Performance-Based Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor for Earthquake

Resistant Design
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
Of the degree of
Master of Technology
By
Vaibhav Vairale
(Roll No. 133040035)
Under the Supervision of
Prof. M. M. Inamdar

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
2014

Approval Sheet
This report entitled Performance-Based Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor for Earthquake
Resistant Design by Vaibhav Vairale is approved.
Examiners

Supervisor (s)

Chairman

Date:
Place:

ABSTRACT
Most seismic design codes today include the nonlinear response of a structure implicitly through
a factor called as response reduction factor by IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002. This factor allows
a designer to use a linear elastic force-based design while accounting for nonlinear behavior
and deformation limits. This project focuses on estimating response reduction factor (R) for
dual system of ordinary shear wall with special moment resisting frame designed and detailed
as per Indian standards for seismic and RC designs and for ductile detailing, and comparing
this value with the value suggested in the design code. The primary focus is to perform
component-wise computation of R, the consideration of performance-based limits at both
member and structure levels, detailed modelling of the R.C.C section behavior and effects of
various analysis and design considerations on R.

Contents
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.

General..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2.

Background............................................................................................................................. 5

1.3.

Objective.................................................................................................................................. 6

1.4.

Organization of Report........................................................................................................ 6

2. Literature Review......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.

Seismic Response Modification Factors (Whittaker, Hart, & Rojahn, 1999)................7

2.1.1.

Strength factor (RS)......................................................................................................8

2.1.2.

Ductility factor (R).......................................................................................................8

2.1.3.

Redundancy factor (RR)...............................................................................................8

2.2.

Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (IS 1893 (Part 1), 2002)
.................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Loads (ASCE 7, 2002)............9

2.4.

Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (Eurocode 8, 2004)................9

2.5.

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC 40, 1996) .........10

2.5.1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10

2.5.2.

Overview ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.5.3.

Performance Objective ............................................................................................ 11

2.6.

2.7.

Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures (Kappos, 2010) ..............................14

2.6.1.

Elements of Structural Dynamics ........................................................................ 14

2.6.2.

Damping ....................................................................................................................... 14

Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC

frames (Mondal, Ghosh, & Reddy, 2013) .............................................................................. 16
3. Nonlinear modelling of concrete frame components.................................................... 17
3.1.

General ................................................................................................................................. 17

3.2.

Stress strain models for concrete ............................................................................... 17

3.2.1.

Stress-strain models for unconfined concrete ................................................ 18

3.2.2.

Stress-strain models for concrete confined by rectangular hoops ..........19

3.3.

Stress-Strain models for reinforcing steel ................................................................ 24

3.4.

Moment Curvature Relationship .................................................................................. 25

3.4.1.

Theoretical Moment Curvature Determination ............................................... 25

3.4.2.

Equivalent Compressive Stress Block Parameters ........................................ 27

1

3.4.3.
4.

Validation of Moment-Curvature MATLAB code using SAP2000 ...............28

Nonlinear Static Analysis ........................................................................................................ 32

4.1.

Need for nonlinear static analysis ................................................................................... 32

4.2.

About Pushover Analysis ..................................................................................................... 32

4.3.

Methodology to perform simplified nonlinear analysis ............................................. 33

4.3.1.

Capacity ............................................................................................................................. 33

4.3.2.

Demand .............................................................................................................................. 33

4.3.3.

Performance ..................................................................................................................... 33

4.4.

Step-By-Step Method to Determine Capacity ......................................................... 34

4.5.

Numerical example: To determine of Capacity Curve of a Portal Frame ......35

4.6.

Determination of Demand ............................................................................................. 41

4.7.

Quantification of Performance ..................................................................................... 43

4.8.

Numerical example: To check performance of a portal frame .........................44

4.9.

Numerical example: To compute response reduction factor for a portal frame

.................................................................................................................................................. 46

5.

Results, Conclusion and Scope of future work ............................................................... 49

5.1.

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 49

5.1.1.

Moment curvature relationship .................................................................................. 49

5.1.2.

Response Reduction Factor ......................................................................................... 52

5.2.

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 53

5.3.

Scope of Future Work ........................................................................................................... 53

Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 54
A. MATLAB code for Moment Curvature Relationship as per IS 456 model (Unconfined) 54
B.

MATLAB code for Moment Curvature Relationship as per Kent Park Model
(Confined) ................................................................................................................................ 58

C. MATLAB code for Moment Curvature Relationship as per Modified Kent Park Model
(Confined)63 References ................................................................................................................ 68
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 70

List of Tables
Table 1. Multiplication Factor.................................................................................................................. 10
Table 2. Factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural systems with walls............................10
Table 3. Comparison of various quatities between SAP2000 and MATLAB code's Moment-Curvature
relationship
...................................................................................................................................................................
30
Table 4. Results of all the steps in pushover analysis............................................................................... 40

List of Figures
Figure 1. Sample Base Shear Force Versus Roof Displacement Relationship ........................................... 7
Figure 2. Flow Chart for Computation of Force v/s Deformation Curve ................................................. 17
Figure 3. Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete Cylinders Loaded in Uniaxial Compression .......................18
Figure 4. Hognestad's Stress-Strain Model for Concrete Under Uniaxial Compression ..........................18
Figure 5. IS 456 (2000) recommended Stress-Strain Model for Concrete Under Uniaxial Compression ..
19 Figure 6. Some proposed stress-strain curves for concrete confined by rectangular hoops. (a) Chan
and Blume et al. (b) Baker (c) Roy and Sozen (d) Soliman and Yu (e) Sargin et al ................................. 21
Figure 7. Kent and Park Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops ..................22
Figure 8. Modified Kent and Park Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops ...23
Figure 9. Typical Stress-Strain Curves for Steel Reinforcement ............................................................. 24
Figure 10. Stress-Strain Curves for Steel ................................................................................................. 25
Figure 11. Theoretical Moment-Curvature Determination ...................................................................... 26
Figure 12. Doubly Reinforced R.C.C. Section ........................................................................................ 29
Figure 13. Moment versus Curvature for Modified Kent Park Model ..................................................... 29
Figure 14. Moment-Curvature Plot as per SAP2000 ............................................................................... 30
Figure 15. Comparison of Moment Curvature plots ................................................................................ 31
Figure 16. Portal Frame Structure for Pushover Analysis ....................................................................... 35
Figure 17. Moment-Rotation Relationship for the Members of Frame .................................................... 36
Figure 18. Modified Model of Portal Frame Structure ............................................................................ 38
Figure 19. Mechanism Formed by Portal Frame Structure ...................................................................... 40
Figure 20. Load-Displacement Plot for the Portal Frame Structure ......................................................... 41
Figure 21. Typical representation of Performance Point ......................................................................... 42
Figure 22. Increase in damping with the inception of inelastic behavior ................................................. 42
Figure 23. Displacement Limits .............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 24. Response Spectra Parameters ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 25. ADRS Spectra for the portal frame ........................................................................................ 45
Figure 26. Results for all the considered modes ...................................................................................... 45
Figure 27. Moment Curvature Relationship of Doubly Reinforced Section (Modified Kent Park model) 49
Figure 28. Neutral Axis Depth v/s Curvature .......................................................................................... 50
Figure 29. Strain in Concrete v/s Curvature ............................................................................................ 50
Figure 30: Comparison between Sections with Different Axial Forces Acting on them ..........................51
Figure 31: Comparison between Sections with Different Compression Steel Content ............................51
Figure 32. Comparison between Sections with Different Tensile Steel Content .....................................52
Figure 33. Moment-Curvature Relationship of Doubly Reinforced Section ............................................ 52

1. Introduction
1.1.General
Analysis and design of earthquake resistant concrete structures have been the area of interest
of many researchers and practicing structural throughout the world for the past century. For
designing an earthquake resistant structure it is imperative to understand the fundamental for
the seismic behavior of the concrete structure. The problem of the seismic behavior of
structures is basically related to energy.
In order to avoid collapse of structure during an event of an earthquake, the absorption
and dissipation of kinetic energy imparted by an earthquake is necessary. The understanding of
this simple energy balance principle was the key for the development of modern earthquakeresistant design, which followed three directions (Kappos, 2010):

Design of structures with members able to dissipate significant amounts of energy through

stable cycles of inelastic deformation, while sustaining a limited degree of damage.

Seismic isolation of structures, with a view to controlling the energy imparted in them
by the earthquake.
Use of special energy-dissipation devices, for limiting the degree of damage sustained
by structures.
Mathematically, the common idea of all the methods mentioned above is to augment the
damping coefficient of the structure.
In this project the first case is considered, that is the dissipation of energy through stable cycles
of inelastic deformation. In order to perform such an analysis of the structure, the nonlinear
properties of structure like material nonlinearity and geometric nonlinearity must be
considered. However, geometric nonlinearity is of much more importance in case of steel
structures than in concrete structures as a steel structure needs a disciplined geometric when
loaded. This sounds rational because as the structure becomes more and more inelastic it tends
to attract less equivalent lateral forces due to an earthquake. In order to incorporate this
reduction in the equivalent lateral force due to an earthquake almost all the codes these days
define a parameter which reduces the lateral response quantities. IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 calls
this parameter as response reduction factor (IS 1893 (Part 1), 2002), ASCE 7 calls it as
response modification factor (ASCE 7, 2002) and Eurocode 8 defines it as behavior factor
(Eurocode 8, 2004).

1.2.Background
All the codes use response reduction factor to compute the equivalent lateral forces due
to earthquake. The equivalent lateral force method is used since the dawn the seismic design
days and is popular because of its simplicity. Therefore, it becomes important to rationally
use the numerical value of response reduction factor in the analysis. Most of the codes used for
seismic design of buildings use the concept of response reduction to implicitly account for the
nonlinear response of a structure. In this approach, the design base shear (Vd) is derived by
dividing the elastic base shear demand (Ve), which is obtained using an elastic analysis

considering the elastic pseudo-acceleration response spectrum (for 5% damping, Sa,5), by a factor
R:
V d=
Where, W is the seismic weight of the structure.

Ve
R

(Sa,s ) W

Equation 1-1

1.3.Objective
There are differences in the way the response reduction factor (R) is specified in different
codes for different kinds of structural systems. The objective of the present study is to obtain
R for ordinary shear wall with special moment resisting frame. Existing literature in this area
do not provide any specific basis on which a value of 4.0 is assigned for such structures in
the Indian standard IS 1893.

1.4.Organization of Report
Chapter 1 gives the introduction, background and defines the objective of the project report.
Chapter 2 covers exhaustive literature review of the research papers, relevant sections of
national and international design codes and sections of some books relevant to this project.
Chapter 3 covers various aspects of nonlinear modelling like the stress strain models of
unconfined R.C.C section as per IS 456:2000 & confined R.C.C section, description of momentcurvature relationship with the derivation of stress block parameters for the considered stressstrain models and description of validation of MATLAB code to plot moment curvature
relationship of a R.C.C section using SAP2000.
Chapter 4 elucidates about nonlinear static analysis. It also thoroughly covers the solution to
determine capacity curve, to determine performance level and to compute response reduction
factor of a concrete portal frame with a pre-defined elasto-plastic hinge properties.
Chapter 5 covers results, conclusions and scope of future work in detail with an intention
to improve the quality of the project.

2. Literature Review
This chapter contains exhaustive literature review of the journal papers, national and
international codes and guidelines with respect to the topic in hand, i.e. response modification
factor.

2.1.Seismic Response Modification Factors (Whittaker, Hart, & Rojahn,

1999)
This paper elucidates us with the various components of the seismic modification factor
(response reduction factor) for the simple reason that, the reliability of modern earthquakeresistant buildings requires systematic evaluation of the building response characteristics that
most affect the values assigned to the factor. One key objective of this paper is to provide the
reader with information regarding the key components (or factors) that influence the
numerical values assigned to the response modification factor. Its also worth to mention that no
other parameter in the design base shear equation impacts the design actions in a seismic
framing system as does the value assigned to response modification factor (R).
The paper produces response modification factor as the product of factors related to
reserve strength, ductility, redundancy and damping as shown in equation 2-14. Pertinent
data from various analytical and experimental studies on reserve strength is also presented.
R = RS RRR REquation 2-1
Where, R = Response modification factor, Rs = Strength factor, R = Ductility factor,
RR=Redundancy factor and R = Damping
factor
However, later the damping factor was dropped from the equation owing to the fact that it could
be used to reduce displacements in a yielding frame but may not proportionally reduce force
demands.

R = RS RRR

Equation 2-2

Mustang
2015-09-04 08:38:54

--------------------------------------------

Figure 1. Sample Base Shear Force Versus Roof Displacement Relationship

None set by Mustang

In the Figure 1, Ve stands for the elastic base shear, Vu stands for the maximum base shear and
Vb stands for design base shear force.

2.1.1. Strength factor (RS)

This factor takes into account the numerical difference between maximum base shear force
(Vu) and design base shear force (Vb) caused due to the fact that material strengths generally
exceed specified nominal strengths, and drift and detailing requirements often require the use of
stronger components than that required for strength alone.
As illustrated in Figure 1, strength factor can be calculated as the ratio of maximum base
shear force (Vu) to design base shear force (Vb).
This paper also states that, For a given framing system, the ratio of Vu to Vb will likely vary as
a function of seismic zone and building height (or fundamental period). Buildings located in
lower seismic zones will have different values of reserve strength than those in higher zones
because the ratio of gravity loads to seismic loads differ-resulting in seismic zone-dependent
values for the strength factor.
This paper also cites various research papers conducted to compute the value of strength factor
for sundry frames.

2.1.2. Ductility factor (R)

The author distinguishes two quatities, namely, displacement ductility and displacement
ductility ratio. Displacement ductility is defined as the difference between the maximum
displacement (u) and y. The displacement ductility ratio () is defined as the ratio of u to y
and is greater than or equal to one.
As shown in Figure 1, ductility factor can be computed by the ratio of elastic base shear force
(Ve) to maximum base shear force (Vu).
The ductility factor is a measure of the global nonlinear response of a framing system and not
the components of that system. Assuming that a multistory building can be modeled as a single
degree of freedom (SDOF) system, and that estimates of global displacement ductility are
available, relations between the ductility factor and the displacement ductility can be developed.
The author also cites a couple of relationships developed in the past decade relative to the
publishing year of the paper.

2.1.3. Redundancy factor (RR)

The redundancy factor (RR) is proposed to quantify the improved reliability of seismic framing
systems that use multiple lines of vertical seismic framing in each principle direction of
the building. For the purpose of this work RR value is considered to be 1.

2.2.Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures (IS 1893 (Part

1), 2002)

IS 1893 states that the concept of response reduction factor was introduced in the 2002 revision
due to the ductile deformation or frictional energy dissipation. It defines response reduction
factor

as the factor by which the actual base shear force, that would be generated if the structure were
to remain elastic during its response to the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) shaking, shall be
reduced to obtain the design lateral force. Table 7 gives the response reduction factor (R) values
for various structures.
One important point which the code states is that, Actual forces that appear on structures
during earthquakes are much greater than the design forces specified in this standard. However,
ductility, arising from inelastic material behavior and detailing, and overstrength, arising from
the additional reserve strength in structures over and above the design strength, are relied upon
to account for this difference in actual and design lateral loads. Because of this reason
accurate estimation of response reduction factor becomes a crucial part of seismic design as per
Indian codes.
z

Base Sear = 2R Sag W

Equation 2-3

Where, Z depends on the zone of the construction site, I is the importance factor of the
structure
used to manipulate R value and W is the total seismic weight of the
structure.
Response reduction factor for ordinary shear wall with special moment resisting frame is given
as 4.0.

2.3.Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Loads (ASCE 7, 2002) ASCE
7 02 gives a more comprehensive list of response reduction factor than IS 1893. Here, the R
value of dual systems with special moment frames capable of resisting at least 25 % of
prescribed seismic forces and ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls is taken to be 7.0, system
over-strength factor as 2.5 and deflection amplification factor as 6.0.

2.4.Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (Eurocode 8, 2004)

As mentioned earlier Eurocode 8 calls response reduction factor as behavior factor and defines
it as the factor used for design purposes to reduce the forces obtained from a linear analysis, in
order to account for the non-linear response of a structure, associated with the material, the
structural system and the design procedures. It also goes on to elucidate that, To avoid
explicit inelastic structural analysis in design, the capacity of the structure to dissipate
energy, through mainly ductile behavior of its elements and/or other mechanisms, is taken into
account by performing an elastic analysis based on a response spectrum reduced with respect to
the elastic one, henceforth called a design spectrum. This reduction is accomplished by
introducing the behavior factor (q).
While talking about the action of floor diaphragms and dual systems, EC 8 states that, The
action of floors as diaphragms is especially relevant in cases of complex and non-uniform
layouts of the vertical structural systems, or where systems with different horizontal
deformability characteristics are used together (e.g. in dual or mixed systems)

Behaviour factor (q) for a regular in elevation dual system with high ductility (DCH) frame
and ordinary reinforced concrete wall can be found by the use of the following equation,
q = qO k 1.5

Equation 2-4

Where
,
q0 = 4.5 (u)

Equation 2-5

Table 1. Multiplication Factor

Frames or frame-equivalent dual systems

1.1
1.2
1.3

One-storey buildings
Multistorey, one-bay frames
Multistorey, multibay frame or frameequivalent dual structures

Table 2. Factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural systems with walls
kw
Type
Frame and frame-equivalent dual systems
1.00
Wall and wall-equivalent and torsional
1+ O
::; 1
0.5 ::;
flexible system
3
kw = factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural systems with
walls
For irregular in elevation buildings the decreased value of behavior factor are given as 0.8
q.

2.5.Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC 40, 1996)

2.5.1. Introduction
This document deals with the topics related to seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
building. It also elegantly explains non-linear static pushover analysis which will be described
in the later chapters of this report.
Since many years structural design engineers have made use of the unrealistic static lateral
force procedures to analyze and design a building for seismic vibrations. Most of the codes
for the computation of the force due to earthquake assume that the building remains
elastic while responding to an earthquake, which is untrue. During the time of occurrence of
an earthquake building goes in an inelastic state. Knowing this point is crucial because an
elastic building will attract more seismic force whereas an inelastic building will attract less
seismic force.
A buildings performance in an earthquake is the deciding factor for strategizing for the
retrofit design. Performance of a building can be bifurcated as structural performance and nonstructural performance. And the building overall performance is estimated by combining these
two performances.

1
0

The following are the six structural performance levels as per ATC40:

SP-1 : Immediate Occupancy

SP-2 : Damage Control

1
0

SP-3 : Life Safety

SP-4 : Limited Safety

SP-5 : Structural Stability

SP-6 : Not Considered

The following are the five non-structural performance levels as per ATC40:

NP-A : Operational

NP-B : Immediate Occupancy

NP-C : Life Safety

NP-D : Reduced Hazard

NP-E : Not Considered

This article states that, A performance objective is a goal that a building achieves a certain
level of performance for a specific level of seismic ground shaking hazard. It also describes
that, the process of seismic evaluation and retrofit is a risk reduction process.

2.5.2. Overview
This article has divided its readers in five categories with respect to the considered project,
viz, owner, architect, building official, engineer and analyst. The article rightly assumes
that the primary objective of the owner is to retrofit the building to the Life Safety
performance level. However, it also makes a point that some intelligent owners have begun to
recognize the economic importance of designing or retrofitting the building to a better
performance level.
The two parameters which needs to be assessed for determining the performance of a structure
are capacity and demand of the structure. Seismic demand goes on mitigating as the
structures becomes more and more inelastic. This is because of the fact that an inelastic
structure will dissipate additional energy (i.e. hysteretic energy dissipation) than the normal
dissipation due to damping. This articles also states that, the measure of the capacity of the
structure to resist seismic demand is called ductility. This article also states that, the
probability of occurrence of the earthquake intensity defines the risk of occurrence for the
damage state.

2.5.3. Performance Objective

The article ATC-40 describes the performance objective as the desired building performance
level for a given earthquake ground motion. It also makes a point that although the retrofitted
buildings mostly perform better than what they are retrofitted to perform, performance
should not be considered guaranteed.
2.5.3.1.
Performance Levels
Following are the points which ATC-40 has made with respect to the structural performance
levels,
1
1

Immediate Occupancy, SP-1:

o Damage: Very limited
o Capacity: The basic gravity and lateral load resisting systems retain nearly all
of their pre-earthquake characteristics and capacities.
o Life-threatening injury: Negligible

1
2

o Safety: Safe for unlimited egress, ingress and occupancy.

Damage Control, SP-2:

o Damage, capacity & life-threatening injuries: May vary from SP-1 to SP-3.
o Safety: Occupancy not an issue. Examples of damage control include protection
of significant architectural features of historic buildings or valuable contents.
Life Safety, SP-3:

o Damage: Significant damage to the structure may have occurred but in which
some margin against either total or partial structural collapse remains.
o Capacity: Major structural components have not become dislodged and fallen.
This level of structural performance is intended to be less than the level of
performance expected of fully code compliant new buildings.
o Life-threatening injury: Risk is very low.
o Safety: It should be expected that extensive structural repairs will likely be
necessary prior to reoccupation of the building, although the damage may
not always be economically repairable.
Limited Safety, SP-4:
o Damage, capacity & life-threatening injuries: This level varies between SP-3 to
SP- 5.
o Safety: Risky

Structural Stability, SP-5:

o Damage: Structural system is on the verge of experiencing partial or total collapse.
o Capacity: Substantial damage to the structure, significant degradation in the
stiffness and strength of lateral force resisting system.
o Life-threatening injury: Significant risk of injury due to falling hazards may
exist both within and outside the building.
o Safety: Significant aftershocks may lead to collapse. Significant major
structural repair will be necessary prior to reoccupancy. In the older concrete
building types considered in this document, it is very likely that the damage will
not be technically or economically repairable.
Not Considered, SP-6: This is not a performance level, but provides a placeholder
for situations where only nonstructural seismic evaluation or retrofit is performed.

Following are the points which ATC-40 has made with respect to the structural performance
levels,

Operational, NP-A:
o Non-structural elements: In place and functional.
o Disruption & Cleanup: Minor expected
o Equipment & Machineries: Working.

o Contingency Plan: Contingency plans to deal with possible difficulties with

external communication, transportation, and availability of supplies should be in
place.
Immediate Occupancy, NP-B:
o Non-structural elements: Generally in place.

o Disruption & Cleanup: Minor expected, particularly due to damage or shifting of

contents.
o Equipment & Machineries: Although equipment and machinery are generally
anchored or braced, their ability to function after strong shaking is not
considered and some limitations on use of functionality may exist.

Life Safety, NP-C:

o Non-structural elements: Considerable damage but should not include collapse

or falling of items heavy enough to cause severe injuries either within or outside
the building.
o Disruption & Cleanup: Secondary hazards from breaks in high-pressure, toxic,
or fire suppression piping should not be present.
o Equipment & Machineries: May not be functional without replacement or repair.
o Life-threatening injury: While injuries during the earthquake may occur, the risk
of life-threatening injury from nonstructural damage is very low.
Reduced Hazard, NP-D:

o Non-structural elements: Extensive damage but should not include collapse

or falling of large and heavy items that could cause significant injury to groups
of people, such as parapets, masonry exterior walls, cladding, or large, heavy
ceilings.
o Life-threatening injury: Isolated serious injury could occur but risk of failures
that could put large numbers of people at risk within or outside the building is
very low.
Not Considered, NP-E:
o Nonstructural elements, other than those that have an effect on structural
response, are not evaluated.

ATC-40 also describes the building performance levels combinations like Operational (1A), Immediate Occupancy (1-B), Life Safety (3-C), Structural Stability (5-E). Other commonly
used combinations are 3-D and 3-B. Some less common combinations are 1-C, 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2D, 3- A, 3-E, 4-C, 4-D, 5-C, 5-D, 6-C, 6-D.
2.5.3.2.
Earthquake ground motion
Apart from the performance levels, another important characteristic which defines a
performance objective is the earthquake ground motion.
Probabilistic Approach: The earthquake ground motion can be expressed either by specifying
a level of shaking associated with a given probability of occurrence.
Deterministic Approach: The earthquake ground motion can be expressed in terms of the
maximum shaking expected from a single event of a specified magnitude on a specified
source fault.

ATC-40 defines three levels of earthquake ground

motion:

The Serviceability Earthquake (SE):

o Ground motion with a 50 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50-year period.

o It is 0.5 times the design earthquake level.

o Serviceability has an average return period of approximately 75 years.

The Design Earthquake (DE):

o Ground motion with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50-year period.

The Maximum Earthquake (ME):

o Maximum level of ground motion expected within the known geologic
framework due to a specified single event (median attenuation), or the ground
motion with a 5 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50-year period.
o It is 1.25 to 1.5 times the level of design earthquake.

Maximum earthquake (ME) has a return period of about 1000 years, whereas maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) has a return period of about 2500 years.

2.6.Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures (Kappos, 2010)

2.6.1. Elements of Structural Dynamics
When a structure is subjected to an earthquake, the structure oscillates about it equilibrium
position. The energy experienced by the structure in this event also continuously oscillates
from kinetic to potential energy and vice versa, until it is dissipated in the form of the heat
through the procedure of viscous and hysteretic damping. In the process of dissipation of energy
the concrete structure experiences ductile deformations. This text has a perception of ductility as
the ability to deform.
Response spectrums are successfully used to find out the response of a structural system
because it suffices to know the maximum amplitude of the relative displacement, the relative
velocity and the absolute acceleration developed during a seismic excitation. This is because
from these values the maximum stress and strain state of the system can be determined.
This text also cites a study (Biggs, 1964) of the response of tall buildings with a structural
system consisting of frames and states that the fundamental mode contributes about 80% of
the total response, and the second and third modes about 15%.
Another conclusion which this text cites is that, the flexible (high rise) buildings with a
large fundamental period are vulnerable to earthquakes when their foundation rests of soft soil,
because this kind of soil shifts the maximum of the acceleration spectrum to the right. Stiff
(low rise) buildings appear to be vulnerable to earthquakes when they sit on firm soil, where the
maximum of the acceleration spectrum is shifted to the left. (Richart, HALL, & Woods, 1970)

2.6.2. Damping
2.6.2.1.
Viscous damping
Concrete is a fluid as a result of which it exhibits viscoelastic behavior. The force required to
move a system is the sum of the force to resist the spring (stiffness, P e) and damping (Pd). The
viscous part of the loading is a complicated function of the deformation rate . However, if this
function is expanded in a polynomial series of and only the first is retained, Pd takes the form
Pd = c.

P = Pe + Pd = ku + c

Equation 2-6

This equations also champions a fundamental concept that, the higher the rate of loading, the
larger the force that is required for the same deformation.
2.6.2.2.
Hysteretic damping
Hysteretic damping is represented by hysteresis loop. Hysteresis loop is a plot of cyclic
loading
(P) against cyclic deformation (u). This text states that, the area of the hysteresis loop
represents the energy that is dissipated in every loading cycle in the form of heat, due to the
plastic behavior of the material. It is obvious that the larger the area of the hysteresis loop, that
is, the higher the deformation level of the material, the larger the dissipated energy and therefore
the damping.
Hysteretic damping is incorporated in the Pd term in the following
way.
P = Pe + Pd = ku + c
If the system undergoes an oscillation of the
form,
u = u0 sin t

Equation 2-7

P = ku sin t + cu0 cos t

Equation 2-8

then, substitution u in the P equation,

The hysteresis loop of the above function may be represented as an ellipse. Thus, the
nonlinear diagrams of materials and structures can be satisfactorily approximated by the
differential equation
M + c + ku = -M 0(t)

Equation 2-9

which is linear, while the general form of their exact expression would be of the
form
M + V(,u) = -M 0(t)

Equation 2-10

where V(,u) is a function of the restoring force which include both viscous and
hysteretic damping.
In the case where the above equation is used to express the hysteretic damping of the
inelastic behavior, the equivalent hysteretic damping ratio = c/ccr results from energy criteria
as follows. The dissipated energy in the case of the hysteresis loop for a full loading cycle is
equal to

Solving the above equation we get,

T+2n/du

W=

(
t

dt

Equation 2-11

dt

W = cu02
On the other hand maximum potential energy U of the 2system is equal to
1ku
0
Ue = 2
Therefore, W
u

Equation 2-12
Equation 2-13

2nc
k

c=ccr = 2Me

Equation 2-14

Therefore
,

Equation 2-15

W
4n
u

Equation 2-13 is very important as it tells us that as stiffness decreases, damping

coefficient
increases. This conclusion is very important to understand while performing non-linear static
pushover analysis.

2.7.Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for

ductile RC frames (Mondal, Ghosh, & Reddy, 2013)
This research focuses on estimating the actual values of response reduction factor for realistic
RC
moment frame buildings designed and detailed following the Indian standards for seismic and
RC designs and for ductile detailing, and comparing these values with the values suggested
in the design code.
The paper also gives answers for following
questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

What is component-wise computation of response reduction factor, R?

What are performance-based limits at both member & structure level?
How detailed modelling for RC section can be done?
What are the effects of various analysis and design consideration on R?

At the end the author claims that the Indian standard recommends a higher than actual value of
R which is potentially dangerous and also lists out the reasons as to why this is so.

3. Nonlinear modelling of concrete frame components

3.1.General
The end result of nonlinear static pushover analysis is the Force v/s Deformation plot. In order
to formulate this plot many things should be predefined.
Following flow chart shows the pre-requisite of the Force v/s Deformation plot.
Stress v/s
Strain

Material Stifness
Cross-section

Moment v/s
Curvature

geometry Section Stifness

Member geometry

Moment v/s
Rotation

Member Stiffness
Structure geometry

Force v/s
Deformation

Structure Stifness

Figure 2. Flow Chart for Computation of Force v/s Deformation Curve

Stress-strain definition for any material can either be obtained experimentally or borrowed
from any relevant code. This report discusses various stress-strain models defined by various
researchers and used by practicing structural engineers.
Basically there are two types of theoretical stress strain models. One is for unconfined
concrete and the other is for confined concrete. Unconfined stress strain models do not take
into account the effect of shear reinforcement (stirrups), whereas confined models take into
account the effects of shear reinforcements (stirrups). This report discusses about one
unconfined model and two confined models for concrete.

3.2.Stress strain models for concrete

The stress-strain model for unconfined concrete under uniaxial stress is dealt with in various
texts till date. The following figure shows typical experimental stress-strain curves obtained
from concrete cylinder testing loaded in uniaxial compression. The ascending part of the
curves is almost linear up to about one-half the compressive strength. The peak of the curve for
high strength concrete is relatively sharp, but for low strength concrete the curve has flat top.
The strain at the maximum stress is approximately 0.002.

Figure 3. Stress-Strain Curves for Concrete Cylinders Loaded in Uniaxial Compression

3.2.1. Stress-strain models for unconfined concrete

Many models for the stress-strain curve of concrete under uniaxial compression have
been proposed in the past decades. Probably the most popular and widely accepted curve
is that proposed by Hognestad which consists of a second order parabola up to the maximum
stress fc at the strain 0 and then a linear falling branch. The extent of falling branch behavior
adopted depends on the limit of useful concrete strain assumed as 0.0038. The corresponding

stress was proposed to be 0.85 fc . Hognestads curve was obtained from tests on short
eccentrically loaded columns and for these specimens he found that fc=0.85 fc. Indian standard
(IS 456, 2000) recommends a stress-strain curve very similar to the Hognestads curve.

Figure 4. Hognestad's Stress-Strain Model for Concrete Under Uniaxial Compression

In IS recommended curve, the maximum stress, fc of concrete is assumed as 0.67 times the
characteristic cube strength of concrete (fck). Assuming that cylinder strength is 0.8 times
the characteristic cube strength, i.e. fc=0.8 fck, this becomes same as Hognestads value of fc.
Since, fc=0.85fc, we get fc=0.85 x 0.8 fck = 0.67 fck. The ascending curve is exactly similar to

that of Hognestads model assuming 0=0.002. The major difference between the two curves is
in the post

peak behavior. IS recommends no degradation and hence no falling branch in the stress after a
strain of 0.002. The ultimate strain is also limited to 0.0035 instead of 0.0038 as recommended
by Hognestad.

Figure 5. IS 456 (2000) recommended Stress-Strain Model for Concrete Under Uniaxial
Compression

3.2.2. Stress-strain models for concrete confined by rectangular hoops

In practice, the concrete in structures is always confined by transverse reinforcement
commonly in the form of closely spaced steel spirals or rectangular hoops. In this case, at low
levels of stress in concrete, the transverse reinforcement is hardly stressed; hence the concrete is
unconfined. The concrete becomes confined when at stresses approaching the uniaxial
strength, the transverse strains become very high because of progressive internal cracking
and the concrete bears out against the transverse reinforcement, which then applies a confining
reaction to the concrete. Thus the transverse reinforcement provides passive confinement.
Concrete is relatively weak in tension and strong in compression. The concrete tensile strength
is of the order of one-tenth of that of the compressive strength. A typical value of poissons ratio,
i.e. the ratio of lateral extension to the ratio of axial contraction under a compressive load, for
concrete is 0.20. Thus, it is many a time argued that the concrete always fails in tension.
However, if we restrict the lateral extension of concrete by applying external triaxial
confining pressure, the concrete can withstand higher axial stress. It has been observed that,
under low confining stress, concrete cylinders fail by crushing of the concrete along with
splitting tension cracks parallel to the direction of the applied load. A single major shear crack is
formed at failure for an intermediate level of confinement. Under high confining stress, no major
cracks form and inelastic deformation is distributed within the concrete specimen. In any event,
strength and deformability of concrete cylinder increases as confining stress increases. This
point will be validated in this report as we go ahead.
As concrete is uniaxially compressed, Poissons effect induces transverse strains that result in
radial expansion of the concrete. At low levels of longitudinal strain, the concrete
behaves

elastically and the transverse strain is related proportionally by Poissons ratio to the longitudinal
strain. At a critical value of longitudinal stress (typically 60% to 65% of fck), cracks forming in
the concrete paste between the aggregate results in large increase in transverse strain with
relatively small increases in longitudinal stress. This rapid increase in transverse strain results in
an equally rapid volumetric expansion.
By confining the concrete with stirrups, the stirrups resist the transverse expansion of the
concrete. This resistance provides a confining pressure to the concrete. At low levels of
longitudinal stress, the transverse strains are so low that the wrap induces little confinement.
However, at longitudinal stress levels above the critical stress, the dramatic increase in transverse
strains engages the stirrups and the confining pressure becomes significant. The effect of
confining pressure is to induce a triaxial state of stress in the concrete. It is well understood
that concrete under triaxial compressive stress exhibits superior behavior in both strength
and ductility than concrete in uniaxial compression. This point will be validated in this report
as we move ahead.
Although circular spirals confine concrete much more effectively than rectangular or square
hoops, they are rarely used, mainly due to the fact that rectangular sections are more popular in
reinforced concrete structural members. Also, the effect of steel contents on ductility is quite
appreciable, but the effect of strength is much smaller.
The confinement by transverse reinforcement has little effect on the stress-strain curve until
the concrete reaches its maximum stress. The shape of the stress-strain curve at high strains
is a function of many variables, the major ones being the following:
1. The ratio of the volume of transverse steel to the volume of concrete core, because a
high transverse steel content will mean a high transverse confining pressure.
2. The yield strength of the confining steel, because this gives an upper limit to the
confining pressure.
3. The ratio of the spacing of the transverse steel to the dimensions of the concrete
core, because a smaller spacing leads to more effective confinement. (Arching of the
concrete between the transverse bars confines the concrete and if the spacing is large it
is evident that a large volume of the concrete cannot be confined and may spall away).
4. The ratio of the diameter of the transverse bars to the unsupported length of the
transverse bar, because a large bar diameter leads to more effective confinement. If
the flexural stiffness of the hoop bar is small (small diameter compared to
unsupported length), the hoops bow outward rather than effectively confining the
concrete.
5. The content and size of longitudinal reinforcement, because this steel will also confine
the concrete.
6. The strength of concrete, because low-strength concrete is more ductile than highstrength concrete.
Some of the proposed stress-strain curves for concrete confined by rectangular hoops are
shown below. In Chans (Chan, 1955) trilinear curve OAB approximated the curve for
unconfined concrete and the shape of BC depended on the transverse reinforcement. Baker
2
0

(Baker & Amarakone, 1964) recommended a parabola up to a maximum stress then a horizontal
branch to a

2
0

maximum strain. The maximum stress is dependent on the strain gradient across the section, and
the maximum strain is dependent on the strain gradient as well as the transverse steel content.
Roy and Sozen (Roy & Sozen, 1964)conducted tests on axially loaded prisms and suggested
replacing the falling branch with a straight line having a strain at 0.5fc, which was linearly
related to the transverse steel content. It is also interesting to note that the tests of Roy and
Sozen indicated that confinement by rectangular hoops did not increase the concrete strength.
The curve of Soliman and Yu (Soliman & Yu, 1967) consists of a parabola and two straight
lines. The stresses and strains at the critical points are related to transverse steel content and
spacing and the confined area. Sargin et al (Sargin, Ghosh, & Handa, 1971) have proposed a
general equation that gives a continuous stress-strain curve related to the content, spacing and
yield strength of the transverse steel, the strain gradient across the section and concrete
strength.
All of these models do consider the effect of confinement, but they all are having some
inherent limitations, mainly because of the simplicity associated with these models. These
models will not be discussed further.

(a)

(b)

(d)

(c)

(e)

Figure 6. Some proposed stress-strain curves for concrete confined by rectangular hoops.
(a) Chan and Blume et al. (b) Baker (c) Roy and Sozen (d) Soliman and Yu (e) Sargin et
al.
2
1

3.2.2.1.
Kent and Park Model
In 1971, Kent and Park (Kent & Park, 1971) proposed a stress-strain curve for concrete
confined by rectangular hoops. The suggested relationship combines many of the features of
previously proposed curves. A second-degree parabola represents the ascending part of curve
and assumes that the confining steel has no effect on the shape of this part of curve or the strain
at maximum stress. This essentially means that the ascending curve is exactly the same for both
confined and unconfined concrete. It also assumed that the maximum stress reached by
confined concrete is equal to the cylinder strength fc that is reached at a strain of 0.002.
The relationship for the ascending parabola is given as
Region AB,

::;

0.002
f c= f c

2C
.OO2K

Equation 3-1

O.OO2K

Figure 7. Kent and Park Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops
The descending part of the confined concrete is modeled as per following formulations.
Region BC, 0.002 ::;

::;

2O,c
c

where
,

fc = f [1 Z ( 0.002)]
O.5

Z=

Equation 3-2
Equation 3-3

O.OO2
sO
3
++OsO
.OO2
fC

5Ou

3f 1OOO
b

Equation 3-4

5O

Equation 3-5

4
s

fc

= Concrete cylinder strength in

psi

d )
2(b
b +
d s

Equation 3-6

As = Cross-sectional area of the stirrup reinforcement

b = width of confined core measured to outside of hoops
d = depth of confined core measured to outside of hoops
s = spacing of hoops
The parameter Z defines the slope of the assumed linear falling branch.

5Ou

is the value of the

strain when the stress has fallen to

(50% of the strength is lost) for the case of unconfined
0.5fc
concrete. The corresponding value of strain for confined concrete is 5Oc . 5O is the additional
ductility due to transverse reinforcement (5Oc = 5Ou + 5O ). It is assumed that the cover
concrete has spalled off by the time the stress had fallen to 0.5fc.
Region CD, c >

2O,c

fc = 0.2fc

Equation 3-7

This equation accounts for the ability of concrete to sustain some stresses at very large strains
O.8
2Oc

+ 0.002

Equation 3-8

3.2.2.2.
Modified Kent and Park Model
In 1982, a modified form of Kent and Park model (Park, Priestley, & Gill, 1982) was proposed.
This model makes an allowance for the enhancement in the concrete strength due to
confinement.
The maximum stress reached (at point B) is assumed to be Kfc at a strain of O = 0.002 K, in
which,
pf
fC

Equation 3-9
f = yield strength of steel
K =1
hoops,

Figure 8. Modified Kent and Park Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete Confined by Rectangular
Hoops

The modified Kent and Park stress-strain curve can be defined as

Region AB, c ::; 0.002
f = Kfc

2C

c
.OO2K

2]

Equation 3-10

O.OO2K

The descending part of the confined concrete is modeled as per following formulations.
Region BC, 0.002 ::;

::;

2O,c
c

m
c

fc = Kf [1 Z

where
,

Zm =

( 0.002K)] > 0.2Kf

3+O.29f
C

O.

+ p

14sfC 1OOO

Equation 3-11
Equation 3-12

O.OO2K

fc =Concrete cylinder strength in MPa(N/mm2)

Region CD, c >

2O,c

fc = 0.2Kfc

Equation 3-13

This equation accounts for the ability of concrete to sustain some stresses at very large strains
2Oc

O.

+ 0.002K

Equation 3-14

8
z

3.3. Stress-Strain models for reinforcing steel

Typical stress-strain curve for steel bars used in reinforced concrete construction is shown
below.

Figure 9. Typical Stress-Strain Curves for Steel Reinforcement

The curve exhibits an initial linear elastic portion, a yield plateau (i.e., a yield point beyond
which the strain increases with little or no increase in stress), a strain hardening range in
which stress again increases with strain (with much slower rate as compared to linear elastic
region), and finally a range in which the stress drops off until fracture occurs.

The modulus of elasticity of the steel is given by the slope of the linear elastic portion of the
curve. For steel lacking a well-defined plateau, the yield strength is taken as the stress
corresponding to a particular strain, generally corresponding to 0.2% proof strain. Length of
the yield plateau depends on the strength of steel. High strength high-carbon steels generally
have a much shorter yield plateau than low strength low-carbon steels. Similarly, the cold
working of steel can cause the shortening of the yield plateau to the extent that strain hardening
commences immediately after the onset of yielding. High strength steels also have a smaller
elongation before fracture than low strength steels.
Generally the stress-strain curve for steel is simplified by idealizing it as elastic-perfectly
plastic curve (having a definite yield point) ignoring the increase in stress due to strain
hardening. The below figure shows the various stress-strain diagram for steel which can be
used for hinge definition.

Figure 10. Stress-Strain Curves for Steel

3.4.Moment Curvature Relationship

3.4.1. Theoretical Moment Curvature Determination
In order to perform nonlinear analysis, whether static or dynamics one should understand how
the section of the structural member behaves and how the hinges are defined. In order to define
hinges, moment curvature relationship of RC.C section is used. Theoretical determination of
moment curvature characteristics for reinforced concrete sections with flexure and axial load is
based on the following assumptions (Park & Paulay, 1975).
1. Plane section before bending remain plane after bending.
2. Stress-strain curves for both concrete and steel are known.
3. Tension carrying capacity of concrete is neglected.
The curvatures associated with a range of bending moments and axial loads may be
determined using these assumptions and from the requirements of strain compatibility and
equilibrium of forces.
Consider a reinforced concrete section. Let the section be acted upon by an axial force P.
To determine its moment-curvature relationship, the first step is to assume a strain profile. The
strain
profile can be fixed by assuming the strain at the extreme compression fibre cm and the neutral

axis
kd

depth

Figure 11. Theoretical Moment-Curvature Determination

Corresponding to the assumed strain profile, the distribution of concrete stress over the
compressed part of the section is determined using the stress-strain curve for concrete. The
strain in reinforcement at different levels can be determined from similar triangles of strain
profile. For reinforcement bar i at a depth di, the strain si is given by
kd d
s= cm

Equation 3-15

kd

The stresses corresponding to strains may then be found from stress-strain curve for
reinforcing
steel. The steel compressive forces, Cs or tensile forces, Ts may be found by multiplying steel
stresses and the areas of steel.
To determine the concrete compressive force, Ccon and its position from extreme compression
fibre, kd the stress block having width equal to mean stress, fc and depth kd. The stress
block parameters and are calculated so that the total compressive force Ccon and its
point of application from extreme compression fiber, kd are same for both the actual stress
block and equivalent rectangular stress block. The values of and is different for different
levels of cm.
The mean stress factor, and the centroid factor, for any strain cm at the extreme compression
fiber can be determined for rectangular sections from the stress-strain relationship as follows
C

Area under stress-strain curve =

O

fc d c = fc cm

C
fC d C
O

Therefore, =
fC C
The first moment of area about origin of area under stress-strain curve
= OC

Equation 3-16

Equation 3-17

=
c

f d=

Equation 3-18

cm

fc d c

O C fC dC

(1 )

O
CC fC dC

Equation 3-19

The compressive force in concrete is given by

Ccon = fc bkd
Acting at a distance of kd from the extreme compression fiber.

Equation 3-20

The force equilibrium equations can be written as

= fc bkd + =1 fsAs

Equation 3-21
D

Equation 3-22

M = fc bkd( kd) + =1 fsAs(

Where
,

d)
n

number of reinforcement

bars fsi =

Stress in ith bar

Asi

Area of ith bar

Total depth of section

Effective depth of the section

di

Depth of ith bar from extreme compression fiber

The corresponding curvature is given

by

Equation 3-23

kd

The theoretical moment-curvature relationship for a given axial load level may be determined
by
incrementing the concrete strain at the extreme compression fiber, cm. For each value of cm the
neutral axis depth kd that satisfies the force equilibrium is found by adjusting kd until the force
equilibrium equation is satisfied. For flexure only case, P=0. The moment M corresponding to
the assumed cm is then calculated. The corresponding curvature can now be obtained. By
carrying out the calculation for a range of cm values, the moment-curvature characteristics can
be plotted.

3.4.2. Equivalent Compressive Stress Block Parameters

3.4.2.1.

Stress block parameters for Kent and Park model

Region AB:

cm

::;

0.002
O.OO2
3[

=1

[1

Equation 3-24

O.OO6
( C)]

Equation 3-25

O.OO
8
C

[1( )]

O.OO6

Region BC: 0.002 ::;

cm

::;

2O,c

[
(

O.OO4

C3

cm

=1

2
O.OO2

[( C 2 12

[
C

O
C(
[(
2
C

.OO2

2O,c

O.OO4

3
O.OO2
6

)]

Equation 3-27

O.OO2 )]
)z O.OO2C+

Equation 3-26

cm

)z(C3 O.OO1C2 +

Region CD: cm >

0.002)2 ]

0.002)
z
(

O.32

0.0004]

Equation 3-28

0.2
C

=1

3
1

1.26671 +
O.3
O

6Z2

+O.1C]

[
C

cm O.83

O
.OOO64
6
Z

O.OO4
3 +

+O.2CO.OOO4

3.4.2.2.Stress block parameters for Modified Kent and Park model

Region AB: cm ::; 0.002K
=

C
O.OO2
K

[1

O.OO6K

Equation 3-29

Equation 3-30
3[

=1
Region BC: 0.002K ::;

2O,c

cm

( C)]

O.OO6

::;

[
(

Equation 3-31

O.OO8

[1( C)]

O.OO4K

3
C

[(

(O.OO2)

)z

O.OO1KC

(O.OO2)

O.OO2

[(C

Region CD: cm >

2O,c

O.OO4K
C3

=1

O.32

(O.OO2)
2

O.OO2KC+

)]

0.0004K]

Equation 3-34

zcm

O.OOO64
O.8
1.26671O6 K2 +
+
3

[
C

)z(

[
0.2K

Equation 3-33

12

)]]

Equation 3-

cm
2

0.002K)2 ]
32

0.002K)

cm

=1

O.OO4

O.32

6Z2

+O.12
C

Equation 3-35

+ +O.2KCO.OOO4K
Z

3
3.4.3. Validation of Moment-Curvature
MATLAB code using SAP2000

In order to perform nonlinear static analysis of R.C.C. framed structure, the esoteric part is to
understand how the hinges are being formed with every increment of lateral load. This project is
making use of a comprehensive software package called SAP2000 to perform the nonlinear static
analysis in order to calculate the response reduction factor for various structures. Therefore,
it becomes an integral part of the project to validate how SAP2000 defines hinges.

SAP2000 gives options for using Manders unconfined and confined model. However, validation
of SAP2000s moment-curvature code is done using a user-defined model which is modified
Kent Park model (Park, Priestley, & Gill, 1982) as explained in section 3.2.2.2.

Figure 12. Doubly Reinforced R.C.C. Section

Figure 13. Moment versus Curvature for Modified Kent Park Model

The graph shown in figure 13 is plotted using the code given in appendix C for the section
shown in figure 12. The code terminates as soon as the strain in top fibre of concrete reaches to
0.0035. At this stage, the moment and curvature values are 128.8584 kN-m and 0.0664 rad/m,
respectively.

Figure 14. Moment-Curvature Plot as per SAP2000

The point marked with red colour in figure 13 is same as the point marked in blue colour in
figure 14, i.e. the stage at which the concrete strain in top fibre of concrete reaches 0.0035. The
following table depicts the values of the co-ordinates and distance of neutral axis from the
geometrical centre of the section.
Table 3. Comparison of various quatities between SAP2000 and MATLAB code's MomentCurvature relationship
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (rad/m)
Neutral Axis (mm)

SAP2000
127.843
0.0676
173.2

MATLAB code
128.858
0.0664
172.3

The co-ordinates of moment curvature plot of SAP2000 were plotted in MATLAB and compared
with the calculated plot (which was obtained from the MATLAB code) as shown in figure 15.
3
0

Figure 15. Comparison of Moment Curvature plots

3
1

4. Nonlinear Static Analysis

As shown in figure1, in order to determine response reduction factor (R) we need to
perform nonlinear analysis. Nonlinear static analysis is a relatively new and upcoming form of
analysis in the field of seismic evaluation. Its a post-elastic approach for analysis of structures.
It involves:
1) Use of static pushover analysis to create a capacity curve representing the structures
available lateral force resistance.
2) A representation of the actual displacement demand on the structure due to a specified
level of seismic hazard.
3) Verification of acceptable performance by a comparison of the two.

4.1. Need for nonlinear static analysis

The linear procedures do not directly give an idea of the actual forces induced in the buildings
by the earthquake ground motion. Since buildings will respond to the earthquake induced
ground motion in an inelastic manner, the linear elastic equivalent lateral force procedures do not
provide a direct method to assess the resulting maximum displacements. Therefore, these
approaches may not provide appropriate or cost effective designs. Unrealistic or inadequate
assessment of buildings may not identify the true failure modes, leading to unsafe design, or
may produce overly conservative retrofits leading to unnecessarily costly design.
The simplicity of the procedure compared to the nonlinear dynamic (time history)
analysis procedure, and the better accuracy and more usefulness compared to the linear
procedures are making it popular among the seismic engineers around the world.

4.2. About
Analysis

Pushover

Definition of Pushover analysis (ATC 40, 1996) : An incremental static analysis used to
determine the force-displacement relationship, or the capacity curve, for a structural element.
The analysis involves applying horizontal loads, in a prescribed pattern, to a computer model
of the structure incrementally (i.e. pushing the structure), and plotting the total applied shear
force and associated lateral displacement at each increment, until the structure reaches a limit
state of collapse condition.
Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear procedure in which the magnitude of the structural
loading is incrementally increased in accordance with a certain predefined pattern. With the
increase in the magnitude of the loading, weak links and failure modes of the structure are found.
The loading is monotonic with effects of the cyclic behavior and load reversals being
estimated by using a modified monotonic force-deformation criteria and with damping
approximations.
The analysis procedure tells how to identify which part of the building will fail first. As the load
and displacement increase, the elements (beams, columns, etc.) begin to yield and deform
inelastically. The resulting graphic curve is an easy to visualize representation of the capacity
of the building unlike in the case of conventional methods.

4.3. Methodology
analysis

to

perform

simplified

nonlinear

The two key points of a performance based design procedure are demand and capacity.
Demand is the representation of the earthquake ground motion. Capacity is representation of the
structures ability to resist the seismic demand. The performance is dependent on the manner that
the capacity is able to handle the demand. In other words, the structure must have the capacity
to resist the demand of the earthquake such that the performance of the structure is
compatible with the objectives of the design. Simplified nonlinear analysis such as the
capacity spectrum method require determination of three primary elements
1) Capacity
2) Demand
3) Performance
Each of these elements is briefly discussed
further.

4.3.1. Capacity
The overall capacity of the structure depends on the strength and deformation capacities of
the individual components of the structure. In order to determine capacities beyond the elastic
limits, some form of nonlinear analysis such as the pushover procedure, is required. In this
procedure, at first the load is applied to the mathematical model of the structure and is allowed to
increase in the same ratio till some member fails. The mathematical model of the structure is
then modified with zero or very small stiffness for the yielding elements (hinge formation). The
load is again increased to this new modified model until some other element yield. This
procedure is repeated till the structure reaches an ultimate limit, such as instability from P-
effects; distortions considerably beyond the desired performance level; or an element reaching a
lateral deformation level at which loss of gravity load carrying capacity occurs. Therefore we
can say that, this procedure uses a series of sequential elastic analyses, superimposed to
approximate a force displacement capacity diagram of the overall structure.

4.3.2. Deman
d
Demand is a representation of the earthquake ground motion or shaking that the building is
subjected to. In nonlinear static analysis procedures, demand is represented by an estimation of
the displacements or deformations that the structure is expected to undergo. This is in
contrast to conventional, linear elastic analysis procedure in which demand is represented
by prescribed lateral forces applied to the structure. Ground motion during an earthquake
produce complex horizontal acceleration and therefore displacement patterns in structures that
may vary with time. Tracking these motions at every time step to determine structural design
requirement is judged impractical. Traditional linear analysis methods use lateral forces to
represent a design condition. For nonlinear method it is easier to use a set of lateral
displacements as a design condition. For a given structure and ground motion, the

displacement demand is an estimate of the maximum expected response of the building during
the grounds motion.

4.3.3. Performance
Once capacity curve and demand displacements are defined, a performance check can be done.
A performance check verifies that structural and nonstructural components are not damaged
beyond

the acceptable limits (strength or serviceability limits) of the performance objective for the
forces and displacement implied by the displacement demand. A performance objective
specifies the desired seismic performance of the building. It is a desired level of seismic
performance of the building; i.e. a limiting damage state within the building, the threat to life
safety of the buildings occupants due to the damage, and the post-earthquake serviceability of
the building; generally described by specifying the maximum allowable structural and nonstructural damage, for a specified level of seismic hazard.

4.4. Step-By-Step Method to Determine Capacity

Pushover analysis is a tool to obtain the load-displacement plot for a structure or a member.
It involves applying loads to the model of the structure incrementally, i.e. pushing the structure,
and plotting the total applied force and the associated displacement at each increment.
With the increase in the magnitude of the loading, the weak links and failure modes of the
structure are found.
The overall capacity of the structure depends on the strength and deformation capacities of
the individual components of the structure. Therefore, the analysis requires the geometry of
structure, loading pattern, hinge locations and hinge properties in terms of moment-rotation
characteristics, shear force-deformation characteristics, etc for each and every member to be
given as input.
In pushover analysis, the load is first applied to the model of the structure and is increased
linearly until some of the member yield. At this point, the hinge formation takes place at the
yielding locations. The load and corresponding displacement is recorded at this point. The
structural model is now modified to take into account the hinge formation. The load is again
increased linearly until some other members yield. The procedure is repeated till failure and the
load-displacement curve is plotted.
Structural capacity is represented by a pushover curve. The most convenient way to plot the
force- displacement curve is by tracking the base shear and the roof displacement. The
following procedure can be used to construct a pushover curve
1. Create a computer model of the structure.
2. Apply lateral forces to the structure in proportion to the product of the mass and
fundamental mode shape. The analysis should also include gravity loads. The load can
be applied in any of the following height wise patterns.
a. Apply the lateral forces to each storey in proportion to the standard code
procedure.
This distribution is a triangular distribution on the structure. One can also
apply parabolic distribution of loads depending on the fundamental mode. In
case of single degree of freedom system simply a single concentrated horizontal
force at the top of the structure.
b. Apply lateral load in proportion to the product of storey masses and first mode
shape of the elastic model of the structure (i.e. the capacity curve is
generally constructed to represent the first mode response of the structure

based on the assumption that the fundamental mode of the vibration is the
predominant response

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.

of the structure). This is generally valid for the buildings with the fundamental
periods of vibration up to about one second.
c. The load is applied until first yielding takes place. For each increment
beyond yielding, adjust the forces to be consistent with the changing deflected
shape.
d. The higher mode effect is not considered in this study. In order to consider it
similar steps b and c is carried out with distribution representing the higher
modes.
Calculate member forces for required combinations of vertical and lateral load.
Adjust lateral force level so that some element reach their yield strength.
Record the base shear and the roof displacement.
Revise the model using post-yield stiffness for the yielding elements.
Apply the new increment of lateral load to the revised structure such that another
element yields.
Add the increment of the lateral load and the corresponding increment of roof
displacement to the previous totals to give the accumulated values of the base shear
and roof displacement.
Repeat the above steps until the structure reaches an ultimate limit, such as instability
from P- effects: distortions considerably beyond the desired the performance level, etc.

4.5. Numerical example: To determine of Capacity Curve of a Portal

Frame
Consider a single storey portal frame structure subjected to a concentrated lateral load P (Sharma,
et al., 2008). Let the cross-section for both beam and column be 200mm 200mm.
The dimensions and properties are,
L = 4m
E = 2.5 101O N/m2
B =
0.2m
D =
0.2m
(0.2)(0.2)3
I =
= 1.333 104 m4
12

Figure 16. Portal Frame Structure for Pushover Analysis

Let us assume elastic-perfectly plastic moment-rotation characteristics for the section as

shown below. The yield moment (My) is assumed to be 100kNm and the ultimate rotation
(y) is not needed since, that depends on the elastic stiffness of the structure and is equal to the
elastic rotation corresponding to the yield moment (My)

Figure 17. Moment-Rotation Relationship for the Members of Frame

Here
,
My = 100 kNm
y = Rotation corresponding to the yield moment (depends on the elastic stiffness of the structure)
u = 0.05 rad
Solving the portal frame by slope-deflection method
MB + MBC = 0
2EI

(2B

MB = L
2EI
L (23
B +
MBC =
4B +

3
)
L
C

=0

MCB + MCD = 0
2EI
MCB = L (2C + B )
2EI
MCD =

(2C

+ 4C

Solving further, we
get,
B

L
=0

2
= 0.0714L
2EI
0.1190L3

2EI
Since the maximum bending moment occurs at the base of the structure, the hinges will be
formed
first at the end of columns i.e. at ends A and D. These hinges will be formed at a load P which
will correspond to a moment MY at these locations. Therefore, the load corresponding to first
hinge formation P1 can be obtained by equating the moment due to this load at the end A and D
to the yield moment MY.
2
1L = M
7
L = 4m, MY = 100kNm

= 87.5 kN
Equation 4-1
The corresponding joint rotation and lateral 1displacement can be obtained by putting P 1 in the
expression.
0.07141 L2
B1

C1

2EI

2E

O.119O1 L

0.0714 87.5 103 42

=
= 0.015 rad
1O 1.333 104
2 2.5 10
3
3
O.119O87.51O 4

Equation 4-2

= 0.1m

22.51O1O 1.3331O4

= MDC =

1L

= 87.5 4 = 100kNm
3 7
3

MB = MBC = MCB = MCD =

87.5 4 = 75kNm
1L =
14ends A & D reach the yield value and
At this step, corresponding to P=87.5kN, the14
moment at
therefore, a plastic hinge formation takes place at these locations. The structure will now act as a
hinged base portal frame and therefore, a new modified model of the structure is required.

Figure 18. Modified Model of Portal Frame Structure

M

= MDC = 0

LM
M
CDB= = MBC = MCB =
2 method,
Solving the above frame by slope-deflection
M=
B
M=
B

2EI
3
(2 + B

L
2EI

MBC
MCB

L
3
(2B +
)
L 2EI
L
L (2 + C )
2EI B
(2C + B )
=
L
=
2EI

MCD

Now,

=
MDC

3
(2C + D
L
2EI

(2D +

L
3

=
M
=
MDC
= B0
M=
+
BM0
BC
+
CB
=MM
0
H=
+ CD
HD

Using the above five equations we can solve for the five
unknowns. Solving the equation we get,

L3
=

3EI
L2

=3
L 12EI
=
4EI
Ends B and C have already received a moment of 75 kNm due to P1. The moment carrying
capacity
of members is 100kNm. Therefore, the additional moment that the members can take before
formation of hinges is equal to 100-75=25kNm. The additional load P2add corresponding to the
second hinge formation can be obtained by equating the expression for end moments to 25kNm.
That is,
B

2add

4
= 25kNm

2add

12.5kNm
Therefore, the total load on the structure corresponding to second hinge formation is given by
2
2

2add

= 87.5 + 12.5 = 100kN

Equation 4-3

The additional base rotation due to 2add are obtained as

12.5 103 42
= 0.02 rad
2add = D2add =
3 2.5 101O 1.33 104
Similarly, the additional joint rotation due to 2add are obtained as
12.5 103 42
= 0.005 rad
B2add = C2add =
12 2.5 101O 1.33 104
Adding these rotations to the rotation in the first step, we get the total base and joint rotations at
this step as

D2

2add

D1

D2add

= 0 + 0.02 = 0.02 rad

B2 = C2 = B1 + B2add = C1 + C2add = 0.015 + 0.005 = 0.02 rad

The additional roof displacement to the displacement in the first step, we got the total roof
displacement at this step as

2 = 1 + 2add = 0.1 + 0.06 = 0.16m

Equation 4-4

At this step, corresponding to = 100kN, the moment at ends B and C also reach the yield value
and therefore, a plastic hinge formation takes place at these locations also in addition to ends A
and D. The structure will now form a mechanism and will not be able to resist any further loads

and will only undergo displacement. The modified model of the structure and the
mechanism formed is shown below,

Figure 19. Mechanism Formed by Portal Frame Structure

At this step, the mechanism has been formed and from geometry of the structure it is clear that,
=

Also, we
have,
= L
At the end of the second step, the member end rotations were 0.02 rad. The total rotational
capacity
of the member is 0.05 rad. Therefore, the additional rotational capacity of the members left is
3add = 0.05 0.02 = 0.03 rad
The additional displacement that the structure can undergo is obtained as

3add =

3add

L = 0.03 4 =

0.12m
Total roof displacement at the end of this step is given by
3 = 2 + 3add = 0.16 + 0.12 = 0.28m
The result for pushover analysis for the given structure are summarized below:

Equation 4-5

Table 4. Results of all the steps in pushover analysis

Step
0
1
2
3

Load Pi
0
87.5
100
100

A, D (rad)
0
0
0.02
0.05

B, C (rad)
0
0.015
0.02
0.05
4
0

(m)
0
0.1
0.16
0.28

Remarks
Initialization
First yield
Mechanism
Ultimate

Figure 20. Load-Displacement Plot for the Portal Frame Structure

4.6. Determination of Demand

The only process different between capacity spectrum method and displacement
coefficient method is to compute demand of a structure subjected to earthquake ground motion.
Demand is calculated by figuring out the performance point in the capacity spectrum.
Performance point is the point of intersection of capacity spectrum and the demand spectrum
for effective damping at performance point. A typical performance point graph if shown in
figure 21.

4
1

Figure 21. Typical representation of Performance Point

Performance point is calculated by trial and error process such that it satisfies the following
two criterias:
1. The point must lie on the capacity spectrum curve in order to represent the structure at
a given displacement.
2. The point must lie on a spectral demand curve, reduced from the elastic, 5 percentdamped design spectrum that represents the nonlinear demand at the same structural
displacement.
When a structure is subjected to earthquake ground motion, its components start
becoming inelastic. This reduces the global stiffness of the structure. As stiffness reduces,
damping coefficient increase. Equation 2-13 bolsters this claim and is shown in figure 22 (ATC
40, 1996).

Figure 22. Increase in damping with the inception of inelastic behavior

ATC-40 gives three procedures to compute the performance point. Following are the key
aspects of all of them,

Procedure A
o It is iterative.
o Its essentially an analytical method.
o It is easily programmable.

Procedure B
o Its approach is to find direct solution with little iteration.
o Its also essentially an analytical method.

o It is most convenient for spreadsheet programming.

Procedure C
o It is purely a graphical method.
o It is most convenient for hand calculation.
o SAP2000 makes use of this method to find the performance point (Sharma, et
al., 2008).

4.7. Quantification of Performance

To determine whether a building meets a specified performance objective, response quantities
from nonlinear static analysis, like top floor displacement, are compared with limits for
appropriate performance levels as mention in section 2.5.1.
The response limits fall into two categories (ATC 40,
1996):
1. Global building acceptability limits. These response limit include requirements for
the vertical load capacity, lateral load resistance, and lateral drift.
2. Element and component acceptability limits. Each element (frame, wall, diaphragm,
or foundation) must be checked to determine if its components respond within
acceptable limits.
Performance objective represents a desired performance level for a specified earthquake
ground motion. It is important to note that, if significant number of components degrades, the
overall lateral force resistance of the building may be affected. The lateral load resistance of the
building system, including resistance to the effects of gravity loads acting through lateral
displacements, should not degrade by more than 20% of the maximum resistance of the
structure. Where resistance degrades by more than 20% of the maximum resistance, nonlinear
dynamic analysis methods should be used to assess earthquake demands. By definition,
secondary elements are not essential to lateral load resistance, so their degradation is not a
particular concern to global building performance.
Lateral displacements at the performance point displacement are to be checked against the
displacements limits (ATC 40, 1996) given in the following figure 23. Maximum total drift is
defined as the interstory drift at the performance point displacement. Maximum inelastic drift
is defined as the portion of the maximum total drift beyond the effective yield point.

Figure 23. Displacement Limits

For structural stability, the maximum total drift in story i at the performance point should
not exceed the quantity 0.33Vi/Pi, where Vi is the total calculated lateral shear force in story i and
Pi is the total gravity load (i.e. dead plus likely live load) at story i. The maximum inelastic drift
limit is based on the objective of avoiding significant residual deformations after the earthquake.

4.8. Numerical example: To check performance of a portal frame

In this section, we check the performance of the portal frame defined in section 4.5 for a
considered earthquake response spectra. SAP2000 is used to perform the nonlinear static
analysis. The considered earthquake parameters are shown in figure 24.

Figure 24. Response Spectra Parameters

ADRS was computed and is as shown in figure 25. The effective time period comes out to be
0.211 s.

Figure 25. ADRS Spectra for the portal frame

Effective time period of the structure lies between step 5 and 6 as shown in figure 26. Which
means that interstory drifts of the frame in step 5 and 6 of the pushover analysis are to be
considered in order to check with the displacement limits shown in figure 23 and the
more conservative performance level is adopted.

Figure 26. Results for all the considered modes

For step
5:

= 0.207s
= 0.1293m
L = 4m
O.1293
Total drft = =
= 0.0323
L

Equation 4-6

V= 93.09 kN
= V11.52 kN
Deformaton Lmt = 0.33 = 0.33

93.O9

= 2.66

Equation 4-7

11.52

Therefore, 0.02 < 0.0323 < 2.66 which implies that the portal frame will be structurally
stable
for the considered earthquake.
For step 6:
T = 0.224s
=
0.1614m
L = 4m
O.1614
Total drft = =
= 0.04
L

Equation 4-8

V= 99.71 kN
= V11.52 kN
Deformaton Lmt = 0.33 = 0.33

99.71

= 2.85

Equation 4-9

11.52

Therefore, 0.02 < 0.04 < 2.85 which implies that the portal frame will be structurally
stable for
the
earthquake.

considered

Thus, the performance level of the portal frame shown in figure 16 is Structural
Stability

4.9. Numerical example: To compute response reduction factor for a

portal frame

In this section, we calculate the response reduction factor for the simple single
bay frame defined in section 4.5. Comparing the graph in figure 20 with the graph
in figure 1, we have, Vb=87.5kN. From figure 1, we know that,

R
R

S=

Equation 4-10

Vb
Ve

Equation 4-11

As stated in section 2.1.3,

RR=1.

R = RS R RR

Substituting equations 5-1, 5-2 and RR=1 in equation 5-3, we

get,
R=

Equation 4-12

Equation 4-13

Ve
Vb

If we are able to compute the value of Ve, then we can find the value of R as we already know the
value of Vb.
KI=elastic lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration.
(NEHRP GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS (FEMA
273), 1997)
For the capacity curve shown in figure 20,
87.5

But
,

K=

= 875 kN/m

Equation 4-14

O.1
Ve

K=

Equation 4-15

Rearranging equation 56,

=
e

Ve

Equation 4-16

As the energy dissipated by the structure will be the same in case of elastic analysis and pushover
analysis (inelastic), therefore, area under pushover curve will be equal to the area under the
elastic analysis curve (line).
Let area under pushover curve be denoted by A. Therefore,

A=

Equation 4-17

Ve

Substituting equation 5-7 in equation 5-8, we get,

1
A=
2

Rearranging equation 59,

Ve

Equation 4-18

Ke

Ve = 2 K A
Equation 4-19
For the capacity curve shown in figure 20, area under the curve (A) is calculated as follows,
1
1
A = [ 87.5 0.1]
+[
(87.5 + 100) (0.16 0.1)] + [(0.28 0.16)
2
2
100]
A = 22 kN m

Equation 4-20

Substituting equation 5-11 in equation 5-10, we get,

Ve = 2 875 22 = 196.214 kN Equation 4-21
Therefore
,

196.214
R =
87.5
R = 2.24

Equation 4-22

The response reduction factor for the portal frame shown in figure 16 is calculate to
be 2.24, which is less
than the R value given by IS 1893 (Part 1):2000 for ordinary moment resisting
frame, which is 3 (IS 1893 (Part 1), 2002).

5. Results, Conclusion and Scope of future work

5.1. Results
5.1.1. Moment curvature relationship
Following curves were plotted for the RCC doubly reinforced section as shown in figure 12,
1. Moment Curvature Relationship Of Doubly Reinforced Section (Modified Kent
Park model)
2. Neutral axis depth v/s Curvature
3. Concrete Strain v/s Curvature
4. Moment Curvature Relationship With Varying Axial Force
5. Moment Curvature Relationship With Different Compression Steel Content
6. Moment Curvature Relationship With Different Tension Steel Content
7. Moment Curvature Relationship With Confined and Unconfined Sections

Figure 27. Moment Curvature Relationship of Doubly Reinforced Section (Modified Kent
Park model)

Figure 28. Neutral Axis Depth v/s Curvature

Figure 29. Strain in Concrete v/s Curvature

5
0

Figure 30: Comparison between Sections with Different Axial Forces Acting on them

Figure 31: Comparison between Sections with Different Compression Steel Content

5
1

Figure 32. Comparison between Sections with Different Tensile Steel Content

Figure 33. Moment-Curvature Relationship of Doubly Reinforced Section

5.1.2. Response Reduction Factor

The response reduction factor for the portal frame shown in figure 16 is calculate
to be 2.24.

5.2. Conclusions
1. Response reduction factor is the product of strength factor, ductility factor and
redundancy factor.
2. The response reduction factor for the portal frame shown in figure 16 is calculate to
be 2.24, which is less than the R value given by IS 1893 (Part 1):2000 for ordinary
moment resisting frame, which is 3 (IS 1893 (Part 1), 2002).
3. Nonlinear static analysis was performed on a single bay concrete structure by
hand calculation and the capacity curve was plotted. The results were validated using
SAP2000.
4. SAP2000 makes use of procedure C of ATC-40 document to compute the
performance point.
5. The performance level of the portal frame shown in figure 16 is Structural Stability.
6. The moment-curvature relationship MATLAB codes appended to this report are
validated using SAP2000 and thus are appropriate for use.
7. Increase in axial force in a R.C.C section augments its strength (i.e. moment
carrying capacity) but reduces the ductility.
8. Increase in compression steel does not affect strength to a considerable extent but
increases the ductility of the section.
9. Increase in tensile steel considerable increases the strength but also reduces the
ductility making the section act more brittle.
10. Confinements in a R.C.C section not only increases the strength of the section but also
increases the ductility of the section.

5.3. Scope of Future Work

1. Computation of response reduction factor and its components for 2-storey, 4-storey,
8- storey and 12-storey dual system regular structure using nonlinear static (pushover)
analysis with appropriate modelling of hinges suitable for design specifications as
per Indian codes and selected performance levels will be the main objective of this work.
2. Simplifying the analysis to compute ductility factor (R) by considering an ideal
bilinear response using equations developed by researchers like Newmark and Hall,
Krawinkler and Nassar, etc. will make the project more comprehensive.
3. Moment-curvature relationship as per Manders model for confined and unconfined
R.C.C section has been widely accepted throughout the international community of
structural engineers and can be studied as a continuation of whatever has been discussed
in this report. However, the recent research shows that for Indian design specifications
Kent Park model for confined section is the most appropriate model for modelling plastic
hinges.
4. Covering moment-rotation relationship will also be attempted in the coming time.
5. In order to understand the behavior of shear wall under subjected to lateral load it
is imperative to study shear force-deformation characteristics.
6. Effects of including geometric nonlinearity, different lateral load distribution pattern
in pushover analysis will be beneficial to the project.

Appendices
A. MATLAB code for Moment Curvature Relationship as per IS 456
model (Unconfined)
%%% IS 456 model (unconfined)
clc;
clear;
%%Section properties:
b=230; %width
D=450; %total depth of the section
c=50; %cover
d=D-c; %effective depth
Ast=300.*pi; %tension steel
Asc=150.*pi; %compression steel
fck=25; %characteristis strength of concrete
fy=415; %yield strength of steel
Es=200000; %young's modulus of elasticity
eco=.0020; %strain at which concrete stress stops to rise
P=0; %Axial force
%%Curve fitting for stress strain plot of Cold Worked Deformed Bar:
%Goodness of fit:
%SSE=32.74
%R-square: 0.9958
%Adjusted R-square: 0.9953
%RMSE: 1.431
p1=-1.186e+007;
p2=8.877e+004;
p3=192.4;

%%Case 1: No load to start of yeilding of tension steel as per IS 456 (2000)

strain=0:.00001:.00144;
es=strain';
m=c;
for i=1:1:length(es)
T(i)=Es.*es(i).*Ast;
for x=m:.001:d
ec(i)=es(i).*(x./(d-x));
if ec>.0035
disp('section has failed due concrete failure in case 1');
break;
end
if ec(i)<=.002
fc=.45.*fck.*(2.*(ec(i)./eco) - (ec(i)./eco).^2);
C1(i)=(2./3).*fc.*b.*x;
else
alpha = ((3.*eco)./10 + (ec(i)-eco).*.45)./ec(i);
gamma=1-(((5/12.*eco.^2)+(1/2).*((ec(i).^2)-(eco.^2)))./((ec(i)(1./3).*eco).*ec(i)));

end C1(i)=alpha.*fck.*b.*x;
%Computation of stress in compression steel
esc(i)=((x-c)./x).*es(i);
if esc(i)<=.00144
fsc(i)=esc(i).*Es;
else if esc(i)>.00144 & esc(i)<=.0038
fsc(i)=p1.*esc(i).^2+p2.*esc(i)+p3;
else if esc(i)>.0038
fsc(i)=.87.*fy;
end
end
end
C2(i)=fsc(i).*Asc;
C(i)=C1(i)+C2(i);
if C(i)-T(i)>=P
X1(i)=x;
break;
end

end
m=X1(i);
if ec(i)<=.002
phi1(i)= (ec(i)./X1(i)).*10.^3;
M1(i)=(C1(i).*(d-(3./8).*X1(i)) + C2(i).*(d-c)).*10.^(-6);
else
end

phi1(i)= (ec(i)./X1(i)).*10.^3;
M1(i)=(C1(i).*(d-gamma.*X1(i)) + C2(i).*(d-c)).*10.^(-6);

end
disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 1 (mm):') disp(X1')
plot(phi1,M1,'green')
xlabel('Curvature (rad/m)');
ylabel('Moment (kN-m)');
title('Moment Curvature Relationship (Modified Kent Park Model)');
grid on; hold
on;

%%Case 2: Yeilding of steel to Top fibre of concrete beam attains a strain

value of 0.002
m=X1(length(X1));
es=.00144:.00001:.0038;
for i=1:1:length(es)
fs(i)=p1.*es(i).^2+p2.*es(i)+p3; %Equation of curved portion of Cold
Worked Deformed Bar
T(i)=fs(i).*Ast;
for x=m:-.001:0
ec(i)=es(i).*(x./(d-x));

if ec(i)>.0035
disp('section has failed due concrete failure in case 2');
break;
end
if ec(i)<=.002
fc=.45.*fck.*(2.*(ec(i)./eco) - (ec(i)./eco).^2);
C1(i)=(2./3).*fc.*b.*x;
else
alpha = ((3.*eco)./10 + (ec(i)-eco).*.45)./ec(i);
gamma=1-(((5/12.*eco.^2)+(1/2).*((ec(i).^2)-(eco.^2)))./((ec(i)(1./3).*eco).*ec(i)));
C1(i)=alpha.*fck.*b.*x;
end

%Computation of stress in compression steel

esc(i)=((x-c)./x).*es(i);
if esc(i)<=.00144
fsc(i)=esc(i).*Es;
else if esc(i)>.00144 & esc(i)<=.0038
fsc(i)=p1.*esc(i).^2+p2.*esc(i)+p3;
else if esc(i)>.0038
fsc(i)=.87.*fy;
end end
end
C2(i)=fsc(i).*Asc;
C(i)=C1(i)+C2(i);
if C(i)-T(i)<=P
X2(i)=x;
break;
end

end
m=X2(i);
if ec(i)<=.002
phi2(i)= (ec(i)./X2(i)).*10.^3;
M2(i)=(C1(i).*(d-(3./8).*X2(i)) + C2(i).*(d-c)).*10.^(-6);
else
phi2(i)= (ec(i)./X2(i)).*10.^3;
M2(i)=(C1(i).*(d-gamma.*X2(i)) + C2(i).*(d-c)).*10.^(-6);
end

end
disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 2 (mm):')
disp(X2')
plot(phi2,M2,'yellow')
hold on;

%%Case 3: Top fibre of concrete attains strain of .002 to .0035

m=X2(length(X2));
es=.0038:.00001:.145; %Since percentage elongation of Fe415 steel bars is
14.5%

for i=1:1:length(es)
T(i)=.87.*fy.*Ast;
for x=m:-.001:0
ec(i)=es(i).*(x./(d-x));
if ec(i)<=.002
fc=.45.*fck.*(2.*(ec(i)./eco) - (ec(i)./eco).^2);
C1(i)=(2./3).*fc.*b.*x;
else
alpha = ((3.*eco)./10 + (ec(i)-eco).*.45)./ec(i);
gamma=1-(((5/12.*eco.^2)+(1/2).*((ec(i).^2)-(eco.^2)))./((ec(i)(1./3).*eco).*ec(i)));
C1(i)=alpha.*fck.*b.*x;
end

%Computation of stress in compression steel

esc(i)=((x-c)./x).*es(i);
if esc(i)<=.00144
fsc(i)=esc(i).*Es;
else if esc(i)>.00144 & esc(i)<=.0038
fsc(i)=p1.*esc(i).^2+p2.*esc(i)+p3;
else if esc(i)>.0038
fsc(i)=.87.*fy;
end end
end
C2(i)=fsc(i).*Asc;
C(i)=C1(i)+C2(i);
if C(i)-T(i)<=P
X3(i)=x;
break;
end

end
m=X3(i);
if ec(i)<=.002
phi3(i)= (ec(i)./X3(i)).*10.^3;
M3(i)= (C1(i).*(d-(3./8).*X3(i)) + C2(i).*(d-c)).*10.^(-6);
else if ec(i)<.0035
m=X3(i);
phi3(i)= (ec(i)./X3(i)).*10.^3;
M3(i)=(C1(i).*(d-gamma.*X3(i)) + C2(i).*(d-c)).*10.^(-6);
else
disp('section has failed due concrete failure in case 3');
break;
end end
end
disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 3 (mm):')
disp(X3')
plot(phi3,M3,'red')
steel_strain=((d-X3(length(X3)))./X3(length(X3))).*ec(length(ec));
disp('Strain till which steel yields : ')

disp(steel_strain)

B. MATLAB code for Moment Curvature Relationship as per Kent Park

Model (Confined)
%%% Kent Park model (Confined)
clc;
clear;
%%Section
properties:-----------------------------------------------------B=230;
% Width
D=450;
% Total depth of the section
c=50;
% Cover
de=D-c;
% Effective depth
Asv=100.*pi;% Cross-sectional area of the stirrup reinforcement
sh=100;
% Spacing of hoops
As=[36*pi;
36*pi;
36*pi;
-100*pi;
-100*pi;
-100*pi];% put minus sign for steel below D/2 depth (distance) from top
concrete fibre
ds=[50;
50;
50;
400;
400;
400];
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Material
properties:----------------------------------------------------fcy=25;
% Cylinder strength of concrete
fy=415;
% Yield strength of steel bars
fyh=250;
% Yield strength of steel hoops
Es=200000; % Young's modulus of elasticity
eco=.0020; % Strain at which concrete stress stops to rise
AF=0;
% Axial force
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Other
parameters:-------------------------------------------------------b=B-50;
d=D-2.*c;
Ps=(2.*(b+d).*Asv)./(b.*d.*sh);
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Curve fitting for stress strain plot of Cold Worked Deformed Bar:-------%Goodness of fit:
%SSE=32.74
%R-square: 0.9958
%Adjusted R-square: 0.9953
%RMSE: 1.431 p1=1.186e+007;
p2=8.877e+004;
p3=192.4;
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Case 1: Region AB--------------------------------------------------------

ecm=0.00001:.00001:.002;
for i=1:1:length(ecm)
i
%Determination of depth of neutral axes:------------------------------for x=c:.001:de
%Alpha-gamma calculations:----------------------------------------alpha = (ecm(i)./(.002)).*(1-ecm(i)./(.006));
gamma= 1- ((2/3 - (ecm(i)./(.008)))./(1-(ecm(i)./(.006))));%1- ((2/3
- (ecm(i)./(.008.*K)))./(1-(ecm(i)./(.006.*K))));
%-----------------------------------------------------------------%Computation of net force in steel--------------------------------Fs=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
es(j)=abs(ecm(i).*((x-ds(j))./x));
if es(j)<=.00144
fs(j)=es(j).*Es;
else if es(j)>.00144 & es(j)<=.0038
fs(j)=p1.*es(j).^2+p2.*es(j)+p3;
else if es(j)>.0038
fs(j)=.87.*fy;
end end
end
Fs = Fs + fs(j).*As(j);
end
%------------------------------------------------------------------%Checking force equilibrium equations:-----------------------------if (alpha.*fcy.*B.*x + Fs) >= AF
X1(i)=x;
break;
end
%-------------------------------------------------------------------

end

end
%---------------------------------------------------------------------%Checking strain in tension steel:------------------------------------esf(i)=((de-X1(i))./X1(i)).*ecm(i); %esf=strain in steel at failure
if esf>=.145
disp('Tension steel has failed at a strain of .145');
break;
end
%---------------------------------------------------------------------%Determining Curvature (rad/m):---------------------------------------phi1(i)= (ecm(i)./X1(i)).*10.^3;
%---------------------------------------------------------------------%Determining Moment (kN-m):-------------------------------------------Fs=0;
Ms=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
Ms = Ms + fs(j).*As(j).*(D./2 - ds(j));
end
M1(i) = (alpha.*fcy.*B.*X1(i).*(D./2 - gamma.*X1(i)) + Ms).*10.^(-6);
%----------------------------------------------------------------------

disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 1 (mm):')

disp(X1')

plot(phi1,M1,'black')
xlabel('Curvature (rad/m)');
ylabel('Moment (kN-m)');
title('Moment Curvature Relationship (Kent Park Model)');
hold on;
%%Case 2: Region BC
Ps=(2.*(b+d).*Asv)./(b.*d.*sh);
e50u =(3+.002.*fcy)./(fcy-1000);
e50h =.75.*Ps.*sqrt(b./sh);
Z = .5./(e50u +e50h-.002);
e20_c = (.8./Z) + .002;
if e20_c<.0035
ecm=.002:.00001:e20_c;
else
ecm=.002:.00001:.0035;
end
for i=1:1:length(ecm)
for x=c:.001:de
fc=fcy.*(1-Z.*(ecm(i)-.002));
alpha = (1/ecm(i)).*((.004)./3 + (ecm(i)-.002)-(Z./2).*(ecm(i).002).^2);
gamma= 1- (1./ecm(i)).*(((ecm(i).^2./2 - (.002).^2./12) Z.*(ecm(i).^3./3 - .001.*ecm(i).^2 + (.002).^3./6)) ./ ((ecm(i)-.002./3) Z.*(ecm(i).^2./2 - .002.*ecm(i) + (.002).^2./2)));
%Computation of net force in steel----------------Fs=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
es(j)=abs(ecm(i).*((x-ds(j))./x));
if es(j)<=.00144
fs(j)=es(j).*Es;
else if es(j)>.00144 & es(j)<=.0038
fs(j)=p1.*es(j).^2+p2.*es(j)+p3;
else if es(j)>.0038
fs(j)=.87.*fy;
end end
end

end

Fs = Fs + fs(j).*As(j);
end
%---------------------------------------------if (alpha.*fcy.*B.*x + Fs) >= AF
X2(i)=x;
break;
end

esf=((de-X2(i))./X2(i)).*ecm(i); %esf=strain in steel at failure

if esf>=.145
disp('Tension steel has failed at a strain of .145');

6
0

end

break;

phi2(i)= (ecm(i)./X2(i)).*10.^3;
Fs=0;
Ms=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
Ms = Ms + fs(j).*As(j).*(D./2 - ds(j));
end
M2(i) = (alpha.*fcy.*B.*X2(i).*(D./2 - gamma.*X2(i)) + Ms).*10.^(-6);

end
disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 2 (mm):')
disp(X2');
plot(phi2,M2,'black')
hold on;
%%Case 3: Region CD
if e20_c<.0035
ecm=e20_c:.00001:.0035;
else
ecm=0;
end

for i=1:1:length(ecm)
for x=c:.001:de
fc=0.2.*fcy;
alpha = (1./ecm(i)).*((.004)./3 + .32./Z + .2*ecm(i) -.00004);
gamma= 1 - (1./ecm(i)).*((1.2667.*(10.^(-6)) + .00064./Z +
.8.^3./(6.*Z.^2) + .1.*ecm(i).^2) ./ (.004./3 + .32./Z + .2.*ecm(i) .0004));
%Computation of net force in steel
Fs=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
es(j)=abs(ecm.*((x-ds(j))./x));
if es(j)<=.00144
fs(j)=es(j).*Es;
else if es(j)>.00144 & es(j)<=.0038
fs(j)=p1.*es(j).^2+p2.*es(j)+p3;
else if es(j)>.0038
fs(j)=.87.*fy;
end end
end
end

end

Fs = Fs + fs(j).*As(j);

if (alpha.*fcy.*B.*x + Fs) >= AF

X3(i)=x;
break;
end

esf=((de-X3(i))./X3(i)).*ecm(i); %esf=strain in steel at failure

if esf>=.145
disp('Tension steel has failed at a strain of .145');

6
2

end

end

break;

phi3(i)= (ecm./X3(i)).*10.^3;
Fs=0;
Ms=0;
for j=1:1:length(d)
Ms = Ms + fs(j).*As(j).*(D./2 - ds(j));
end
M3(i) = (alpha.*fcy.*B.*X3(i).*(D./2 - gamma.*X3(i)) + Ms).*10.^(-6);

disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 3 (mm):')

disp(X3')
plot(phi3,M3,'black')

6
3

C. MATLAB code for Moment Curvature Relationship as per Modified

Kent Park Model (Confined)
%%% Modified Kent Park model (Confined)
clc;
clear;
%%Section
properties:-----------------------------------------------------B=230;
% Width
D=450;
% Total depth of the section
c=50;
% Cover
de=D-c;
% Effective depth
Asv=100.*pi;% Cross-sectional area of the stirrup reinforcement
sh=100;
% Spacing of hoops
As=[36*pi;
36*pi;
36*pi;
-100*pi;
-100*pi;
-100*pi];% put minus sign for steel below D/2 depth (distance) from top
concrete fibre
ds=[50;
50;
50;
400;
400;
400];
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Material
properties:----------------------------------------------------fcy=25;
% Cylinder strength of concrete
fy=415;
% Yield strength of steel bars
fyh=250;
% Yield strength of steel hoops
Es=200000; % Young's modulus of elasticity
eco=.0020; % Strain at which concrete stress stops to rise
AF=0;
% Axial force
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Other
parameters:-------------------------------------------------------b=B-50;
d=D-2.*c;
Ps=(2.*(b+d).*Asv)./(b.*d.*sh);
K=1+(Ps.*fyh)./fcy;
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Curve fitting for stress strain plot of Cold Worked Deformed Bar:-------%Goodness of fit:
%SSE=32.74
%R-square: 0.9958
%Adjusted R-square: 0.9953
%RMSE: 1.431
p1=-1.186e+007;
p2=8.877e+004;
p3=192.4;

%-------------------------------------------------------------------------%%Case 1: Region AB-------------------------------------------------------ecm=0.00001:.00001:.002.*K;

for i=1:1:length(ecm)
i
%Determination of depth of neutral axes:------------------------------for x=c:.001:de
%Alpha-gamma calculations:----------------------------------------alpha = (ecm(i)./(.002.*K)).*(1-ecm(i)./(.006.*K));
gamma= 1 - (2.*K - 375.*ecm(i))/(3.*K - 500.*ecm(i));%1- ((2/3 (ecm(i)./(.008.*K)))./(1-(ecm(i)./(.006.*K))));
%-----------------------------------------------------------------%Computation of net force in steel--------------------------------Fs=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
es(j)=abs(ecm(i).*((x-ds(j))./x));
if es(j)<=.00144
fs(j)=es(j).*Es;
else if es(j)>.00144 & es(j)<=.0038
fs(j)=p1.*es(j).^2+p2.*es(j)+p3;
else if es(j)>.0038
fs(j)=.87.*fy;
end end
end
Fs = Fs + fs(j).*As(j);
end
%------------------------------------------------------------------%Checking force equilibrium equations:-----------------------------if (alpha.*K.*fcy.*B.*x + Fs) >= AF
X1(i)=x;
break;
end
%-------------------------------------------------------------------

end

end
%---------------------------------------------------------------------%Checking strain in tension steel:------------------------------------esf(i)=((de-X1(i))./X1(i)).*ecm(i); %esf=strain in steel at failure
if esf>=.145
disp('Tension steel has failed at a strain of .145');
break;
end
%---------------------------------------------------------------------%Determining Curvature (rad/m):---------------------------------------phi1(i)= (ecm(i)./X1(i)).*10.^3;
%---------------------------------------------------------------------%Determining Moment (kN-m):-------------------------------------------Fs=0;
Ms=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
Ms = Ms + fs(j).*As(j).*(D./2 - ds(j));
end
M1(i) = (alpha.*K.*fcy.*B.*X1(i).*(D./2 - gamma.*X1(i)) + Ms).*10.^(-6);
%----------------------------------------------------------------------

disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 1 (mm):')

disp(X1')
plot(phi1,M1,'black')
xlabel('Curvature (rad/m)');
ylabel('Moment (kN-m)');
title('Moment Curvature Relationship (Modified Kent Park Model)');
hold on;
%%Case 2: Region BC
Zm = .5./(((3+.29.*fcy)./(145.*fcy-1000)) + .75.*Ps.*sqrt(b./sh) - .002.*K);
e20m_c = (.8./Zm) + .002.*K;
if e20m_c<.0035
ecm=.002.*K:.00001:e20m_c;
else
ecm=.002.*K:.00001:.0035;
end
for i=1:1:length(ecm)
for x=c:.001:de
fc=K.*fcy.*(1-Zm.*(ecm(i)-.002.*K));
alpha = (1./ecm(i)).*((.004.*K)./3 + (ecm(i)-.002.*K)(Zm./2).*(ecm(i)-.002.*K).^2);
gamma= 1- (1./ecm(i)).*(((ecm(i).^2./2 - (.002.*K).^2./12) Zm.*(ecm(i).^3./3 - .001.*K.*ecm(i).^2 + (.002.*K).^3./6)) ./ ((ecm(i).002.*K./3) -Zm.*(ecm(i).^2./2 - .002.*K.*ecm(i) + (.002.*K).^2./2)));
%Computation of net force in steel----------------Fs=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
es(j)=abs(ecm(i).*((x-ds(j))./x));
if es(j)<=.00144
fs(j)=es(j).*Es;
else if es(j)>.00144 & es(j)<=.0038
fs(j)=p1.*es(j).^2+p2.*es(j)+p3;
else if es(j)>.0038
fs(j)=.87.*fy;
end end
end

end

Fs = Fs + fs(j).*As(j);
end
%---------------------------------------------if (alpha.*K.*fcy.*B.*x + Fs) >= AF
X2(i)=x;
break;
end

esf=((de-X2(i))./X2(i)).*ecm(i); %esf=strain in steel at failure

if esf>=.145
disp('Tension steel has failed at a strain of .145');
break;

end
phi2(i)= (ecm(i)./X2(i)).*10.^3;
Fs=0;
Ms=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
Ms = Ms + fs(j).*As(j).*(D./2 - ds(j));
end
M2(i) = (alpha.*K.*fcy.*B.*X2(i).*(D./2 - gamma.*X2(i)) + Ms).*10.^(-6);

end
disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 2 (mm):')
disp(X2');
plot(phi2,M2,'black')
hold on;
%%Case 3: Region CD
if e20m_c<.0035
ecm=e20m_c:.00001:.0035;
else
ecm=0;
end

for i=1:1:length(ecm)
for x=c:.001:de
fc=K.*fcy.*(1-Zm.*(ecm-.002.*K));
alpha = -((K*fcy*(e20m_c - ecm(i)))/5 - (K^2*fcy)/750 + (K*fcy*(K 500*e20m_c)*(K*Zm - 500*Zm*e20m_c + 1000))/500000)/(K*ecm(i)*fcy);
gamma= 1 - ((K*fcy*(e20m_c^2 - ecm(i)^2))/10 - (K^3*fcy)/600000 +
(K*fcy*(K - 500*e20m_c)*(Zm*K^2 + 500*Zm*K*e20m_c + 1500*K 500000*Zm*e20m_c^2 + 750000*e20m_c))/750000000)/(ecm(i)*((K*fcy*(e20m_c ecm(i)))/5 - (K^2*fcy)/750 + (K*fcy*(K - 500*e20m_c)*(K*Zm - 500*Zm*e20m_c +
1000))/500000));
%Computation of net force in steel
Fs=0;
for j=1:1:length(ds)
es(j)=abs(ecm.*((x-ds(j))./x));
if es(j)<=.00144
fs(j)=es(j).*Es;
else if es(j)>.00144 & es(j)<=.0038
fs(j)=p1.*es(j).^2+p2.*es(j)+p3;
else if es(j)>.0038
fs(j)=.87.*fy;
end end
end
end

end

Fs = Fs + fs(j).*As(j);

if (alpha.*K.*fcy.*B.*x + Fs) >= AF

X3(i)=x;
break;
end

esf=((de-X3(i))./X3(i)).*ecm(i); %esf=strain in steel at failure

if esf>=.145
disp('Tension steel has failed at a strain of .145');
break;
end

end

phi3(i)= (ecm./X3(i)).*10.^3;
Fs=0;
Ms=0;
for j=1:1:length(d)
Ms = Ms + fs(j).*As(j).*(D./2 - ds(j));
end
M3(i) = (alpha.*K.*fcy.*B.*X3(i).*(D./2 - gamma.*X3(i)) + Ms).*10.^(-6);

disp('Depth of neutral axis for Case 3 (mm):')

disp(X3')
plot(phi3,M3,'black')

References
ASCE 7. (2002). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston,
Virginia, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
ATC 40. (1996, November). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings
(Volume 1). Redwood City, California, USA.
Baker, A. L., & Amarakone, A. N. (1964). Inelastic Hyperstatic Frames Analysis.
International Symposium on the Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete
(pp. 85-142). Miami: ASCE-ACI.
Biggs, J. M. (1964). Introduction to structural dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chan, W. L. (1955). The Ultimate Strength and Deformation of Plastic Hinges in
Reinforced Concrete Frameworks. Magazine of Concrete Research, 121132.
Eurocode 8. (2004, December). Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part
1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels, Europe:
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION.
IS 1893 (Part 1). (2002). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures.
New Delhi, New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 456. (2000). Plain and Reinforced Concrete. New Delhi, India: Bureau of
Indian Standards. Kappos, G. G. (2010). Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Structures. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Kent, D., & Park, R. (1971). Flexural Mechanics with Confined Concrete. Journal of the
Structural Division, 1969-1990.
Lang, K. (2002). Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. London.
Mondal, A., Ghosh, S., & Reddy, G. (2013). Performance-based evaluation of the
response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. Engineering Structures,
1808-1819.
(1997). NEHRP GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS
(FEMA 273). Washington, D.C.: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY.
Park, R., & Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures. Christchurch:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Park, R., Priestley, M., & Gill, W. (1982). Ductility of
square-confined concrete columns. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 929-950.
Richart, F. E., HALL, J. R., & Woods, R. D. (1970). VIBRATION OF SOILS AND
FOUNDATIONS. Prentice-hall,
Inc.

Roy, H. E., & Sozen, M. A. (1964). Ductility of Concrete. International Symposium on

Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete (pp. 213-224). Miami: ASC-ACI.
Sargin, M., Ghosh, S. K., & Handa, V. K. (1971). Efects of Lateral Reinforcement
upon the Strength and Deformation Properties of Concrete. Magazine of
Concrete Research, 99-110.

Sharma, A., Reddy, G. R., Vaze, K., Ghosh, A., Kushwaha, H., & Eligehausen, R.
(2008). Experimental and analytical investigation on behavior of scaled
down reinforced concrete framed structure under monotonic pushover
loads. Mumbai: Associate Director, Knowledge Management Group and
Head, Scientific Information Resource Division, Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre.
Soliman, M. T., & Yu, C. W. (1967). The Flexural Stress-Strain Relationship of
Concrete Confined by Rectangular Transverse Reinforcement. Magzine
of Concrete Research, 99-110.
Whittaker, A., Hart, G., & Rojahn, C. (1999). Seismic Response Modification Factors.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 438-444.

Acknowledgements
This is not included only to complete the formalities as per tradition. Everything important in
life is achieved by collective efforts and perseverance of many people. Inspiration and
motivation have always played played a key role in success of any venture.
I feel great sense of accomplishment to express my sincere gratitude to respected Project Guide
Prof. M. M. Inamdar for his encouragement and valuable guidance during completion of the
first stage of project.
Im grateful to research engineer at University of Stuttgart, Dr. Akanshu Sharma, for his
insights in a vital topic of moment curvature relationship.
On this opportunity I would also like to extend my gratitude to my classmates Abhinav,
Ritesh and Asim for discussing with me the fundamentals of Structural Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering throughout the course of this semester.
Lastly, I would also like to extend my gratitude to visiting researcher of Fuzhou University,
Mr. Michele Liliano for mutual sharing of the results.

VAIBHAV VAIRALE

7
0