Natural Hazards 16: 65–80, 1997. c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

65

A Step Towards Evaluation of the Seismic Response Reduction Factor in Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Frames
SAMAR A. BARAKAT, ABDALLAH I. HUSEIN MALKAWI and ANIS S. AL-SHATNAWI
Jordon University of Science and Technology, PO Box 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan (Received: 8 July 1996; in final form: 2 December 1996) Abstract. A seismic nonlinear time-history analysis was made for four-, six-, and eight-storey reinforced concrete buildings. These buildings were made as three-dimensional space frame structures with shear walls in both orthogonal directions. They have five bays with 4.8 m spacing each in the horizontal direction, and three bays with 4.2 m spacing each in the transversal direction. The frames were designed according to the Jordanian Seismic Code of practice for Seismic Zones 4, 3, 2, and 1 as proposed for Jordan by several authors. Time-history analysis was made using the El Centro (N-S) earthquake record of May 1940 as an actual earthquake excitation. The response reduction factor (R) that primarily consists of two factors that are the ductility reduction (R ) and the overstrength (
), is obtained. It has been seen that the seismic zoning has a slight effect on the ductility reduction factor for different buildings, since it ranges from Zone 4 to Zone 1 as 2.37 to 2.52, 1.72 to 1.78, and 1.14 to 1.18 for four-, six-, and eight-storey buildings, respectively. Moreover, it is observed that, for different buildings and different seismic zones, the ductility reduction factor (R ) is slightly different from the system ductility factor () especially for higher values of  (i.e., R = ). The response reduction factor, called overstrength (
), was evaluated. The overstrength factor was found to vary with seismic zones (Z ) , number of stories, and design gravity loads. However, the dependency on seismic zones was the strongest. The average overstrength of these buildings in Zones 4 and 1 was 2.61 and 6.94, respectively. The overstrength increased as the number of storeys decreased: overstrength of a four-storey building was higher than an eight-storey building by 36% in Zone 4, and 39% in Zone 1. Furthermore, buildings of the three heights had an average overstrength 165.9% higher in Zone 1 than in Zone 4. These observations have a significant implications for the seismic design codes which currently do not take into account the variation of the response reduction factor, R (i.e., ductility reduction factor times overstrength). 

Key words: ductility; earthquake; overstrength; seismic codes; seismic zone.

Notation

Ceu = Cs = Cy = Cw = R= R = V=

=

maximum base shear coefficient if the structure were to remain elastic. base shear coefficient at first significant yield; maximum yield strength base shear coefficient; code-prescribed unfactored design base shear coefficient; response reduction factor; ductility reduction factor; overstrength factor; and base shear force.

and Cs (from Figure 1) is the base shear coefficient at the first significant yield of the structure. number of stories. 2. Ductility Reduction and Overstrength Factors The load-displacement relationship for the nonlinear response of structures is often approximated to be elastoplastic. it will not collapse if capable of responding in the elastic range. R . with the overstrength ( ) defined as Cy = C . The seismic design codes specify the value of the response reduction factor depending on the structural type and the detailing procedure used for the design. the response reduction factor (R) is simply R times . is a factor which reduces the elastic force demand to the level of maximum yield strength of the structure and. Such large reductions are mainly due to two factors: (1) the ductility reduction factor (R ). But when a structure is subjected to inertia forces caused by a severe earthquake. although it may undergo some structural as well as nonstructural damage. For example. w (1) where Cy is the base shear coefficient corresponding to the actual yielding of the structure. Introduction SAMAR A. In order for a structure to become earthquake resistant. The philosophy of earthquakeresistant design is that a structure should resist earthquake ground motion without collapse. it may be represented as the following equation: C R = eu . the structure is designed for much less base shear forces than would be required if the building is to remain elastic during severe shaking at a site. however. ( ). is used to reduce the elastic demand forces. which reduces the elastic demand force to the level of the maximum yield strength of the structure. a response reduction factor. (R). and (2) the overstrength factor. which accounts for the overstrength introduced in code-designed structures. in the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Consistent with this philosophy. BARAKAT ET AL. A structure during its lifetime has a very low probability of experiencing ground motion from a severe earthquake. The idealization response adopted in the present study is shown in Figure 1. Cy (2) . this paper is aimed at studying the variation of the overstrength factor in reinforced concrete buildings with differing seismic zones. The ductility reduction factor. Thus. Therefore.66 1. Codes at present do not give the deterministic values of R and to be used in the design because of the scarcity of research results currently available to evaluate the overstrength in structures. and design gravity loads. Cw is the code-prescribed unfactored design base shear coefficient. very expensive designs and materials are required. 12 R is currently recommended for special moment-resisting frames. hence.

such as the strong-column.. (Uang. higher material strength. etc. (4) a higher actual strength of materials than the specified strength. (2) the lower gravity load applied at the time of the seismic event than the factored gravity loads used in design. This is the structural overstrength which results from internal forces distribution. reinforcement detailing. 1991).SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES 67 Figure 1. member oversize. after which the stiffness of the structure decreases. (6) more reinforcement than required for the strength. at which the first significant yield in a reinforced concrete structure starts. Besides. (5) a greater member sizes than required from strength considerations. if it were to remain elastic. where Ceu is the maximum base shear coefficient that develops in the structure. strain hardening. Blume (1977) discussed . Typical global structural response idealized as linearly elastic-perfectly plastic curve. common analysis assumptions may neglect the secondary stiffening and strengthening effect associated with three-dimensional action (Bertero et al. The inertia force due to earthquake motion. the structure can take further loads. may be much higher than the prescribed unfactored base shear force because of many factors such as (1) the load factor applied to the code-prescribed design seismic force. weakbeam provision (Jain and Navin 1995). effect of nonstructural elements. Even following the first significant yield in the structure. 1991). (3) the strength reduction factors on material properties used in design. The importance of overstrength in the survival of buildings during a severe ground motion has been realized for long time. and (7) special ductility requirements. strain rate effect.

no ductility reduction factor should be used. three-.5 sec the energy that can be stored by the elastic system at maximum displacement is the same as that stored by an inelastic system. They concluded that for a structure of a natural period less than 0. For relatively long-period structures corresponding to velocity region (T 0:5 to 3. 1991) discussed the effect that the survival of a code-designed structure in the event of significantly high seismic shaking is possibly only because of implicitly assumed overstrength. of the structure ( is the ratio between the maximum roof displacement and yield roof displacement). and significantly higher if slab contribution and masonry distribution are taken into consideration. . Miranda and Bertero (1989) evaluated the performance of a low-rise building in Mexico City using static and time-history analyses and noticed high overstrength values.84 and 12. Newmark and Hall (1973.0 sec. (1986. 1982) made the first attempt to relate R with  for a single-degree-offreedom (SDOF) system with elasto-perfectly plastic (EPP) resistance curve. and 12 storeys located in a region of high seismic risk. respectively.) of the elastic response spectrum. For moderate period structures. Hence. The results have shown that a structure designed for an unfactored base shear coefficient of 0.65 times as much. The ductility reduction factor (R ) takes advantage of the energy dissipating capacity of properly designed and well-detailed structures and.) and displacement region (T 3:0 to 10. The overstrength values range from 2 to 5. BARAKAT ET AL. Uang (1991) reported results on the variation of overstrength for one-. primarily depends on the global ductility demand. Cassis and Bonelli (1992) and Shahrooz and Moehle (1990) made an interesting experimental evaluation of the contribution of different sources of overstrength on a quarter scale model of a six-storey concrete frame structure.092 could theoretically resist 7. and nine-storey height. The results indicated that the overstrength in the four-storey frame is 40% higher than that in the 12-story frame. This gives the value of ductility reduction factor in a mathematical representation as = = = R = : (3) .0 sec. and the average overstrength of the frames in Zones V and I was 2. six-. designed for Zones I to V as per the Indian seismic code. eight.68 SAMAR A.7. and five-bay steel frames with four. the ductility does not help in reducing the response of the structure.1 second. Newmark and Hall (1973. for such structures. Bertero et al. The results showed that the overstrength increases as the number of storeys decreases. Jain and Navin (1995) evaluated the overstrength of multistorey RC frames by means of nonlinear pseudostatic analysis on four-bay frames of three-. while the overstrength is not very sensitive to the number of bays. corresponding to the acceleration region of elastic response spectrum T 0:1 to 0. 1982) concluded that inertia force obtained from an elastic system and the reduced inertia force obtained from an inelastic system cause the same maximum displacement. 22 items that contribute to overstrength in a severe ground motion. hence.

in which the fundamental time period in seconds was estimated as a tenth of the total number of stories. and maximum story ductility ratio (m ). 3. The structural systems were subjected to 10 synthetic accelerograms compatible with the UBC design spectrum and five historical accelerograms. Jain and Navin (1995) ensured the rule of equal ductility reduction factor and ductility demand ratio for long-period structures.8 m). 3. All buildings have the same floor plan (Figure 2).0 m each. (1995). and they are located in Seismic Zones 4. Mahin and Bertero (1981) evaluated the reliability of the equation suggested by Newmark and Hall (1982).SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES 69 In their study of evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra and computing inelastic response of EPP SDOF systems subjected to recorded ground motions. (1995). The lateral forces for the three buildings situated in different seismic zones are distributed according to the Jordanian Seismic Code formula (Tables I–III). 2. Analysis Nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis was performed to evaluate the seismic ductility reduction and overstrength factors of some reinforced concrete buildings.0 kN/m2 on all other floors. and 1 of Jordan as proposed by Al-Zoubi. It was shown that the ductility reduction factor for SDOF systems depends heavily on the time period of the structure in the low period ranges. They concluded that the R factor depends on structural period (T ). The design seismic forces for these four zones vary by a ratio of 1: 2: 3: 4. Anagnostopoulous and Nikolaou (1992) investigated the relationship between the ductility reduction factor and ductility demand depending on a natural period of the structure for SDOF systems and for frames designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) provisions. Twelve structural models were analyzed for 90 synthetic earthquake motions representing different soil conditions. The design base shear static force for each building was calculated as per the Jordanian Seismic Code (1980) using the seismic coefficient method. They observed that for a given frame. This dependency becomes weaker for frame structures and disappears completely in the medium and low period ranges. (1996) for regionalization. Husein Malkawi et al. Also in their study of the evaluation of the ductility reduction factor and overstrength for RC multistory frame structures designed per the Indian Code. and Fahmi et al. The buildings used for the analysis are of four. the values of R and  from different time histories varies up to 30%. The ground storey has a height of (3. The results indicated that the inelastic response is particularly sensitive to the actual excitation input as well as to the dynamic mechanical characteristics of the structure.0 kN/m2 on roof and 4. The design live load was taken as 2. . viscous damping ratio ( ). while all other storeys have a height of 3. and for different frames and different time histories (30 in all) values of R and  are nearly equal. six. and eight storeys. Hwang and Jaw (1989) statistically evaluated the R factor for MDOF RC-structures that were represented by stick models. dominant period of earthquake motion (Tg ) (which depends on soil conditions).

Results The force-displacement relationship and the design base shear coefficient for the four-. and eight-storey buildings are shown in Figures 3–5. analyses were carried out through modeling buildings as three-dimensional space frames. the Computer Program for Determination of Strength and Deformability Characteristics (RESIST). The maximum base shear coefficient that develops in the structure. These figures show that the four-storey building has a higher base shear coefficient and less roof displacement than the six-storey building. This is due . which in turn has higher base shear coefficient and less roof displacement than the eight-storey building. the Program Package for Selected Static Values (PPSS). Nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis was made for the three buildings in all the four seismic zones using different computer packages developed by Golubka (1993) (i. Furthermore. Figure 2.70 SAMAR A. The maximum base shear coefficient Cy divided by the unfactored design base shear coefficient Cw was taken as the overstrength ( ) factor of the structure. BARAKAT ET AL. and the Computer Program of Inelastic Analysis of RC Buildings (INELA)). six-. Sectional reinforcement was designed according to the limit state method and standards set by the Jordanian seismic code (1980). The member sizes in all three buildings were kept the same in order to have the same lateral stiffness which is based on gross moment of inertia. This design is obtained with the RESIST computer program using different load combinations. Analyses for these buildings were done in the east-west direction (Xdirection) using the north-south component records obtained from the 18 May 1940 El-Centro Earthquake. 4. if it were to remain elastic (Ceu ) divided by the maximum base shear coefficient (Cy ) was taken as the ductility reduction factor (R ) of the structure. Plan of the buildings.e.

For example.40 382. gravity loads become more prominent in the design of some structural members.43 1529. 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total design lateral force.26 240.14 2293.53 41.29 305. while it is as high as 7.95 541. the structure may have only a dead load and one-fourth of the live load. and 5:68 in Zone 1).49 306.64 110.04. Design lateral force.59 to the increasing stiffness associated with the presence of a higher amount of steel required to support additional gravity loads in higher buildings.87 in seismic Zone 1. The variation of overstrength with the number of storey for different seismic zones is clearly shown in Figure 6. The design base shear force is less for buildings in the lower seismic zones.47 Level No.65 165.26 1033.77 229. = = = = . the overstrength of a four-storey building in Zone 4 is 3.21 361. V (kN) Zone 1 187.31 331.13 516. and for the eight-storey building ( 2:24 in Zone 4. Thus.77 375.SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES 71 Table I. Hence. This figure shows that the overstrength of buildings in lower seismic zones is significantly higher than the overstrength of buildings in higher seismic zones.28 220. primarily due to the prominence of gravity loads in the design for low seismic zones.10 166.70 191.74 Table II. a full design gravity load might not be present and. during the actual seismic event.57 125.05 83. V (kN) Zone 1 180.85 3058. The same is for the case of the six-storey building (overstrength. although the design was performed for different load combinations.95 496. and 7:26 in Zone 1).65 343. For example.55 441.95 180. Fi (kN) Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 722.10 573.44 458.87 229. 4 3 2 1 Total design lateral force.18 Level No. 2:56 in Zone 4.53 2066.40 1550. the overstrength for different zones may vary by as much as 300%.62 76.61 662. Design lateral forces at different levels of six-storey building in different seismic zones Design lateral force. Fi (kN) Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 750.24 153. thereby.36 563.59 611. and this significantly increases the overstrength against lateral loads. Design lateral forces at different levels of a four-storey building in different seismic zones.63 120.79 764.71 764.32 60.88 114.54 458.15 152.91 330.

25 116.88 127.36 204.82 262.28 350.25 702.56 175.94 87.08 613. .13 351.62 58. Fi (kN) Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 765.78 1012.41 95.43 818. Design lateral force.35 3037. Table III.49 233.62 574. Design lateral forces at different levels of eight-storey building in different seismic zones.94 63.72 409.37 467.72 SAMAR A.87 175.V (kN) Zone 1 191.82 Level No.31 584.40 Figure 3.13 4049. BARAKAT ET AL.19 233.58 146.73 438.88 175.15 292. Force displacement relationship for the four-storey building.47 31. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total design lateral force.23 382.69 526.09 116.76 350.56 2024.

Figure 6 also shows that the four-storey building has a higher overstrength as compared to the six-storey building. Since in lower seismic zones.0. The results obtained by Jain and Navin (1995) showed the same trends for overstrength factors with the seismic zones and number of storeys. the value of the effective load factor on the earthquake load is expected to be higher in these zones. which in turn has higher overstrength than the eight-story building. . Thus. However. the values of the overstrength obtained in this study are lower and have smaller variations in comparison to the values determined in their study. variation in overstrength with the number of storeys is more significant in lower seismic zones as compared to higher seismic zones. Force displacement relationship for six-storey building. Furthermore.SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES 73 Figure 4. This is because in low-rise buildings the gravity loads play a more prominent role in the design of members than in high-rise buildings located in the same seismic zone. This is again due to a greater prominence of gravity loads in design of low-rise buildings in lower seismic zones. the contribution of the gravity load in design is significant. This is because seismic zones in Jordan do not differ significantly in seismic risk. the effective load factor on the earthquake load is expected to be higher than the design factor of 1.

67 for the same time history and the same PGA.79. It was also seen that the ductility demand factor for all buildings. respectively. Figure 5. y. as well as the ductility reduction factors.30 g. for seismic Zone 4 the obtained ductility is around 1. and eight-storey buildings are shown in Tables VI–VI. six-. maximum nonlinear base shear coefficient. It was observed that the ductility demand ratios. Cy . Those values of four-. max. whereas. irrespective of the seismic zone. and idealized yield roof displacement.74 SAMAR A. maximum nonlinear roof displacement. For instance. the maximum linear base shear coefficient. From the lateral load versus roof displacement relationship obtained by linear and nonlinear time-history analyses. BARAKAT ET AL. Force displacement relationship for eight-storey building. It has been seen that the seismic zoning has a slight effect on the ductility reduction factor (R ) for all studied buildings. the frames designed for Zone 1 when subjected to time history with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0. compared to those of the India Seismic Code that were used by Jain and Navin (1995). have been obtained. show average ductility demand about 1. This   . Ceu. is low. decrease as the number of stories increases.

41 2. Table IV.259 0. Ductility reduction factor and overall ductility demand of four-storey building obtained from time-history analysis.656 0. Variation of overstrength for buildings with seismic zones and number of storeys.496 0.49 is because (a) all buildings have rather high fundamental time period values.43 2.37 2. (b) the frames in Zone 1 are significantly more flexible than those in Zone 4.277 0.45 2.645 0.43 2. which gives a rather low seismic force for a given time history. and (c) the buildings in Zone 1 have a significantly higher values of overstrength. . Seismic zone Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Earthquake time history El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) Ceu 0.456 Cy 0.181 R = Ceu =Cy 2.52  2. and thus attract significantly low seismic force.49 2.SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES 75 Figure 6.204 0.

192 0. For eight-storey buildings (see Table VI) it is observed that the value of the overall ductility factor is less than 1. (1989) also indicates the same for ductility values less than 5. while the results of Riddell et al.700 to 1.20 1.148 Cy 0. this in turn reduces the overall ductility for the building. the ductility reduction factor (R ) may be taken to be the same as the overall structural ductility factor.14 1.161 0. for low-rise buildings. Table V. The results of a study by Hwang and Jaw (1989) for MDOF shear-stick type buildings show that for this period range. Ductility reduction factor and overall ductility demand of eightstorey building obtained from time-history analysis.246 Cy 0.77 1.73 1.15 The values of ductility reduction factor (R ) and the overall ductility ratio.171 0. that for buildings with a fundamental period in the velocity region and with low ductility. for this region the relationship R  is considered reasonable particularly for the low values of ductility. Seismic zone Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Earthquake time history El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) Ceu 0.73 1. Seismic zone Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Earthquake time history El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) Ceu 0.89 0.173 0.152 0.305 0.208 0. It is obvious that overstrength ( ) against lateral load is very significantly affected by the gravity loads used in the design.78  1. Furthermore. BARAKAT ET AL. and for higher = .125 R = Ceu =Cy 1. for four-.649 sec. six-.138 R = Ceu =Cy 1.193 0.22 1.340 0.18  0. which is in the velocity region of the response spectrum.0. and eight-storey buildings. The limited data presented here confirms. This relationship was suggested by Newmark and Hall (1973) for SDOF systems. R is only slightly less than for low ductility values. This is reasonable because the natural period of the buildings ranges from 0. increasing the normal forces on the columns of these buildings reduces the ductility in such columns.72 1.74 Table VI.277 0. . based on the study of rather realistic RC frames.182 0.79 1.81 0.76 1. . Ductility reduction factor and overall ductility demand of six-storey building obtained from time-history analysis. This is due to the fact that the overall ductility is a function of a particular pattern of displacement corresponding to the preferred or executed mode of deformation of the structure. and for different seismic zones are approximately equal.76 SAMAR A.220 0. This results in the overstrength being much higher for low seismic zones.99 1.

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES 77 Table VII. However.04 3.72 1. especially for higher buildings and reduced in low seismic zones. without applying the modified R.09 4. This resulted in a higher overstrength factor for low seismic zones and low-rise buildings.55 3.29 12.76 1. debate is normally focused on the seismic coefficient for higher zones.92 2. that the response reduction factor (R) affects the magnitude of base shear force. the seismic design for low-rise buildings is more conservative than it is for high-rise buildings.21 9.81 4. Firstly. Most experimental and analytical research in earthquake engineering is focused on high-risk seismic zones.37 2.24 6. It is clearly shown in Figure VII that the base shear force is increased significantly in higher seismic zones.63 3. This results in design provisions for lower seismic zones being much more conservative than those for higher seismic zones. The coefficient for lower zones is simply prorated in proportion to the expected ground motion intensity in different zones.24 7. The dependency of overstrength is most significant on seismic zone. It demonstrated in Table VIII. 5. The effect of this factor on base shear force (V ) is shown in Table VIII.78 2. the variation in overstrength for different zones is never considered. Similarly.20 1.14 1. This effect is presented by calculating base shear force using two formulas.49 2.52 3.26 R 1.68  R = R 7.44 7. with applying the modified R. using the UBC (1988) formula.43 2.22 1. While formulating the design codes. This Table shows that the seismic zones have a strong influence on the response reduction factor (R).21 4.49 10. and secondly.56 3.77 1.87 R 1. Response reduction factor for the three buildings.24 2. Commentary and Conclusions Gravity loads used in the design have significant effect on the overstrength against lateral load. this influence of the response reduction factor on the magnitude of the static base shear force. even implicitly. Figure VII shows. The response reduction factor (R) obtained by multiplying overstrength ( ) values with the ductility reduction factors (R ) obtained for the same buildings.18 2. The response reduction factor (R) for the three buildings with different zones is presented in Table VII.53 5. This has very serious implications for seismic design codes.53 5. Thus.44 7.79 19. The dependency of overstrength is most significant on seismic .83 4. graphically. The overstrength in Zone 1 can be as much as three times that in seismic Zone 4. of storeys Seismic zone 4 3 2 1 Four-storey Six-storey  R = R Eight-storey  R = R R 2.70 design live load. using the Jordanian Seismic Code (1980) formula. No.

Comparison of base shear.21 1033.40 13617.82 1012.77 1529. V (kN) 2066.74 2380.93 1550. BARAKAT ET AL.g. This has serious implications for seismic design codes.36 2293.78 SAMAR A.40 8113.26 Six-storey Jordanian seismic (1980) UBC (1988) Eight-storey Jordanian UBC seismic (1988) code (1980) 4049. of storeys Seismic zone Four-storey Jordanian UBC seismic (1988) code (1980) Base shear force.20 3583.47 516.92 376. Figure 7.18 764.83 162.. between Jordanian code (1980) formula and UBC (1988) formula using modified R as applied to Jordan.89 3576. Effect of the response reduction factor on base shear force.25 695.01 971.59 5726. Table VIII.23 2024. No. the overstrength in Zone 1 can be as much as three times that in Zone 4).67 1556.77 4 3 2 1 3058.17 1356.50 zone (e. especially that the ductility .62 3037. V .

V. Earthquake Engineering Research Ctr. Many of these factors vary by 20– 50%. The values presented in this study. Codes. A. Meerut. Krawinkler. 11(1). Acknowledgements This paper is part of a research program to develop seismic engineering ground motion parameters for Jordan and conterminous areas. Vol. Similarly. C.: 1991. J. This present study clearly shows that the overstrength in RC frame buildings could have a very large variation. and this has important implications for seismic design codes. Berkeley. It is a part of the third author’s MSc thesis conducted under the supervision of the first and second authors. This means the further amendments are required for the Jordanian Seismic Code to achieve safer and cheaper design. and Nikolaou.: 1995. P. Anderson. A. Inelastic response spectra. pp. Anagnostopoulous. in general. because the seismic codes are normally focused on the seismic coefficient for higher zones and the coefficient for lower zones is simply prorated in proportion to the expected ground-motion intensity in different zones. and Miranda. 7. and Giuffre. L. Then the response reduction factor (R) affects directly on the values of base shear force.. account for many factors in evaluating design seismic force. the consideration of variation in overstrength. University of Roorkee. are only indicative of the trend. J. Engineering Geoscience. Spain. even implicitly... 1. D. Irbid. pp. the seismic design for low-rise buildings is more conservative than for high-rise buildings. E. Zaccaria. University of California. Design guidelines for ductility and drift limits: review of the state-of-the-practice and state-of-the-art in ductility and drift-based earthquake-resistant design of buildings.. CA. India. . which may vary by even 250 to 300% for different seismic zones and by even 40% with number of stories.: 1992.SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES 79 reduction factor increases slightly with decreasing the risk of the seismic zone. S. actual values will vary with different building configurations. Y. Jordan University of Science and Technology. Behavior versus ductility factors in earthquake resistant design. Proc. L. A. Blume. Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Madrid. Jordan. but it decreases in lower zones and lower buildings. The variation in overstrength for different zones is not considered. Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. O. Hence.. 3727–3732. V.. Bertero. Sarita Prakashan. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of master in civil engineering. UCB/EERC-91/15.: 1982. Significant research efforts are required with the ultimate aim to account for overstrength in an explicit manner through the evaluation of design seismic force on such buildings and other type of structures. A. Brisegshella. Vol. pp. Spring 1996. Base shear obtained by using modified R increases with large variation in the higher seismic zones and higher number of stories. 159–162. however. Evaluation of the seismic zoning factor and local site coefficient as applied to the Jordanian seismic code. Of course. 7th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering.: 1977. Allowable stresses and earthquake performance. 165–174. References Al-Zoubi. is also warranted. H. Report No.

Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation. R.. The Netherlands. and Jaw. Fahmi. Response modification factors for earthquake resistant design of short period buildings. California. C. Zhu. Hidalgo. A. ASCE 117(1). Macedonia. J. J. N. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. ASCE 121(3). Seismic engineering ground motion maps for Jordan employing local attenuation relations. Skopje. . An evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra. Jordan. Engrg. Whittier. Computer program for determination of strength and deformability characteristics (RESIST).: 1995. R. R. EERC 72-8. K. J. October 2–4. T. A. O. B. A.: 1989. US Department of Commerce. V. and Al-Zoubi. Struct. Procedures and Criteria for Earthquake Resist and Design. H. 688–710. 11(1). 1985 Chile earthquake and related research.. Earthquake Spectra 5(3). Spring 1996. December 1977. Fahmi. of Earthquake Engrg. and Heidebrecht. frames. Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology University. Shahrooz. Vol. Y.: 1993. Proc. and Engineering Seismology University..: 1990. pp. Earthquake Spectra and Design. BARAKAT ET AL. and Bertero. 571–590. Skopje. A. Jordan.: 1992. California. Proc. and Navin. M. H. 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. W. and Bonelli. Struct. Balkema. J. P. C. M. Uang.: 1992. Tso. Code-prescribed seismic actions and performance of buildings.: 1992. The Netherlands. New York. Newmark. International Conference of Building Officials. Report No. P.: 1993. Computer program of inelastic analysis of RC buildings (INELA). Macedonia. 1777–1795. S. K. C. N. Vol. 1403–1422. Amman. N. Y. pp.: 1982.80 SAMAR A. B. Lessons learned from the March 3. Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology University. X. and Hall. pp. Environ. Civil Engrg. N. National Bureau of Standards. D. Rotterdam. Whittier.. O. W.C. 103 pp. W. J. ASCE 107(ST9). Inst. J. 19–28. W. A. J. Jain.: 1981.: 1996. Division.C. M. 19(4). Riddell. Eng. Housing and Development Corporation Conference. California. UBC: 1988. Three dimensional analysis and building systems-TABS77. Golubka. E. Macedonia. N. Royal Scientific Society of Jordan: 1980. Struct.. C. Geosci. Golubka. NCEER-89-0002. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. and Moehle. I. 5783–5788. Mahin.. International Conference of Building Officials. Evaluation of the seismic zoning factor (Z) a step toward appending this factor in the Jordanian seismic code of practice. J. J. 580–585. Engrg. Uniform Building Code. Golubka. 209–236. and Simeonov. Wilson. 5675–5680. M.: 1973. Statistical evaluating of response modification factors for reinforced concrete structures. A. H.. Building Science Series 46. Husein Malkawi. E. V.. A. and Hall. ASCE 116(5). Report No. Evaluation of seismic performance of R.. Buffalo. H. I. L. Seismic performance of RC ductile momentresisting frame buildings located in different seismic regions. K. Balkema. Amman. Skopje. Meli. C. J. Cassis. and Cruz. UBC: 1982.: 1989. Rotterdam. P. S. Struct.: 1977. Establishing R (or Rw ) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions. Uniform Building Code. Husein Malkawi. Hwang. Canad. X. Washington.: 1993. El Cerrito..: 1991. and Al-Zoubi. Newmark. Jordanian National Construction Code. K. J.. and Dovey. Engineering. J. J. 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Program package for selection of static values (PPSS). Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames.: 1995. A.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.