Ductile design and detailing

– Its importance and cost implications

Presented by:
C.A. Prasad, Director, METEY Engineering and Consultancy pvt. ltd.
Pavan Patchigolla, Structural engineer, METEY Engineering and Consultancy pvt. Ltd.
Some failures

Failure of column in
shear.
Bhuj earthquake, 2001

Improper confinement of
longitudinal
reinforcement led to
shear failure of column
during earthquake.
Some failures

Failure of column.

Inelastic deformation of
column due to lack of
confinement.
Some failures

Bridge failure
The great hansin
earthquake, kobe, 1995.

The reasons were

identified as insufficient
prematurely terminated
longitudinal
reinforcement (bond) and
inadequate hoop
reinforcement (shear)
and for large intensity
of shaking.
Some failures

Short column failure

Armenian earthquake,
1999

Failure of column due to

captive effect
Some failures

OPEN GROUND STOREY

Bhuj earthquake, 2001

Upper storeys stiffened

by brick masonry infill
and less stiffer ground
floor.
Failure of columns
because of poor energy
dissipation capacity
Some failures

Failure of brick masonry

nepal earthquake, 2015

Diagonal tension failure of brick masonry

Some failures

Failure of building
turkey earthquake, 1999

Failure of building due to weak

column – strong beam
Some failures

Failure of building
Simav earthquake, 2011

Failure of building due to weak

column – strong beam
Learning from past earthquakes

“ Observations of building responses in actual earthquakes indicated

that lack of strength did not always result in failure provided that
the structural strength could be maintained without excessive
degradation as inelastic deformations developed (DUCTILE
RESPOSNE), the structures would survive earthquake”

-T. Paulay and M.J.N Priestley

Based on the above statement, an attempt is made to bring out the importance of ductility of the buildings
during earthquakes.
Design philosophies

• Utter failure of strength design philosophies during earthquake.

• Essentiality of adopting capacity designs to safeguard buildings.

• Strength design:

Ultimate strength of structural members assuming a failure condition,

whether due to crushing of concrete or due to yielding of steel

• Capacity design:

Designing the elements suitably for energy dissipation under severe

imposed inelastic deformations.

Certain locations for energy dissipation are chosen and are designed for
inelastic flexural strength and shear failure is inhibited by a suitable strength
differential Capacity design philosophy
Capacity design

• We accept high risks of damage to the structure than • It is observed that the lack of strength against the
for other extreme loads. actual earthquake forces will not always result in
failure provided that the structural strength is
• Codes suggest methodology to calculate the design
maintained without excessive degradation with
earthquake forces which are far lesser compared to the
increase of inelastic deformation.
actual forces happen at site
• This inelastic response has emerged as an important
• Designers usually design the structure for design
element or factor for seismic design.
strength of materials which are perhaps 15% - 20%
lesser than that of the elastic strength • Observations states that all inelastic modes of
deformation are not equally viable while some leads
• This philosophy expects the structure to survive an
to failure, some leads to perform well because of
earthquake by large inelastic deformation and energy
ductility
dissipation corresponding to material distress
Capacity design

• Inelastic deformation should never lead to the brittle Capacity design sequence is as follows:

failure of buildings/elements 1. Beam flexure design:

• Required strengths of undesirable modes of inelastic 2. Beam shear design: (Shear demand as per IS 13920:2016)

deformations are to be amplified 3. Column flexural design:

• Provided shear strength differential must exceed the 4. Column transverse reinforcement design: (Shear demand
as per IS 13920:2016)
actual flexural strength to ensure that inelastic shear
5. Strength of elements at beam column joint
deformation cannot happen
6. Beam – Column joint design:
• Bond failure impending to brittle failure of elements
Codes suggest various formulae which when followed
needs to be avoided
inhibits the undesirable inelastic modes of deformation
(Shear and Bond).
The requirements of this section shall be met within unless a larger
amount of transverse reinforcement is required from shear strength
considerations.

Cl.8, page no.11, is 13920:2016

 Beam detailing (Ordinary and Ductile)
Ordinary detailing (IS 456:2000) Ductile detailing (IS 13920:2016)
Comparative clauses of
Aspect Description
Response reduction
Clause Detail Clause Detail
detailing a beam (Ordinary
factor (as per IS
1893:2016)
Axial stress limit 43.2
R=3

≤ 0.2fck 6.1
R=5

≤ 0.08fck
and Ductile)
Width - Depth ratio -- Not available 6.1.1 ≤ 0.3
Minimum Width -- Not available 6.1.2 200 mm
25 % of Clear span (design of deep
Minimum Depth -- Design of deep beams are allowed 6.1.3
beams not allowed)
Flexural reinforcement
26.5.1.1 (a) 85/fy (in%) 6.2.1 0.24 * (fck)0.5/fy (in%)
(Min.)
Flexural reinforcement
26.5.1.1 (b) 4.00% 6.2.2 2.50%
(Max.)
Flexural reinforcement 6.2.3 and
-- Not available Yes, Available
(overriding clauses) 6.2.4
Development length + (10 Times Bar
Bond (Anchorage) 26.2.1 Development length only 6.2.5
dia.)
Lap splices (location) Shall not be provided with in joint
Splices shall be provided as far as
26.2.5 from the sections of maximum stress Within distance of 2d from face of
and be staggered the column
6.2.6.1
When bars are spliced at maximum
Within quarter length of beam
26.2.5.1 stressed points such as increasing lap
adjoining plastic hinge
and closer spacing of stirrups

Transverse -- No clause specifying min. diameter 6.3.2 Min. diameter of link is 8 mm

reinforcement (Min. Min. shear reinforcement ≥
Link dia and spacing) 26.5.1.6 6.3.5 (a) Min. Link spacing ≤ d/4
(0.4*b)/(0.87*Fy)

Max. Spacing shall be restricted 8 times diameter of the smallest

26.5.1.5 6.3.5 (b)
0.75*d and 300 mm. longitudinal bar
6.3.5 (c) 100mm
Transverse
Closer spacing of stirrups shall be Closely spacing over a length 2d on
reinforcement (closer 26.2.5.1 6.3.5.2
provided over lap splices either side of plastic hinge location
spacing)
 Aspect Description
Column detailing (Ordinary and Ductile)
Ordinary detailing (IS 456:2000) Ductile detailing (IS 13920:2016) Comparative clauses of
detailing a column (Ordinary
Clause Detail Clause Detail
Response reduction factor
R=3 R=5
(as per IS 1893:2016)
Axial stress limit 43.2 ≥ 0.2fck 7.1 > 0.08Fck and Ductile)
Aspect ratio -- No specific clauses 7.1.2 (Min./Max.) Dimension ≥ 0.45
20 times max. diameter of bar in the
-- No specific clauses 7.1.1 (a)
Minimum Dimensions beam anchoring in to column at joint
-- No specific clauses 7.1.1 (b) 300mm

Long. reinforcement (Min.) 26.5.3.1 0.80% -- No specific clauses

Long. reinforcement (Max.) 26.5.3.1 6% (But limited to 4%) -- No specific clauses

Lap splices (location) 7.3.2.1 © Shall be provided only in central zone

SP-34, Fig
Lap splice shall be provided at 75mm
7.9A - 7.9 Shall not be provided in joint
above floor level. But shall not be
E and IS
provided in the locations where stress can
456:2000, Shall not be provided withina distance of
be maximum
cl.26.2.5 2d from the face of beam

Transverse reinforcement
(Min. Link dia and spacing)
26.5.3.2 Diameter shall not be less than 1/4th of Min dia. Is 8mm/10mm depending on
7.4.2 (a)
(c,2) largest longitudinal bar dia. diameter of main bar
Max. spacing shall be limited to 300mm
Spacing shall not be less than the
7.4.2 (b, d) or half of the least lateral dimension of
following:
column

26.5.3.2 Least lateral dimension of compression Min spacing shall be less than 1/4th of
(c,2) 8.1 (b) (1)
members min. dimension of the column

16 times the smallest dia of long. Bar Min. spacing shall be less than 6 times
8.1 (b) (2)
300mm the diameter of smallest main bar

8.1 (b) (3) Min spacing shall be 100mm

Yes. To be provided when exceeds Yes. To be provided when exceeds
Cross tie limit 7.4.2 ©
300mm 300mm
Transverse reinforcement Shall be provided in locations of flexural
-- No specific clauses 8.1 (a)
(closer spacing) yielding only and over lap splices
Ordinary Vs Ductile detailing

Pictures depicting ordinary detailing

Case study

A plan has been taken up to demonstrate the cost difference between the ordinary and ductile
detailing
Case study
Building parameter Dimension
Maximum dimension of Building 58.8 m

Minimum dimension of Building 26.2 m

Height of the building 18 m

Total no.of dwelling units 30

Stilt/Car parking Yes

Overall Builtup area 58690 sft

Grade of concrete M25

Grade of steel used Fy500 D

SBC Assumed 20 t/m2

Assumption
Earthquake analysis is done for zone -3 and assumption of ordinary
moment resisting frame.
Consumption charts

Concrete consumption chart Steel consumption chart

35 45

40
30

35
25
30

20 25

42
15 20
28 29 28 35
15
10
10
18
5 11
5

2 1 2 2 1
0 0

Foundations Columns Beams Slabs Staircases Miscellaneous Foundations Columns Beams Slabs Staircases Miscellaneous
Consumption charts
Cost consumption chart
2 1

Foundations

16 24
• Cost of Slabs, Staircases and
Columns foundations – Unaffected by clauses
• Cost of foundations – Effected by
Beams
Response reduction factor for OMRF
and SMRF (40%)
• Cost of beams and columns – 50 –
Slabs 60% of total cost of project

Staircases

35
Miscellaneous
22
Quantity comparison (Ordinary Vs Ductile)
Beam (Sample -1) Beam (Sample -2)

Beam (3.65 X 0.23 X 0.45) Beam (3 X 0.23 X 0.45)

Detailing type Steel (in Kgs.) Detailing type Steel (in Kgs.)
Concrete (Cum) Concrete (Cum)
Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse

Ordinary 0.37 87 18 Ordinary 0.37 56 18

Ductile 0.37 53 33 Ductile 0.37 43 33

Conclusion: Concrete consumption being the same, the steel requirement Conclusion: Concrete and steel matches as the flexural demand on the member
reduces by about 18% in ductile detailing is minimum
Quantity comparison (Ordinary Vs Ductile)
Column (Sample -1) Column (Sample -2)

Column (3.0 X 0.23 X 0.45 - OD); 3.0 X 0.3 X 0.45 - Column (3.0 X 0.23 X 0.6 - OD); 3.0 X 0.3 X 0.6 - DD)
DD)
Detailing type Steel (in Kgs.) Detailing type Steel (in Kgs.)
Concrete (Cum) Concrete (Cum)
Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse

Ordinary 0.31 87 7 Ordinary 0.41 35 9

Ductile 0.41 44 11 Ductile 0.54 45 13

Conclusion: Concrete consumption of column is 30% more in ductile Conclusion: Concrete consumption of column is 30% more in ductile detailing,
detailing, the steel requirement reduces by about 40% in ductile detailing the steel requirement increases by about 30% in ductile detailing
Cost comparison (Ordinary Vs Ductile)
Ordinary Detailing (R=3) Ductile Detailing (R=5)
Comparison
Quantity Cost (in lakhs) Quantity Cost (in lakhs)
Footings
Concrete Cum 720 32.4 540 24.3
Steel MT 22 13.2 17 10.2
Shuttering Sqm 1067 2.13 907 1.81
Column
Concrete Cum 256 11.52 333 14.99
Steel MT 123 73.8 95 57
Shuttering Sqm 3294 6.59 4282 8.56
Beams
Concrete Cum 737 33.17 737 33.17
Steel MT 177 106.2 172 103.2
Shuttering Sqm 8030 16.06 8030 16.06
Slab
Concrete Cum 990 44.55 990 44.55
Steel MT 26 15.6 26 15.6
Shuttering Sqm 7920 15.84 7920 15.84
Staircases
Concrete Cum 23.64 1.06 23.64 1.06
Steel MT 2.3 1.38 2.3 1.38
Shuttering Sqm 130 0.26 130 0.26
373.76 347.98
Conclusions

• Inelastic shear deformation which leads to collapse shall be avoided by providing the suitable
strength differential
• Ductile design or capacity design is a necessity to be practiced to avoid any collapse of buildings.
• Ductile design and detailing costs more than the ordinary detailing which is a misnomer (if
earthquake analysis is made to the building).
• Overall cost of buildings followed with ductile detailing is about 7% lesser compared to ordinary
detailing (for case study taken up)