International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056 Volume: 03 Issue: 07 | July-2016 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 © 2016, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 4.45 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1540 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF GROUND STOREY FRAME BUILDING KARUNKANTI APARNA 1 , SYED VIQAR MALIK 2 1 Mtech Student, Dept. Of Civil Engineering, Prasad Engineering College 2 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Prasad Engineering College ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT Presence of infill walls in the frames adjusts the conduct of the working under horizontal burdens. Notwithstanding, it is regular industry practice to overlook the stiffness of infill divider for examination of confined building. Engineers trust that examination without considering infill stiffness prompts a preservationist outline. In any case, this may not be constantly valid, particularly for vertically unpredictable buildings with broken infill walls. Thus, the displaying of infill walls in the seismic examination of confined buildings is basic. Indian Standard IS 1893: 2002 permits investigation of open ground story buildings without considering infill stiffness however with a duplication element 2.5 in pay for the stiffness irregularity. According to the code the segments and light emissions open ground story are to be intended for 2.5 times the story shears and minutes computed under seismic heaps of uncovered frames (i.e., without considering the infill stiffness). Notwithstanding, as experienced by the architects at outline workplaces, the augmentation element of 2.5 is not reasonable for low ascent buildings. This requires an evaluation and audit of the code suggested duplication variable for low ascent open ground story buildings. Along these lines, the goal of this proposition is characterized as to check the material of the augmentation variable of 2.5 and to consider the impact of infill quality and stiffness in the seismic examination of low ascent open ground story building. Key Words: ERD , Structure design. INTRODUCTION Non-linear dynamic (NDA) analysis is considered to be the most accurate but at the same time it is most rigorous among all methods. Hence for the present study Equivalent static analysis (ESA), Response spectrum analysis (RSA) and Pushover analysis (PA) is considered for the comparative study. To carry out these analyses a typical building model with two different cases and support conditions are considered. i) Considering infill strength and stiffness ii) Without considering infill strength and stiffness Masonry infill walls are widely used as partitions all over the world. Evidences are that continuous infill masonry walls can reduce the vulnerability of the reinforced concrete structure. Often masonry walls are not considered in the design process because they are supposed to act as non- structural members or elements. Separately the infill walls are stiff and brittle but the frame is relatively flexible and ductile. The composite action of beam-column and infill walls provides additional strength and stiffness STRUCTURAL MODELLING It is very important to develop a computational model on which linear / non-linear, static/ dynamic analysis is performed. Infill walls are modelled as equivalent diagonal strut elements. BUILDING DESCRIPTION An existing OGS framed building located at Hyderabad, India (Seismic Zone V) is selected for the present study. The building is fairly symmetric in plan and in elevation. This building is a G+3 storey building (12m high) and is made of Reinforced Concrete (RC) Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF). The concrete slab is 150mm thick at each floor level. The brick wall thicknesses are 230 mm for external walls and 120 mm for internal walls. Imposed load is taken as 2 kN/ m 2 for all floors. Fig represents typical floor plans showing different column and beam locations. The cross sections of the structural members (columns and beams 300 mm×600 mm) are equal in all frames and all stories. Storey masses to 295 and 237 tonnes in the bottom storyes and at the roof level, respectively. The design base shear was equal to 0.15 times the total weight. (a) Column Locations