You are on page 1of 6

Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering (AARCV 2012), 21st 23rd June 2012

Paper ID SAM191, Vol. 1

322

Evaluation of Seismic Response Modification


Factors for RCC Frames by Non Linear Analysis
Prashant Sunagar and S.M. Shivananda
Abstract--- In this study RCC framing systems are
investigated with regards to their lateral load carrying
capacity and in this context seismic response modification
factors of individual systems are analyzed, to determining the
values of response modification factors or R factors tabulated
in seismic design code. For this study 3, 9 and 20 stories RCC
Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) buildings were designed to
satisfy the seismic requirements for the RCC moment resisting
frame (MRF) buildings. Frames, designed according to Indian
standard IS 456 2000 and seismic code (IS 1893 - 2002), are
investigated by nonlinear static analysis with the guidance of
previous studies and recent provisions of FEMA. Method of
analysis, design and evaluation data are presented in detail.
Previous studies in literature, history and the theory of
response modification phenomenon is presented.
Keywords--- RCC Moment Resisting Frame, Linear
Response Spectra, Nonlinear Static Pushover, Response
Modification Factor, Displacement, Ductility Demand

performance of RCC MRF buildings, it is important to


consider detailed joint connection models capable of
simulating the real joint behavior as close as possible. This
paper provides information on the seismic response of RCC
MRF buildings applied to various beam-column models to
study the effects of various hysteretic behaviors including a
bilinear connection model, stiffness degradation as well as
strength. Additionally, the analytical models with the different
hysteresis models are also extended to the models having five
different fundamental periods. The results from the static
pushover and linear response spectra analyses will be
evaluated and discussed.
A. Response Modification Factor
The response modification factor, R, simply represents the
ratio of the maximum lateral force Ve, which would develop
in a structure, responding entirely linear elastic under the
specified ground motion, to the lateral force Vd, which it has
been designed to withstand. The ratio R, expressed by the
equation
R= Ve/Vd

I.

INTRODUCTION

CC MRF is widely used at the place located in a high


seismic hazard area. Many researchers have assumed that
RCC MRF buildings are ductile structural systems to resist
earthquake forces by allowing their connections and members
to have inelastic flexural deformation. As a result, MRF
structural systems are believed to possess large ductility
capacity and thus are designed for smaller loads. Analytical
models of such frames are often developed using a line
element based on centerline dimensions of beams and
columns. A finite dimension of a joint is modeled by including
rigid eccentricities at the ends of beam-column element to
account for the effect of the geometry of the joint. The joints
are usually assumed rigid, in which beam-column elements
framing into the joints remain at right angles even after the
joints have experienced large inelastic cycles of deformation.
However, the use of rigid connections may not properly
represent the strength and stiffness of the structural frame as
well as the story drift and the overall deflection of the
structure. Results from such models may overestimate
ductility capacity. For example, instead of the ductile behavior
that was expected by structural engineers, a widespread
occurrence of brittle fractures was observed in recent
earthquakes. Therefore, in order to evaluate the seismic
Prashant Sunagar, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
MSRIT, Bangalore India, Prashant.sjce@gmail.com
S.M. Shivananda, P.G Student in CAD Structures, Dept. of Civil
Engineering S.D.M.C.E.T Dharwad-02, India, shivanandsmcv@gmail.com

where,
R response modification factors.
Ve base shear force.
Vd design base shear.
The factor R is an empirical response reduction factor
intended to account for damping, over strength, and the
ductility inherent in the structural system at displacements
great enough to surpass initial yield and approach the ultimate
load displacement of the structural system. The concept of a
response modification factor was proposed based on the
premise that well-detailed seismic framing systems could
sustain large inelastic deformations without collapse (ductile
behavior) and develop lateral strengths in excess of their
design strength (often termed reserve strength). Engineering
practice benefited from these facts of structural behavior.
Along with some major assumptions and experiences R
factor is first introduced in ATC-3-06 in 1978, served to
reduce the base shear force (Ve) calculated by elastic analysis
using a 5% damped acceleration response spectrum for the
purpose of calculating a design base shear (Vd). R factors are
widely used; integrated into the static elastic analysis of
structures to account for inelastic response. Major static
analysis routines are Equivalent Lateral Force Method and
Response Spectrum Method; in both procedures R factors are
utilized to calculate the design base shear. One of the most
important assumptions of both methods is that the inelastic
response quantities are tried to be approximated by the use of
elastic analysis tools just by introducing a factor. The use of

ISBN 978-93-82338-01-7 | 2012 Bonfring

Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering (AARCV 2012), 21st 23rd June 2012
Paper ID SAM191, Vol. 1

R factors includes another significant ambiguity to the design


which is that while assuming considerable damage by
reducing the lateral forces, it is not possible to estimate the
level of damage by these methods.
II.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Kim and Choi studied the over strength, ductility, and the
response modificationfactors of the 21 special concentric
braced steel frames and 9 ordinary concentric braced frames
with various stories and span lengths were evaluated by
performing pushover analyses. The over strength factors
increased as the structures height decreased and the span
length increased. In SCBFs, the factors turned out to be 1.9 to
3.2 for a 6m span, 2.4 to 4.1 for an 8m span, and 2.5 to 4.7 for
a 10 m span. In OCBFs, factors were found close to 1.5 for all
configurations.
Lee, Cho and Ko investigated over strength factors and
plastic rotation demands for 5, 10, 15 story R/C buildings
designed in low and high seismicity regions utilizing three
dimensional pushover analysis. One of their conclusions is
that the over strength factors in low seismicity regions are
larger than those of highseismicity regions for structures
designed with the same response modification factor. They
have reported factors ranging from 2.3 to 8.3.

nonlinear behavior of space frames under static or dynamic


loadings, taking into account both geometric nonlinearity and
material inelasticity. The software accepts static loads (either
forces or displacements) as well as dynamic (accelerations)
actions and has the ability to perform eigenvalues, nonlinear
static pushover and linear dynamic analyses
B. Details of the Models
The models which have been adopted for study are Three
story (G+3), Nine story (G+9) and Twenty story (G+20)
moment resisting frame buildings. The buildings are
consisting of square columns and beams. The floor slabs are
taken as 125mm thick. Thefoundation height is 1.5m and the
height of the all stories is 3m. The modulus of elasticity and
shear modulus of concrete have been taken as E = 2.55 107
kN/m2 and G = 1.06 107 kN/m2. Three models have been
considered for the purpose of the study.
Three stories (G+3)
Nine stories (G+9)
Twenty stories (G+20)
The plan and sectional elevation of the buildings are as
shown below

Osteraas and Krawinkler studied over strength and


ductility of steel frames designed in compliance with the
Uniform Building Code working stress design provisions were
observed. Moment frames, perimeter frames and braced
frames having various bay sizes and heights were subjected to
non-linear static analysis using an invariant triangular load
distribution. For moment frames the over strength factor
ranged from 8.0 in the short period range to 2.1 at a period of
4.0 seconds. For concentric braced frames reported over
strength factors ranged from 2.8 to 2.2 at periods of 0.1s to
0.9s respectively.
III.

STRUCTURAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS

Different types of RCC framing systems are taken into


consideration and subjected to the analysis. Nine frame
systems and their variations of 3, 9, 20 stories and in addition
to these geometrical variations, 3 different irregularities are
modeled which were diaphragm irregularity, stiffness
irregularity and mass irregularity. Thus analysis, design and
evaluation process is carried on for a grand sum of 90
structural systems and repeated for two limit states. Frame
types are illustrated.
A. General
In ordered to investigate the performance of RCC moment
resisting frames are designed according to Indian Seismic
Code with non-linear static analysis regarding to their lateral
load carrying capacity and to assess pertinent response
modification factors based on the literal definition given by
past studies. In this context over strength and ductility
reduction factors are evaluated by analyzing the raw pushover
data of systems with the help of a custom developed computer
program SAP2000 V14.1 is utilized to create 3D model and
run all analyses. The software is able to predict the geometric

323

Figure 1: Plan and Elevation of the Buildings

ISBN 978-93-82338-01-7 | 2012 Bonfring

Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering (AARCV 2012), 21st 23rd June 2012
Paper ID SAM191, Vol. 1

IV.

ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE

Primarily two types of analysis procedures have been


carried out for determining the various structural parameters
of the model. Here we are mainly concerned with the behavior
of the structure under the effect of ground motion and
dynamic excitations such as earthquakes and the displacement
of the structure in the inelastic range. The analyses carried out
are as follows:
Response Spectrum Analysis
Pushover Analysis

A. Three Story Building (G+3)


Table 2: Maximum Story Drift Values at Different Story of
G+3 Building
STOR
RY
RMF
GF
1ST

A. Response Spectrum Analysis


Here we are primarily concerned with observing the
deformations, forces and moments induced in the structure due
to dead, live loads and earthquake loads. The load case Dead
takes care of the self-weight of the frame members and the
area sections. The wall loads have been defined under a
separate load case Wall and the live loads under the case
Live. Analysis is carried out for all three cases for obtaining
the above mentioned parameters. Modal analysis is carried out
for obtaining the natural frequencies, modal mass participation
ratios and other modal parameters of the structure. Response
spectrum analysis of the three models is done in the zone IV&
V.
B. Push Over Analysis
Push over analysis is a static, non-linear procedure that can
be used to estimate the dynamic needs imposed on a structure
by earthquake ground motions. In this procedure a predefined
lateral load pattern is distributed along the building height.
The lateral forces are then monotonically increased in constant
proportion with a displacement control at the control node of
the building until a certain level of deformation is reached.

324

2ND
3RD

ZONE-IV

ZONE-V

0.8
4
2.1
3
1.9
7
1.2
9

0.5
7
1.4
2
1.3
1
0.8
5

0.4
3
1.0
7
0.9
9
0.6
4

0.3
5
0.8
6
0.7
9
0.5
1

0.2
8
0.7
1
0.6
6
0.4
3

1.2
9
3.2
2
2.9
6
1.9
3

0.8
6
2.1
3
1.9
8
1.2
8

0.6
3
1.6
2
1.4
8
0.9
7

0.5
0
1.2

0.4
3
1.0
7
0.9
9
0.6
5

1.1
8
0.7
8

Maximum Story Drift in Zone-iv

For this analysis nonlinear plastic hinges have been


assigned to all of the primary elements. Default moment
hinges (M3-hinges) have been assigned to beam elements and
default axial-moment 2-moment3 hinges (PMM-hinges) have
been assigned to column elements. The floors have been
assigned as rigid diaphragms by assigning diaphragm
constraint.
V.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The result obtained from analysis are compared and


discussed as follows.
Natural periods are calculated as per IS-1893-2002 for the
analysis, the values are tabulated below
Table 1: Natural Periods Calculated for the 3, 9 and 20 Stories
Building

Time period

3-storry

0.4375

9-storry

0.9251

20-storry

1.6471

Maximum story drifts values and graphs for different


buildings

Maximum Story Drift in Zone-v


Table 3: Maximum Story Drift Values at Different Story of
G+9 Building
STOREY
RMF
GF
1ST
2ND
3RD
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th

ISBN 978-93-82338-01-7 | 2012 Bonfring

2
0.76
2.19
2.81
2.91
2.88
2.69
2.41
1.99
1.51
0.99

3
0.50
1.40
1.76
1.77
1.66
1.50
1.30
1.08
0.79
0.54

ZONE-IV
4
5
0.38 0.31
1.05 0.85
1.32 1.05
1.33 1.06
1.25 0.99
1.12 0.89
0.95 0.78
0.80 0.64
0.59 0.48
0.40 0.31

6
0.25
0.69
0.86
0.87
0.81
0.74
0.64
0.52
0.39
0.26

Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering (AARCV 2012), 21st 23rd June 2012
Paper ID SAM191, Vol. 1

STOREY
RMF
GF
1ST
2ND
3RD
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th

2
1.13
3.19
3.93
3.95
3.70
3.35
2.91
2.43
1.80
1.17

3
0.75
2.16
2.64
2.65
2.49
2.23
1.96
1.59
1.21
0.80

ZONE-V
4
0.58
1.61
1.98
1.99
1.87
1.69
1.46
1.21
0.91
0.60

STORRY
5
0.45
1.27
1.59
1.57
1.49
1.35
1.17
0.96
0.72
0.47

6
0.37
1.05
1.30
1.31
1.22
1.11
0.97
0.79
0.59
0.39

RMF
GF
1ST
2ND
3RD
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
20th

325

ZONE-IV
4

0.23
0.72
1.13
1.34
1.43
1.45
1.44
1.41
1.37
1.35
1.30
1.27
1.23
1.17
1.10
1.03
0.95
0.83
0.72
0.62
0.51

0.15
0.48
0.72
0.89
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.89
0.86
0.83
0.80
0.78
0.74
0.69
0.63
0.55
0.48
0.40
0.34

0.11
0.37
0.55
0.67
0.71
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.69
0.67
0.66
0.64
0.61
0.58
0.55
0.51
0.47
0.41
0.36
0.30
0.26

0.10
0.30
0.47
0.57
0.63
0.66
0.67
0.66
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.63
0.61
0.57
0.54
0.50
0.45
0.39
0.34
0.29
0.24

0.07
0.24
0.37
0.44
0.47
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.40
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.31
0.27
0.24
0.20
0.17

Table 4: Maximum Story Drift Values at Different Story of


G+20 Building
STORRY

Maximum Story Drift in Zone-iv

RMF
GF
1ST
2ND
3RD
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
20th

ZONE-V
4

0.35
1.08
1.68
2.01
2.13
2.20
2.16
2.12
2.07
2.01
1.96
1.90
1.83
1.76
1.66
1.56
1.41
1.26
1.08
0.91
0.76

0.24
0.73
1.12
1.34
1.42
1.44
1.43
1.41
1.38
1.34
1.29
1.26
1.22
1.17
1.11
1.03
0.94
0.83
0.72
0.60
0.51

0.18
0.55
0.84
1.01
1.07
1.08
1.07
1.06
1.04
1.01
0.98
0.95
0.92
0.88
0.82
0.77
0.71
0.63
0.55
0.46
0.39

0.14
0.43
0.66
0.80
0.85
0.87
0.86
0.84
0.83
0.80
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.70
0.66
0.61
0.57
0.51
0.44
0.37
0.31

0.11
0.36
0.55
0.66
0.70
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.60
0.58
0.55
0.51
0.47
0.41
0.36
0.30
0.25

Maximum Story Drift in Zone-v

ISBN 978-93-82338-01-7 | 2012 Bonfring

Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering (AARCV 2012), 21st 23rd June 2012
Paper ID SAM191, Vol. 1

326

B. Three Story Building (G+3)

Maximum Story Drift in Zone-iv

Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement Diagram (zone-4)Base


Shear vs. Roof Displacement Diagram (zone-5)
C. Ninestory building (G+9)

Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement Diagram (zone-4)

Maximum Story Drift in Zone-v

Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement Diagram (zone-5)

ISBN 978-93-82338-01-7 | 2012 Bonfring

Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering (AARCV 2012), 21st 23rd June 2012
Paper ID SAM191, Vol. 1

327

earthquake. A single value of R for a given framing type,


without the correlation of basic structural properties such as
height, plan geometry, framing layout, connection type, cannot
be obtained. Since every structure and its boundary conditions
are unique, conducting parametric studies to form a detailed
tabulation will not be enough to provide a well-controlled
seismic behavior. However many design variables are tied to a
single value of R; it is believed that incorporating various
parameters into to R factor selection, would result in better
and more reliable seismic performance.

D. Twenty Story Building (G+20)

Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement Diagram (zone-4)

The major intention of R factor is to utilize the inelastic


capacity of the structure. Designing the building for a
significantly lower base shear than expected will lead to
inelasticity but in an uncontrolled manner; key components of
inelastic behavior such as story drift ratios, overall
displacement and plastic rotations will be unknown. In current
Indian seismic design code damping in structures are fixed in
5% modal damping. There is an intensive research in literature
on highly damped response of structures; more insightful
provisions may be provided especially for structures with
damping systems. Current Indian seismic design code never
mentions about redundancy in structures. While irregularities
in structural layout are punished, providing redundancy must
be encouraged by the code.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

Base Shear vs. Roof Displacement Diagram (zone-5)


VI.

[3]

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions derived based on this thesis study, are


presented in this section as follows: Methodology, in
determination of R, is based on equal displacement rule.
This idea simplifies the application but completely neglects
the post-elastic behavior of the structure. Positive or negative
slopes of inelastic behavior, strength and stiffness degradation
affects are completely omitted. Alternatively, another idea
called equal area rule, equals the total energy absorbed thus
inelastic behavior is included to some degree. However it is
far from even roughly estimating the displacement demands.
Both approaches are unrealistic and lead to vague results of
R.

[4]

[5]

Kim, J., and Choi, H. (2005) Response Modification Factors of


Chevron-BracedFrames Engineering Structures.
Lee, D.G., Cho, S.H., and Ko H. (2005). Response Modification
Factors for Seismic Design of Building Structures in Low Seismicity
Regions KoreaEarthquake Engineering Research Center.
Balendra, T. and Huang, X.(2003) Over strengthand Ductility Factors
for Steel Frames Designed According to BS 5950 Journal of Structural
Engineering,ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 8.
Osteraas, J.D. and Krawinkler, H. (1990). Strength and Ductility
Considerations in Seismic Design Rep.No. 90, John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering.Center, Stanford University, California.
Nassar, A.A. and Krawinkler, H. (1991). Seismic Demands for SDOF
and MDOFSystems Rep. No. 95, John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center,Stanford University, California.

Seismic design using the response modification factors


listed in seismic codes and guidelines will most probably not
result in a uniform level of risk for allseismic framing systems
since there is no sound mathematical basis of the application.
Current seismic code is capable of adjusting the R factor
according to the stiffness of the structure. R is streamlined
to lower values if structure has very short periods of vibration.
Strength on the other hand has never been issued in R
determination. Structural strength level also needed to be
controlled since overdesign or under-design may both result in
unexpected and unfavorable behaviors. Some of the structures,
designed in this study, seem to never even yield in a moderate
earthquake. The use of response modification factors will
likely not produce the desired performance in the design
ISBN 978-93-82338-01-7 | 2012 Bonfring

You might also like