Journal of Structural Engineering No.

37-19
Vol. 37, No. 2, June-July 2010 pp. 131–138

Earthquake-resistant design of open ground storey rc framed buildings

Robin Davis∗ , Devdas Menon *, ∗ and Meher Prasad∗

∗
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai - 600 036, India.
Received ; Accepted

Open ground storey (OGS) buildings are known to be vulnerable under seismic loading due to early formation of
collapse mechanism in the ground storey RC columns. The estimation of design forces in such buildings has not been
adequately addressed in existing design codes and the literature. In the present study, four different methods are
proposed, ranging from rigorous nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) of the infilled frame to simplified equivalent static
analysis of the bare frame. All the methods proposed are found to result in similar estimates of the design forces in
the ground storey columns. The linear analysis (static/dynamic) methods proposed are particularly simple to apply in
practice, and will result in designs that are rational and economical, compared to the existing code-based methods

KEYWORDS:

Car parking space for residential apartments in cities is a mat- se shear demand. Also, this changes the fundamental mode
ter of increasing concern. Hence the trend has been to utilize shape significantly (compared to the bare frame) and incre-
the ground storey of the building itself for parking. These ty- ases the design forces and curvature demand in the ground
pes of buildings having no infill masonry walls in ground sto- storey columns. The increased design forces in the ground
rey, but infilled in all upper storeys as usual, are called Open storey columns of the OGS buildings are not captured in the
Ground Storey (OGS) buildings. They are also called ‘open conventional bare frame analysis.
first storey buildings’, ‘pilotis’ or ‘stilted buildings’ in litera-
ture. Although functionally, there is great advantage, from a IS 1893 (2002) 1, classify “soft-storey” framed buildings
seismic performance point of view, such buildings are consi- as “vertically irregular” buildings and prescribe dynamic ana-
dered to have increased vulnerability, as seen from the past lysis for such buildings under seismic loading (i. e., equiva-
earthquakes. lent static analysis is not permitted). This requires modelling
The OGS framed building behaves differently under la- the strength and stiffness of infill walls. Unfortunately no gui-
teral load, compared to a bare framed building (without any delines are given in the code for modelling the infill walls. As
infill) or a fully infilled framed building. A bare frame (Fig. an alternative to accurate dynamic analysis, a bare frame ana-
1a) is much less stiff than a fully infilled frame; it resists the lysis (linear static or dynamic) also can be used, provided the
applied lateral load through frame action and shows well- columns of the ground storey are designed for 2.5 times the
distributed plastic hinges at failure. When this frame is fully storey shears and moments obtained from a bare frame ana-
infilled (Fig 1b), truss action is introduced; the frame shows lysis. The factor 2.5 may be referred to as a multiplication
less inter-storey drift, attracts higher base shear (due to decre- factor (MF).
ase in time period), yields less forces in the frames and dissi-
pates greater energy through infill walls. An OGS frame (Fig The prescribed MF of 2.5, applicable for all OGS fra-
1c) is stiffer than the bare frame, in the upper storeys, where med buildings, is fairly high and suggests that all existing
truss action is induced, attracts higher base shear, has larger OGS framed buildings (designed to earlier codes) are high-
drift in the ground storey, and fails due to plastic hinge forma- ly vulnerable under seismic loading. The proposed MF does
tion in the ground storey columns (storey-mechanism). The not account for dependence on number of storeys, number
infill walls in infilled frame buildings are ignored in the struc- of bays, type and number of infill walls present, etc. This
tural modelling in conventional design practice (bare frame has also been pointed out by Kanitkar and Kanitkar 1 (2004),
analysis is carried out). The design in such cases will be con- Subramanian 3 (2004) and Kaushik 4 (2006). The code propo-
servative in the case of regular buildings, but will be uncon- sal has also met with resistance in design and construction
servative in OGS buildings. practice due to cost implications and congestion of heavy re-
Inclusion of stiffness and strength of infill walls in the inforcement in ground storey columns. The main motivation
OGS building frame decreases the fundamental time period of the present study is to arrive at more rational design pro-
compared to a bare frame and consequently increases the ba- cedure for OGS buildings, supported by rigorous analysis.
* E-mail: [email protected]
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before September 30, 2010)

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010 131

 modelling the stiffness of infill walls and lacks the verificati-
on using accurate dynamic analysis.
The MF, as prescribed in design codes, is to be applied
on the base shear and forces (bending moments and she-
ar forces) in the soft-storey. For this, it is necessary to first
categorize the building as a soft-storey building. In IS 1893
(2002) 1, the criterion for defining ‘soft-storey’, is in terms of
the stiffness (k0 ) of any storey being less than 70% of that of
adjacent storey (k 1 ) or 80% of average stiffness of three sto-
reys above. This definition and the consequent multiplication
by a constant factor of 2.5, is based on binary logic, which
(a) does not seem rational. According to this binary logic, for all
values of k0 /k1 greater than 0.70 the ground storey need not
be considered as soft-storey, where by there is no need for
applying multiplication factor. The multiplication factor for
such cases may be treated as unity. Similarly, for all values
of k0 /k1 less than 0.70, a constant MF of 2.5 is applicable.
There is a clear need to assess the design guidelines re-
commended by various codes for the estimation of design
forces for OGS buildings. Not much research is reported in
the literature to validate the accuracy of the design guidelines
given in various codes regarding OGS buildings.

MODELLING OF INFILL WALLS

(b)
A comprehensive study conducted by Asokan (2006) 14 com-
pared various infill wall models currently available, and
recommended the model proposed by Smith and Carter
(1969) 15 for modelling the masonry infill walls, for conser-
vative results. This model is used for the linear analysis me-
thods in the present study.
For nonlinear dynamic analysis, the infill wall model in-
troduced by Crisafulli (1999) 16 is used. The model is vali-
dated considering both the monotonic and pseudo dynamic
tests reported in literature. The monotonic tests on single-
bay single-storeyed infilled RC frame reported by Achint-
Plastic hinges ya et.al. (1991) 17, Mehrabi et. al. (1994) 18, Alchaar et. al.
(c)
(2002) 19, Choubay and Sinha (1994) 20 and pseudo dynamic
tests presented in Pinho and Elnashai (2000) 21 and Negro and
Fig. 1 Behaviour of (a) Bare frame (b) Infilled frame (c) OGS frame
Verzeletti, (1996) 22 are used for validation of the infill wall
model.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
NONLINEAR AND LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
While some of the international codes (IBC 2000 5, Bulgari- (NDA AND RSA)
an code6 , Israeli code7 ) adopt the same kind of approach that
is followed by the IS 1893-2002 1 for obtaining the design Among the various design methodologies, the one based on
forces in the OGS buildings, some other codes such as (Co- nonlinear dynamic analysis is considered to be the most rigo-
sta Rican code8 , Nepal code9 ), prohibit the use of OGS buil- rous and accurate. This is also used as a reference for valida-
dings (Kaushik, 2006 4 ). Eurocode 8 (EC 8:2004) 10 suggests ting the other design methodologies. Accordingly, a family of
an expression for multiplication factor in terms of strength of 72 OGS building frames have been studied. These frames are
the infill walls and the design base shear (which depends on designed as per conventional practice in India (seismic loads
time period) for general soft-storey type of building, and the as per IS 1893:2002 1 and design of RC elements as per IS
expression for time period involves the area of infill walls in 456:2000 23), with number of storeys ranging from four to ten
the ground storey. Fardis and Panagiotakos (1997) 11 conduc- and number of bays ranging from five to nine, with different
ted studies on the adequacy of multiplication factors propo- infill wall configurations. Twenty input time histories, con-
sed by Eurocode 8 10 . Fardis et. al.(1999) 12 conducted studies sisting of five artificially generated accelerogram consistent
on building frames with open storeys (free of infill walls) and with the design spectrum of Indian standards (IS 1893:2002) 1
suggested strengthening scheme for beams in the open sto- and fifteen natural records, are employed for the dynamic
reys based on capacity design. analysis. NDA is conducted for all the 72 OGS frames using
There is very little research reported in the literature with the program Seismostruct (2007) 24.
regard to quantification of seismic forces in OGS buildings. NDA is too rigorous a procedure for use in the design of-
Scarlet (1997) 13 proposed a procedure for the estimation of fice. A Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA), modelling the
magnification factors for the soft-storey type of buildings in infill wall stiffness, is much simpler than NDA as it requires
general. This procedure requires the analysis of OGS frame only the stiffness characteristics of the infill walls, and this is

132 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010

recommended in IS 1893 (2002) 1. This procedure is studied 1.4
and the response is validated using NDA. 1.2

SF-RSA / SF-NDA
A series of RSA of OGS buildings are conducted to
find maximum responses (base shear (VB), bending moment 1.0
(BM) and shear force (SF) in ground storey column) in the 0.8
OGS framed building. Fig. 2a shows that the base shear va-
0.6
lues estimated by RSA are on the conservative side, compa-
red to NDA. Figs. 2b and 2e show the scatter in the values 0.4
of bending moments in the external (BM-EXT) and internal 0.2
column (BM-INT) and also shear forces in the external (SF-
EXT) and internal column (SF-INT), as compared to NDA. 0.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1.6
T OGS (s)
VB-RSA / VB-NDA

1.4
Fig. 2(d) BM in internal column
1.2
1.0
1.6
0.8
1.4

SF-RSA / SF-NDA
0.6
1.2
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.4
T OGS (s) 0.2
Fig. 2(a) Comparison of Responses for RSA and NDA (a) Base shear
0.0
1.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
BM-RSA / BM-NDA

1.4 T OGS (s)

1.2 Fig. 2(e) BM in internal column
1.0
0.8
0.6 Equivalent Static Analysis on Infilled Frame (ESA-IF)
0.4
0.2
As the OGS buildings are classified as vertically irregu-
0.0 lar buildings, equivalent static analysis is not permitted by
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 design codes. Only Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) of
OGS building is permitted, appropriately modelling the stiff-
T OGS (s)
ness of infill walls. In the present study, an equivalent static
Fig. 2(b) BM in external column approach is proposed with the same infill stiffness modelling,
which will capture the irregularity effect on the ground sto-
1.6 rey columns. For this, the time period reduction due to the
1.4 stiffness of infill walls and consequent increase in base shear
BM-RSA / BM-NDA

1.2 should be accounted for. Furthermore, the correct load profi-

le suited for OGS building (considering vertical irregularity)
1.0 needs to be proposed. However, infill wall properties are to
0.8 be modelled as discussed earlier.
0.6 The correction for time period shift (reduction) can be
0.4 accounted by providing a correction factor (κ) to the time
period of the bare frame suggested by IS1893 (2002) 1. This
0.2 correction factor can be expressed
 in terms of the storey stiff-
0.0 k0
ness parameter (η = kav , where kav is average of the
OGS
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 lateral stiffnesses of all the upper stories and k 0 is lateral stiff-
T OGS (s) ness of ground storey)
 of the OGS frame, relative to that of
Fig. 2(c) BM in internal column bare frame (η B = kkav 0
for bare frame). The parame-
Bare
It is seen that in some of these cases, the RSA estima- ter η depends on the lateral stiffnesses of all upper stories and
tes are unconservative (to a maximum extent of about 25%). hence take into account of the type (strong or weak), distri-
Thus, it can be concluded that in the absence of NDA, a re- bution and number of infill walls present in the upper stories.
sponse spectrum analysis modelling the infill wall stiffness This parameter, β =η/ηB is called storey stiffness index.
can be used as an alternative, provided the BM and SF in the Based on the modal analysis of 40 OGS buildings (four to
ground storey columns increased by a factor of 1.25 to ensure ten storeyed), the correction factor to be applied on the time
that the design is not unconservative. period formula for bare frame (T B ), expressed as a function

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010 133

of number of storeys (n s ) and β, using linear regression ana- 8 η = 1.2
lysis, is generated, whereby the corrected time period T OGS
is given by
7 η = 0.9
 
0.75 (β −1) (ns −4)
TOGS = 0.075H 0.38β + 0.62 + (1) 6
25 η = 0.7

The above equation is applicable only for ns values bet- 5

η = 0.5
ween four and ten. Figs. 3a and 3b show good correlation

Storey level
between the time period correction factor and storey stiffness 4
index (β) for typical four and ten storeyed OGS frames. The η = 0.4
spectral acceleration (S a ) of the OGS framed building can
now be determined from the time period (T OGS ) using the 3
η = 0.3
code specified response spectrum and the base shear compu-
ted accordingly. 2
η = 0.2

1.0 1

0.9
0
0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2
k = TOGS / TB

Displacement units
0.7
K (a)
0.6 Curve fit
8
0.5 Proposed

0.4 RSA
6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
β
Storey level

(a)
4

1.0

0.9 2
k = TOGS / TB

0.8

0.7 k 0
0.6 Curve fit 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Storey shear
0.5
(normalised to base shear)
0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 (b)
Fig. 4 Mode shape variation and comparison of storey shears (a) Variation
β
of mode shape with k0 /k1 (b) Comparison of storey shears
(b)
Fig. 3 Variation of time period ratio with storey stiffness index β (a) Four
storeyed frame (b) Ten storeyed frame The fundamental mode shape is found to have typically
a bilinear shape, with a kink at the first floor level. The kink
is most pronounced when the stiffness ratio (η) takes the va-
Modal analyses of OGS building frames are conducted lue (η = 0.2). It gets smoothened at higher values of η. For
for various values of the parameter η to study the variation the case of a bare frame, η takes a value of about 1.2 (assu-
of the fundamental mode shape. The fundamental mode sha- ming fixity at base), the fundamental mode shape becomes
pe is important as the load distribution for equivalent static parabolic conforming to the equivalent loading profile pres-
analysis is derived from this shape. As the factor η decreases cribed in IS 1893 (2002) 1. Based on this observed pattern of
the ground storey becomes relatively more flexible. When the the fundamental mode shape of OGS building frames, a load
factor η decreases from 1.2 (regular building) to 0.2 (extreme distribution profile is proposed (as a function of η = k 0 /kav )
soft-storey), the profile of the fundamental mode shape chan- for equivalent static analysis of OGS buildings that includes
ges significantly, as shown in Fig. 4a (for a typical 8-storey the modelling of infill walls. The load profile is proposed for
5-bay frame). OGS building, as follows:

134 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010

 wi hki is shown in Fig. 5c. It is seen that MF increases with increase
fj = 
ns VB ; k = 2.3(η − 0.03) ≤ 2.0 (2) in 1/η due to shift in time period.
wi hki
i=1 VB
BM-INT-COL
where wi is the seismic weight of ith floor level; hi is the 2.0 BM-EXT-COL
height of i th floor from the base; V B is the design base shear;
1.8 SF-EXT-COL
and ns is the number of storeys; The proposed load distribu-
tion is applicable for any realistic value of η. 1.6
SF-INT-COL
A series of Response Spectrum Analyses (RSA), pre-

MF
viously validated by NDA, are carried out on various OGS 1.4
building frames with different values of parameter η to check 1.2
the validity of the proposed load distribution for equiva-
lent static analysis. A comparison is done in terms of storey 1.0
shears. Fig. 4b shows that the storey shear distribution using 0.8
the proposed load profile and that using the response spec- 4 6 8 10
trum analysis are in good agreement with less than 1% error.
Number of storeys, ns
This is attributable to the high (more than 95%) mass par-
ticipation factor observed for the OGS building in the first (a)
mode. Hence, the proposed load distribution can be used for
equivalent static analysis of OGS building, including model- 1.5
ling the infill walls. The IS 1893 (2002) 1 load profile on bare 1.4
frame (equivalent static method) estimates the storey shear 4storeys
distribution very conservatively, as indicated in Fig. 4b. 1.3

MF(VB)
As in the case of RSA a multiplication factor of 1.25 is 6storeys
1.2
to be applied to the BM and SF values in the ground storey 8storeys
columns, while using the ESA-IF method. 1.1
10storeys
1.0
Equivalent Static Analysis of Bare Frame (ESA-BF) 0.9
0.8
Design codes such as IS 1893 (2002) 1 permit conventional
ESA of bare frame (ESA-BF), provided a multiplication fac- 5 7 9
tor (equal to 2.5 in the case of IS 1893:2002 1) is applied on Number of bays
the design forces in the ground storey columns. In reality, the (b)
base shear itself gets enhanced in an OGS frame, on account
of the reduction in time period. However, due to the truss ac- 1.5
tion in the infilled upper storeys this is not likely to result hig-
her design forces in the frame elements above the ground sto- 1.4
rey. The term “multiplication factor”, MF(VB), defined here
MF(VB)

as the multiplication factor to be applied on the base shear ge- 1.3

nerated from ESA-BF, in order to arrive at the “exact” value ns = 10,nb= 5
generated by NDA. 1.2
ns = 10,nb= 7
Also, the MF can be defined in terms of the design
forces in the ground storey columns which are likely to ex- 1.1 ns = 10,nb= 9
ceed MF(VB), based on the results observed earlier in the
RSA. Accordingly, the notations MF(BM-EXT), MF(BM- 1.0
7 9 11
INT), MF(SF-EXT) and MF(SF-INT) are used to refer the k av / k 0
multiplication factor for the bending moment in the external (c)
column, bending moment in the internal column, shear force Fig. 5 Variation of MF (a) With number of storeys (b) With number of
in the external column and shear force in the internal column bays (c) With 1/η
respectively. Of the 72 different frame models identified, the-
re are 12 different bare frames (4 to 10 storeys) for which To have a comparison, multiplication factors for BM and
linear elastic analysis (ESA) need to be carried out. The refe- SF are plotted along with MF(VB). Figures. 6a and 6b show
rence forces (bending moments, shear forces and base shear, the MF for BM in the internal and external columns plot-
VB) by ESA are thus found out. ted against the corresponding MF for VB. MF for BM in
The variations of multiplication factor with number of the internal column is slightly more than that for the exter-
storeys with regard to MF(VB), MF(BM-INT), MF(BM- nal column. For design purposes, however, they can be both
EXT), MF(SF-INT) and MF(SF-EXT) are shown in the Fig taken as 1.25 times MF(VB) as indicated. Figures. 6c and 6d
5a. The value of MF is found to increases with number of show that the MFs for shear force in the internal and external
storeys (ns ). As the number of storeys increases, the shift in columns, plotted against the corresponding base shear. Here
time period and the consequent increase in base shear requi- also for convenience, we can consider a common MF of 1.25
rement also increases, makes the MF increase. The variation MF(VB). A similar trend was observed with regard to MF,
of MF with the number of bays (n b ) is shown in Fig. 5b. It is where 25% additional magnification (over base shear) was
seen that the number of bays does not have much influence recommended for the design of BM and SF in ground storey
on the MF. Variation of MF with the parameter 1/η = k av /k0 columns.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010 135

 2.0  
0.02
M F (V B) = (0.05ns + 0.67) + 0.9 ≥ 1.0 (3)
1.5
η

MF(BM-EXT)
where ns is the number of storeys and η is the storey stiffness
1.0 parameter which takes into account of type and distribution
of infill walls in upper stories of OGS frames. The perfor-
0.5 mance of the proposed equation is assessed by comparing
1.25 the actual and predicted values of MFs, as shown in Fig. 7.
1 It can be seen that the proposed expression is able to predict
0.0
the MF fairly accurately (COV = 12.3%).
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
MF(VB) 1.5

Predicted - MF(VB)
COV = 12.3%
(a)
2.0 1.2

1.5 0.9
MF(BM-INT)

1.0 0.6
0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Actual - MF(VB)
0.5 1.25 Fig. 7 Performance of proposed expression for MF
1
0.0 The expression for MF for bending moment and shear
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 forces in external column and internal columns are proposed
MF(VB) as given below.
(b) M F = (BM − EXT ) = M F = (BM − IN T )
2.0 = M F = (SF − EXT ) = M F = (SF − IN T )
= 1.25M F (V B) (4)
1.5
MF(SF-EXT)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1.0

It is observed that the existing design codes and the literature

0.5 1.25 have not adequately addressed the problem of earthquake-
1
resistant design of OGS buildings. Design codes, such as IS
0.0 1893 (2002) 1, classify such buildings as irregular and requi-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 re (dynamic) response spectrum analysis (RSA) to be carried
MF(VB) out. However, details of modelling the infill wall stiffness, re-
(c) quired for such an analysis, are not specified. Moreover, it is
not clear whether such an analysis will always ensure a con-
2.0 servative design. As a simpler alternative, the codes also per-
mit a simplified equivalent static analysis (ESA) of the bare
1.5 frame, provided the design BM and SF in ground storey co-
MF(SF-INT)

lumns are multiplied by a multiplication factor (MF) of 2.5.

This constant MF, however, does not account for dependence
1.0 on number of storeys, number of bays, type and number of
infill walls present, etc.
0.5 1.25
In the present study, four different methods are proposed
to arrive at the design force in the ground storey columns in
1 the OGS building. The most rigorous and accurate of these
0.0 methods is nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) using appro-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 priate nonlinear models for strength, stiffness and hysteresis
MF(VB) of infill walls and frame elements. This procedure has been
(d) demonstrated by means of detailed analyses of a large num-
Fig. 6 Comparison of MF(VB) (a) With BM-EXT (b) With BM-INT ber of OGS frames, subject to various earthquake ground mo-
(c) With SF-EXT (d) With SF-INT tions. However, it is seen that such detailed analysis is too
cumbersome in design practice, and there is a clear need for
A simplified expression is required for MF(VB) in terms simpler methods involving linear analysis (dynamic and sta-
of the significant parameters (n s and η) affecting the MF. Ba- tic). Accordingly, the RSA method, as recommended by the
sed on the MF values obtained from NDA for the 72 OGS fra- code, is suggested, along with appropriate linear modelling
mes studied, the following expression for MF for base shear of the infill stiffness. Comparing the RSA results of the re-
is proposed, based on linear regression analysis. sponse generated for as many as 72 OGS building frames

136 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010

with NDA, it is seen that while the base shear values are con- 2. Kanitkar, R., and Kanitkar, V.: “Seismic performance
servatively estimated, the design forces in the ground storey of conventional multi-storey buildings with open ground
columns are, in several cases, under-estimated. It is recom- floors for vehicular parking”, The Indian Conc. Jl., 78,
mended, therefore, that while using RSA, the BMs and SFs 2004, pp 99–104.
in the ground storey columns are to be multiplied by a factor
of 1.25. 3. Subramanian, N.: “Discussion on Seismic performance
Two different equivalent static analysis (ESA) procedu- of conventional multi-storey building with open ground
res are suggested for OGS frames. In one of these procedu- floors for vehicular parking by Kanitkar and Kanitkar”,
res, requiring appropriate modelling of the infill stiffness, an The Indian Conc. Jl., 78, No.4, 2004, pp 11–13.
empirical formula is suggested to estimate the fundamental 4. Kaushik, H. B.: “Evaluation of strengthening options for
period of vibration, and hence the base shear. Also, an appro- masonry-infilled RC frames with open first storey”, Ph.
priate lateral load distribution for the OGS building frame, D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, 2006.
based on the fundamental mode shape, has been proposed. It
is seen that the resulting response is similar to that of RSA. 5. IBC International building code, International Code
In the alternative method, ESA is to be carried out on the Council. Inc. Virginia. USA. 2003.
bare frame (without modelling the infill stiffness), using the
procedure suggested by the code. Based on a comparison of 6. BCDBSS Bulgarian Code for Design of Buildings Struc-
the responses for 72 OGS frames with NDA, it is seen that tures in Seismic Regions, Bulgarian Academy of Science
the MF to be applied on the base shear is a function of the Committee of Territorial and Town System at the Coun-
number of storeys (n s ), type and number of infill walls (η). cil of Ministers. Sofia, Bulgaria, 1987.
Accordingly, an empirical formula for MF is proposed. It is
also seen here, as observed earlier, that the BMs and SFs in 7. SII Design provisions for earthquake resistance of struc-
the ground storey columns need to be further multiplied by a tures (SII 413), The Standards Institution of Israel, Tel-
factor of 1.25. aviv. Israel, 1995.
8. FCEACR Seismic code of Costa Rica. Federal College of
NOTATIONS Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa
Rica, 1986.
H = building height in metres
hi = height of i th floor from the base 9. NBC Nepal National Building Code for Mandatory Ru-
k0 = lateral storey stiffness of ground les of Thumb for Reinforced Concrete Buildings with
storey Masonry Infill (NBC 201), Ministry of Housing and Phy-
kav = measure of average lateral stiffness sical Planning, Department of Buildings, Nepal, 1995b.
of all upper storeys 10. EC 8 Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistan-
κ = Correction factor for time period of ce, Part-1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules
OGS frame (TOGS /TB ) for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization
MF = multiplication factor for base shear (CEN), Brussels, 2004.
MF(BM-EXT) = multiplication factor for bending
moment in the external column 11. Fardis, M. N., and Panagiotakos, T.B.: “Seismic design
MF(BM-INT) = multiplication factor for bending and response of bare and masonry-infilled reinforced
moment in the internal column concrete buildings Part II: Infilled Structures”, Jl. of Ear-
MF(SF-EXT) = multiplication factor for shear force thquake Engg., 1, No.3, 1997, pp 475–503.
in the external column
MF(SF-INT) = multiplication factor for shear force 12. Fardis, M. N., Negro, P., Bousias, S. N., and Colom-
in the internal column bo, A.: “Seismic design of open-storey infilled RC buil-
MF(VB) = multiplication factor for base shear dings”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 3. No. 2,
nb = number of bays 1999, pp 173–197.
ns = number of storeys
Sa = spectral acceleration 13. Scarlat, A. “Design of soft stories-a simplified ener-
TB = fundamental period of vibration of gy approach”, Earthquake Spectra, 13, No. 2, 1997,
bare framed building pp 305–315.
TOGS = fundamental period of vibration of 14. Asokan, A.: “Modelling of masonry infill walls for non-
OGS building linear Static analysis of buildings under seismic loads”
VB = design base shear M.S. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
wi = seismic weight of ith floor Chennai, 2006.
β = storey stiffness index
η = stiffness ratio parameter for OGS 15. Smith, S. B., and Carter, C.: “A method of analysis for
frame infilled frames”, Proc. of Institution of Civil Engineers
ηB = stiffness ratio parameter for bare Part 2, 44, 1969, pp 31–48.
frame
16. Crisafulli, F. J.: “Seismic behaviour of reinforced concre-
te structures with masonry infills”, Ph.D. Thesis, Univer-
REFERENCES sity of Canterbury, New Zealand. 1997.
1. IS 1893 (Part I) Criteria for earthquake design of struc- 17. Achintya, P., Dayaratnam, and Jain, S.K.: “Behaviour of
tures - Part I: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth brick infilled RC frame under lateral load”, Indian Conc.
revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 2002. Jl., 65, 1991, pp 453–457.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010 137

18. Mehrabi, A. B., Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., and No- sting of a full-scale four storey RC frame”, ISET Jl. of
land, J. L.: “Experimental evaluation of masonry infil- Earthquake Tech., 37, 2000, pp 143–164.
led RC frames”, Jl. of Struct. Engg. ASCE, 122. 1996,
pp 228–237. 22. Negro, P., and Verzeletti, G.: “Effect of infills on the glo-
bal behaviour of R/C frames: energy considerations from
19. Al-Chaar, G., Issa M., and Sweeney, S.: “Beha- pseudo dynamic tests”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct.
viour of masonry infilled non-ductile reinforced con- Dynamics, 25, 1996, pp 753–773.
crete frames”, Jl. of Struct. Engg. ASCE, 128, 2002,
pp 1055–1063. 23. IS 456 Code of Practice for plain and reinforced conc.,
20. Choubey, U.B., and Sinha, S. N.: “Cyclic response of Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000.
infilled frames”, Jl. of Struct. Engg. SERC, 21, 1994,
pp 203–211. 24. SeismoStruct: “A computer program for static and dy-
namic nonlinear analysis of framed structures” [online].
21. Pinho, R., and Elnashai, A. S.: “Dynamic collapse te- < http://www.seismosoft.com/ > (Feb. 02, 2007).

138 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 2, JUNE-JULY 2010