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 1Á67, 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. 2.1.

DESCRIPTION AND MODELLING OF THE BUILDINGS

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)

as shown in Table 1. obtained from elastic free vibration analyses are also shown in Table 1. respectively. 11. Ltd. The bottom storey of the first group of buildings has a height of 4Á5 m. The same overall plan dimensions of 15 m  20 m are utilized for the 12 buildings. The selected combinations enable examining the response of buildings designed to the same ground acceleration but for different ductility levels. medium and low). 36 m and 24 m. to low. All other storeys for this group and for groups 2 and 3 have equal heights of 3 m. for more details. The floor Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. The core consists of two channel shear walls coupled in the Z direction at each storey level by a pair of beams. The level of ductility varies from high. dictating rigorous standards on member detailing. 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. Struct. (b) group 2. see Table 1 accelerations (0Á15 g and 0Á30 g) with three design ductility levels (high. (c) group 3. whereas group 3 is provided with a central core and perimeter moment-resisting frames. Plane and sectional elevation of the buildings: (a) group 1. as shown in Figure 1(a). The total heights for the three groups are 25Á5 m. These columns are supported by long span beams. Generally. Design Tall Build. The lateral force resisting system for groups 1 and 2 is moment resisting frames. The force reduction factors used in the design as well as the observed elastic fundamental periods. 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings. Telastic. Further vertical irregularity is introduced in the first group by the cut-off at the ground storey of four perimeter columns. 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 331 Figure 1. requiring no special detailing or capacity design requirements. 329–351 (2002) . 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings. and vice versa.

Detailed and efficient two-dimensional models have been utilized for the 12 buildings investigated. peals ground acceleration. elastic fundamental period. 2000).332 A. Ductility level Design PGA (g) 0Á30 0Á30 0Á15 0Á15 0Á30 0Á30 0Á15 0Á15 0Á30 0Á30 0Á15 0Á15 Force reduction factor 4Á00 3Á00 3Á00 2Á00 5Á00 3Á75 3Á75 2Á50 3Á50 2Á625 2Á625 1Á75 Telastic (s) 0Á674 0Á654 0Á719 0Á723 0Á857 0Á893 0Á920 0Á913 0Á538 0Á533 0Á592 0Á588 Group 1: 8-storey. regular frame (RF) buildings: RF-H030 High RF-M030 Medium RF-M015 Medium RF-L015 Low Group 3: 8-storey. ADAPTIC has been developed at Imperial College for the nonlinear analysis of two-dimensional and three-dimensional steel. 1994. Design Tall Build. 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. Structural systems considered Reference no.2 Modelling for Inelastic Analysis The finite element structural analysis program ADAPTIC (Izzuddin and Elnashai. It is capable of predicting the large inelastic deformation of individual members and structures. Eigenvalue. 11. 1997. Telastic. 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. Further information regarding the cross-sectional dimensions and reinforcement details of members can be found elsewhere (Fardis. Elnashai and Elghazouli. 1989) is utilized to perform the inelastic analyses. Struct. Ltd. 1993. and the Z axis for group 3. Pinho. whereas waffle slabs are utilized in group 3. Elnashai and Izzuddin. irregular frame (IF) buildings: IF-H030 High IF-M030 Medium IF-M015 Medium IF-L015 Low Group 2: 12-storey. 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. respectively. system of the groups 1 and 2 is solid slabs. Two-dimensional representation is selected owing to the limited significance of torsional effects for the cases considered. Broderick and Elnashai. 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. 329–351 (2002) . the analyses are conducted along the global X axis for group 1 and 2.g. regular frame-wall (FW) buildings: FW-H030 High FW-M030 Medium FW-M015 Medium FW-L015 Low Note: PGA. reinforced concrete and composite structures under static and dynamic loading. S. MWAFY Table 1. Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai. taking into account the effects of geometric nonlinearities and material inelasticity. With reference to the global axes system. ELNASHAI AND A. 2. A characteristic cylinder strength of 25 N mmÀ2 and a yield strength of 500 N mmÀ2 are considered for concrete and steel. M. A detailed description of available elements and material models in ADAPTIC is beyond the scope of this paper. 1994). 1993. Further information regarding the program and its validation can be found in the aforementioned references.

The concrete is represented in the current study by using a uniaxial constant confinement concrete model (Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai. an approach consistent with ‘assessment’. In this model. 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. local yield is assumed when the strain in the main longitudinal tensile reinforcement exceeds the yield strain of steel. 1997). Struct. To account for inertia effects during dynamic analysis. rigorous definitions of response parameters is needed. The elements are located at the centroid of the core U-shaped crosssection 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. Two particularly important limit states in the response of the buildings are required for the approach utilized in this study. For this type of element. 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. Three elements are utilized to model each horizontal and vertical structural member. Two shear spring elements are introduced to represent the shear stiffness of the beam–column connection. an elastic–perfectly-plastic idealisation of the real system is employed. Figure 2 depicts the technique utilized for modelling the buildings. 1993) is utilized for modelling the reinforcement bars. and the ultimate lateral strength of the real system is utilized for the post-elastic domain of the linearized envelope (Park. as shown in Figure 2(a). 1988). 2. In frame-wall buildings. that at which significant yield occurs and that at which the first indication of failure is observed. Gravity loads are applied as point loads at beam nodes. Cubic shape function elements capable of representing the distribution of inelasticity are used to model the horizontal and vertical structural members. the stress–strain response of steel with nonlinear hardening and cyclic degradation is defined in terms of a series of cubic polynomial functions. 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 shear supply of structural members is estimated mainly using Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. Two rigid elements are utilized to connect the beam ends with the framing columns. 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. For adequately designed RC buildings. the core wall on each side of the coupling beam is modelled as ‘wide-column’. On the structure level.3. The initial stiffness is evaluated as the secant stiffness at 75% of the ultimate strength. 329–351 (2002) . Elnashai and Izzuddin. The advanced multisurface plasticity model (Elnashai and Izzuddin. 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. since no clear yield point is present. The numerically dissipative Hilber–Hughes– Taylor a-integration scheme (Broderick. The lengths of these elements are determined in accordance with the distribution of transverse and longitudinal reinforcements. Two failure criteria on the member level are employed. exceeding the shear strength or the ultimate curvature in any structural member. Ltd. 1994) is utilized to solve the equations of motion. 11. Two criteria are selected to define yield on member and structure levels. masses are distributed in the same pattern adopted for the gravity loads and are represented by lumped two-dimensional mass elements.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 333 the frame-wall group supported this decision. Mean values of material strength are utilized in the analyses rather than the values used in the design. ADAPTIC performs the numerical integration over two Gauss sections. Design Tall Build.

S. 329–351 (2002) Figure 2. (b) cubic elastoplastic element. Adopted modelling approach: (a) beam–column connection. MWAFY Struct. 11. ELNASHAI AND A. Ltd. A.334 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. Design Tall Build. M. (c) decomposition of beam T-section into fibres .

This model. FEMA 1996. 1998. In additon. the codebased shear strength model has also been employed after eliminating the safety factors. this simple load shape is employed in the current study. provides an experimentally verifiable estimate of shear in RC members. 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). 1996) have shown that the effect of the vertical component of the seismic excitation on structural members and systems may be significant. Owing to the large number of analysis required if more natural records are employed (between 350 and 400 analyses for each added natural record). This criterion is intended to place a further check on second-order effects. For the set of structures considered. 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. Struct. To allow for effective comparison with the design code. especially those designed to modern seismic codes such as the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or EC8. Broderick and Elnashai. This limit is adopted over other conservative limits to reflect the ability of structural frame systems to sustain relatively large deformations. previous analytical investigations and field evidence (Bozorgnia. 2. Design Tall Build. 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. The location and characteristics of the selected records are given in Table 2. The interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient ( = ID Â storey gravity load/seismic storey shear) recommended by EC8 is utilized as well. Ltd. The response of the 8-storey irregular frame buildings using the design code load pattern. 2000). which is almost an inverted triangle. The interstorey drift (ID) ratio is considered as the primary and most important global collapse criterion. was identical to the response obtained from timehistory collapse analysis. Furthermore. Mahin and Brady. In Figure 3(a) the acceleration response Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 335 the model proposed by Priestley. Collapse is considered to be imminent when this coefficient exceeds 0Á3. Hence. Inelastic dynamic analysis for each building is performed using eight input excitations. 2000). 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. This limit should be sufficient to restrict second order (P–D) effects and to express the damage in structural and nonstructural elements. four criteria on the structure level are utilized to define significant failure. Several values for the ID collapse limit have been suggested in the literature (SEAOC. Towards this end. collapse also corresponds to the formation of a column hinging mechanism or a drop in the overall lateral resistance (by more than 10%). Papazoglou and Elnashai. 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. particularly for buildings situated in the vicinity of active faults. the number of excitations was kept to this limit. 11. 329–351 (2002) . 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. By considering overall structural characteristics. which takes into account the instantaneous influence of axial load and flexural ductility. 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. An upper limit of ID equal to 3% is employed in this study. 1996). investigating this effect on the vertical vibrations of the planted columns of the irregular frame structures is notably important. Verma and Xiao (1994). 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. 1995.4.

(b) the vertical component of the natural records. 11. ‘Aloha Ave. 1Á75 and 0Á9 seconds. Response spectra for 0Á30g and 5% damping: (a) the artificial. Ltd. 2000) for eight seismic excitations and at different input intensities. The inelastic fundamental periods of vibration of the set of buildings were identified in another study (Mwafy and Elnashai. Moreover. group 3. In this period range all the spectral ordinates are comparable and the natural records envelope the code spectrum. respectively.336 A. Ground motion records used in the time-history analysis Kobe. MWAFY Table 2. 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings. Design Tall Build. Struct. group 2. the longitudinal component of the natural accelorograms and the EC8 (Eurocode 8. it is clear that the spectral acceleration of the artificial and the Loma Prieta (SAR) records are significantly higher than Kobe (KBU). 329–351 (2002) . as shown in Figure 3(a). S. In the short period range. ELNASHAI AND A. M. 1994) spectrum. contrary to the short period range. The accelerograms and the code elastic spectrum are scaled to 0Á30g. for more details. The averages for the three groups of structure are 1Á40.’ 18 October 1989 7Á17 17 0Á319 0Á349 1Á09 2 Artificial records Art-rec1 to Art-rec4 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 4 spectra for the artificial records and the longitudinal component of the natural records are compared with the EC8 elastic spectrum. Japan Station Date Surface Wave Magnitude Ms Epicentral distance (km) Peals ground acceleration: horizontal. This is owing to the normalization method adopted in the current study. particularly Loma Prieta (SAR). see Table 1 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. which will result in amplifying higher mode effects. 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings. and the damping ratio set at 5%. 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings. H vertical. where all records are scaled to possess equal velocity spectrum intensity in the period range utilized. it is clear that the Figure 3. group 1. of input excitations Kobe University 17 January 1995 7Á20 14 0Á276 0Á431 1Á56 2 Loma Prieta. see CEN. 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). USA Saratoga. V V/H No.

FW. Ltd. extensive time-history collapse analysis is performed under the selected eight input excitations. The normalization factor is the ratio SIc/SIn. Time-history collapse analyses are first carried out for the 12 buildings under the four artificial records. Analyses Performed Eigenvalue analyses are conducted first to determine the uncracked horizontal and vertical periods of vibration. The technique adopted in this study is to subject each building to the selected set of excitations. This simple analysis is also useful as an initial validation tool of the analytical models. respectively.5. starting from a relatively low intensity. 2000). for more details. The method is summarized as follows: . Design Tall Build. where Ty and T2D are defined as the inelastic periods of the buildings at global yielding and at twice the design intensity. The natural accelerograms are scaled gradually by utilizing the integration limits obtained for each of the 12 buildings. . SIc and SIn are calculated between periods of 0Á8Ty and 1Á2T2D. structural capacity and overstrength. which are scaled according to their PGA.)a 0Á56 1Á32 a :Integration limits (0Á8Ty À 1Á2T2D) used in the scaling technique. Finally. a reliable scaling procedure is required. 2. This is carried out by progressively scaling and applying each accelerogram followed by assessment of the response and checking all performance criteria. which are scaled gradually upwards until all yield and collapse limit states are reached. The employed scaling approach is based on the velocity spectrum intensity (Housner. Therefore. typically the design intensity divided by the force reduction factor. 2000). 329–351 (2002) . their velocity spectral intensity is equivalent to that of the code. 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. Therefore. 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 0Á13–0Á17 seconds.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 337 Table 3. respectively. Comprehensive results of the effect of vertical ground motion on the seismic response of the buildings are presented and discussed elsewhere (Mwafy. 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.)a 0Á61 1Á25 FW group (0Á8–1Á5 sec. Normalization factors for a peak ground acceleration of 0Á30g Natural record Kobe (KBU) Loma Prieta (SAR) IF group (1Á0–1Á8 sec. 11. This analysis procedure is employed to evaluate the global yield limit state.)a 0Á54 1Á15 RF group (1Á3–2Á4 sec. Therefore. . regular frame. The average normalization coefficients at an intensity level of 0Á30g alongside the inelastic period range employed to calculate the spectral areas for each group of building are shown in Table 3. and ending with the Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. Inelastic static pushover analyses are performed for the buildings by using an inverted triangular load. . Struct. It is also employed to estimate the inelastic period by reducing the flexural stiffness. Note: IF. where SIc and SIn are the areas under the code-implied velocity spectrum and the velocity spectrum of the scaled accelerogram. see Table 1. RF. These records were generated to fit the code spectrum. irregular frame. regular frame-wall. This limit has been selected following extensive analysis and comparisons with different definitions of the scaling period range (Mwafy. 1952).

CONTRIBUTION OF THE ELONGATED PERIOD TO OVERSTRENGTH 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. respectively. 1992 intensity at which all collapse definitions are achieved. respectively. 83%–100% and 45%–79%. 1997) recommends 0Á5EcIg for beams and 0Á7EcIg for columns. 1997. Several values of the effective stiffness have been suggested in the literature. 3. M. whereas employing the suggestion Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. Clearly. For group 1. see Table 1. where EcIg is the stiffness of the uncracked concrete cross-section.1. The observed increase in the period obtained from eigenvalue analysis using the reduced stiffness values recommended by FEMA 273 are 24%. 2000) using Fourier analyses of top acceleration response under eight seismic excitations. ELNASHAI AND A. for more details. group 3. as explained earlier. 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%. 11. Normally. 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings. 8-storey regular framewall (FW) buildings.338 A. 23% and 17%. the high compressive axial forces in columns reduce the crack width and hence enhance the stiffness of the cracked section. Struct. NEHRP (FEMA. Paulay and Priestley. 3. S. The effective stiffness of columns is suggested to range from 0Á4EcIg to 0Á8EcIg according to the anticipated earthquake-induced axial force. Paulay and Priestley (1992) proposed 0Á4EcIg for rectangular beams and 0Á35EcIg for T and L section beams. group 1. 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. Moreover. 329–351 (2002) . 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. Ltd. group 2. between 15 to 20 analyses are required for each building–input-excitation combination to identify the response at different yield and collapse limit states. values of effective stiffness taken from FEMA. 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings. Design Tall Build. The elongation of the period of the buildings has been evaluated (Mwafy and Elnashai. the reduction in the stiffness of the beams should be higher than the columns as a consequence of applying capacity design rules. MWAFY Figure 4.

Design spectra. (b) buildings designed to low ductility and PGA = 0Á15g. It is also worth noting that the inelastic period at a low seismic intensity is generally close to the value at the design intensity. group 2. However. Effect of Elongated Period on Overstrength Whereas the above proposal for effective stiffness shows a conservative prediction of the inelastic period. whereas that at half the design and at the design intensity levels are 1Á20 sec and 1Á30 sec. it leads to significant reduction in design forces. group 3. 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. For instance. the deterioration of the stiffness and the elongation of the period increase rapidly as a result of extensive cracking and yielding at the base. respectively. 11. 71% and 52%. the response depends strongly on the walls. Ltd. as shown in Figure 5 for six of the investigated buildings. see Table 1 of Paulay and Priestley shows an increase of 42%. 329–351 (2002) . This emphasises the overconservatism of the two proposals of FEMA 273 and Paulay and Priestley (1992). group 1. 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings. Utilizing half the effective stiffness values proposed by Paulay and Priestley (1992) increases the elastic periods by 75%. respectively.2. 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings. 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) = 0Á30g. It is clear that the recommendations of FEMA 273 and Paulay and Priestley underestimate the inelastic period. respectively. for the three groups of building. as shown in Figure 4. 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.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 339 Figure 5. The third group of buildings is reanalysed using half the effective stiffness proposed by Paulay and Priestley for beams and columns. 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. it is slightly unconservative for the frame-wall structures when compared with the inelastic period at the design intensity level. This seems to be more realistic for frame structures. Struct. 39% and 27%. Design Tall Build. but the effective stiffness of the walls are kept as suggested by these two researchers. 3. Therefore. the average elastic period for the first group of buildings is 0Á69 sec. for more details. 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. 12storey regular frame (RF) buildings. For this type of structure.

This is avoided by employing realistic estimates of the inelastic period of vibration.340 A. especially exceptionally short and long period structures. ELNASHAI AND A. Finally. it is important to note that. Li and Pourzanjani (1999) have shown that utilizing the proposal of Paulay and Priestley (1992) as well as the recommendation of FEMA 273 (FEMA. although the suggested reduction in the cross-section stiffness is reasonably conservative for the range of buildings investigated. 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. 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. Moreover. M. 4. . overestimating the stiffness may lead to grossly unconservative estimates of deformations. S. Struct. and the ductility reduction factor. structural overstrength. Quantification of the actual Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd. The relationships between the force reduction factor. respectively. respectively. R. In another study. 329–351 (2002) . MWAFY Figure 6. more research is needed to cover buildings out of this range. 1997) might be unconservative for predicting the displacement from time-history analyses. Conversely. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRENGTH. 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. The overstrength factor ( d) may be defined as the ratio of the actual to the design lateral strength: d ˆ Vy Vd …1† as depicted in Figure 6 and termed the ‘observed’ overstrength factor. R  the frame and the frame-wall structures. Design Tall Build. 11. this proposal has been suggested to predict the inelastic period from eigenvalue analysis and hence is restricted to this application.

12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings. These include: (1) the difference between the actual and the design material strength. obtained from inelastic static pushover analysis. 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings. (9) redundancy. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. Humar and Ragozar. Vy. 11. (2) conservatism of the design procedure and ductility requirements. (11) actual confinement effect. H. W. 329–351 (2002) . Mitchell and Paulter. hence leading to more economical structures. (6) participation of nonstructural elements. group 1. weight of building. (5) serviceability limit state provisions. 1991. 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings. top displacement. and (12) utilizing the elastic period to obtain the design forces. 1996. Struct.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 341 Figure 7. The main sources of overstrength are reviewed in other studies (Uang. height of building. 1994.g. Ltd. (3) load factors and multiple load cases. (10) strain hardening. (8) minimum reinforcement and member sizes that exceed the design requirements. Park. see Table 1 overstrength can be employed to reduce the forces used in the design. Comparison between the capacity envelopes for the three groups of buildings. D. Design Tall Build. for more details. (7) effect of structural elements not considered in predicting the lateral load capacity (e. group 2. 1996). group 3. actual slab width). (4) accidental torsion consideration. actual strength (base shear).

Observed ( d) and inherent ( i) overstrength for the 12 buildings. In those cases the lateral strength at global collapse is considered as the maximum strength. R. response modification factor. obtained from the elastic perfectly plastic idealized response. for more details. This is clear in Figure 9. 2000). which are presented elsewhere (Mwafy and Elnashai. are utilized to evaluate overstrength factors. respectively. first yield is observed in beams. group 2. Ve. Vy. 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings. Struct. as discussed hereafter. The advantages of employing regular structural systems in the design are clear in Figures 7 and 9. This is a result of the extra tensile forces imposed on these columns as a result of the cut-off at the ground storey. The capacity envelopes of the buildings obtained from time-history collapse analyses. The interstorey drift collapse limit is also shown for each structure. Design Tall Build. 11. elastic strength. These are estimated for the 12 buildings by means of inelastic static pushover as well as incremental time-history analyses up to collapse. MWAFY Figure 8. M. where the progress of hinge formation for a sample building from each group is shown at the global yield limit state.342 A. S. The first observed 10 plastic hinges can be distinguished in the figure from other subsequently formed hinges. with the exception of few cases. group 3. see Table 1 4. 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings. group 1. In Figure 9(b). only one plastic hinge in columns is observed (hinge 91 from a total of 96 hinges). For the second and third sets. The observed overstrength factors from inelastic static pushover and time-history collapse analyses are depicted in Figure 8(a). 329–351 (2002) . The overstrength obtained from an alternative definition. 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings. The plastic hinges observed in the second group of buildings up to the global yield limit state are mainly in beams. 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. where the base shear and the top displacement are normalized by the weight and the height of the building. Figure 7 shows the capacity envelopes for the three groups of building obtained from inelastic pushover analyses using a triangular lateral load distribution. The point of first yield in horizontal and vertical structural members as well as the global yield limit. actual strength. ELNASHAI AND A. is shown in Figure 8(b). Structural Capacity and Overstrength Analysis Results Structural lateral capacity and overstrength can be well-assessed from inelastic analyses. It is noteworthy that the maximum strength of the 12 buildings is generally observed at or before the interstorey drift collapse limit state. is illustrated on the response envelopes shown in Figure 7. whereas first yielding occurs at the second storey planted columns for the irregular buildings. Ltd. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons.1.

group 2. 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings. group 1. 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. Struct. group 3.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 343 Figure 9. Design Tall Build. 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings. top drift ratio = 1Á1%). see Table 1 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. 11. (c) FW-M030 (top displacement = 255 mm. for more details. top drift ratio = 1Á1%). 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings. 329–351 (2002) . top drift ratio = 1Á0%). Ltd. (b) FR-M030 (top displacement = 359 mm.

FW. regular frame-wall (group 3). S. irregular frame (group 1). For the third group. 329–351 (2002) . first yield in vertical elements is observed in the ground storey walls shortly after the first beam yielding. 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. 11. the maximum base shear of the latter ranges from 7300 kN to 13200 kN. high levels of lateral force are attracted to the walls and high bending moments at the ground level are generated as a result. 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.2. this is attributed to the higher stiffness of the short span external beams. The difference in the lateral capacity between the two buildings designed to the same ductility level (ductility medium) and two different design intensities (0Á30g and 0Á15g) is also consistent with the Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. For the frame structures. M. The design of the internal frame beams are also dominated by gravity loads. 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. Ltd. which attract higher forces. 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. For hybrid structures. However. Consequently. 4. The lowest V/W values are observed for the 12-storey regular frame buildings as a result of the high total gravity load. Comparison of force reduction factor (R) and capacity (Vy) of buildings designed for equal seismic intensity and different ductility levels 0Á30g pair reduction in R (%) IF-group RF-group FW-group 25 25 25 increase in Vy (%) 25 8 26 0Á15g pair reduction in R (%) 33 33 33 increase in Vy (%) 26 34 26 Note: IF. reflecting the high energy dissipation potential of these members. As explained earlier. 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 stiffness of these walls is significantly high compared with other lateral force resisting systems. particularly for the first two groups. ELNASHAI AND A. It is observed that more plastic hinges are formed in the external frames compared with the internal frames. MWAFY Table 4. Struct. Design Tall Build. reflecting the high stiffness and the efficiency of this structural system in resisting lateral forces.344 A. therefore the effect of the lateral loads are less significant. RF. regular frame (group 2). 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). plastic hinges generally form in the coupling beams earlier than in other internal beams. The only exception is the difference between the 0Á30g design ground acceleration pair of the RF-group. 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. 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.

The two buildings are designed for seismic intensity 0Á30g and 0Á15g. where the lateral capacity of the M015 buildings is almost half that of the M030 buildings (the highest and the lowest envelope). 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. FW. regular frame (group 2). This is summarized in Table 5. the one designed to a lower seismic intensity exhibits higher overstrength. This is a result of the conservatism of the design code lateral load distribution in predicting the strength capacity of buildings (Mwafy and Elnashai. Struct. which causes a reduction in the design forces thus magnifying the effect of gravity loads. irregular frame (group 1). the results of the group-1 and group-2 buildings being comparable. 4. 11. through the force reduction factor. 329–351 (2002) . Hence. This is clear from the response of the two buildings designed with ‘high’ and ‘low’ ductility in each group. difference in the design force levels. Clearly. particularly in columns and walls. This may be attributed to particular requirements of the Canadian design code (CCBFC. regular frame-wall (group 3). and the force reduction factor of H030 is twice the value of that of L015. In another study.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 345 Table 5. The aforementioned observations show clearly the trade-off between strength and ductility. 2000). 1995). the observed reserve strength of the 12 buildings is high. 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. This is attributed to the use of a higher force reduction factor with these buildings. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. particularly the factors obtained from pushover analyses. The difference in the lateral capacity shown in Figure 7 is the result of increasing the cross-sectional dimensions of the H030 buildings. 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. All the 12 buildings studied have overstrength factors over 2Á0. Ltd. 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. The rigorous provisions imposed on these buildings to enhance ductility also lead to increased overstrength. Higher ductility level buildings display higher reserve strength. This is reflected in the high overstrength factors calculated for those buildings (4Á6 and 3Á5) compared with lower ductility level buildings (2Á14 and 2Á78). Mitchell and Paulter (1994) have commented that it is a common misconception that a structure designed with a force reduction factor R = 4Á0 would have half the capacity of another designed with R = 2Á0. confirming the conservatism of EC8. reflecting the higher contribution of gravity loads. 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. Design Tall Build. 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 (%) IF-group RF-group FW-group 50 50 50 Reduction in capacity (%) 48 44 52 Note: IF. The group-3 buildings exhibit the highest level of overstrength. For the two buildings designed to the same ductility level in each group.3. RF. the design forces are equivalent for the two buildings. However. This is clear in Figure 7.

The rationality and the conservatism of the minimum overstrength factor of 2Á0 observed for the investigated sample of medium-rise RC buildings is supported by the following points: . 1994.346 A. conservative overstrength for different classes of structures may be set. Employing the elastic period in the design adds to overstrength factors by 1Á19–1Á43. This has been proposed as a function of the period and the ductility level. M. 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. the total overstrength from the above parameters is in excess of 2Á0. 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. Fischinger. Fajfar and Vidie (1994). Panagiotakos and Fardis (1998) investigated three groups of frame structural systems of various heights. particularly for regular buildings. 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. respectively. It is observed in Figure 7 that the response does not show any significant deviation from the elastic behaviour at first yielding. overstrength was calculated at this conservative drift limit because of the uncertainty involved in identifying the maximum strength. Ltd. Design Tall Build. Overstrength factors ranging from 2Á0 to 2Á5 were observed at twice the design PGA for buildings with ‘medium’ and ‘high’ ductility levels. this ratio is relatively high. ELNASHAI AND A. As long as the above is not fulfilled. A brief review of these studies can be found in Jain and Navin (1995) and in Whittaker. The studies carried out on buildings designed to the US codes indicated a minimum overstrength of Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. Some extreme values are also reported in the literature for low-rise buildings sited in low seismic zones. 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. 1Á5 and 2Á0. The effect of the design intensity and the structural system in the determination of the reserve strength has not been accounted for. 1Á46 and 1Á57. Therefore. Developing overstrength spectra for RC buildings covering different structural systems. Hart and Rojahn (1999). respectively. the design seismic intensity and the structural system. Fajfar and Vidie (1994) have studied 12 RC buildings to derive overstrength spectra. according to the results shown in Figure 5. 329–351 (2002) . Dynamic analysis was carried out only at the design intensity scaled by 1Á0. Uang 1991). Overstrength factors varied from 1Á6 for a 10-storey low ductility level building to 4Á6 for a 3-storey high ductility structure. EC8 imposes an extra overstrength factor of 1Á3 on columns since they are designed under biaxial bending. design intensity level. 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. When designing under unidirectional seismic excitation. 11. Consequently. ranging from 1Á8 to 6Á5 for long and short period range structures. The average Vfy/Vd ratio for the three groups is 1Á33. No strength degradation was considered in the analytical models utilized in their study. S. this level can be safely reduced to the design level. The aforementioned observation reflects the high reserve strength of EC8designed structures. Clearly. . the ultimate capacity may not be attained at this level of ground motion. Hence. 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%. The average contribution to overstrength from the difference between mean and characteristic values of material strength exceeds 1Á5. Struct. heights and ductility levels requires investigating a considerable range of buildings realistically designed and practically detailed to the code considered. Although. From the few studies carried out on buildings designed according to EC8. The scatter of the overstrength results was high. 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).

4. It is also important to note that previous studies have confirmed that low-rise buildings exhibit higher overstrength compared with medium-rise buildings. Where. 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. Therefore the minimum overstrength of 2Á0 can also be applied to this class of building. 11. 329–351 (2002) . 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. concerning long period RC buildings. For two buildings designed to the same seismic intensity (elastic force. Reserve strength of conventional buildings is higher than this level. 1991). which govern the design of those buildings. it fails to indicate particular important features of seismic response. The design code is more stringent for irregular structures and gravity loads play a more significant role in the design of lower rise buildings. Ltd. seismic forces generally play a less important role in the determination of cross-sectional sizes and reinforcements than do gravity loads. d1 ˆ and d2 ˆ Vy2 Vd2 …5† Vy1 Vd1 …4† The generic definition of overstrength ( d) is the ratio between actual (Vy) and design (Vd) strength. as explained earlier. Design Tall Build. Implication of the Force Reduction Factor on Overstrength Definition Although the aforementioned definition of overstrength is widely utilized. the R factor assumed in the design is included in the overstrength ( d) calculated for the two buildings. 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. Moreover. Vd1 ˆ and Vd2 ˆ Ve R2 …3† Ve R1 …2† Therefore. Ve) and different ductility levels. it is expected to observe higher overstrength for the 8-storey irregular frame buildings compared with the 12-storey structures. Uang. . For instance.OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 347 1Á8 for long period buildings. each structure will be assigned a different design force level (Vd) as a result of employing a different force reduction factor (R). Hence a precise evaluation of overstrength for the purpose of assessing force reduction factors of short period buildings is not of great benefit. Struct. An Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. This causes relatively higher section dimensions and reinforcement ratios than the demand imposed by seismic forces. Finally. hence higher overstrength is anticipated. 4. Thus.

the actual strength of these buildings is relatively high. 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. 11. which is defined on as empirical basis. Hence the force reduction factor. The suggested measure of response ( i) reflects the reserve strength and the anticipated behaviour of the structure under the design earthquake. in the case of Oi ! 1Á0 the global response will be almost elastic under the design earthquake. It is worth mentioning that for such a type of structure no capacity design rules are applied. Disp. M. actual strength. Contrary to the conventional definition of overstrength ( d). utilizes Ve. The strength levels of the four buildings of this group exceed the elastic strength. Vy. Design Tall Build. design strength. as shown in Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. although some requirements to enhance the ductility are imposed. 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. Different levels of the inherent overstrength. Oi ! 1Á0. Moreover. Vd. S. Struct. i: (a) ductile response. Oi < 1Á0. It is termed as ‘inherent’ to distinguish it from the ‘observed’ overstrength commonly used in the literature. 329–351 (2002) . elastic strength.. Clearly. reflecting the high overstrength of the structure. The proposed measure ( i) may be expressed as: i ˆ Vy d ˆ Ve R …6† This definition. where minimum section sizes and reinforcements lead to an elastic response for this class of structure under the design intensity. Ve. (b) elastic response under the design earthquake. ELNASHAI AND A. the results for i display clearly the expected higher overstrength of the IF group of buildings compared with the RF group. Below this limit. as depicted in Figure 10. Ltd. It is clear that the values of i are quite high for the third group of buildings. The lowest force reduction factors of EC8 are assigned to this class of building (1Á5–2Á5). 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. it is clear that the response of the buildings designed to a low ductility level in each group are likely to be elastic. with the exception of the results of the pushover analysis for the FW-H030 building.348 A. is avoided in this definition. which is the inverse of the ductility part of the force reduction factor (R ) as shown in Figure 6. The proposed measure clearly reflects the overconservatism of EC8 for structural wall systems. which again reflects the conservatism of the code. displacement additional measure relating the actual (Vy) to the elastic strength level (Ve) is suggested for use alongside the overstrength ( d). 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. MWAFY Figure 10.

Response criteria at both member and storey levels were defined. If overstrength is not accurately evaluated by means of inelastic analysis. . This can be applied to buildings that share section dimensions. Overstrength during earthquakes should be higher than the values obtained from inelastic static analyses using the code lateral load distribution. High overstrength factors are exhibited for the sample studied. 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. Ltd. . However. The input accelerograms were scaled to equal velocity spectrum intensity. this applies to other modern codes). Finally. 5. inelastic pushover and time-history collapse analysis employing eight natural and artificial records. A conservative overstrength factor of 2Á0 is suggested for medium period RC buildings designed and detailed to EC8 (in principle. . CONCLUSIONS In this paper. for the buildings designed to the same seismic intensity in each group. This limit can be applied to low-rise buildings since they usually possess higher overstrength than do medium-rise buildings. 11. 1997) and Paulay and Priestley (1992) in eigenvalue analysis underestimates the inelastic periods. The triangular load is conservative in predicting the ultimate capacity. 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. reflecting the higher ratio of the forces that are imposed on the structure in the postelastic range. which are more stringently applied to such buildings. which has elastic and inelastic periods of 0Á53–0Á92 and 0Á9–1Á75. (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 AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 349 Figure 8. the following conclusions are applicable to a large class of RC building. The overstrength measure is needed for evaluation and possible calibration of the force Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. This is a result of minimum cross-section—sizes and reinforcements. . Hybrid structural systems and buildings designed to high ductility levels also exhibit high overstrength. This is herein termed the ‘inherent overstrength factor’ i. A conservative prediction of the elongated period of structures can be obtained by employing a reduced flexural stiffness in eigenvalue analysis. Also. 12 RC buildings with various characteristics were studied to evaluate the overstrength and investigate its relationship with the force reduction factor. 329–351 (2002) . the higher ductility level buildings show lower values of i. The contribution to overstrength from three sources exceeds a factor of 2Á0 These are: (1) difference between mean and characteristic values of material strength. contributions of nonstructural elements should produce higher capacity and hence higher overstrength. The buildings designed to low seismic intensity levels show high overstrength factors as a result of the dominant role of gravity loads. Using the effective stiffness values suggested by FEMA 273 (FEMA. The study was carried out by means of eigenvalue. Design Tall Build. a lower bound may be utilized. . Notwithstanding the limitations of using a finite set of input motions and specific structures. whereas the proposed measure relates the ultimate strength to the elastic force. The minimum observed overstrength factor is 2Á0. Utilizing this period in the design instead of the elastic period leads to a reduction in the design forces of 15%–30%. Struct. A direct relationship between the lateral capacity and the design seismic force is confirmed here. This avoids implicating the force reduction factor in the definition. It is suggested to utilize an additional measure of response alongside the widely utilized overstrength measure ( d). . The former factor relates the ultimate strength to the force assumed in the design. respectively. .

Ottawa. Earthquake Spectra 14(3): 411–432. National building code of Canada 1995. A World List. Configuration 3. 1994. In Proceedings 11th WCEE. Structural response modification factors. Elnashai AS. Concept of overstrength in seismic design. Paper 639. American Society of Civil Engineers. part 1-1. Report ATC-19. Fischinger M. Engineering Structures 23: 407–424. Broderick BM. Ontario. 1-2 and 1-3. On the response modification factors for reinforced concrete buildings. Los Angeles. 5th US NCEE. Ductility and overstrength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. Tokyo. Mexico.350 A. Elnashai AS. Bruxelles. Ltd. Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames. Japan. Sensitivity of building response to nonlinear analysis models. 4th US NCEE. 5 and 6. part I: analytical model. 1995. Housner G. CA. Li R. Response criteria and input motions. S. Mwafy AM. Factors contributing to the response reduction. IAEE (International Association for Earthquake Engineering). Elnashai AS. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. it may lead to unreliable predictions of overstrength because of the inclusion of the force reduction factor assumed in the design in its definition. 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. 1995. IAEE. Performance of composite steel/concrete members under earthquake loading. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 22(4): 314–345. 329–351 (2002) . 1992. Navin N. Imperial College. FEMA. PhD thesis. However. Izzuddin BA. Imperial College. Engineering Structures 16(1): 51–61. Materials and Structures 30(197): 139–147. CEN (Comite European de Normalisation). ASCE 121(3): 580–585. Fajfar P. Earthquake Resistant Regulations. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures. 1996. Elnashai AS. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Humar JL. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 21: 1049–1060. Chicago 97– 106. Analysis and design of 26 reinforced concrete buildings according to Eurocodes 2 & 8. 1998. REFERENCES ATC (Applied Technology Council). Report FEMA 273 (Guidelines) and 274 (Commentary). 11. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Vertical response of twelve structures recorded during the Northridge earthquake. 1994. CEN. Pourzanjani M. Elghazouli AY. Fardis MN. Broderick BM. user manual. 1952. Mahin SA. London. ELNASHAI AND A. National Research Council of Canada. Fajfar P. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). IAEE. Broderick BM. Fischinger M. 1999. Eurocode 8. Elnashai AS. 1994. part 2: analytical model and discussion of results. M. 1993. Mitchell D. Palm Springs 2: 249–258. Observations on the effect of numerical dissipation on the nonlinear dynamic response of structural systems. Acapulco. 1994. Bozorgnia Y. Redwood City. European pre-standard ENV 1998-1-1. Izzuddin BA. NEHRP provisions for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Seismic resistance of composite beam–columns in multi-storey structures. 1997. ESEE Report 89/7. 2000. Vidic T. Engineering Structures 18(9): 696–706. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings 8: 15–35. 1989. London. Design Tall Build. Elnashai AS. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes. Journal of Construction Steel Research 30(3): 231–258. 1995. DC. CCBFC (Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Code). University of Patras. 1-2 and 1-3. Calif: 20–36. Ragozar MA. 1993. Greece. 1990. 1994. It also failed to confirm clearly the conservatism of the code since the range of its variation is too wide. MWAFY reduction factor adopted in the design. Washington. Elnashai AS. Elnashai AS. Izzuddin BA. Seismic Performance of Code-designed RC Buildings. Struct. 1994. Martinez-Rueda JE. Mwafy AM. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. ADAPTIC–a program for static and dynamic analysis of structures by adaptive mesh refinement. Modelling of material nonlinearities in steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading. Report on Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8. Seismic response of composite frames–I. 1997. 1996. 2001. Brady AG. Paulter P. Jain SK. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 22: 509–532.

OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS 351 Panagiotakos TB. 1992. 2000. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. 329–351 (2002) . John Wiley. Japan VIII: 605–616. Verma R. Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. PhD thesis. Establishing R (or R w) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions. Park R. Tokyo–Kyoto. Acapulco. Priestley MJN. Uang CM. IAEE. Selective Repair and Strengthening of RC Buildings. 11. 1999. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2(1): 113–145. SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 1992. Ltd. CA. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons. 1988. Standards New Zealand. Paulay T. Whittier. New York. UBC (Uniform Building Code). 1994. Mexico. SEAOC Sacramento. 1996. Wellington. Park R. Struct. Vision 2000 Committee. CA. International Conference of Building Officials. 1991. ASCE 125(4): 438–444. Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. Seismic response modification factors. Priestley MJN. Fardis MN. State-of-the art report: ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. In Proceedings 11th WCEE. 1998. London. Effect of column capacity design on earthquake response of reinforced concrete buildings. In Proceedings 9th WCEE. Papazoglou AJ. Pinho R. Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Xiao Y. 1997. Elnashai AS. Explicit incorporation of element and structure overstrength in the design process. 1995. General structural design and design loadings for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25: 1109–1137. ASCE 117(1): 19–28. 1996. Whittaker A. Rojahn C. NZS 4203: 1992. SNZ (Standards New Zealand). Paper 2130. IAEE. ASCE 120(8): 2310–2329. Imperial College. Design Tall Build. Hart G.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful