CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

__________________________________________________________________
1.1 Introduction
Vulnerability of buildings to seismic hazards is more drastic in developing countries with high
seismicity, as compared to developed countries. This is primarily due to the lack of seismic
design guidelines, which fit the type of structural systems and practices that are often applied in
such parts of the world. Response reduction factor (R) is essential seismic design tool, which are
typically used to describe the level of inelasticity expected in lateral structural systems during an
earthquake. The concept of Response reduction factor is based on the observations that well
detailed seismic framing systems can sustain large inelastic deformations without collapse
through excess of lateral strength over design strength and ductility. This factor allows a designer
to use a linear elastic force based design while accounting for nonlinear behaviour and
deformation limits.
The Response reduction factors adopting in many developing countries like United States and
Europe are realistic values and based on technical basis. They are using this R factor with
component wise like over strength factor and redundancy factor and also they are accounting for
irregularity by reducing this R factor. The values of response reduction factors given in IS 1893
(Part-II) 2002, which is arrived at empirically based on engineering judgment and perceived
earthquake damage with little technical basis and also does not explicitly segregate the
components of R in terms of ductility and overstrength. It does not specify any reduction in the
response reduction factor on account of any irregularity (vertical or plan-irregularity) in the
framing system. The objective of this work is to evaluate the component wise computation of
response reduction factor (R) for Reinforced concrete buildings using pushover analysis. Also to
find effect of zone, number stories and ductility class on R factor.

1.2 Literature Review

The literature review regarding the project work has been carried out. Totally six papers
regarding the Response reduction factor is presented and also five codes via America, Europe,
Japan, India and New Zealand codes related to Response reduction factor is presented.
Jain and Navin (1995) evaluated seismic overstrength of multistory reinforced concrete frames
by nonlinear pseudostatic analysis on four-bay, three, six, and nine story frames designed for
seismic zones I to V as per IS 1893:1984. The member sizes in the exterior and the interior
frames were kept the same in a given zone which led to the same lateral stiffness and hence the
exterior and the interior frames were designed for the same lateral force.
Conclusions of this study are following.
i.
ii.

The dependence of overstrength is most significant on seismic zone. Overstrength in

zone I can be as much as five times that in zone V.
The overstrength increases as the number of stories decreases and overstrength of the

iii.

three-story frame is higher than the nine-story frame by 36% in zone V and 49% in
zone I.
Interior frames have 17% (zone V) to 47% (zone I) higher overstrength as compared to
the exterior frames of the same building. This is because interior frames have higher steel

iv.

due to higher design gravity loads than exterior frames.

Finally it is showed that the overstrength being much higher for low seismic zones, for
low-rise buildings, and for higher design live load.

Samar et al. (1997) performed a seismic nonlinear time-history analysis on four, six and eight
storey reinforced concrete buildings to evaluate the seismic ductility reduction and overstrength
factors. For comparison purpose they kept the same floor plan for all three buildings and also the
member sizes in all three buildings were kept the same in order to have the same lateral stiffness
which is based on gross moment of inertia.

The conclusions of this study are following.

2

i.

The dependency of overstrength is most significant on seismic zone and then on number
of stories. The overstrength of buildings in lower seismic zones is significantly higher

ii.

than the overstrength of buildings in higher seismic zones.

The variation in overstrength with the number of storeys is more significant in lower
seismic zones as compared to higher seismic zones. This is due to a greater prominence

iii.

of gravity loads in design of low-rise buildings in lower seismic zones.

The ductility demand ratios, as well as the ductility reduction factors, decrease as the
number of stories increases. It observed that the seismic zoning has a slight effect on the

iv.

ductility reduction factor (R) for all studied buildings.

Finally it concluded that, overstrength factor is more for low seismic zones and low-rise
buildings. The dependency of overstrength is most significant on seismic zone and then
on number of zones.

Andrew Whittaker et al. (1999) presented a draft formulation that represents the response
modification factor as the product of factors related to reserve strength, ductility, and
redundancy(see in Fig.1.1). Pertinent data from various analytical and experimental studies on
reserve strength and ductility are also presented.

Fig.1.1 Base Shear versus Roof Displacement Relationship

The conclusions of this study are following.

i.

Evaluations of studies by others clearly show that the reserve strength of code-compliant
buildings varies widely as a function of building type, building height, and seismic zone.

ii.

Values for strength factors must address these variations.

The relations between ductility factor and global displacement ductility are established
for bilinear SDOF systems but should be extended to multiple-degree-of-freedom

iii.

systems using a modification factor similar to proposed by Krawinkler and Nassar.

A draft redundancy factor whose values vary as a function of the number of lines of
strength- and stiffness-compatible vertical seismic framing is proposed (see in Table 1.1).
Four lines of such framing in each principal direction of a building are proposed as the
benchmark value is questionable, so further research should be recommended for
evaluation of redundancy factor.
Table 1.1 Draft Redundancy Factors
Lines of Vertical Seismic Framing

Draft Redundancy Factor

2
3
4

0.71
0.86
1.00

Apurba mondal et al. (2013) focused on estimation of actual values of R factor for realistic RC
moment frame buildings designed and detailed following the Indian standards and compared
these values with the value suggested in the design code. They used pushover analysis in
determining R factor for regular RC framed building structures, by considering different
acceptable performance limit states. The values of R obtained for four realistic designs at two
performance levels by considering the following effects.
i.
ii.
iii.

Effects of not adhering to the strong-column-weak-beam criterion on R value.

PD effects.
Effects of the lateral load distribution pattern used in nonlinear static analysis.

Performance level1 refers to limits based on both inter storey drift ratio and member rotation
capacity given by ATC-40 (see Table 1.2).
Table 1.2 Deformation Limits for Different Performance Levels-ATC-40
Performance Level
4

Interstorey Drift

Immediate

Damage

Life

Structural

Occupancy
0.01

Control
0.01-0.02

Safety
0.02

Stability
0.33 Vi/Pi

Performance level2 refers to limits based on member rotation limits based on section dimensions
and actual reinforcements given by ATC-40 (see Table 1.3).
Table 1.3 Plastic Rotation Limits for RC Beams Controlled by Flexure-ATC-40
Immediate

Life

Structural

Occupanc

Safety

Stability

bd
0
0

Transverse
Reinforcemen
t
C
C

V
bw bd f ,c
3
6

Plastic Rotation Limit

0.005
0.005

0.020
0.010

0.025
0.020

By considering above effects in the non linear analysis, they arrived at following conclusions.
i.

Based on Performance Limit 1, the Indian standard over-estimates the R factor, which

ii.

leads to the potentially dangerous underestimation of the design base shear.

Based on Performance Limit 2, the IS 1893 recommendation is on the conservative side.
It should however be noted that this limit does not include any structure level behaviour

iii.

such as interstorey drift.

The strong-column-weak-beam criterion in design does not make any major difference in

iv.

terms of R.
R (for PL1) comes to be close to the IS 1893 recommended value If PD effects are not
considered. So, R= 5.0 may be safe for a design where PD effects are actually negligible

v.

at the ultimate state.

The IS 1893 and the ASCE7 lateral load distributions give R almost in the same range.
However, a load distribution based on the fundamental mode shape estimates R in a range
of higher values.

Ferraioli et al. (2012) reviewed the existing methods for determining the behaviour factor of
multi-storey moment-resisting steel frames. The effects of storeys, spans and regularity in
elevation of frames on the behaviour factor were considered.
The conclusions of this study are following.
i.

The mean value of the redundancy factor is R=1.64 for both regular and irregular
moment resisting frames which is greater than the value R=1.3 recommended by EC8

ii.

for multi-bay multi-story frames.

The overstrength reduction factor recommended by EC8 and Italian Code for multi-bay
multi-story frames is conservative. But the behaviour factor proposed by these codes may
be not conservative. In case of high-rise steel frames, the compression failure of a firststory column limits the ultimate displacement capacity of the structure because the high

iii.

axial force reduces the plastic moment capacity of the first-story columns.
On the basis of these results, a local ductility criterion based on a limit of the axial force
ratio is proposed to control the ductility of columns and so ensure that the recommended
behaviour factor is conservative.

Vishva et al. (2015) considered a RC framed staging elevated water tank to evaluate the
response reduction factor with and without considering the effects of flexibility of soil. Three
different types of soil conditions representatives of hard soil, medium soil and soft soil has
considered in their study. A conservative structural design method neglects the soil flexibility and
its effects on super structural response. To neglect the effects of soil flexibility is practical for
light structures in comparatively stiff soil to soft soil such as low rise buildings and simple rigid
retaining walls. The effect of soil flexibility becomes noticeable for heavy structures like power
plants, high-rise buildings and elevated water tanks resting on relatively soft soil. The soil
flexibility can be modeled as by providing translation, rocking and torsional elastic springs
constant instead of rigidity of supports so as by providing soil properties in the model (FEMA
356).
The conclusions of this study are following.

i.

The response reduction factor decreases while time period increases from fixed base to
soft base. So it can be observed that avoidance of effect of soil flexibility might lead to

ii.

mistaken and inappropriate results of flexibly supported RC frame structures.

The effect of the soil-flexibility in case of soft soil reduces values of R factor about 30%

iii.

for the considered tank as compared to rigid base condition.

The value of base shear is reduced up to 20% in case of soft soil to fixed base condition
due to flexibility of soil. Here from the results we can observe that effect of soil
flexibility is almost negligible in case of hard soil.

EN (1998-1)-2004
EN (1998-1)-2004 seismic design procedure is a single level design procedure that reduces
elastic spectral demands to the strength design level through the use of behavior factor q. This
behaviour factor varies as a function of ductility, building strength, structural system and
stiffness regularity. The behaviour factor q (see in Table 1.4) shall be derived by equation 1.1.
q=

q0k w

1.5

----- (1.1)

The basic value of the behaviour factor (

resisting system and

kw

q0

) is given in Table 1.4 for different seismic

is the factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural

systems with walls. For buildings which are not regular in elevation, the value of

q0

shall be

reduced by 20%. The factors u and 1 may be obtained from a nonlinear static (pushover)
global analysis. When the multiplication factor u/1 has not been evaluated through an explicit
calculation, for buildings which are regular in plan the approximate values of u/1 given in
Table 1.5 may be used. For buildings irregular in plan, default value equal to average of default
value of buildings regular in plan and one.

Table 1.4 Values

q0

for Buildings Regular in Elevation

Type of Structural System

DCM

DCH

Frame, Dual, Coupled Wall System

Uncoupled Wall System

u
3.0 /

u
4.5 /

3.0

u
4.0 /
1

Torsionally Flexible System

Inverted Pendulum System

1.5

Table 1.5 Approximate Values of

Frame or Frame-Equivalent Dual Systems

/ 1
u

/ 1

One-Storey Buildings

1.1

Multistorey, One-Bay Frames

1.2

Multistorey, Multi-bay Frames

1.3

IS 1893-(Part 1-2002)
IS 1893-(Part 1-2002) seismic design procedure in is a single level design procedure that
reduces elastic spectral demands to the allowable strength design level through the use of
Response modification factor (see in Table 1.6). No reduction in the response reduction factor on
account of any irregularity (vertical or plan-irregularity) in the framing system.
Table 1.6 Values of R for RCC Framed Structures
Structural System

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame(OMRF)

Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)

BSLJ-2004
BSLJ-2004 seismic design of Japanese buildings is a two-phase design for
earthquakes. The first phase design is for medium earthquake motions, and
this is basically working stress design. The unreduced seismic forces are
evaluated by following equation 1.2 and 1.3.
n

Q i=C i W i
i=1

----- (1.2)
Ci

Rt Ai C0

=Z

----- (1.3)
C0 =0.2 (for moderate earthquake)
The second phase design is intended to give protection to buildings in case
of severe ground shaking. It requires the checking of several aspects of the
building. These include story drift, vertical stiffness distribution, horizontal
eccentricity and ultimate lateral load carrying capacity. The ultimate lateral load
carrying capacity is calculated by any method, including incremental nonlinear analysis. It is
required that the ultimate lateral load carrying capacity in each story thus found must exceed the
required shear force Qun given by equation 1.4.
Qun=D F
s

es

Standard seismic shear (

one

----- (1.4)

Qud

Qud

in a story calculated from the equation 1.4 with Co equals to

(for severe earthquake). Structural characteristics factor (Ds) is inverse of Response

reduction factor using in IS code which takes into account inelastic deformations and energy
dissipation (see in Table 1.7). The shape factor (Fes) is intended to take into account their
regularity of the structure expressed in terms of basic shape factors F s and
equation 1.5.

Fe

determined by

The basic shape factors

Fs

Fe

accounts vertical stiffness irregularity (in terms of R s) and

accounts horizontal torsional irregularity (in terms of Re).

Fes =

Fs Fe

-----

(1.5)

Table 1.7 Structural Characteristics Factor (Ds)

Framing Members

Rigid frames or very

Very ductile or

ductile shear wall

ductile shear wall

with
Most Ductile
Very Ductile
Ductile
Others

0.3

with

0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45

0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50

0.7

Very ductile or ductile

shear wall with

0.7
or less ductile shear wall
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55

ASCE7-2010
ASCE7-2010 seismic design procedure is a single level design procedure that reduces elastic
spectral demands to the strength design level through the use of response modification factor (R).
This response modification factor varies as a function of ductility, building strength, structural
system and this R values given along with over strength factor and deflection amplification
factors. The seismic acceleration coefficient (

Cs

equation 1.6.

10

, shall be determined in accordance with the

C s=

S DS
R
I

------ (1.6)

The Response modification coefficient (see in Table 1.8) reduces forces to a strength level, not
an allowable stress level. For structures having a horizontal structural irregularity and vertical
structural irregularity, the design forces shall be increased 25 percent for the elements of the
seismic force-resisting system. In American code two types of load combinations is given, one
load combination with redundancy factor and second one with overstrength factor.

Table 1.8 R,
Type of System

0C d

Factors of RCC Frames

R Factor

0 Factor

Cd

Factor

Special Moment
Frames
Intermediate

Moment Frames
Ordinary Moment

Frames

The load combination given in equation 1.7 and 1.8 is used for design of in normal elements of
structure. The value of redundancy factor is either 1.0 or 1.3. This factor has an effect of
reducing the R factor for less redundant structures, thereby increasing the seismic demand.
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + QE + L + 0.2S

---- (1.7)

(0.9 0.2SDS)D + QE + 1.6H

---- (1.8)

Few elements of properly detailed structures are not capable of safely resisting ground-shaking
11

demands through inelastic behavior. To ensure safety, these elements must be designed with
sufficient with overstrength (o) as mentioned in equation 1.9 and 1.10 to remain elastic.
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + oQE + L + 0.2S

---- (1.9)

(0.9 0.2SDS)D + oQE + 1.6H

---- (1.10)

NZS4203-1992
NZS4203-1992 design code, the seismic acceleration

Cb

is directly obtains from the

Response spectrum by taking into consideration the fundamental oscillation period (T), the
structural ductility factor () (see in Table 1.9), and the soil type.

Table 1.9 Structural Ductility Factors of RCC Frames

Seismic Force-Resisting System

Structural Ductility Factor ()

Elastically Responding Structures

1.25

Structures with Limited Ductility

1
2

Frames
Walls

3
3

Ductile Structures
1
2

Moment Resisting Frames

Walls

6
5

1.3 Summary
From the review of literature, it was found that three factors (

Rs

, R and

RR

) affect the

actual value of response reduction factor (R) and therefore they must be taken into consideration
while determining the appropriate response reduction factor to be used during the seismic design

12

process and also found that the response reduction factor is significantly affected following
factors

Building type, number of stories and seismic zone

Ductility class (Ordinary moment resisting frame, Special moment resisting frame)
Irregularity

Indian code does not explicitly segregate the components of R in terms of ductility and
overstrength. Also it does not specify any reduction in the response reduction factor on account
of any irregularity (vertical or plan-irregularity) in the framing system which should be
considered.

1.4 Objective of the study

The main objective of the study is to find Response Reduction Factor (R) of regular Reinforce
concrete buildings and comparison of these values with IS code values. The objects in detail are
as fallows

Finding of R factor of regular building frames with two storey, three story, five storey,

eight storey and twelve storey buildings.

Study of effect of seismic zone and ductility class (OMRF and SMRF) on R factor.

13

CHAPTER-2
OVER VIEW OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR
__________________________________________________________________
2.1 Introduction to Basic Concept of Seismic Design
Design requirements for lateral loads, such as winds or earthquakes are inherently different from
those for gravity (dead and live) loads. Due to frequency of loading scenario, design for wind
loads is a primary requirement. But in areas of high seismicity, structures are designed to
withstand lateral actions also. Since the seismic design deals with events with lower probability
of occurrence, it may therefore be highly uneconomical to design structures to withstand
earthquakes for the performance levels used for wind design. For example, building structures
would typically be designed for lateral wind loads in the range of 1% to 3% of their weight.
Earthquake loads may reach 30%-40% of the weight of the structure, applied horizontally. If
concepts of elastic design normally employed for primary loads are used for earthquake loads,

14

the result will be in the form of extremely heavy and expensive structures. Therefore, seismic
design uses the concepts of controlled damage and collapse prevention.
The basic principal of designing structures for strong ground motion is that the structure should
not collapse but damage to the structural elements is permitted. Since a structure is allowed to be
damaged in case of severe shaking, the structure should be designed for seismic forces much less
than what is expected under strong shaking, if the structures were to remain linearly elastic. The
concept of R factor is based on the observations that well detailed seismic framing systems can
sustain large inelastic deformations without collapse and have excess of lateral strength over
design strength.
2.2 Over-View of Response Reduction Factor
Response reduction factor is the factor by which the actual base shear force should be reduced, to
obtain the design lateral force. Base shear force is the force that would be generated if the
structure were to remain elastic during its response to the design basic earthquake (DBE)
shaking. Response reduction (R) factors are essential seismic design tools, which are typically
used to describe the level of inelasticity expected in lateral structural systems during an
earthquake. The response reduction factor (R) is depends on Over strength (Rs), Ductility (R),
Redundancy (RR) (see in Fig.2.1).

Fig.2.1 Base Shear versus Roof Displacement Relationship

15

In the mid-1980s, data from experimental research at the University of California at Berkeley
were used to develop base shear-roof displacement relationships for steel braced frames and a
draft formulation for the response modification factor. The base shear-roof displacement
relationships were established using data acquired from the testing of two code-compliant braced
steel frames, one concentrically braced (Uang and Bertero, 1986) and one eccentrically braced
(Whittaker et al., 1987). Using these data, the Berkeley researchers proposed splitting R into
three factors (see Eq.2.1) that account for contributions from reserve strength, ductility, and
viscous damping.
R=

Rs R R

. (2.1)

Using data from the most severe earthquake simulation test, the strength factor was calculated as
the maximum base shear force divided by the design base shear force at the strength level. The
ductility factor was calculated as the base shear for elastic response divided by the maximum
base shear force and the damping factor was set equal to 1.0.
Much research (ATC, 1982b; Freeman, 1990; ATC, 1995) has been completed since the first
formulation for R was proposed. Recent studies, including those in the companion Project ATC34, support a new formulation for R (see Eq.2.2), which is the product of three factors as over
strength ductility and redundancy factors.
R=

R s R R R

. (2.2)
This formulation, with the exception of the redundancy factor, is similar to those proposed by the
Berkeley researchers and Freeman (1990). The Freeman formulation, which was developed
independently of the Berkeley formulation, described the response reduction factor as the
product of a strength-type factor and a ductility-type factor. The function of redundancy factor is
to quantify the improved reliability of seismic framing systems that use multiple lines of vertical
seismic framing in each principal direction of a building.
A fourth factor called viscous damping factor (

), was considered in the new formulation

mainly to account for response reduction provided by supplemental viscous damping devices.
16

Such a viscous damping factor could be used to reduce displacements in a nonlinear framing
system, but cannot be used to proportionally reduce force demands, especially for highly-damped
frames. Recognizing that seismic design using response modification factors will remain forcebased in the near term, the damping factor was excluded from the new formulation.
The proposed formulation does not specifically address the effects of plan and vertical
irregularity in framing systems. Irregularity could be addressed by reducing the response
modification factor by a regularity factor. Significant force-based penalties (higher design base
shears) for the design of irregular framing systems would both discourage the use of irregular
framing and reduce the uncertainties associated with the nonlinear response of irregularly framed
buildings.
2.3 Components of Response Reduction Factor
R factor is depends on ductility factor (R), structural over strength, structural redundancy and
damping associated with structure as shown on Eq.2.3.
R=

R s R R R R

. (2.3)

R
(
s)
2.3.1 Over Strength Factor

The inertia force due to earthquake motion, at which the first significant yield in a reinforced
concrete structure starts, may be much higher than the prescribed unfactored base shear force
because of many factors given below.
i.
ii.

The load factor applied to the code-prescribed design seismic force

The lower gravity load applied at the time of the seismic event than the factored gravity

iii.
iv.
v.

loads used in design

The strength reduction factors on material properties used in design
A higher actual strength of materials than the specified strength
A greater member sizes than required from strength considerations and ore reinforcement

vi.
vii.

than required for the strength

Confinement of concrete and non -structural elements also contribute to the over strength
Special ductility requirements, such as the strong column-weak beam provision

17

The structural overstrength also results from internal forces distribution, higher material strength,
strain hardening, confined reinforcement detailing, effect of nonstructural elements, strain rate
effects. Code limits on interstory drift may require the use of member sizes in flexible (longperiod) framing systems that are greater than those required for strength alone giving rise to
period-dependent strength factors for drift limited framing systems. Also, buildings located in
lower seismic zones will likely have different reserve strength values than those in higher
seismic zones because the ratio of gravity loads to seismic loads will differ - resulting in zonedependent values for the strength factor. The Over strength factor (
expressed as ratio of base shear corresponding first yielding (

V 1

Rs

) mathematically

to the design strength

V
( d ) .

Rs

V1
= Vd

. (1.4)

2.3.2 Ductility Reduction Factor (R)

The ability of a building frame to be displaced beyond the elastic limit, while resisting significant
force and absorbing energy by inelastic behavior is termed ductility. The displacement ductility
ratio is generally defined as the ratio of ultimate displacement
y
) as given in Eq.2.5.

m
y

. (2.5)

18

( m)

to yield displacement

The ductility reduction factor (R) takes advantage of the energy dissipating capacity of properly
designed and well-detailed structures and, hence, primarily depends on the global ductility
demand () of the structure. The ductility reduction factor (R) is a factor which reduces the
elastic force demand to the level of idealized yield strength of the structure and, hence, it may be
represented by Eq.2.6.

R =

Ve
Vy

(2.6)
The relationship between displacement ductility and the ductility factor has been the subject of
much research in recent years. The relationships developed by Newmark and Hall (1982),
Krawinkler and Nassar (1992) and Miranda and Bertero (1994) are presented below.
Newmark and Hall (1982)
Newmark and Hall (1982) was made the first attempt to relate R with for a single-degree-offreedom (SDOF) system with elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) resistance curve. They concluded
that for a structure of a natural period less than 0.03 second (short period structures), the ductility
does not help in reducing the response of the structure (see Eq.2.7). Hence, for such structures,
no ductility reduction factor should be used. For moderate period structures, corresponding to the
acceleration region of elastic response spectrum T = 0.12 to 0.5 sec the energy that can be stored
by the elastic system at maximum displacement is the same as that stored by an inelastic system
(see Eq.2.8). For relatively long-period structures of the elastic response spectrum they
concluded that inertia force obtained from an elastic system and the reduced inertia force
obtained from an inelastic system cause the same maximum displacement.

For frequencies above 33 Hz (periods below 0.03 sec)

R =1

. (2.7)

For frequencies between 2 Hz and 8 Hz (periods between 0.12 second and 0.5 second)
R =

2 1

. (2.8)
19

For frequencies less than 1Hz (periods exceeding 1.0 second)

R =

(2.9)

Krawinkler and Nassar (1992)

Krawinkler and Nassar (1992) was developed a relationship for the force reduction factor
derived from the statistical analysis of 15 western USA ground motions with magnitude between
5.7 and 7.7 on rock or stiff soil sites. The influence of response parameters, such as yield level
and hardening coefficient , were taken into account. For 5 percent damping, Krawinkler and
Nassar equation for ductility factor is given by Eq 2.10 and 2.11. The regression parameters a
and b are obtained for different strain-hardening ratios (see in Table 2.1).
R

1 /c

= [c(1)+1]

(1.10)

Where
Ta
b
C (T, a) = 1+T b + T

(1.11)

Table 2.1 Model Parameter Constants

Hardening Values
0%
2%
10%

The relationships between

Regression Parameters
a=1
b= 0.42
a=1
b= 0.37
a=1
b= .29

, and T for displacement ductility ratios of 2, 4, and 6 are

presented in Fig.2.2 for a strain-hardening ratio of 10 percent. Krawinkler and Nassar concluded
that the strength demands for SDOF systems must generally be increased to be applicable for
MDOF frame structures. The modification factor, defined as the required base shear strength of
the MDOF system divided by the inelastic strength demand of the corresponding first-mode
SDOF system, limits the story ductility ratio in the MDOF system to the target ductility ratio.

20

Fig.2.2 Krawinkler and Nassar

- - T Relationship

Modification factors for target ductility ratios of four and eight, and strain hardening ratios of
percent and 10 percent are presented in Fig.2.4. For buildings with fundamental periods less than
0.75 second, the base shear demand on the MDOF system is approximately equal to the
corresponding SDOF system strength demand, suggesting that higher-mode effects need not be
considered in this period range. For buildings with fundamental periods exceeding 0.75 second,
higher-mode effects will necessitate an increase in the design lateral strength if target ductility
ratios are to be satisfied.

Fig.2.3 MDOF Modification Factors

21

Miranda and Bertero (1994)

Miranda and Bertero (1994) Introduced equation for ductility reduction factor that obtained
from a study of 124 ground motions recorded on a wide range of soil conditions. The soil
conditions were classified as rock, alluvium and very soft sites characterized by low shear wave
velocity. A 5% of critical damping was assumed. The expressions for R are given for for rock,
alluvial and soft soil sites.

. (1.12)
Where is calculated from different equations for rock, alluvium and soft sites as shown below.

For Rock sites:

. (1.13)

For Alluvium sites:

. (1.14)

For Soft soil sites:

. (1.15)
A comparison of the Nassar and Krawinkler and Miranda and Bertero

- - T relationships

for rock and alluvium sites is presented in Figure 4.10. Since the differences between these
relationships are relatively small, they can be ignored for engineering purposes.

22

Fig.2.4 Ductility Factor Comparison

2.3.3 Redundancy Factor
Depends on the number of vertical framing participate in seismic resistance. Structure with high
redundancy can resist more seismic force than structure with less redundancy. Yielding at one
location in the structure does not imply yielding of the structure as a whole. Hence the load
distribution, due to redundancy of the structure, provides additional safety margin. Four lines of
strength and deformation vertical seismic framing in each principal direction of a building have
been recommended as the minimum necessary for adequate redundancy (Bertero, 1986;
Whittaker et aI., 1990). It could be possible to penalize less redundant designs by requiring that
higher design forces be used for such framing systems. For example, if it is assumed that four
lines of strength and deformation-compatible vertical seismic framing should form the basis of
the response reduction factors in the UBC and NEHRP Provisions, redundancy could be
explicitly accounted for by modifying the R factor in a manner similar to that suggested in Table
4.3.
2.3.4 Damping Factor
Damping is the general term often used to characterize energy dissipation in a building frame,
irrespective of whether the energy is dissipated by hysteretic behavior or by viscous damping.
Damping accomplished by hysteretic behavior in a building responding in the elastic range is
generally. The damping factor is intended to account for the influence of supplemental viscous
damping devices on the force and displacement response of buildings.
23

2.4 Force-Displacement Response of Buildings

A typical force-displacement relationship for a building frame is shown in Figure 4.3. This
relationship describes the response of the building frame subjected to monotonically increasing
displacements. For the purposes of design, this nonlinear relationship is often approximated by
an idealized bilinear relationship. Two bilinear approximations are widely used (as per ATC -19)
and these methods are described below. Either of these methods can be used to estimate yield
forces and yield displacements; the two methods will generally produce similar results for most
ductile framing systems.
The first approximation, developed for characterizing the load-displacement relation for
reinforced concrete elements (Pauley and Priestley, 1992), assumes a priori knowledge of the
yield strength (Vy) of the frame. The elastic stiffness is based on the secant stiffness of the frame
calculated from the force-displacement curve at the force corresponding to O.75Vy. The
determination of the elastic stiffness (K) is shown in Figure 4.4a. The second method used to
approximate the force displacement relation of a frame is commonly termed the equal-energy
method. This method assumes that the area enclosed by the curve above the bilinear
approximation is equal to the area enclosed by the curve below the bilinear approximation. This
bilinear approximation is illustrated in Figure 4.4b. According to ATC-19, either of these
methods could be used to estimate yield forces and yield displacements; these two methods
would generally produce similar results for most ductile framing systems.

Fig.2.3 (a) Bi-linearization-Paulay & Priestley

24

Fig.2.3 (a) Bi-linearization-Equal Energy

2.5 Performance Level

The Response reduction factor R mainly depends on the selected performance limit state of the
structure. The Indian standard IS 1893 does not specify the limit state corresponding to which
values of R is recommended in the code. However performance based seismic design (PBSD)
guideline provides clear definitions of multiple performance limit states of various types. For
example ATC-40 [14] or FEMA-356 [15], have provided slightly different definitions of the
performance limit states. The performance limits can be grouped into two categories,
global/structural limits and local/element/component limits. The global limits typically include
requirements for the vertical load capacity, lateral load resistance and lateral drift. For example,
the various performance levels in ATC-40 are specified in terms of the maximum interstorey drift
ratio (Table 4). As per IS 1893-2002, the storey drift in any storey due to minimum design lateral
force, with partial load factor of 1.0, shall not exceed 0.004 times the storey height.
The local performance levels are based on the displacement and rotations of different elements
(beams, columns, shear walls etc.). The limits on the response of structural elements, such as
beams and columns, are many times governed by non-structural and component damages as
well. For example, Table 5 provides the local deformation limits specified by ATC- 40 in terms
of plastic hinge rotations of beam elements in a RC moment resisting frame. So the Response
reduction factor should be evaluated based on ultimate limit state which is based on flexural
failure at both local and global level whichever occurs first.

25

CHAPTER-3
NON LINEAR MODELLING AND PUSH OVER ANALYSIS
__________________________________________________________________
3.1 Non-Linear Modelling of RC members
Non-linear static analysis requires the knowledge of material property, stress-strain model,
plastic hinge property, types of hinges, hinge location, hinge length and moment-curvature
relationship. And also estimation of R values of depends mainly on how well the nonlinear
behaviour of these frames is modelled in analyses. Since R values are estimated on the basis of
nonlinear static pushover analyses, the focus of the modelling scheme employed here is to
capture the nonlinear static behaviour of the RC frame members.
3.1.1 Material Non Linearity
Material nonlinearity is associated with the inelastic behaviour of a component or system.
Inelastic behaviour may be characterized by a force-deformation relationship, also known as a
backbone curve, which measures strength against translational or rotational deformation.
Manders confined and unconfined stress-strain curve model has been used in this study to
account concrete material nonlinearity. The stress-strain curve of reinforcement steel of different
grades is shown in Fig.3.2.

.Fig.3.1 (a) Manders Stress-Strain Curve

Fig.3.1 (b) Stress-Strain Curve of Steel Rebar

26

But practically the expected strength of steel and concrete will be more than charactestic
strength. The Expected strength of steel is about 1.25 characteristic yield stress (fy). Whereas the
expected strength of concrete is equals to target mean strength and it is obtained by Eq.3.1.
f ck ' =f ck +1.65 xS
.3.1
Table 3.1 Assumed Standard Deviation
Grade of Concrete

Assumed Standard Deviation

M10
M15
M20
M25
M30 to M50

3.5
4
5

Monotonic coupon test results shall not be used to determine reinforcement strain limits, because
material will fail at low strains due to cyclic effect. The following Usable Strain Limits shall be
used for pushover analysis recommended by ASCE 41-2013.
Concrete

Steel

Purely Compression Members-0.002

Other Compression Members -0.005

Compressive strain- 0.02

Tensile strain
- 0.05

The stress-strain curves are drawn for expected strengths of steel and concrete as shown in
Fig3.3 for M20 concrete and Fe415 steel. The increase in strength of steel after yield point is
neglected and assumed that stress is constant up to 14.5% strain.
30
20
Stress (Mpa)

26.56
20

10

-5.00E-03

0
0.00E+00
-10

5.00E-03

Strain

27

1.00E-02

Fig.3.2 Manders Stress-Strain Curve of M20 Grade Concrete

600
518.75

518.75

500

492.81
466.87 415
441
400 415 394.25
373.5
332352.75
Stress (Mpa)

415

518.75
415

300

Expected
Strength fy'
200

Characterstic Strength fy

100
0 0
0

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

Strain

Fig.3.3 Stress-Strain Curve of fe 415 Grade Steel

3.1.2 Geometric Nonlinearity
The nonlinear behaviour of the frame depends primarily of the moment rotation behaviour of its
members, which in turn depends on the momentcurvature characteristics of the plastic hinge
section and the length of the plastic hinge. Moment-curvature relationship basically depends
upon stress-strain characteristic of section. Stress-strain model for sections are developed using
Manders model which considers the confinement effect of the (closed) transverse
reinforcements. In 1982, a modified form of Kent and Park model was proposed (Park, Priestley
and Gill 1982). This model makes an allowance for the enhancement in the concrete strength due
to confinement. In actual practice, due to certain reasons such as quality control, the gain in
strength due to hoops may not be always available. This is also observed by many researchers
reported either no gain or little gain in strength due to rectangular hoops. The plastic rotation
capacity (

) in a reinforced concrete member depends on the ultimate curvature (

the yield curvature (

) and

) of the section and the length of the plastic hinge region (Lp). The

following equations are used for calculating plastic rotation capacity.

28

u
p=

y l p

(1-

0.5. LP
LV

. (3.2)
y

= y

LV + a v Z
3

H
+ 0.0013 (1+1.5 LV

) + 0.13

db f y
f C

. (3.3)
u

. (3.4)
Plastic Hinge Length
Various empirical expressions have been proposed by investigators for the equivalent length of
plastic hinge (

lp

).

Mattocks formula (Park and Pauley 1975, Mattock 1967)

l p = 0.5d + 0.05z

. (3.5)

Sawyers formula (Park and Pauley 1975, Sawyer 1964)

lp

= 0.25d + 0.075z

. (3.6)

Pauley-Priestley formula (Pauley and Priestley 1992)

Lv

= 0.08Z + 0.022

db f y

(3.7)
The plastic rotation capacities of frame members of the study structures are computed using
Eq.3.7 by assuming the points of contra-flexure to be at the mid-span of members.

29

Initial Stiffness of RC Members

Appropriate modelling of the initial stiffness of RC beams and columns is one of the important
aspects in the performance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames. The initial stiffness of
members significantly affects the yield displacement of a frame structure. Consequently, the
displacement ductility is also greatly affected by the initial stiffness of members adopted in the
nonlinear static analysis. The stiffness of a reinforced concrete section depends on various
parameters like its material properties, reinforcement quantities, and induced stress and
deformation levels, effect of aggregate interlock, dowel action of reinforcement bars, tension
stiffening, etc. The exact estimation of initial stiffness of each individual member incorporating
all of these effects becomes impractical due to the complexity involved in modelling and the
increased demand on computation. Considering this, it is suggested in both ATC-40 and FEMA356 to use the following values for initial stiffness of RC members.
Beams

Non Prestressed - 0.3 Ec I g

Prestressed

Columns
Pu
0.5

- 1.0 Ec I g

Pu

Agfc
0.1

- 0.7
Agfc

Ec I g
- 0.3

Ec I g

3.2 Nonlinear Hinge Properties

In SAP 2000 one may insert plastic hinges at any number of locations along the clear length of
any frame element either by User defined hinges or Default hinges.
Default Hinges
When default hinge properties are used (to avoid an extensive amount of work), the program
combines its built in default criteria with the defined section properties for each element. The
built in default hinge properties are typically based on average values from ATC 40 / FEMA
356 for concrete and steel members. As shown in Figure 2, five points labeled A, B, C, D, and E
define force-deformation behavior of a plastic hinge. The value of these points obtained from
moment curvature relationship of element depends on the type of geometry, material property,
longitudinal reinforcement, shear reinforcement and loads subjected to particular member.
Different performance levels of buildings and their rotation capacity as per ATC-40 are given in
Table.
30

Fig.3.4 Force-Deformation Relationship of a Typical Plastic Hinge

Point A is always the origin.

Point B represents yielding. No deformation occurs in the hinge up to point B, regardless
of the deformation value specified for point B. The rotation at point B will be subtracted
from the deformations at points C, D, and E. Only the plastic deformation beyond point B

will be exhibited by the hinge.

Point C represents the ultimate capacity for pushover analysis. However, you may specify

a positive slope from C to D for other purposes.

Point D represents a residual strength for pushover analysis. However, you may specify a

positive slope from C to D or D to E for other purposes.

Point E represents total failure.
Table 3.2 Performance Levels of Buildings as per ATC-40
Performance Level

Description

Operational

Very light damage, no permanent drift, structure retains original

Immediate

strength and stiffness, all systems are normal.

Light damage, no permanent drift, structure retains original

Occupancy

strength and stiffness, elevator can be restarted, Fire protection

Life Safety

operable
Moderate damage, some permanent drift, some residual
strength and stiffness left in all stories, damage to partition,

Collapse

building may be beyond economical repair

Severe damage, large displacement, little residual stiffness and
31

Prevention

strength but loading bearing column and wall function, building

is near collapse

Table 3.3 Rotation Capacity for Different Performance Levels-FEMA-356

State of Damage

Chord Rotation Capacity

Immediate Occupancy (IO)

+ 10% of (

u y

Life Safety (LS)

+ 60% of (

u y

Collapse Prevention (CP)

+ 90% of (

u y

Table 3.4 Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Procedures-RCC Beams-FEMA- 356

Beam Controlled by Flexure

bd

Transverse
Reinforcemen

Immediate

Life

Structural

Occupanc

Safety

Stability

y
V
bw bd f ,c Plastic Rotation Limit

t
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5

C
C
C
NC
NC
NC

3
6
3
3
6
3

0.01
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.0015
0.005

32

0.020
0.010
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.01

0.025
0.020
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01

Table 3.5 Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Procedures-RCC Columns-FEMA- 356

Life Safety

Immediate

Collapse

Occupanc

Prevention

y
P
A g f ,c

Transverse
Reinforcemen

V
bw bd f ,c

Plastic Rotation Limit

t
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.4

C
C
C
NC
NC
NC

3
6
3
3
6
3

0.005
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.002

0.015
0.012
0.012
0.005
0.004
0.002

0.020
0.016
0.015
0.006
0.005
0.003

User Defined Hinges

The definition of user-defined hinge properties requires momentcurvature analysis of beam and
column elements which can be developed by Manders model. Similarly load deformation curve
is used for strut element. For the problem defined, building deformation is assumed to take place
only due to moment under the action of laterally applied earthquake loads. Thus user-defined M3
and V3 hinges for beams, PM3, PM2 and PM2M3 hinges for columns and P hinges for struts are
assigned. The calculated moment-curvature values for beam (M3 and V3), column (PM, PM2
and PM2M3), and load deformation curve values for strut (P) are substituted instead of default
hinge values in SAP2000.
3.3 Pushover Analysis
33

It is believed that the conventional elastic design analysis method cannot capture many important
aspects that affect the seismic performance of the building. The ability of a building to undergo
inelastic deformations determines the structural behavior of building during seismic ground
motions. Nonlinear dynamic analysis is a principally convenient approach, but it is very complex
and not practical for every design. From the practical point of view, this method is not suitable
for every design use, and for the time being it is mostly appropriate for research and design of
important structure.
To estimate seismic demands for a building, the structural engineering profession is now using
the non-linear static procedure, known as pushover analysis. It is a commonly used technique,
which provides acceptable results. The term static implies that static analysis is applied to
represent a dynamic phenomenon. Pushover analysis is defined as an analysis wherein a
mathematical model directly incorporating the nonlinear load-deformation characteristics of
individual components and elements of the building shall be subjected to monotonically
increasing lateral loads representing inertia forces in an earthquake until a target displacement
is exceeded. Target displacement is the maximum displacement (elastic plus inelastic) of the
building at roof expected under selected earthquake ground motion. The analysis accounts for
material inelasticity, geometrical nonlinearity and the redistribution of internal forces.
3.2.3

Lateral Load Profile

The analysis results are sensitive to the selection of lateral load pattern. In pushover analysis
selecting lateral load pattern, a set of guidelines as per FEMA 356 is explained in Section 2.5.2.
The lateral load generally applied in both positive and negative directions in combination with
gravity load (dead load and a portion of live load) to study the actual behavior. Different types of
lateral load used in past decades are as follows. Loading pattern should produce a deflected
shape in the structure similar to that it would undergo in earthquake response.
1. Uniform Lateral Load Pattern
The lateral fore at any story is proportional to the mass at that story. Approximates first mode
response of structure with very soft stories or postyield response of structrues with weak first
storey.

34

Wx
Fx

Wi

VB

i=1

. (3.6)
2. First Elastic Mode Lateral Load Pattern
The lateral force at any story is proportional to the product of the amplitude of the elastic first
mode and mass at that story. First mode response obtained from a modal analysis.
mi i
Fx

mi i

VB

i=1

. (3.7)

3. Inverse Triangular
Approximates first mode response shape of regular structures.
W x hx
Fx

wi hi

VB

i=1

. (3.8)
4. Code Lateral Load Pattern
As per IS1893-2002 (Part-1), the lateral load distribution along the height is given by
W x h x2
Fx

= wi hi2

VB

i=1

(3.9)
R factors are used in current building codes to estimate strength demands for structural systems
designed using linear methods but responding in nonlinear manner. Their values are vital in the
specification of design seismic loading. R factors were originally based on judgment and
qualitative comparisons with known response of some of the framing systems. Now it has come
a long way by actually quantifying it using nonlinear analysis tools and peak ground and spectral
parameters.
35

The values of response reduction factor of RC elevated water tank are given in IS 1893 (Part-II)
2002, which is arrived at empirically based on engineering judgment. The components of R can
be determined in several ways, each dependent on the performance level under consideration. In
this report, only the life-safety performance level is considered explicitly.

CHAPTER-4
RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR EVALUATION
__________________________________________________________________3
4.1 General
The structural systems considered in this research is a typical symmetric-in-plan RC frame
structures having four bay configurations, intended for office purpose. It is assumed that infill
walls are located only at external faces and infill walls contain large openings. This assumption
is to avoid the effect of infill walls on R factor. Totally six models of building (Two storey, Three
storey, Five storey, eight storey and Twelve Storey buildings) are considered which covers short,
medium and long time period ranges of Indian Response Spectrum. All considered building
models are assumed to locate on medium soil. To consider the effect of zone the buildings are
considered to locate at zone III and zone IV. The seismic demands on these buildings are
calculated following IS 1893. The RC design of these buildings are based on IS 456 for Ordinary
Moment Resisting Frame and based on IS 456 and IS 13920 for Special Moment Resisting
Frame.

36

Fig.4.1 Response Spectra of Medium Soil IS 1893-2002

Since the considered buildings have only external infill walls and also contains large opening
areas, the time period of is calculated by eq. which does not consider infill walls effect. Table 3.5
shows the details of buildings which are common to all buildings considered in this study. The
design and pushover analysis of building is done by Sap 2000.
T a=0.075 h0.75
.4.1
Table 4.1 Common Details of Buildings
Materials

Dimensions

Concrete-M20 (Two and Three storey), M25(Five storey) and

M30(Eight and Twelve storey)
Steel
-Fe 415
Slab and Wall
Slab

-175mm thick

External Wall -230mm thick

Parapet Wall -1m height
-230mm thick
Loads

Dead

Super Dead

Concrete-25kN/m3

Floor Finish

Masonry-20kN/m3

Roof Treatment -1.5kN/m2

37

-1kN/m2

Live Load
Floor -4kN/m2
Roof -1.5kN/m2

Seismic

OMRF Frame (R=3) and SMRF (R=5), I=1.0 and Soil-Medium

Details

Zone III and Zone IV

Nonlinear static pushover analyses (NSPA) of the two storey, three storey and five storey
buildings study frames are performed to estimate their overstrength and global ductility capacity,
which are required for computing R for each frame. The equivalent lateral force distribution
adopted for this pushover analysis is as suggested in IS 1893. Manders confined and unconfined
concrete model has been used for SMRF and OMRF respectively.
W x hx2
Fx

= w i hi 2

VB

i=1

.4.2
As mentioned earlier in literature review, two performance limits are considered in the
computation of R for the study frames. The first one (Performance Limit 1) corresponds to the
Structural Stability limit state defined in FEMA-356. This limit state is defined both at the storey
level (in terms of the maximum interstorey drift ratio) and at the member level (in terms of the
allowable plastic hinge rotation at member ends). The second limit state (Performance Limit 2) is
based on plastic hinge rotation capacities that are obtained for each individual member
depending on its cross-section geometry.
4.2 Response Reduction Factor Evaluation
In this present section two storey, three storey and five storey buildings are designed by
Equivalent Static Method as these buildings are regular and buildings are assumed to locate in
zone III. After designing of the buildings nonlinear hinge properties of beams and columns are
calculated by using Manders model from the SAP 2000 and given as input to the SAP. A
nonlinear gravity dead load case D.L+0.5L.L (50% Live Load because Floor Live Load=4
kN/mm2 >3kNn/mm2) is given before running pushover analysis. Since there is no perfect yield
point in the base shear curve, FEMA-356 Coefficient Method is used to find yield displacement
and yield force. The maximum displacement of the building is limited by Collapse Prevention
Level and Maximum Drift Ratio. That ultimate displacement of the building is taken as
38

displacement at which any member reaches collapse prevention level or building reaches
maximum drift ratio whichever occurs first.
Firstly, the building is analyzed as Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame by assuming R=3. After
that building is designed as per IS 456-200 and R factor is calculated. Secondly, for the same
analysis the building is designed as per ductile detailing IS 13920 to find the effect of ductility.
For the Special Moment Resisting Frame the nonlinear hinge properties are calculated by using
Manders Confined Concrete Model as the joints region are confined in case of ductile detailing.
From the literature review, it is observed that buildings designed as IS 13920 ductile detailing
safe in shear and members fail by flexure before shear failure. Whereas in case of OMRF
buildings designed as per IS 456 may fail in shear before flexural failure. So in case of SMRF
buildings, beams and columns are modelled by flexural nonlinear hinges only and in case of
OMRF buildings, beams and columns are modelled by nonlinear shear hinges also. The building
configuration, reinforcement details, pushover curve and Response Reduction Factor are
presented in the following section.
a. Two Storey Building

Fig 4.2 (a) Plan

39

Fig 4.2 (b) Elevation of Frame C-C

Fig 4.2 (c) Elevation of Frame A-A

40

The details of the building are given below. The reinforcement of all interior frames is kept same
and reinforcement details are shown in Fig.4.2.
Details of Building

Concre-M20 and Steel-Fe415

Coulumn-450x400, Floor Beam-300x400 and Plinth Beam-300x350
Time Period T=0.406sec
Seismic Weight W=12965kN
Base Shear V b =865kN

Fig 4.2 (d) Reinforcement Details of Frame A-A

Fig 4.2 (e) Reinforcement Details of Frame B-B

41

Fig 4.2 (f) Reinforcement Details of Frame C-C

Fig 4.2 (g) Reinforcement Details of Frame D-D

The pushover curve camparision of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame and Special Moment
Resisting Frame is shown in Fig.3.4.a. From the figure it is clear base shear capacity of SMRF is
slightly greater than OMRF and ductilitycapacity os more higher for SMRF. The yield
displacement and base shear capacity is obtained from FEMA 356 Coeeficient Method (see in
Fig.4.3.b and Fig.4.3.c)

42

Fig.4.3 (a) Pushover Curve of Two Storey Building

Fig.4.3 (b) BIlinearisation of Pushover Curve as per FEMA 356 -OMRF

From the Push over curve (see Fig.4.3 (b))
y

Yield Displacement

Ultimate Load

Ultimate Displacement

Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

Vu

=0.0446m

= 2042 kN

Vd

=0.0984m

=865 kN

) = 2.20

43

Ductility Factor (

Over Strength Factor (

Response Reduction Factor (R) =4.34

) = 1.84
Rs

) = 2.36

Fig.4.3 (c) BIlinearisation of Pushover Curve as per FEMA 356-SMRF

From the Push over curve (see Fig.4.3 (c))
y

Yield Displacement

Ultimate Load

Ultimate Displacement

Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

Ductility Factor (

Over Strength Factor (

Response Reduction Factor (R) =6.45

Vu

=0.0494m

= 2145 kN
m

Vd

=0.191m

=865 kN

) = 3.86

) = 2.6
Rs

) = 2.48

b. Three Storey Building

44

Fig 4.4 (a) Plan

Fig 4.4 (b) Elevation

45

Fig 4.4 (c) Reinforcement Details of Exterior Frame

Fig 4.4 (d) Reinforcement Details of Interior Frame

46

Details of Building

Concre-M20 and Steel-Fe415

Coulumn-450x450, Floor Beam-300x500 and Plinth Beam-300x400
Time Period T=0.528sec
Seismic Weight W=22400kN
Base Shear V b =1521kN

Fig.4.5 (a) Pushover Curve of Three Storey Building

Fig.4.5 (b) BIlinearisation of Pushover Curve as per FEMA 356 -OMRF

From the Push over curve (see Fig.4.5 (b))
47

Yield Displacement

Ultimate Load

Ultimate Displacement

Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

Ductility Factor (

Over Strength Factor (

Response Reduction Factor (R) =4.28

Vu

=0.0628m

= 3408 kN
m

Vd

=0.146m

=1521 kN

) = 2.32

) = 1.91
Rs

) = 2.24

Fig.4.5 (c) BIlinearisation of Pushover Curve as per FEMA 356 -SMRF

From the Push over curve (see Fig.4.5 (c))
y

Yield Displacement

Ultimate Load

Ultimate Displacement

Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

Ductility Factor (

Vu

=0.0659m

= 1521 kN
m

Vd

=0.265m

=3529 kN

) = 4.02
) = 2.65
48

Rs

Over Strength Factor (

Response Reduction Factor (R) =6.15

) = 2.32

c. FIVE Storey Building

49

50

Fig 4.6 (a) Plan

Fig 4.6 (b) Elevation

Details of Building

Concre-M25 and Steel-Fe415

Coulumn-500x500, Floor Beam-300x500 and Plinth Beam-300x400
Time Period T=0.787 sec
Seismic Weight W=37450kN
Base Shear V b =1725kN

Fig 4.6 (c) Reinforcement Details of Exterior Frame

51

Fig 4.6 (d) Reinforcement Details of Interior Frame

Fig.4.7 (a) Pushover Curve of Five Storey Building

52

Fig.4.7 (b) BIlinearisation of Pushover Curve as per FEMA 356-OMRF

From the Push over curve (see Fig.4.7(b))
y

Yield Displacement

Yield Load

Ultimate Displacement

Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

Ductility Factor (

Over Strength Factor (

Response Reduction Factor (R) =4.53

Vu

=0.107m

= 3679 kN
m

Vd

=0.295m

=1725 kN

) = 2.76

) = 2.12
Rs

) = 2.13

53

Fig.4.7(c) BIlinearisation of Pushover Curve as per FEMA 356-OMRF

From the Push over curve (see Fig.4.7(c))
y

Yield Displacement

Yield Load

Ultimate Displacement

Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

Ductility Factor (

Over Strength Factor (

Response Reduction Factor (R) =5.89

Vu

=0.108m

= 3749 kN
m

Vd

=0.450m

=1725 kN

) = 4.16

) = 2.71
Rs

) = 2.173

Table 4.2 Summary of R Factor and its Components

Building Type

Two Storey

Over Strength Factor

R
( s

Ductility Factor
R
( )

OMRF

SMRF

OMRF

SMRF

2.36

2.48

1.84

2.6

54

Response
Reduction Factor
(R)
OMRF
SMRF
4.34

6.45

Three Storey

2.24

2.32

1.91

2.65

4.28

6.15

Five Storey

2.13

2.17

2.12

2.71

4.53

5.89

4.3 Summary and Conclusion

The R factor and its components of three considered buildings are shown in Table 4.5. From the
above results the following conclusions are drawn.
1. The over strength factor (

Rs

is decreasing as the number stories increases. This is

because gravity loads are predominant in case of low rise buildings.

Fig.4.8 Variation of R factor and its Components-SMRF

2. The ductility factor (

) is increasing as the number of stories increases, because high

rise buildings can deform large displacements wihout failing due to high ductilty.

55

Fig.4.9 Variation of R factor and its Components-OMRF

3. Among the two factors (

Rs

and

), the ductility factor is more increasing from

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame to Special Moment Resisting Frame (see in Table
4.2). This is because of increasing ductility capacity in case of SMRF due to confinement
of joints.

4.4 Works to be done

Finding of R factor of
1. Eight storey and twelve storey buildings located in zone III.
2. Two, Three, Five, Eight and twelve storey buildings located in zone IV.
3. Finding effect of ductility class (OMRF and SMRF) and zone on R factor.

56

REFERENCES
__________________________________________________________________
1. Applied Technology Council (ATC). 1995a. Structural response modification factors.
Rep. No. ATC-19, Redwood City, California.
2. Applied Technology Council (ATC). 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings. Rep. No. ATC-40, Redwood City, California.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2000. Prestandard and commentary on
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Rep. No. FEMA-356, Washington, D.C.
4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2005. Minimum design loads for
buildings and other structures. Rep. No. ASCE-07, Reston (USA).
5. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 2000. Indian standard code of practice for plain and
reinforced concrete. Rep. No. IS-456, New Delhi, India.
6. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 2002. Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures. Rep. No. IS-1893, Part-1, New Delhi, India.
7. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures
for earthquake resistance-Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
Rep. No. EN 1998-1, Brussels, Belgium.

57

8. Hayri, B.O., and Mehmet, I. (2008). Evaluation of strength reduction factor for existing
mid-rise buildings. Proc., 14th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Beijing, China, 165174.
9. Jain, S. K., and Rahul, N. (1995). Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames.
J. Struct. Eng., 121 (3), 580-585.
10. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). "Observed stress-strain behavior
of confined concrete." J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 114(8), 1827-1849.
11. Miranda, E., and Bertero, V. V. (1994). Evaluation of strength reduction factors for
earthquake resistant design. Earthquake Spectra, 10(2), 357-379.
12. Mondal, A., Ghosh, S., and Reddy, G. (2013). Performance based evaluation of the
response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. J. Struct. Eng., 56, 1808-1819.
13. Maheri, M.R., and Akbari, R. (2013). Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced and
knee-braced RC buildings. J. Struct. Eng., 25 (15), 15051513.
14. Samar, A. B., Abdallah, I. H., and Anis, S. A. (2012). A step towards evaluation of the
seismic response reduction factor in multistorey reinforced concrete frames. Natural
Hazards, 16 (1), 6580.
15. Standards Association of New Zealand (NZS). 1992. "Code of practice for general
structural design and design loadings for buildings." Rep. No. NZS 4203, Wellington,
New Zealand.
16. Vishva, K. S., and Jignesh, A. A. (2015). Effects of soil condition on response reduction
factor of elevated rcc water tank., International Journal of Advance Engineering and
Research Development., 2 (6), 33-67.
17. Whittaker, A., Hart, G., and Rojahn, C. (1999). Seismic response modification factors.
J. Struct. Eng., 125(4), 438-444.

58

ANNEXURE I
Load Calculations and R factor Calculations of Five Storey Building
Seismic Weight Calculations
Dead Load

= 8814kN

Dead Slab

= 16056kN

Wall Load

= 7970kN

Live Load

= 0.5x9216 = 4608kN

Roof Live

= 0x864 =0

Seismic Weight

= 8814+16056+ 7970+4608+0 =37450kN

Base Shear Calculation

Time Period-

TX

TY

= 0.075x h

0.75

=0.787 sec

Sa/g for medium soil =1.36/T = 1.36/0.787 =1.726

zI Sa
Base shear = 2Rg

0.1611.726
W=
23

37450 = 1725kN

R factor Calculations
OMRF

59

From pushover curve (see Fig.4.7.b)

y

Yield Displacement
Ultimate Load

=0.107m

Vu

= 3679 kN
m

Ultimate Displacement
Vd

Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

=1725kN

Ductility Factor (

y
m

2 1 = 2 x 2.761 =2.12

Rs

Over Strength Factor (

=0.295m

) =

Vu
Vd

0.295
0.107

= 2.76

3679
1725

=2.13

Response Reduction Factor (R) = 2.12x2.13=4.53

SMRF
From pushover curve (see Fig.4.7.c)
y

Yield Displacement
Ultimate Load

Vu

= 3749 kN
m

Ultimate Displacement
Design Base Shear

Ductility Ratio (

Ductility Factor (

=0.108m

=0.450m

Vd

=1725kN

y
m

2 1 = 2 x 2.761 =2.71

0. 450
0.108

= 4.16

60

Over Strength Factor (

Rs

) =

Vu
Vd

3749
1725

Response Reduction Factor (R) = 2.71x2.173=5.89

61

=2.173