Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study of the code-prescribed design interventions for open ground storey buildings in India

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reinforced Concrete (RC) frame buildings with Open Ground Storey (OGS) have undergone severe to heavy damage, mainly in open storey columns resulting collapse of the entire building. Several national standards have recommended the design of open storey members with higher forces using some multiplication factors or stiffening elements like bracings to compensate open storey stiffness and strength irregularity. Aim of the manuscript is to assess the efficacy and ease of practice of several available design interventions prescribed by various national design standards to remove strength/stiffness irregularity in OGS buildings. An exhaustive comparative study has been carried out on the effect of design provisions recommended by various national seismic design standards on sets of mid-rise and high-rise infilled RC frame buildings with open ground storey designed as per relevant Indian standards, in deterministic, as well as probabilistic terms. The effect of relevant OGS design provisions on the seismic performance and consequent seismic fragility has been evaluated using pushover analysis in conjunction with HAZUS methodology. Design of OGS through higher forces using a multiplication factor ranging from 2.5 to 3 is found effective and more feasible solution in terms of seismic performance as well as ease of OGS building design for all practical purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig.13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASCE:

American Society of Civil Engineers

SEI:

Structural Engineering Institute

BIS:

Bureau of Indian Standard

BR1/2/3:

Bracings of type 1/2/3

BSC:

Bulgarian Seismic Code

CDR:

Capacity/Demand Ratio

CP:

Collapse Prevention

DBE:

Design Basis Earthquake

DL:

Dead Load

EC-8:

EuroCode-8

FBD:

Force-Based Design

FEMA:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

IBC:

International Building Code

IO:

Immediate Occupancy

ISC:

Israel Seismic Code

LL:

Live Load

LS:

Life Safety

MCE:

Maximum considered Earthquake

MF:

Multiplication Factor

NZSEE:

New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

NOSC:

No Strong-Column/Weak-Beam

OGS:

Open Ground Storey

OOGS:

OGS building conforming to SCWB but without MF

PGA:

Peak Ground Acceleration

RC:

Reinforced Concrete

SCWB:

Strong-Column/Weak-Beam

SMRF:

Special Moment Resisting Frame

UI:

Uniformly Infilled

URM:

Un-Reinforced Masonry

References

  1. Jain SK et al (2002) Bhuj, India Earthquake of January 26, 2001. Reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra

  2. T Choudhury HB Kaushik 2018 Seismic fragility of open ground storey RC frames with wall openings for vulnerability assessment Eng Struct 155 345 357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. HB Kaushik DC Rai SK Jain 2009 Effectiveness of some strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with open first story J Struct Eng 135 8 925 937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. F Pavel G Carale 2019 Seismic assessment for typical soft-storey reinforced concrete structures in Bucharest, Romania Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 41 101332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. AC Borsaikia A Dutta SK Deb 2021 Evaluation of participation of masonry infill walls in the linear and nonlinear behaviour of RC buildings with open ground storey J Build Eng 44 103263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A Noorifard MR Tabeshpour FM Saradj 2020 New approximate method to identify soft story caused by infill walls Structures 24 922 939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Y Aggarwal SK Saha 2021 Seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete hilly buildings with open story Structures 34 224 238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. V Gattulli E Antonacci F Vestroni 2013 Field observations and failure analysis of the Basilica S. Maria di Collemaggio after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake Eng Fail Anal 34 715 734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M Sharma 2013 Damage survey report for Sikkim Earthquake of 18 September 2011 Seismol Res Lett 84 49 56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ICC IBC (2012) International Building Code, International Code Consortium, USA

  11. NZSEE (2006) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes. Study Group on Earthquake Risk Buildings

  12. ASCE/SEI 7 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston.

  13. Bulgarian Seismic Code (1987) Code for design of buildings and structures in seismic regions. Bulgarian Academy of Science Committee of Territorial and Town System at the Council of Ministers, Sofia, Bulgaria

  14. BIS (2002) BIS 1893 (Part1) 2002; Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures; Bureau of Indian Standards

  15. EC8 (2004) EN 1998-1 (2004): Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

  16. SI-413 (1995) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. The Standards Institution of Israel, Tel-Aviv, Israel

  17. BIS (2016) BIS 1893 (Part1) 2016, criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau of Indian Standards

  18. P Haldar Y Singh D Paul 2016 Simulation of infills for seismic assessment of open ground storey RC frame buildings J Struct Eng, CSIR SERC Chennai 43 38 47

    Google Scholar 

  19. D Khan A Rawat 2016 Nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry infill RC buildings with eccentric bracings at soft storey level Procedia Eng 161 9 17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lal A, Remanan M (2023) Analysis of soft storey building with different types of steel bracings under seismic load. In: Recent advances in structural engineering and construction management. Springer, Singapore

  21. A Shahsahebi Z Waezi MJ Hashemi 2020 Seismic performance assessment of multi-story RC buildings with soft-story collapse mechanism equipped with gapped inclined bracing (GIB) Structures 28 2448 2466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. N Mashhadiali A Kheyroddin 2018 Seismic performance of concentrically braced frame with hexagonal pattern of braces to mitigate soft story behavior Eng Struct 175 27 40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. DR Sahoo DC Rai 2010 Seismic strengthening of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames using aluminum shear links as energy-dissipation devices Eng Struct 32 11 3548 3557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. A Benavent-Climent S Mota-Páez 2017 Earthquake retrofitting of R/C frames with soft first story using hysteretic dampers: energy-based design method and evaluation Eng Struct 137 19 32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. F Mazza M Mazza A Vulcano 2018 Base-isolation systems for the seismic retrofitting of r.c. framed buildings with soft-storey subjected to near-fault earthquakes Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 109 209 221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. DR Sahoo DC Rai 2013 Design and evaluation of seismic strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete frames with soft ground story Eng Struct 56 1933 1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. G Das PJ Das SK Deb 2023 Seismic retrofit of torsionally coupled RC soft-storey building using short yielding core BRBs J Build Eng 65 105742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. SE Ruiz 2021 BRB retrofit of mid-rise soft-first-story RC moment-frame buildings with masonry infill in upper stories J Build Eng 38 101783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. D Teruna T Majid B Budiono 2014 The use of steel damper for enhancing the seismic performance of R/C frame with soft first story J Civil Eng Res 4 191 202

    Google Scholar 

  30. N Mashhadiali 2021 Hybrid braced frame with buckling-restrained and strong braces to mitigate soft story J Constr Steel Res 181 106610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. DC Haran Pragalath 2016 Multiplication factor for open ground storey buildings–a reliability based evaluation Earthq Eng Eng Vib 15 2 283 295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. HAZUS, NIBS (2003) 2003: multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model—HAZUS-MH: Technical Manual; Federal Emergency Management Agency National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC

  33. P Haldar Y Singh 2009 Seismic performance and vulnerability of Indian code designed RC frame buildings ISET J Earthq Technol 46 1 29 45

    Google Scholar 

  34. BIS, IS 875-1 (1987, Reaffirmed 2008), Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures. Part 1: dead loads-unit weights of building materials and stored materials (1987)

  35. BIS, IS 875-2 (1987), Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures, Part 2: imposed loads [CED 37: structural safety] (1987)

  36. BIS, IS 456: 2000; Plain and reinforced concrete—Code of Practice; Bureau of Indian Standard (2000)

  37. P Haldar 2013 Comparison of seismic risk assessment based on macroseismic intensity and spectrum approaches using ‘SeisVARA’ Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 48 267 281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. BIS, IS 13920: 2016; ductile design and detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected seismic forces; Bureau of Indian Standards 2016

  39. DEQ (2009) Seismic vulnerability of multistorey buildings in Noida Roorkee, India, I.I.o.T.R. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Editor, pp 1–118

  40. BIS (1993) BIS 13920:1993; Ductile design and detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected seismic forces; Bureau of Indian Standards

  41. SAP2000 (2020) SAP2000 V22.2.0: linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis and design of three-dimensional structures, I. Computers and Structures, Editor, Berkeley

  42. PG Asteris 2013 Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames: State of the art Eng Struct 56 1905 1921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. PG Asteris 2011 Mathematical Macromodeling of Infilled Frames: State of The Art J Struct Eng 137 12 1508 1517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. ASCE/SEI41–06, ASCE/SEI 41–06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007. 2006.

  45. Haldar, P., Seismic behavior and vulnerability of Indian RC frame buildings with URM infills, Doctoral Thesis, in Department of Earthquake Engineering. 2013, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Roorkee, India.

  46. Kurmi, P.L. and P. Haldar. Simplified Macro Modeling Approach for Estimation of Nonlinear Response of Infilled RC Frames. 2022. Singapore: Springer Singapore.

  47. PL Kurmi P Haldar 2022 Modeling of opening for realistic assessment of infilled RC frame buildings Structures 41 1700 1709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. HB Kaushik DC Rai SK Jain 2007 Stress-Strain Characteristics of Clay Brick Masonry under Uniaxial Compression J Mater Civ Eng 19 9 728 739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. M Pisode 2017 Comparative assessment of seismic fragility of RC frame buildings designed for older and revised Indian standards ISET J Earthq Technol 54 1 17 29

    Google Scholar 

  50. ASCE/SEI-41–17, ASCE/SEI 41–17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017. 2017.

  51. H Burton G Deierlein 2014 Simulation of Seismic Collapse in Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings with Masonry Infills J Struct Eng 140 8 A4014016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. P Haldar Y Singh DK Paul 2013 Identification of seismic failure modes of URM infilled RC frame buildings Eng Fail Anal 33 97 118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Vijayanarayanan AR, Goswami R, Murty CVR (2017) Estimation of storey stiffness in multi-storey buildings. In 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017, Santiago, CL

  54. FEMA356 (2000) FEMA-356: 2000; Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings; Federal Emergency Management Agency

  55. MJN Priestley 1993 Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 26 3 329 341

    Google Scholar 

  56. Priestley MJN (2000) Direct displacement based design. In: 12th conference on earthquake engineering. Paper No. 2831

  57. Priestley MJN (2003) Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering, revisited. European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, 9th Mallet-Milne Lecture

  58. AH Barbat LG Pujades N Lantada 2006 Performance of buildings under earthquakes in Barcelona, Spain Comput-Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 21 8 573 593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. V Silva 2014 Evaluation of analytical methodologies used to derive vulnerability functions Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 43 2 181 204

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Ropar, India

    P. L. Kurmi & P. Haldar

Authors
  1. P. L. Kurmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Haldar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Haldar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kurmi, P.L., Haldar, P. Comparative study of the code-prescribed design interventions for open ground storey buildings in India. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 9, 98 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01399-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01399-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation