THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/tal.204

OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS OF

MULTISTOREY REINFORCED-CONCRETE BUILDINGS

A. S. ELNASHAI1* AND A. M. MWAFY2

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
2
Civil Engineering Department, University of Zagazig, Egypt

SUMMARY
This paper addresses the issue of horizontal overstrength in modern code-designed reinforced-concrete (RC)
buildings. The relationship between the lateral capacity, the design force reduction factor, the ductility level and
the overstrength factor are investigated. The lateral capacity and the overstrength factor are estimated by means of
inelastic static pushover as well as time-history collapse analysis for 12 buildings of various characteristics
representing a wide range of contemporary RC buildings. The importance of employing the elongated periods of
structures to obtain the design forces is emphasized. Predicting this period from free vibration analysis by
employing ‘effective’ flexural stiffnesses is investigated. A direct relationship between the force reduction factor
used in design and the lateral capacity of structures is confirmed in this study. Moreover, conservative
overstrength of medium and low period RC buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 is proposed. Finally, the
implication of the force reduction factor on the commonly utilized overstrength definition is highlighted.
Advantages of using an additional measure of response alongside the overstrength factor are emphasized. This is
the ratio between the overstrength factor and the force reduction factor and is termed the inherent overstrength
(
i). The suggested measure provides more meaningful results of reserve strength and structural response than
overstrength and force reduction factors. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
Notwithstanding the recent development of deformation-based design methods, conventional seismic
design procedures in all modern seismic codes still adopt force-based design criteria. The basic
concept of the former is to design the structure for a target displacement rather than a strength level.
Hence, the deformation, which is the major cause of damage and collapse of structures subjected to
earthquakes, can be controlled during the design. Nevertheless, the traditional concept of reducing the
anticipated seismic forces using a single reduction factor, to arrive at the design force level, is still
widely utilized. This is because of the satisfactory performance of buildings designed to modern codes
in full-scale tests and during recent earthquakes especially with regard to life safety. Seismic codes
rely on reserve strength and ductility, which improves the capability of the structure to absorb and
dissipate energy, to justify this reduction. Hence, the role of the force reduction factor and the
parameters influencing its evaluation and control are essential elements of seismic design according to
codes.
The values assigned to the response modification factor (R) of the US codes (FEMA, 1997; UBC,
1997) are intended to account for both reserve strength and ductility (ATC, 1995). The same allowance

* Correspondence to: A. S. Elnashai, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–
Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. E-mail: aelnash@uiuc.edu

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received October 2000
Accepted March 2001
330 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

for overstrength is quite obvious in the force reduction factor definition of the Canadian (CCBFC,
1995), the New Zealand (SNZ, 1992) and the Japanese (IAEE, 1992) codes. For instance, a calibration
factor (U), which accounts for an overstrength of 1
67, has been already introduced in Canada.
Eurocode 8 (EC8; see CEN, 1994) definition of the force reduction factor (behaviour factor q) does not
explicitly account for reserve strength. This is also clear from the lower factors of of EC8 compared
with the US codes. However, structural systems with lower levels of redundancy are assigned lower
force reduction factors in EC8, hence it implicitly takes into consideration that some factors contribute
to overstrength. It is worthy to note that redundancy is considered here as a parameter contributing to
overstrength, contrary to the proposal of ATC-19 (ATC, 1995), splitting R into three factors: strength,
ductility and redundancy. If the force reduction factors of EC8 are dependent on overstrength, then the
latter should be estimated when evaluating the former. If not, then the force reduction factors proposed
by EC8 should be regarded as equivalent global ductility factors (R ) and overstrength should be
accounted for additionally (Fischinger and Fajfar, 1990).
It is therefore accepted to include the effect of reserve strength in calibrating the force reduction
factor. However, a generally applicable and precise estimation of overstrength is difficult to determine
since many factors contributing to it involve uncertainties. The actual strength of materials,
confinement effects, the contribution of nonstructural elements and the actual participation of some
structural elements such as reinforced-concrete slabs are factors leading to high uncertainties (Humar
and Ragozar, 1996). However, not all factors contributing to overstrength are favourable. Flexural
overstrength in the beams of moment-resisting frames may cause storey collapse mechanisms or brittle
shear failure in beams. Nonstructural elements also may cause shear failure in columns or soft storey
failure (Park, 1996). Moreover, the overstrength factor varies widely according to the period of the
structure, the design intensity level, the structural system and the ductility level assumed in the design.
This compounds the difficulties associated with evaluating this factor accurately.
Given that the reduction in seismic forces via the R factor is justified by the ductile response and the
unquantified overstrength of structures, the accurate evaluation and investigation of interrelationships
between these quantities, which are still based on engineering judgement, is an essential and pressing
objective. The aim of the current study is to evaluate and clarify the above, using a set of 12 RC
buildings varying in characteristics. The buildings are designed according to EC8, representing
modern seismic codes. The degree of variation between these buildings is considered to be sufficient to
cover a reasonable range of conventional medium-rise buildings. The work is part of an extensive
study to calibrate the force reduction factors of conventional RC buildings. For the sake of brevity,
only the results of the strength-dependent component of the force reduction factor are presented in this
paper. Comprehensive results of this study are given elsewhere (Mwafy, 2000).

2. DESCRIPTION AND MODELLING OF THE BUILDINGS

2.1. Structural Systems
Twelve structures are assessed in this study. The buildings are designed and detailed in accordance
with EC8 (CEN, 1994) as a typical modern seismic design code applicable to more than one country
with various levels of seismicity, soil conditions and types of construction. All buildings are assumed
to be found on competent soil type B (medium dense sand or stiff clays). The buildings can be
categorized into the three basic structural configurations illustrated in Figure 1. The structural
characteristics of the assessment sample are varied to represent the most common types of RC
buildings. Different building heights (24–36 m), structural systems (moment-resisting frames and
frame-wall systems) and degree of elevation irregularity are taken into consideration. For each of the
three basic configurations, four buildings are produced from combinations of two design ground

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 331

Figure 1. Plane and sectional elevation of the buildings: (a) group 1, 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings; (b)
group 2, 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings; (c) group 3, 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings; for more
details, see Table 1

accelerations (0
15 g and 0
30 g) with three design ductility levels (high, medium and low), as shown
in Table 1. The selected combinations enable examining the response of buildings designed to the
same ground acceleration but for different ductility levels, and vice versa. The level of ductility varies
from high, dictating rigorous standards on member detailing, to low, requiring no special detailing or
capacity design requirements. Generally, lower design forces are adopted as a result of increasing the
ability of the structure to exhibit more ductile behaviour and therefore dissipate more energy. The
force reduction factors used in the design as well as the observed elastic fundamental periods, Telastic,
obtained from elastic free vibration analyses are also shown in Table 1.
The same overall plan dimensions of 15 m  20 m are utilized for the 12 buildings. The total heights
for the three groups are 25
5 m, 36 m and 24 m, respectively. The bottom storey of the first group of
buildings has a height of 4
5 m. All other storeys for this group and for groups 2 and 3 have equal
heights of 3 m. Further vertical irregularity is introduced in the first group by the cut-off at the ground
storey of four perimeter columns. These columns are supported by long span beams, as shown in
Figure 1(a). The lateral force resisting system for groups 1 and 2 is moment resisting frames, whereas
group 3 is provided with a central core and perimeter moment-resisting frames. The core consists of
two channel shear walls coupled in the Z direction at each storey level by a pair of beams. The floor

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
332 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Table 1. Structural systems considered

Force reduction
Reference no. Ductility level Design PGA (g) factor Telastic (s)

Group 1: 8-storey, irregular frame (IF) buildings:

IF-H030 High 0
30 4
00 0
674
IF-M030 Medium 0
30 3
00 0
654
IF-M015 Medium 0
15 3
00 0
719
IF-L015 Low 0
15 2
00 0
723
Group 2: 12-storey, regular frame (RF) buildings:
RF-H030 High 0
30 5
00 0
857
RF-M030 Medium 0
30 3
75 0
893
RF-M015 Medium 0
15 3
75 0
920
RF-L015 Low 0
15 2
50 0
913
Group 3: 8-storey, regular frame-wall (FW) buildings:
FW-H030 High 0
30 3
50 0
538
FW-M030 Medium 0
30 2
625 0
533
FW-M015 Medium 0
15 2
625 0
592
FW-L015 Low 0
15 1
75 0
588

Note: PGA, peals ground acceleration; Telastic, elastic fundamental period.

system of the groups 1 and 2 is solid slabs, whereas waffle slabs are utilized in group 3. A characteristic
cylinder strength of 25 N mm 2 and a yield strength of 500 N mm 2 are considered for concrete and
steel, respectively. Further information regarding the cross-sectional dimensions and reinforcement
details of members can be found elsewhere (Fardis, 1994).

2.2 Modelling for Inelastic Analysis

The finite element structural analysis program ADAPTIC (Izzuddin and Elnashai, 1989) is utilized to
perform the inelastic analyses. ADAPTIC has been developed at Imperial College for the nonlinear
analysis of two-dimensional and three-dimensional steel, reinforced concrete and composite structures
under static and dynamic loading, taking into account the effects of geometric nonlinearities and
material inelasticity. The program has the feature of representing the spread of inelasticity within the
member cross-section and along the member length by utilizing the fibre approach. It is capable of
predicting the large inelastic deformation of individual members and structures. Eigenvalue, static and
dynamic analysis facilities are available and have been thoroughly tested and validated over the past
12 years on the member and structure levels (e.g. Elnashai and Elghazouli, 1993; Elnashai and
Izzuddin, 1993; Broderick and Elnashai, 1994; Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai, 1997; Pinho, 2000). A
detailed description of available elements and material models in ADAPTIC is beyond the scope of
this paper. Further information regarding the program and its validation can be found in the
aforementioned references.
Detailed and efficient two-dimensional models have been utilized for the 12 buildings investigated.
Two-dimensional representation is selected owing to the limited significance of torsional effects for
the cases considered. With reference to the global axes system, the analyses are conducted along the
global X axis for group 1 and 2, and the Z axis for group 3. Performing the analysis in the
aforementioned directions can be justified by the fact that critical response criteria were expected to
occur earlier in those directions. The domination of gravity loads in the long span beams of the frame
structural systems and the large amount of energy expected to be dissipated in the coupling beams of

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 333

the frame-wall group supported this decision. Combination of the internal and the external lateral force
resisting systems is achieved by means of an overlay approach where the internal and the external
frames are coupled by rigid joint elements representing the high in-plane stiffness of the floor system.
Figure 2 depicts the technique utilized for modelling the buildings.
Cubic shape function elements capable of representing the distribution of inelasticity are used to
model the horizontal and vertical structural members. For this type of element, ADAPTIC performs
the numerical integration over two Gauss sections. Each Gauss section is subdivided into a number of
fibres where stresses and strains are calculated by applying the inelastic cyclic constitutive
relationships for each of the considered materials. Figure 2 illustrates the locations of the Gauss
sections within each element and the decomposition of a typical RC beam cross-section into confined
and unconfined areas. The concrete is represented in the current study by using a uniaxial constant
confinement concrete model (Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai, 1997). The advanced multisurface
plasticity model (Elnashai and Izzuddin, 1993) is utilized for modelling the reinforcement bars. In this
model, the stress–strain response of steel with nonlinear hardening and cyclic degradation is defined in
terms of a series of cubic polynomial functions. Mean values of material strength are utilized in the
analyses rather than the values used in the design; an approach consistent with ‘assessment’.
Three elements are utilized to model each horizontal and vertical structural member. The lengths of
these elements are determined in accordance with the distribution of transverse and longitudinal
reinforcements. Two rigid elements are utilized to connect the beam ends with the framing columns, as
shown in Figure 2(a). Two shear spring elements are introduced to represent the shear stiffness of the
beam–column connection. In frame-wall buildings, the core wall on each side of the coupling beam is
modelled as ‘wide-column’. The elements are located at the centroid of the core U-shaped cross-
section and connected with beam ends at each storey level using rigid arms. Bidiagonal reinforcements
of coupling beams are taken into consideration by adding the horizontal and the vertical projection of
the steel area to the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement areas.
Gravity loads are applied as point loads at beam nodes. To account for inertia effects during
dynamic analysis, masses are distributed in the same pattern adopted for the gravity loads and are
represented by lumped two-dimensional mass elements. The numerically dissipative Hilber–Hughes–
Taylor a-integration scheme (Broderick, Elnashai and Izzuddin, 1994) is utilized to solve the equations
of motion.

2.3. Response Parameters

To assess the seismic performance of the 12 buildings and to obtain accurate analytical predictions of
the reserve strength and the force reduction factor from inelastic static and dynamic analysis results,
rigorous definitions of response parameters is needed. Two particularly important limit states in the
response of the buildings are required for the approach utilized in this study; that at which significant
yield occurs and that at which the first indication of failure is observed.
Two criteria are selected to define yield on member and structure levels. For adequately designed
RC buildings, local yield is assumed when the strain in the main longitudinal tensile reinforcement
exceeds the yield strain of steel. On the structure level, an elastic–perfectly-plastic idealisation of the
real system is employed, since no clear yield point is present. The initial stiffness is evaluated as the
secant stiffness at 75% of the ultimate strength, and the ultimate lateral strength of the real system is
utilized for the post-elastic domain of the linearized envelope (Park, 1988). The top displacement
corresponding to the starting point of the post-elastic branch is obtained for each building from the
inelastic pushover analysis and is employed in time-history analyses as the global yield limit state.
Two failure criteria on the member level are employed, exceeding the shear strength or the ultimate
curvature in any structural member. The shear supply of structural members is estimated mainly using

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 334

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Figure 2. Adopted modelling approach: (a) beam–column connection; (b) cubic elastoplastic element; (c) decomposition of beam T-section into fibres

Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)

 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 335

the model proposed by Priestley, Verma and Xiao (1994). This model, which takes into account the
instantaneous influence of axial load and flexural ductility, provides an experimentally verifiable
estimate of shear in RC members. To allow for effective comparison with the design code, the code-
based shear strength model has also been employed after eliminating the safety factors. Further
information regarding the implementation of the two shear models employed and the results of the
extensive shear supply–demand assessment can be found elsewhere (Mwafy, 2000).
By considering overall structural characteristics, four criteria on the structure level are utilized to
define significant failure. The interstorey drift (ID) ratio is considered as the primary and most
important global collapse criterion. Several values for the ID collapse limit have been suggested in the
literature (SEAOC, 1995; FEMA 1996; Broderick and Elnashai, 1996). An upper limit of ID equal to
3% is employed in this study. This limit should be sufficient to restrict second order (P–D) effects and
to express the damage in structural and nonstructural elements. This limit is adopted over other
conservative limits to reflect the ability of structural frame systems to sustain relatively large
deformations, especially those designed to modern seismic codes such as the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) or EC8. In additon, collapse also corresponds to the formation of a column hinging mechanism
or a drop in the overall lateral resistance (by more than 10%). The interstorey drift sensitivity
coefficient ( = ID  storey gravity load/seismic storey shear) recommended by EC8 is utilized as
well. This criterion is intended to place a further check on second-order effects. Collapse is considered
to be imminent when this coefficient exceeds 0
3.

2.4. Selection and Normalization of Input Excitations for Dynamic Analysis

The lateral force profile utilized in pushover analysis was extensively investigated in another study
(Mwafy and Elnashai, 2000). The design code load pattern is recommended for estimation of the
seismic capacity of this set of buildings over the uniform load profile and the load obtained from modal
analyses (multimodal). The response of the 8-storey irregular frame buildings using the design code
load pattern, which is almost an inverted triangle, was identical to the response obtained from time-
history collapse analysis. The investigation carried out on the 12-storey regular frame buildings and
the 8-storey hybrid structures also indicated that a conservative prediction of capacity and a reasonable
estimation of deformation could be obtained using the same load distribution. Hence, this simple load
shape is employed in the current study.
Inelastic dynamic analysis for each building is performed using eight input excitations. Four 10-s
duration artificially-generated records compatible with the EC8 elastic response spectrum for medium
soil class (firm) were selected for comparison and calibration with the design code. Furthermore,
previous analytical investigations and field evidence (Bozorgnia, Mahin and Brady, 1998; Papazoglou
and Elnashai, 1996) have shown that the effect of the vertical component of the seismic excitation on
structural members and systems may be significant, particularly for buildings situated in the vicinity of
active faults. For the set of structures considered, investigating this effect on the vertical vibrations of
the planted columns of the irregular frame structures is notably important. It is also interesting to
consider the effect of utilizing the vertical component of ground motions on the shear supply–demand
investigation carried out on structural members. Towards this end, two natural earthquakes were
selected in terms of the site-to-source distance and the vertical to horizontal(V/H) ratio and applied
with and without the vertical ground motion component.
A total of 1500 inelastic time-history analyses were carried out on the detailed models described by
using the employed set of records to evaluate the overstrength and the force reduction factor. Owing to
the large number of analysis required if more natural records are employed (between 350 and 400
analyses for each added natural record), the number of excitations was kept to this limit. The location
and characteristics of the selected records are given in Table 2. In Figure 3(a) the acceleration response

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
336 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Table 2. Ground motion records used in the time-history analysis

Kobe, Japan Loma Prieta, USA Artificial records

Station Kobe University Saratoga, ‘Aloha Ave.’ Art-rec1 to Art-rec4

Date 17 January 1995 18 October 1989 Not applicable
Surface Wave Magnitude Ms 7
20 7
17 Not applicable
Epicentral distance (km) 14 17 Not applicable
Peals ground acceleration:
horizontal, H 0
276 0
319 Not applicable
vertical, V 0
431 0
349 Not applicable
V/H 1
56 1
09 Not applicable
No. of input excitations 2 2 4

spectra for the artificial records and the longitudinal component of the natural records are compared
with the EC8 elastic spectrum. The accelerograms and the code elastic spectrum are scaled to 0
30g,
and the damping ratio set at 5%. The acceleration spectra for the vertical component of the two natural
events are depicted in Figure 3(b) for the same peak ground acceleration (PGA).
The inelastic fundamental periods of vibration of the set of buildings were identified in another
study (Mwafy and Elnashai, 2000) for eight seismic excitations and at different input intensities. The
averages for the three groups of structure are 1
40, 1
75 and 0
9 seconds, respectively. In this period
range all the spectral ordinates are comparable and the natural records envelope the code spectrum,
contrary to the short period range, as shown in Figure 3(a). This is owing to the normalization method
adopted in the current study, where all records are scaled to possess equal velocity spectrum intensity
in the period range utilized. In the short period range, it is clear that the spectral acceleration of the
artificial and the Loma Prieta (SAR) records are significantly higher than Kobe (KBU), particularly
Loma Prieta (SAR), which will result in amplifying higher mode effects. Moreover, it is clear that the

Figure 3. Response spectra for 0
30g and 5% damping: (a) the artificial, the longitudinal component of the natural
accelorograms and the EC8 (Eurocode 8, see CEN, 1994) spectrum; (b) the vertical component of the natural
records; group 1, 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings; group 2, 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings; group 3,
8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings; for more details, see Table 1

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 337

Table 3. Normalization factors for a peak ground acceleration of 0
30g

Natural record IF group (1
0–1
8 sec.)a RF group (1
3–2
4 sec.)a FW group (0
8–1
5 sec.)a

Kobe (KBU) 0
54 0
61 0
56

Loma Prieta (SAR) 1
15 1
25 1
32
a
:Integration limits (0
8Ty 1
2T2D) used in the scaling technique.
Note: IF, irregular frame; RF, regular frame; FW, regular frame-wall; for more details, see Table 1.

scaled spectral acceleration of the vertical component of the Lome Prieta (SAR) record is generally
higher than the Kobe (KBU) spectrum with the exception of the period range 0
13–0
17 seconds.
Therefore, it is expected that the effect of employing the vertical component of Lome Prieta (SAR) in
the analysis will be more noticeable than the Kobe (KBU) earthquake. Comprehensive results of the
effect of vertical ground motion on the seismic response of the buildings are presented and discussed
elsewhere (Mwafy, 2000).
The technique adopted in this study is to subject each building to the selected set of excitations,
which are scaled gradually upwards until all yield and collapse limit states are reached. Therefore, a
reliable scaling procedure is required. The employed scaling approach is based on the velocity
spectrum intensity (Housner, 1952). The method is summarized as follows:

. Time-history collapse analyses are first carried out for the 12 buildings under the four artificial
records, which are scaled according to their PGA. These records were generated to fit the code
spectrum. Therefore, their velocity spectral intensity is equivalent to that of the code.
. The recorded top acceleration response is utilized to obtain the inelastic periods of each building
using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm taking the average for four artificial records.
. The normalization factor is the ratio SIc/SIn, where SIc and SIn are the areas under the code-implied
velocity spectrum and the velocity spectrum of the scaled accelerogram, respectively. SIc and SIn are
calculated between periods of 0
8Ty and 1
2T2D, where Ty and T2D are defined as the inelastic periods
of the buildings at global yielding and at twice the design intensity, respectively. This limit has been
selected following extensive analysis and comparisons with different definitions of the scaling
period range (Mwafy, 2000).
. The natural accelerograms are scaled gradually by utilizing the integration limits obtained for each
of the 12 buildings.
The average normalization coefficients at an intensity level of 0
30g alongside the inelastic period
range employed to calculate the spectral areas for each group of building are shown in Table 3.

2.5. Analyses Performed

Eigenvalue analyses are conducted first to determine the uncracked horizontal and vertical periods of
vibration. It is also employed to estimate the inelastic period by reducing the flexural stiffness. This
simple analysis is also useful as an initial validation tool of the analytical models. Inelastic static
pushover analyses are performed for the buildings by using an inverted triangular load. This analysis
procedure is employed to evaluate the global yield limit state, structural capacity and overstrength.
Finally, extensive time-history collapse analysis is performed under the selected eight input
excitations. This is carried out by progressively scaling and applying each accelerogram followed by
assessment of the response and checking all performance criteria, starting from a relatively low
intensity, typically the design intensity divided by the force reduction factor, and ending with the

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
338 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Figure 4. Comparison between the average inelastic period of the three groups at different intensity levels and the
period obtained from eigenvalue analyses using different definitions of the effective stiffness; group 1, 8-storey
irregular frame (IF) buildings; group 2, 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings; group 3, 8-storey regular frame-
wall (FW) buildings; for more details, see Table 1; values of effective stiffness taken from FEMA, 1997; Paulay
and Priestley, 1992

intensity at which all collapse definitions are achieved. Normally, between 15 to 20 analyses are
required for each building–input-excitation combination to identify the response at different yield and
collapse limit states.

3. CONTRIBUTION OF THE ELONGATED PERIOD TO OVERSTRENGTH

3.1. Prediction of Inelastic Period from Eigenvalue Analysis
Eigenvalue analysis was utilized to investigate the possibility of defining an effective flexural stiffness
to predict the inelastic period of structures. Clearly, the reduction in the stiffness of the beams should
be higher than the columns as a consequence of applying capacity design rules. Moreover, the high
compressive axial forces in columns reduce the crack width and hence enhance the stiffness of the
cracked section. Several values of the effective stiffness have been suggested in the literature. NEHRP
(FEMA, 1997) recommends 0
5EcIg for beams and 0
7EcIg for columns, where EcIg is the stiffness of
the uncracked concrete cross-section. Paulay and Priestley (1992) proposed 0
4EcIg for rectangular
beams and 0
35EcIg for T and L section beams. The effective stiffness of columns is suggested to range
from 0
4EcIg to 0
8EcIg according to the anticipated earthquake-induced axial force. The average
fundamental period for each group of building obtained from eigenvalue analyses using the
aforementioned proposals are compared in Figure 4 with the identified elongation of the period during
time-history analyses. The elongation of the period of the buildings has been evaluated (Mwafy and
Elnashai, 2000) using Fourier analyses of top acceleration response under eight seismic excitations, as
explained earlier.
For group 1, group 2 and group 3 of building the average elongation of the period at the design and
twice the design intensity levels are 88%–112%, 83%–100% and 45%–79%, respectively. The
observed increase in the period obtained from eigenvalue analysis using the reduced stiffness values
recommended by FEMA 273 are 24%, 23% and 17%, respectively, whereas employing the suggestion

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 339

Figure 5. Design spectra, elastic periods and cracked periods obtained using two definitions of the reduced
stiffness for: (a) buildings designed to medium ductility and peak ground acceleration (PGA) = 0
30g; (b)
buildings designed to low ductility and PGA = 0
15g; group 1, 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings; group 2, 12-
storey regular frame (RF) buildings; group 3, 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings; for more details, see
Table 1

of Paulay and Priestley shows an increase of 42%, 39% and 27%, respectively, for the three groups of
building. It is clear that the recommendations of FEMA 273 and Paulay and Priestley underestimate
the inelastic period. It is also worth noting that the inelastic period at a low seismic intensity is
generally close to the value at the design intensity. For instance, the average elastic period for the first
group of buildings is 0
69 sec, whereas that at half the design and at the design intensity levels are 1
20
sec and 1
30 sec, respectively. This emphasises the overconservatism of the two proposals of FEMA
273 and Paulay and Priestley (1992).
Utilizing half the effective stiffness values proposed by Paulay and Priestley (1992) increases the
elastic periods by 75%, 71% and 52%, respectively, as shown in Figure 4. This seems to be more
realistic for frame structures. However, it is slightly unconservative for the frame-wall structures when
compared with the inelastic period at the design intensity level. For this type of structure, the response
depends strongly on the walls. The cantilever response mode of these walls causes stress concentration
at the base and dissipation of a large amount of the energy imparted by the earthquake at this region.
Therefore, the deterioration of the stiffness and the elongation of the period increase rapidly as a result
of extensive cracking and yielding at the base. The third group of buildings is reanalysed using half the
effective stiffness proposed by Paulay and Priestley for beams and columns, but the effective stiffness
of the walls are kept as suggested by these two researchers. The results illustrated in Figure 4 show
consistency with the results of the frame buildings in terms of the conservative and the rational
prediction of the inelastic period at the design intensity level.

3.2. Effect of Elongated Period on Overstrength

Whereas the above proposal for effective stiffness shows a conservative prediction of the inelastic
period, it leads to significant reduction in design forces, as shown in Figure 5 for six of the investigated
buildings. The design force values corresponding to the elastic period and the period obtained by
utilizing the reduced stiffness are approximately represented by the size of the circles on the design
spectra. It is observed that employing the elastic ‘uncracked’ period to obtain the design forces rather
than the proposed definition of the effective stiffness increases the design forces by 43% and 19% for

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
340 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Figure 6. The relationships between the force reduction factor, R, structural overstrength,
, and the ductility
reduction factor, R 

the frame and the frame-wall structures, respectively. It is also observed that employing the uncracked
period instead of the proposal of Paulay and Preistley (1992) leads to an increase in the design force by
25% and 11% for the frame and the dual structures, respectively.
The above observations emphasize the importance of employing reduced stiffness when estimating
the period of buildings where a noticeable saving in design forces and consequently in materials can be
achieved. Conversely, overestimating the stiffness may lead to grossly unconservative estimates of
deformations. This is avoided by employing realistic estimates of the inelastic period of vibration.
Finally, it is important to note that, although the suggested reduction in the cross-section stiffness is
reasonably conservative for the range of buildings investigated, more research is needed to cover
buildings out of this range, especially exceptionally short and long period structures. Moreover, this
proposal has been suggested to predict the inelastic period from eigenvalue analysis and hence is
restricted to this application. In another study, Li and Pourzanjani (1999) have shown that utilizing the
proposal of Paulay and Priestley (1992) as well as the recommendation of FEMA 273 (FEMA, 1997)
might be unconservative for predicting the displacement from time-history analyses.

4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRENGTH, THE FORCE REDUCTION FACTOR AND

OVERSTRENGTH
Previous research on the performance of buildings during severe earthquakes indicated that structural
overstrength plays a very important role in protecting buildings from collapse. The overstrength factor
(
d) may be defined as the ratio of the actual to the design lateral strength:

Vy

d ˆ …1†
Vd

as depicted in Figure 6 and termed the ‘observed’ overstrength factor. Quantification of the actual

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 341

Figure 7. Comparison between the capacity envelopes for the three groups of buildings, obtained from inelastic
static pushover analysis; Vy, actual strength (base shear); W, weight of building; D, top displacement; H, height of
building; group 1, 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings; group 2, 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings; group
3, 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings; for more details, see Table 1

overstrength can be employed to reduce the forces used in the design, hence leading to more
economical structures. The main sources of overstrength are reviewed in other studies (Uang, 1991;
Mitchell and Paulter, 1994; Humar and Ragozar, 1996; Park, 1996). These include: (1) the difference
between the actual and the design material strength; (2) conservatism of the design procedure and
ductility requirements; (3) load factors and multiple load cases; (4) accidental torsion consideration;
(5) serviceability limit state provisions; (6) participation of nonstructural elements; (7) effect of
structural elements not considered in predicting the lateral load capacity (e.g. actual slab width); (8)
minimum reinforcement and member sizes that exceed the design requirements; (9) redundancy; (10)
strain hardening; (11) actual confinement effect; and (12) utilizing the elastic period to obtain the
design forces.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
342 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Figure 8. Observed (
d) and inherent (
i) overstrength for the 12 buildings; Vy, actual strength; Ve, elastic
strength; R, response modification factor; group 1, 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings; group 2, 12-storey
regular frame (RF) buildings; group 3, 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings; for more details, see Table 1

4.1. Structural Capacity and Overstrength Analysis Results

Structural lateral capacity and overstrength can be well-assessed from inelastic analyses. These are
estimated for the 12 buildings by means of inelastic static pushover as well as incremental time-history
analyses up to collapse. The capacity envelopes of the buildings obtained from time-history collapse
analyses, which are presented elsewhere (Mwafy and Elnashai, 2000), are utilized to evaluate
overstrength factors. The envelopes were developed using regression analysis of the maximum
response points (the roof displacement and the base shear) of eight seismic excitations for each
building. Figure 7 shows the capacity envelopes for the three groups of building obtained from
inelastic pushover analyses using a triangular lateral load distribution, where the base shear and the top
displacement are normalized by the weight and the height of the building, respectively. The observed
overstrength factors from inelastic static pushover and time-history collapse analyses are depicted in
Figure 8(a). The overstrength obtained from an alternative definition, as discussed hereafter, is shown
in Figure 8(b). It is noteworthy that the maximum strength of the 12 buildings is generally observed at
or before the interstorey drift collapse limit state, with the exception of few cases. In those cases the
lateral strength at global collapse is considered as the maximum strength.
The point of first yield in horizontal and vertical structural members as well as the global yield limit,
obtained from the elastic perfectly plastic idealized response, is illustrated on the response envelopes
shown in Figure 7.
The interstorey drift collapse limit is also shown for each structure. For the second and third sets,
first yield is observed in beams, whereas first yielding occurs at the second storey planted columns for
the irregular buildings. This is a result of the extra tensile forces imposed on these columns as a result
of the cut-off at the ground storey. This is clear in Figure 9, where the progress of hinge formation for a
sample building from each group is shown at the global yield limit state. The first observed 10 plastic
hinges can be distinguished in the figure from other subsequently formed hinges. The advantages of
employing regular structural systems in the design are clear in Figures 7 and 9. The plastic hinges
observed in the second group of buildings up to the global yield limit state are mainly in beams. In
Figure 9(b), only one plastic hinge in columns is observed (hinge 91 from a total of 96 hinges),

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 343

Figure 9. Progress in plastic hinge formation at the global yield limit state for a sample building from each group:
(a) IF-M030 (top displacement = 289 mm, top drift ratio = 1
1%); (b) FR-M030 (top displacement = 359 mm, top
drift ratio = 1
0%); (c) FW-M030 (top displacement = 255 mm, top drift ratio = 1
1%); group 1, 8-storey irregular
frame (IF) buildings; group 2, 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings; group 3, 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW)
buildings; for more details, see Table 1

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
344 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Table 4. Comparison of force reduction factor (R) and capacity (Vy) of buildings designed for equal seismic
intensity and different ductility levels

0
30g pair 0
15g pair

reduction in R (%) increase in Vy (%) reduction in R (%) increase in Vy (%)

IF-group 25 25 33 26
RF-group 25 8 33 34
FW-group 25 26 33 26

Note: IF, irregular frame (group 1); RF, regular frame (group 2); FW, regular frame-wall (group 3).

whereas several column and wall hinging cases are observed at this moderate level of lateral load in the
irregular frame and the frame-wall structures. For the third group, first yield in vertical elements is
observed in the ground storey walls shortly after the first beam yielding. As explained earlier, the
stiffness of these walls is significantly high compared with other lateral force resisting systems.
Consequently, high levels of lateral force are attracted to the walls and high bending moments at the
ground level are generated as a result.
It is observed that more plastic hinges are formed in the external frames compared with the internal
frames, particularly for the first two groups. For the frame structures, this is attributed to the higher
stiffness of the short span external beams, which attract higher forces. The design of the internal frame
beams are also dominated by gravity loads; therefore the effect of the lateral loads are less significant.
For hybrid structures, plastic hinges generally form in the coupling beams earlier than in other internal
beams, reflecting the high energy dissipation potential of these members.

4.2. Lateral Capacity and Design Force Reduction Factor

Comparison between the capacity envelopes of the three sets (see Figure 7) shows that the highest V/W
ratios are observed for the 8-storey frame-wall structures, reflecting the high stiffness and the
efficiency of this structural system in resisting lateral forces. The lowest V/W values are observed for
the 12-storey regular frame buildings as a result of the high total gravity load. However, the maximum
base shear of the latter ranges from 7300 kN to 13200 kN, slightly higher than the maximum base shear
observed for the 8-storey irregular frame buildings (6600–12700 kN). The severance of four perimeter
columns and increasing the height of the ground storey leads to the observed reduction in the lateral
stiffness of the irregular buildings.
Results for the pairs of buildings designed to the same seismic intensity and different levels of
ductility show that the capacity is proportional to the code-defined force reduction factor. Table 4
confirms that the increase in the capacity of lower ductility level buildings compared with their higher
ductility level counterparts is consistent with the reduction in the R factors adopted in the design. The
only exception is the difference between the 0
30g design ground acceleration pair of the RF-group. It
is worth mentioning that in the three groups of buildings equal cross-sectional dimensions were
utilized with the buildings designed to the same seismic intensity with the exception of this pair, where
the depth of beams of the RF-H030 building was increased to fulfil local ductility requirements of EC8
(in terms of the allowable maximum tension reinforcement ratio within the critical regions of the
beams). It is concluded that a direct relationship between the lateral capacity and the design seismic
forces can be applied to buildings that have the same section dimensions.
The difference in the lateral capacity between the two buildings designed to the same ductility level
(ductility medium) and two different design intensities (0
30g and 0
15g) is also consistent with the

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 345

Table 5. Comparison between the design forces and the lateral capacity of buildings designed with an equal force
reduction factor and different seismic forces (medium ductility buildings)

Reduction in design force level (%) Reduction in capacity (%)

IF-group 50 48
RF-group 50 44
FW-group 50 52

Note: IF, irregular frame (group 1); RF, regular frame (group 2); FW, regular frame-wall (group 3).

difference in the design force levels. This is clear in Figure 7, where the lateral capacity of the M015
buildings is almost half that of the M030 buildings (the highest and the lowest envelope). This is
summarized in Table 5. It is important to point out that this observation cannot be generalized since
cross-sectional dimensions are not equal for buildings designed for different seismic intensity. This is
clear from the response of the two buildings designed with ‘high’ and ‘low’ ductility in each group.
The two buildings are designed for seismic intensity 0
30g and 0
15g, and the force reduction factor of
H030 is twice the value of that of L015. Hence, the design forces are equivalent for the two buildings.
The difference in the lateral capacity shown in Figure 7 is the result of increasing the cross-sectional
dimensions of the H030 buildings. The aforementioned observations show clearly the trade-off
between strength and ductility, through the force reduction factor.
In another study, Mitchell and Paulter (1994) have commented that it is a common misconception
that a structure designed with a force reduction factor R = 4
0 would have half the capacity of another
designed with R = 2
0. It is noted in the aforementioned study that member cross-sectional sizes and
longitudinal reinforcements were higher in the buildings designed with a higher ductility level,
particularly in columns and walls. This is reflected in the high overstrength factors calculated for those
buildings (4
6 and 3
5) compared with lower ductility level buildings (2
14 and 2
78). This may be
attributed to particular requirements of the Canadian design code (CCBFC, 1995). However, the direct
relationship between the lateral capacity and the force reduction factor is explicitly confirmed in the
present study when member cross-sectional sizes are kept constant.

4.3. Structure Overstrength (

d)
The estimated overstrength factors (
d) depicted in Figure 8(a) show that the values of overstrength
obtained from dynamic-to-collapse analyses are higher than those obtained from inelastic pushover
analyses. This is a result of the conservatism of the design code lateral load distribution in predicting
the strength capacity of buildings (Mwafy and Elnashai, 2000). All the 12 buildings studied have
overstrength factors over 2
0. The group-3 buildings exhibit the highest level of overstrength, the
results of the group-1 and group-2 buildings being comparable, particularly the factors obtained from
pushover analyses. For the two buildings designed to the same ductility level in each group, the one
designed to a lower seismic intensity exhibits higher overstrength, reflecting the higher contribution of
gravity loads. Higher ductility level buildings display higher reserve strength. This is attributed to the
use of a higher force reduction factor with these buildings, which causes a reduction in the design
forces thus magnifying the effect of gravity loads. The rigorous provisions imposed on these buildings
to enhance ductility also lead to increased overstrength. Clearly, the observed reserve strength of the
12 buildings is high, confirming the conservatism of EC8. The actual overstrength factors are expected
to be higher than the estimated values from static pushover or even time-history collapse analysis
because of to the beneficial effects of some parameters that contribute to overstrength such as
nonstructural elements.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
346 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

It is also clear in Figure 7 for the 12 buildings that the strength at first indication of member yielding
(Vfy) is notably higher than the design strength levels (Vd) (refer also to Figure 6). The average Vfy/Vd
ratio for the three groups is 1
33, 1
46 and 1
57, respectively. Clearly, this ratio is relatively high,
particularly for regular buildings. The main advantage of designing the structure at the design strength
level is to avoid explicit nonlinear structural analyses in the design and allow utilization of elastic
analysis methods (CEN, 1994; Uang 1991). It is observed in Figure 7 that the response does not show
any significant deviation from the elastic behaviour at first yielding. Hence, this level can be safely
reduced to the design level. The aforementioned observation reflects the high reserve strength of EC8-
designed structures.
Studies carried out on buildings designed to US seismic codes have indicated that the overstrength
factor varied widely depending on the height of the building, the design seismic intensity and the
structural system. A brief review of these studies can be found in Jain and Navin (1995) and in
Whittaker, Hart and Rojahn (1999). The scatter of the overstrength results was high, ranging from 1
8
to 6
5 for long and short period range structures, respectively. Some extreme values are also reported
in the literature for low-rise buildings sited in low seismic zones.
From the few studies carried out on buildings designed according to EC8, Fischinger, Fajfar and
Vidie (1994) have studied 12 RC buildings to derive overstrength spectra. This has been proposed as a
function of the period and the ductility level. The effect of the design intensity and the structural
system in the determination of the reserve strength has not been accounted for. Overstrength factors
varied from 1
6 for a 10-storey low ductility level building to 4
6 for a 3-storey high ductility structure.
It is noted that the overstrength factors suggested in Fischinger and co-workers’ study are lower than
the factors determined from the present investigation by about 30%. This is mainly attributed to the
predefined drift limit (1% of the building height) at which the strength of the buildings is calculated
from pushover analysis in Fischinger and co-workers’ study. It is clear in Figure 7 that the maximum
strength for the currently investigated buildings is observed at higher drift than the limit employed by
Fischinger, Fajfar and Vidie (1994). No strength degradation was considered in the analytical models
utilized in their study. Therefore, overstrength was calculated at this conservative drift limit because of
the uncertainty involved in identifying the maximum strength.
Panagiotakos and Fardis (1998) investigated three groups of frame structural systems of various
heights. Dynamic analysis was carried out only at the design intensity scaled by 1
0, 1
5 and 2
0.
Overstrength factors ranging from 2
0 to 2
5 were observed at twice the design PGA for buildings with
‘medium’ and ‘high’ ductility levels. Although, the ultimate capacity may not be attained at this level
of ground motion, the results of their study are consistent with the results of the current investigation in
terms of the high overstrength factors of EC8-designed buildings.
Developing overstrength spectra for RC buildings covering different structural systems, design
intensity level, heights and ductility levels requires investigating a considerable range of buildings
realistically designed and practically detailed to the code considered. As long as the above is not
fulfilled, conservative overstrength for different classes of structures may be set. The rationality and
the conservatism of the minimum overstrength factor of 2
0 observed for the investigated sample of
medium-rise RC buildings is supported by the following points:

. The average contribution to overstrength from the difference between mean and characteristic
values of material strength exceeds 1
5. Employing the elastic period in the design adds to
overstrength factors by 1
19–1
43, according to the results shown in Figure 5. When designing under
unidirectional seismic excitation, EC8 imposes an extra overstrength factor of 1
3 on columns since
they are designed under biaxial bending. Consequently, the total overstrength from the above
parameters is in excess of 2
0.
. The studies carried out on buildings designed to the US codes indicated a minimum overstrength of

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 347

1
8 for long period buildings. Reserve strength of conventional buildings is higher than this level.
Overstrength of EC8-designed buildings should be higher than those of buildings designed to US
codes since the force reduction factors of EC8 are lower than those of the US codes.
. Actual overstrength should be higher than the values obtained from inelastic pushover analyses as a
result of conservatism of the code lateral load distribution in estimating the capacity and
contribution of nonstructural elements, as explained earlier.
It is also important to note that previous studies have confirmed that low-rise buildings exhibit higher
overstrength compared with medium-rise buildings. Therefore the minimum overstrength of 2
0 can
also be applied to this class of building. Moreover, seismic forces generally play a less important role
in the determination of cross-sectional sizes and reinforcements than do gravity loads, which govern
the design of those buildings. Hence a precise evaluation of overstrength for the purpose of assessing
force reduction factors of short period buildings is not of great benefit. Finally, concerning long period
RC buildings, it is noteworthy that the overstrength of those buildings might be higher than the values
observed for medium-rise buildings since the design is likely to be governed by stiffness (or storey
drift; Uang, 1991).

4.4. Implication of the Force Reduction Factor on Overstrength Definition

Although the aforementioned definition of overstrength is widely utilized, it fails to indicate particular
important features of seismic response. For instance, it is expected to observe higher overstrength for
the 8-storey irregular frame buildings compared with the 12-storey structures. The design code is more
stringent for irregular structures and gravity loads play a more significant role in the design of lower
rise buildings. This causes relatively higher section dimensions and reinforcement ratios than the
demand imposed by seismic forces; hence higher overstrength is anticipated.
For two buildings designed to the same seismic intensity (elastic force, Ve) and different ductility
levels, each structure will be assigned a different design force level (Vd) as a result of employing a
different force reduction factor (R). Thus,

Ve
Vd1 ˆ …2†
R1

and

Ve
Vd2 ˆ …3†
R2

Therefore, the R factor assumed in the design is included in the overstrength (

d) calculated for the
two buildings. Where,

Vy1

d1 ˆ …4†
Vd1

and

Vy2

d2 ˆ …5†
Vd2

The generic definition of overstrength (

d) is the ratio between actual (Vy) and design (Vd) strength. An

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
348 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

Figure 10. Different levels of the inherent overstrength,

i: (a) ductile response, Oi < 1
0; (b) elastic response
under the design earthquake, Oi  1
0; Vd, design strength; Vy, actual strength; Ve, elastic strength; Disp.,
displacement

additional measure relating the actual (Vy) to the elastic strength level (Ve) is suggested for use
alongside the overstrength (
d). The proposed measure (
i) may be expressed as:

Vy
d

i ˆ ˆ …6†
Ve R

This definition, which is the inverse of the ductility part of the force reduction factor (R ) as shown in
Figure 6, utilizes Ve. Hence the force reduction factor, which is defined on as empirical basis, is
avoided in this definition. The suggested measure of response (
i) reflects the reserve strength and the
anticipated behaviour of the structure under the design earthquake, as depicted in Figure 10. It is
termed as ‘inherent’ to distinguish it from the ‘observed’ overstrength commonly used in the literature.
Clearly, in the case of Oi  1
0 the global response will be almost elastic under the design earthquake,
reflecting the high overstrength of the structure. Below this limit, the difference between the value of

i and unity is an indication of the ratio of the forces that are imposed on the structure in the postelastic
range.
The results of the proposed measure (
i) are shown in Figure 8(b) alongside the overstrength factors
(
d) to facilitate comparison between the two measures. It is clear that the values of
i are quite high
for the third group of buildings. The strength levels of the four buildings of this group exceed the
elastic strength, with the exception of the results of the pushover analysis for the FW-H030 building.
The proposed measure clearly reflects the overconservatism of EC8 for structural wall systems, where
minimum section sizes and reinforcements lead to an elastic response for this class of structure under
the design intensity. Moreover, it is clear that the response of the buildings designed to a low ductility
level in each group are likely to be elastic, which again reflects the conservatism of the code. It is worth
mentioning that for such a type of structure no capacity design rules are applied, although some
requirements to enhance the ductility are imposed. The lowest force reduction factors of EC8 are
assigned to this class of building (1
5–2
5). Even though the buildings designed to this ductility level
are not intended to respond well into the postelastic range or dissipate significant amounts of energy,
the actual strength of these buildings is relatively high. This implies that the level of ductility has not
been exploited by the design code to reduce the design forces through employing higher force
reduction factors.
Contrary to the conventional definition of overstrength (
d), the results for
i display clearly the
expected higher overstrength of the IF group of buildings compared with the RF group, as shown in

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 349

Figure 8. However, for the buildings designed to the same seismic intensity in each group, the higher
ductility level buildings show lower values of
i, reflecting the higher ratio of the forces that are
imposed on the structure in the postelastic range. Finally, the values of
i are consistent with the
results of the overstrength (
d) in terms of the observed higher values for the buildings designed to
lower seismic intensity.

5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, 12 RC buildings with various characteristics were studied to evaluate the overstrength
and investigate its relationship with the force reduction factor. The study was carried out by means of
eigenvalue, inelastic pushover and time-history collapse analysis employing eight natural and artificial
records. Response criteria at both member and storey levels were defined. The input accelerograms
were scaled to equal velocity spectrum intensity. Notwithstanding the limitations of using a finite set of
input motions and specific structures, the following conclusions are applicable to a large class of RC
building.
. A conservative prediction of the elongated period of structures can be obtained by employing a
reduced flexural stiffness in eigenvalue analysis. Using the effective stiffness values suggested by
FEMA 273 (FEMA, 1997) and Paulay and Priestley (1992) in eigenvalue analysis underestimates
the inelastic periods. Employing the values suggested by Paulay and Priestley for walls and half of
those values for beams and columns show a reasonably conservative prediction of the cracked period
at the design intensity. Utilizing this period in the design instead of the elastic period leads to a
reduction in the design forces of 15%–30%.
. A direct relationship between the lateral capacity and the design seismic force is confirmed here.
This can be applied to buildings that share section dimensions.
. High overstrength factors are exhibited for the sample studied, which has elastic and inelastic
periods of 0
53–0
92 and 0
9–1
75, respectively. The minimum observed overstrength factor is 2
0.
The buildings designed to low seismic intensity levels show high overstrength factors as a result of
the dominant role of gravity loads. Hybrid structural systems and buildings designed to high ductility
levels also exhibit high overstrength. This is a result of minimum cross-section—sizes and
reinforcements, which are more stringently applied to such buildings.
. The contribution to overstrength from three sources exceeds a factor of 2
0 These are: (1) difference
between mean and characteristic values of material strength, (2) employing the elastic period in the
design instead of the cracked period and (3) designing the columns in biaxial bending when analysed
under unidirectional seismic excitation.
. Overstrength during earthquakes should be higher than the values obtained from inelastic static
analyses using the code lateral load distribution. The triangular load is conservative in predicting the
ultimate capacity. Also, contributions of nonstructural elements should produce higher capacity and
hence higher overstrength.
. If overstrength is not accurately evaluated by means of inelastic analysis, a lower bound may be
utilized. A conservative overstrength factor of 2
0 is suggested for medium period RC buildings
designed and detailed to EC8 (in principle, this applies to other modern codes). This limit can be
applied to low-rise buildings since they usually possess higher overstrength than do medium-rise
buildings.
. It is suggested to utilize an additional measure of response alongside the widely utilized overstrength
measure (
d). This is herein termed the ‘inherent overstrength factor’
i. The former factor relates
the ultimate strength to the force assumed in the design, whereas the proposed measure relates the
ultimate strength to the elastic force. This avoids implicating the force reduction factor in the
definition. The overstrength measure is needed for evaluation and possible calibration of the force

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
350 A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

reduction factor adopted in the design. However, it may lead to unreliable predictions of
overstrength because of the inclusion of the force reduction factor assumed in the design in its
definition. It also failed to confirm clearly the conservatism of the code since the range of its
variation is too wide. The suggested measure (
i) better reflects the anticipated behaviour of the
structure and the reserve strength under the design earthquake owing to its explicit elastic response
limit.

REFERENCES

ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1995. Structural response modification factors. Report ATC-19. Redwood
City, CA.
Bozorgnia Y, Mahin SA, Brady AG. 1998. Vertical response of twelve structures recorded during the Northridge
earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 14(3): 411–432.
Broderick BM, Elnashai AS. 1994. Seismic resistance of composite beam–columns in multi-storey structures, part
2: analytical model and discussion of results. Journal of Construction Steel Research 30(3): 231–258.
Broderick BM, Elnashai AS. 1996. Seismic response of composite frames–I. Response criteria and input motions.
Engineering Structures 18(9): 696–706.
Broderick BM, Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. 1994. Observations on the effect of numerical dissipation on the
nonlinear dynamic response of structural systems. Engineering Structures 16(1): 51–61.
CCBFC (Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Code). 1995. National building code of Canada 1995.
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
CEN (Comite European de Normalisation). 1994. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, part
1-1, 1-2 and 1-3. Eurocode 8, European pre-standard ENV 1998-1-1, 1-2 and 1-3. CEN, Bruxelles.
Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. 1993. Performance of composite steel/concrete members under earthquake loading,
part I: analytical model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 22(4): 314–345.
Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. 1993. Modelling of material nonlinearities in steel structures subjected to transient
dynamic loading. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 22: 509–532.
Fardis MN. 1994. Analysis and design of 26 reinforced concrete buildings according to Eurocodes 2 & 8.
Configuration 3, 5 and 6. Report on Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8, University of Patras,
Greece.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1997. NEHRP provisions for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Report FEMA 273 (Guidelines) and 274 (Commentary). FEMA, Washington, DC.
Fischinger M, Fajfar P. 1990. On the response modification factors for reinforced concrete buildings. 4th US
NCEE. Palm Springs 2: 249–258.
Fischinger M, Fajfar P, Vidic T. 1994. Factors contributing to the response reduction. 5th US NCEE. Chicago 97–
106.
Housner G. 1952. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes. In Proceedings of the Symposium on
Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures. Los Angeles, Calif: 20–36, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Humar JL, Ragozar MA. 1996. Concept of overstrength in seismic design. In Proceedings 11th WCEE. IAEE,
Acapulco, Mexico. Paper 639.
IAEE (International Association for Earthquake Engineering). 1992. Earthquake Resistant Regulations. A World
List. IAEE, Tokyo, Japan.
Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. 1989. ADAPTIC–a program for static and dynamic analysis of structures by adaptive
mesh refinement, user manual. ESEE Report 89/7. Imperial College, London.
Jain SK, Navin N. 1995. Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames. ASCE 121(3): 580–585.
Li R, Pourzanjani M. 1999. Sensitivity of building response to nonlinear analysis models. The Structural Design of
Tall Buildings 8: 15–35.
Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. 1997. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures
30(197): 139–147.
Mitchell D, Paulter P. 1994. Ductility and overstrength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 21: 1049–1060.
Mwafy AM. 2000. Seismic Performance of Code-designed RC Buildings. PhD thesis, Imperial College, London.
Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. 2001. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Engineering
Structures 23: 407–424.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)
 OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 351

Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. 1998. Effect of column capacity design on earthquake response of reinforced
concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2(1): 113–145.
Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS. 1996. Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake
ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25: 1109–1137.
Park R. 1988. State-of-the art report: ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. In Proceedings
9th WCEE. IAEE, Tokyo–Kyoto, Japan VIII: 605–616.
Park R. 1996. Explicit incorporation of element and structure overstrength in the design process. In Proceedings
11th WCEE. IAEE, Acapulco, Mexico. Paper 2130.
Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley, New
York.
Pinho R. 2000. Selective Repair and Strengthening of RC Buildings. PhD thesis, Imperial College, London.
Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. 1994. Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. ASCE 120(8):
2310–2329.
SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 1995. Performance based seismic engineering of
buildings. Vision 2000 Committee, SEAOC Sacramento, CA.
SNZ (Standards New Zealand). 1992. General structural design and design loadings for buildings. NZS 4203:
1992, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
Uang CM. 1991. Establishing R (or R w) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions. ASCE 117(1): 19–28.
UBC (Uniform Building Code). 1997. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C. 1999. Seismic response modification factors. ASCE 125(4): 438–444.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 329–351 (2002)