CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, linear and non-linear seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings
having open ground storey (soft storey) is performed for different storey height. Further, two
cases are considered, one is bare frame (without considering infill strength and stiffness) and
another one is open ground storey frame (considering strength and stiffness of infill walls
excluding ground storey). The building models are analyzed for soil type II (medium soil) and
for seismic zones III (moderate), IV (severe) and V (very severe). Comparison is made
between various seismic parameters such as fundamental time period, base shear, storey
displacement, inter-storey drifts, member forces, performance levels of building and patterns
of hinge formation.

Based on the analysis results for all cases considered, following conclusions are drawn:

1. As per IS 1893(Part 1): 2002, open ground storey buildings fall under extreme soft-
storey type of vertically irregular buildings.
2. In the present study, seismic analysis of open ground storey frames is done by
considering strength and stiffness effect of infill walls. For modelling of infill walls
the equivalent diagonal strut approach is used.
3. In bare frame analysis, absence of strength and stiffness effect of masonry infill leads
to underestimation of base shear as compared to OGS frames and this underestimation
of base shear cause collapse of structures during earthquake shaking.
4. In the present study, the extensive parametric investigation on bare frames and OGS
frames shows that; the period is higher, base shear is lower, displacement and drift
demands are higher for bare frames than OGS frames by seismic coefficient method
and response spectrum method and in both directions; because OGS frames having
more mass and stiffness due to presence of masonry infill walls in upper stories.
5. Response spectrum method predicts higher time period, lesser base shear, lesser storey
displacement and member forces as compared to seismic coefficient method.
6. For bare frames, time period and base shear obtained by seismic coefficient method is
same in both x and y direction; since the empirical formula used for period calculation
considers the effect of height only.
7. Time period and top storey displacements goes on increasing as height of building
model increases for both bare as well as open ground storey frames, by both analysis
methods and in both directions; this is due to increased flexibility of models which
increases with the increase in height of buildings.
8. Base shear and axial forces in columns goes on increasing as number of stories of the
building increases for both bare as well as open ground storey frames, by both analysis
methods in various seismic zones; this is due to increase in seismic weight of building
which increases as number of beams and columns increases.
9. Base shear, storey displacements as well as forces in beams and columns of OGS goes
on increasing as we shift building from lower seismic zone to higher seismic zone for
bare as well as open ground storey frames by both analysis methods.
10. As per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, the maximum storey displacement and inter-storey
drifts are within permissible limit for all types of models in the present study.
11. As per IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002, the Multiplication Factor (MF) of 2.5 recommended for
the design of columns and beams of open ground storey is very conservative which
can be seen from extensive parametric investigation done on this Multiplication Factor
considering various building heights in various seismic zones and suggests some
modified value for this Multiplication Factor as follows-

 The average value of Multiplication Factor (MF) for bending moment along X as
well as Y direction for all the columns of open ground storey lies in the range of
1.3 to 1.6 and 1.6 to 1.9 respectively.
 The average value of Multiplication Factor (MF) for shear force along X as well as
Y direction for all the columns of open ground storey lies in the range of 1.2 to 1.6
and 0.9 to 1.25 respectively.
 The average value of Multiplication Factor (MF) for hogging and sagging
moments in the beams of open ground storey lies in the range of 1.1 to 1.45 and
0.5 to 1.2 respectively.
 The average value of Multiplication Factor (MF) for shear force in the beams of
open ground storey lies in the range of 1.2 to 1.75.
 In case of dual system the value of Multiplication Factor (MF) for forces in all the
columns and beams of OGS lies in the range of 0.65 to 1.25 and 1.1 to 1.45
respectively.
 12. As this Multiplication Factor (MF) value is not constant for all the columns and beams
of OGS this will be an approximate approach. Therefore it is recommended to use the
dynamic analysis approach as specified in IS 1893(Part 1): 2002. Hence, dynamic
analysis and design approach is economical, easily applicable, most convenient and
reliable approach.
13. In case of OGS frames, inter-storey drift is controlled in dual system; since no abrupt
change in drift profile will be seen at OGS level. Therefore dual system is an effective
measure for controlling drift and performance of OGS frames under lateral loading.
14. Pushover analysis produces higher base shear and higher storey displacement as
compared to seismic coefficient method and response spectrum method.
15. Pushover analysis result shows the effect of open ground storey and true failure
mechanism which is not captured in conventional (linear) structural design procedures.
16. At performance point, OGS frames having higher base shear and lower displacements
than bare frames in both directions; because OGS frames having higher stiffness.
17. The overall performance of most of the bare frames is said to be within life safety to
collapse prevention stage and that of OGS frames is said to be within ultimate capacity
and residual strength for both PUSH in X as well as Y directions.
18. The number of steps involved in pushover analysis is more in case of bare frames than
OGS frames for both PUSH X and PUSH Y cases.
19. For bare as well as OGS frames number of hinges assigned to models increases with
increase in height of model and at performance point number of hinges formed in bare
frame model is more than OGS frame models.
20. The results obtained from pushover analysis in terms of demand, capacity and plastic
hinges gave an insight into the real behavior of structures.

5.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. In this dissertation, effect of opening is not considered while modelling infill walls.
Open ground storey behavior can be checked with different percentage of openings.
2. In the present study, infill walls are modeled using equivalent diagonal strut approach.
Finite element approach can be used for idealization of infilled frame.
3. Soil-structure interaction effects are also ignored in the present study. Therefore it can
be extended to study the response of the open ground storey buildings considering
soil-structure interaction.