 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 20% Infill 12 Floor Fig.4.205 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 60% Infill 12 Floor

Appendix-D D-3
 Fig.4.206 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 80% Infill 12 Floor Fig.4.207 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 20% Infill 15 Floor

Fig.4.208 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 60% Infill 15 Floor Fig.4.209 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 80% Infill 15 Floor

Appendix-D D-4
 Fig.4.210 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 20% Infill 18 Floor Fig.4.211 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 60% Infill 18 Floor

Fig.4.212 Comparison of Base Shear with Slenderness for 80% Infill 18 Floor

Appendix-D D-5
 CONTENTS
Declaration iii
Acknowledgment iv
Abstract v

List of Figures vi

List of Tables x

Abbreviations xi

Chapter-1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1
1.2 Objectives with Specific Aim and Possible Outcomes ....................... 1
1.3 Outline Methodology .......................................................................... 2
1.4 Assumptions for Modeling ................................................................. 3
1.5 Organization of the Thesis .................................................................. 3

Chapter-2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 4

2.2 Response of Masonry Infilled RC Frame under Lateral Load ........... 5
2.3 Computational Analysis and Experimental Studies ......................... 10
of Infill Panel
2.3.1 Review of Past Analytical Studies ........................................ 10
2.3.2 Review of Past Experimental Studies.................................... 18
2.4 Earthquake Effect on Soft Storied Buildings ................................... 19
2.5 Building Codes ................................................................................. 23
2.5.1 Building Code without Considering Soft Story..................... 24
Phenomenon
2.5.2 Building Code Considering Soft Story Phenomenon ......... 26
2.6 Justification of Present Study ........................................................... 27
Chapter-3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 28

3.2 Software Used for Analysis ............................................................... 28
3.3 Assumptions for Modeling ............................................................... 28
3.4 Properties of Structural Component .................................................. 29
3.4.1 Element Properties ................................................................ 29
3.4.2 Mass 21 (Structural Mass) for Load Application ............. 29
3.4.3 Link 8 (3-D Spar or Truss) for Diagonal Strut ................... 29
3.5 Meshing .......................................................................................... 30
3.6 Choice of Model to Develop Masonry Infill ..................................... 30
3.7 Support Conditions ............................................................................ 30
3.8 Loads Acting on the Structure ........................................................... 31
3.9 Analysis of Earhquake Load ............................................................. 32
3.9.1 Equivalent Static Force Method (ESFM) ..................... 32
3.9.2 Modal Analysis ..................................................................... 33
3.9.3 Dynamic Response Analysis (RSM) .............................. 34
3.10 Method of Modal Combination ....................................................... 37
3.11 Different Mode Shapes .................................................................... 38
3.12 Study Parameters ............................................................................. 40
3.12.1 Example of Load Calculation .................................... 42
3.12.2 Deformed Shapes for Different Loading Pattern .... 5448
3.12.3 Study of Member Forces 51

3.13 Random Distribution of Infill ............................................................ 55

3.14 Remarks .......................................................................................... 57

Chapter-4 PARAMETRIC STUDY AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 58

4.2 Structural Parameters for Models ...................................................... 58
4.3 Parameters of Models for Frames ..................................................... 58
 4.3.1 Effect of Randomness of Infill on Base Shear .................... 60
4.3.2 Effect of Variation of Infill Percentage on Story Sway 65
4.3.3 Effect of Span Length & Infill Percentage on Story ........... 72
Drift
4.3.4 Effect of Slenderness (H/L) on Base Shear ......................... 81
4.3.5 Base Shear Magnification vs H/L........................................ 84
4.3.6 Base Shear Magnification vs Percentage (%) Infill ............ 90
4.4 Proposal For Base Shear Magnification ............................................ 92
4.5 Applicability of ESFM for soft ground floor building ...................... 94

Chapter-5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General .......................................................................................... 96

5.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 96
5.3 Recommendations ............................................................................. 97
5.4 Scope for Further Study .................................................................... 97

REFERENCES 99

APPENDIX-A Variation of Base Shear of 6, 12 and 15 storied frame with A-1

different number of span

APPENDIX-B Effect of Variation of Infill Percentage on Story Sway B-1

APPENDIX-C Effect of Span Length & Infill Percentage on Story Drift C-2

APPENDIX-D Effect of Variation of Slenderness (H/L) on Base Shear D-1