2 views

Uploaded by tarekhocine

Determination of the R factor

- Steel Pushover Analysis
- A study on response reduction factor of RC wter tank
- Guidlines for Displacement-Based Design of Buildings and Bridges
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement
- Analysis of Seismic Design Steel Braced Frame
- Seismic Behaviour and Analysis of Continuous Reinforced Concrete Bridges
- Tushar Final Ppt
- Seismic performance of concrete-shear-wall buildings in India
- SEISMIC RESPONSE OF YIELDING SYSTEMS UNDER THREE COMPONENT EARTHQUAKES
- Intersections V05 No03 05
- Modeling Pile Behavior in Large Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading
- Dynamic Analysis on Staad
- Design of Slender Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake (1)
- Sni
- Rigid Wall Seismic
- Fema Bcar Eq Structural
- Siesmic Threat to Hyderabad Buildings
- Tips and Tricks for Using STAAD
- Comparison of European and Japanese Seis
- Lect 7 Seismic

You are on page 1of 11

Volume 5, No 3, 2015

© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research article ISSN 0976 – 4399

Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa1, Heba M. Issa2

1- Professor, Reinforced Concrete Research Institute, Housing and Building National

Research Center, HBRC, Cairo

2- Lecturer, Reinforced Concrete Research Institute, Housing and Building National

Research Center, HBRC, Cairo

drmsisssa@gmail.com

doi: 10.6088/ijcser.2014050021

ABSTRACT

Modern seismic design codes stipulates a behavior factor (q-factor) to reduce the earthquake

loads which the structure is to be designed for. This is in account for the inelastic behavior of

the structure when subjected to severe earthquakes. Inelastic dynamic analysis consumes long

time in the interpretation of its results. A popular and simple method for studying the

nonlinear response of the structure is pushover analysis. Static type of pushover analysis is to

be used in this research work where the loads consist of permanent gravity loads and

incremental horizontal forces at each storey level. Capacity curves (base shear versus story

total drift) obtained from static pushover analysis using a commercially available software

called SeismoStruct (SeismoSoft 2014 ) are used for the calculation of some seismic demand

parameters such as behavior factor, q, overstrength factor, Ω, and ductility based reduction

factor, Rµ . Four reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames each of 7, 5 and 3 stories are

used in the analysis. The research work proved the efficiency of the static pushover analysis

in studying the nonlinear behavior of structures and that the suggested behavior factor (q) by

the Eurocode 8- Part 1 (Eurocode 8 Committee 2003 ) for non-dissipative structures presents

an acceptable lower limit.

Keywords: Seismic design, Behavior factor (q), Pushover analysis, Inelastic behavior,

Capacity curves.

1. Introduction

Nonlinear analysis is an important tool for the seismic design of structures. Among the

nonlinear methods of analysis is dynamic analysis. However, this type of analysis is complex,

time consuming and requires a carful interpretation of results. An efficient and simple method

to assess the nonlinear behavior of structures under seismic loads is the inelastic static

pushover analysis which is used here in this research work. This method is suitable for

structures featuring dynamic responses that are not significantly affected by the levels of

deformation incurred. Most of the modern international seismic design codes stipulates a so

called behavior factor or force reduction factor (q) to reduce the earthquake loads considering

the fact that the structure will show an inelastic behavior which dissipates the earthquake

energy. This inelastic behavior will be associated with large inelastic deformations (ductility

capacity) which governs the structural capacity in withstanding the earthquake loads. The

structural ductility (µ s) is calculated as the ratio of maximum displacement to the

displacement at yielding. This ductility capacity (µ s) is to be higher for structures with higher

behavior factor (q).

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

2. The behavior factor (q)

The method of Uang 1991 is adopted in this research for the determination of q factor. The

following parameters are defined based on the capacity curves obtained from static pushover

analysis where the symbols are as shown in Figure 1.

The structural ductility ratio (µ s) is defined as the ratio of maximum story drift (∆max) to story

drift at general yield (∆y).

∆

µ s = max (1.0)

∆y

2.2 Overstrength Factor (Ω)

This factor measures the reserved strength in the structure from the formation of the first

plastic hinge (Vs) to the general yield point (Vy).

V

Ω= y (2.0)

Vs

2.3 Ductility Based Force Reduction Factor (Rµ)

The structural ductility is responsible for dissipating hysteretic energy of earthquake which

results in reducing the maximum elastic seismic force (elastic base shear, Veu) to general

yield point (Vy) at failure.

Thus

Veu

Rµ = (3.0)

Vy

217

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

2.4 Allowable Stress Factor (γ)

The allowable stress factor (γ) is defined as the ratio of base shear (structural strength) at

formation of the first plastic hinge (Vs) to the strength at allowable working design shear

(Vw).

V

γ= s (4.0)

Vw

The behavior factor (q) used when calculating the seismic forces for building design is used

to achieve the balance between resistance and energy dissipation capacity and would be

defined as the value of elastic base shear (Veu) divided by the allowable working design shear

(Vw).

V V V V

q = eu = eu y s = Rµ Ωγ (5.0)

Vw V y Vs Vw

Four different reinforced concrete frames each consisting of 7, 5 and 3 stories are utilized in

the analysis. These frames are referred to by Build7-2, Build7-3, Build7-4, Build7-5, Build5-

2, Build5-3, Build5-4, Build5-5, Build3-2, Build3-3, Build3-4 and Build3-5. The first

numeral refers to the number of stories while the second numeral refers to the number of

bays. Figure 2 up to Figure 4 show the dimensions of the used frames. The cylinder

compressive strength of the concrete of the used frames is 30 MPa and the yield strength of

the used reinforcement is 500 MPa. The dimensions of the beams of all the frames are

250*700 mm while the dimensions of the columns are 250*800 mm. Static pushover analysis

was performed using a program called SeismoStruct. Both material and geometric

nonlinearities are considered when plotting the capacity curves (variation of base shear with

lateral displacement) which are shown in Figure 5 up to Figure 7.

Build7-2 Build7-3

218

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

Build7-4 Build7-5

Build5-2 Build5-3

Build5-4 Build5-5

219

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

Build3-2 Build3-3

Build3-4 Build3-5

Figure 4: Geometries of the used 3-stories frames.

1600 2000

1800

1400

1600

1200

1400

1000

Base Shear (kN)

1200

Base Shear (kN)

800 1000

800

600

600

400

400

200 200

0

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Story Drift (m)

Story Drift (m)

Build7-2 Build7-3

2700 3600

2400 3200

2100 2800

1800 2400

Base Shear (kN)

1500 2000

1200 1600

900 1200

600 800

300 400

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8

Story Drift (m) Story Drift (m)

Build7-4 Build7-5

220

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

2000 2000

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400

Base Shear (kN)

1200 1200

1000 1000

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28

Story Drift (m) Story Drift (m)

Build5-2 Build5-3

4500 4000

4000

3500

3500

3000

3000

2500

Base Shear (kN)

2500

2000

2000

1500

1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Story Drift (m) Story Drift (m)

Build5-4 Build5-5

2400 3000

2200 2800

2600

2000

2400

1800 2200

1600 2000

Base Shear (kN)

Base Shear (kN)

1800

1400

1600

1200

1400

1000 1200

800 1000

800

600

600

400 400

200 200

0 0

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.33

Build3-2 Build3-3

5000 4800

4500

4500

4200

4000 3900

3600

3500

3300

3000

Base Shear (kN)

3000

Base Shear (kN)

2700

2500 2400

2000 2100

1800

1500 1500

1000 1200

900

500 600

300

0

0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3

Story Drift (m) Story Drift (m)

Build3-4 Build3-5

Figure 7: Capacity curves of the 3-stories frames.

221

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

3.1 Ultimate capacity criteria

1. The structure cannot take any more lateral load due to the formation of mechanism.

2. The interstory drift reaches the limit set by the Eurocode 8- Part 1 (Eurocode 8 Committee

2003) which is as follows for buildings having non-structural elements of brittle material

attached to the structure

d rυ ≤ 0.005h (6.0)

ds=displacement of a point of the structural system induced by the design seismic action (to

be taken from the nonlinear analysis made using SeismoStruct software)

υ=the reduction factor which takes into account the lower return period of the seismic action

associated with the damage limitation requirements =0.4 for importance classes 3 and 4.

The parameters defined in the previous sections are to be derived based on the capacity

curves presented in Figure 5 to Figure 7. These curves are obtained from conventional

pushover analysis performed using SeismoStruct software (Seismosoft 2014). The locations

of the plastic hinges for all the analyzed frames at failure are presented in Figure 8 to Figure

10. The seismic parameters shown in Figure 1 are presented for the analyzed frames in Tables

1 to 3. The overstrength factor (Ω) and the structural ductility ratio (µ s) are also shown in the

tables.

The q-factors for all of our frames are calculated assuming a design allowable stress factor γ

equals 1.5 and are listed in Tables 1 to 3. For each building, the value of the q factor varies

depending on the number of floors and the number of bays. Generally, for the same number

of floors, the behavior factor q reduces as the number of bays increases. The ASCE/SEI 41-

06 code (ASCE Committee for Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06 2007 [1]) recommends the use of

the smallest q factor which leads to a larger design base shear and consequently a safer

design. The smallest obtained value of the q factor equals 3.06 for the 7-story frames, 1.07 for

the 5-story frames and 2.3 for the 3-story frames. The Eurocode 8- Part 1 (Eurocode 8

Committee 2003) recommends a value for q equals to 1.5 for structures classified as non-

dissipative. Thus the value for q factor provided by the Eurocode 8- Part 1 (Eurocode 8

Committee 2003) is a conservative value.

222

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

Build7-2 Build7-3

Build7-4 Build7-5

Figure 8: Locations of plastic hinges at failure for the 7-story frames.

Build5-2 Build5-3

223

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

Build5-4 Build5-5

Figure 9: Locations of plastic hinges at failure for the 5-story frames.

Build3-2 Build3-3

Build3-4 Build3-5

Figure 10: Locations of plastic hinges at failure for the 3-story frames.

224

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

Table 1: Seismic parameters for the 7-story frames

(cm) (cm) (cm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

Build7- 2.2 11 86 160 880 909 5.5 7.8 1380 1.57 13

2

Build7- 4 11 57 450 1300 1467 2.9 5.2 1700 1.31 5.7

3

Build7- 5.5 12 26 920 1832 1848 2.0 2.2 2650 1.45 4.4

4

Build7- 8 11 40 1500 2200 2328 1.5 3.6 3000 1.36 3.06

5

(cm) (cm) (cm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

Build5- 1.8 7.5 64.4 200 950 1015 4.8 8.6 1700 1.79 12.9

2

Build5- 4.0 5.0 25.5 875 970 1068 1.1 5.1 970 1.0 1.7

3

Build5- 1.7 5.8 55.1 420 1550 2083 3.7 9.5 1700 1.1 6.1

4

Build5- 2.2 6.5 38.9 700 2228 2665 3.2 6.0 2800 1.26 6.0

5

(cm) (cm) (cm) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)

Build3- 0.8 4.5 51.1 125 1000 1138 8 11.4 1500 1.5 18

2

Build3- 1.4 4.5 32 550 1600 1705 2.9 7.1 2500 1.56 6.8

3

Build3- 0.9 4.6 20.2 430 2270 2292 5.3 4.4 5000 2.2 17.5

4

Build3- 3.4 4.5 25.6 2140 2600 2653 1.2 5.7 3300 1.27 2.3

5

5. Conclusions

1. The inelastic behavior of the structure when subjected to severe earthquakes can be

accounted for by reducing the earthquake loads using the behavior factor (q-factor).

2. Static pushover analysis is an efficient and quick method to study the nonlinear

behavior of structures under seismic loads compared to the inelastic dynamic analysis

which is complex and time consuming.

3. Static pushover analysis produces capacity curves (base shear versus story total drift)

which can be used to calculate the seismic demand parameters.

225

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

Application of Pushover Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced Concrete Moment-

Resisting Frames

Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa

4. The method of Uang 1991 is suitable for the calculation of the force reduction factor

(q).

5. The smallest value obtained for the behavior factor (q) is 2.3. This value is on the

conservative side when compared with the more safe value of 1.5 suggested by the

Eurocode 8- Part 1 (Eurocode 8 Committee 2003) for non-dissipative structures.

6. References

Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, p 411.

Resistance- Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European

Standards, p 229.

Analysis of Framed Structures [online], Available from URL:

http://www.seismosoft.com, 2014.

4. Uang, C. M., 1991, Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd Factors for Building Seismic

Provisions, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(1), pp 19-28.

226

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 3 2015

- Steel Pushover AnalysisUploaded byDario Manrique Gamarra
- A study on response reduction factor of RC wter tankUploaded byMILAN
- Guidlines for Displacement-Based Design of Buildings and BridgesUploaded bypouyamh
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield DisplacementUploaded byLuís Macedo
- Analysis of Seismic Design Steel Braced FrameUploaded byIJSTE
- Seismic Behaviour and Analysis of Continuous Reinforced Concrete BridgesUploaded byrwaidaabbas
- Tushar Final PptUploaded byArjun Shende
- Seismic performance of concrete-shear-wall buildings in IndiaUploaded byMohamed
- SEISMIC RESPONSE OF YIELDING SYSTEMS UNDER THREE COMPONENT EARTHQUAKESUploaded byAde Faisal
- Intersections V05 No03 05Uploaded byrock_music
- Modeling Pile Behavior in Large Pile Groups Under Lateral LoadingUploaded byKalipada Sen
- Dynamic Analysis on StaadUploaded bySteel Designer
- Design of Slender Tall Buildings for Wind and Earthquake (1)Uploaded bymayas
- SniUploaded byRandi Angriawan Tarigan
- Rigid Wall SeismicUploaded byAntoine Letendre
- Fema Bcar Eq StructuralUploaded bynmblob
- Siesmic Threat to Hyderabad BuildingsUploaded byrakoll
- Tips and Tricks for Using STAADUploaded bymohanty_anantakumar6332
- Comparison of European and Japanese SeisUploaded byJonathan Mendoza Chavez
- Lect 7 SeismicUploaded byKyatoor Santosh
- Musatafa PashaUploaded byIlmi Ferati
- AUploaded byAlan Jalil
- 2017 Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of Special Moment Frames Using Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic AnUploaded byJeremy Ponce
- 583Uploaded byADDA Civil
- A Study to Reduce the Inter-story Drifts of Steel MomentUploaded byErnest0
- Differt Types of Pushor AnalysisUploaded byÇhårū Kêsh
- N7. Desarrollo de Directrices Para El Diseño Sísmico de Estructuras Aisladas en La Base en MexicoUploaded byDaisy' Ruiz
- Seismic Response of Concrete Gravity Dam in AfghanistanUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 027Uploaded byRajesh
- Seismic Design of Hillside Light Timber Frame Buildings.pdfUploaded byPatrick Saint-Louis

- Building IrregularitiesUploaded bykalpanaadhi
- Military Parade 5Uploaded byDragovic Slobodan
- Earth surface processUploaded byCynthia Ng
- RCBKS Bulletin Vol 19 No 31Uploaded byAndrew Qi Wen
- Tl-wr941n_941nd User GuideUploaded byRadomir Panic
- b 954297Uploaded byhartmann100
- MQSC Command Reference MQ7.0Uploaded bysudhir.dumbre686
- Module 1 - GasesUploaded byRuth Aquino
- Irreversibility Analysis of Three Stage Vapour Compression Refrigeration Systems With Flash-Intercooler Using Eco-friendly New RefrigerantsUploaded byIjrei Journal
- New Wordpad DocumentUploaded byAsif Khan
- Customizing LabVIEWUploaded bynisarg
- TechMan PEPipe&FittingsUploaded bychillerz69
- EmulsionsUploaded bygkunal991
- Gmdss IntrebariUploaded byDimitrie Bogdan
- KHUSHBOO AGARWAL.docxUploaded byLuckyGupta
- Handan Xinxing Heavy Machinery CoUploaded bysantoshkumarmishra2009
- Blind People RoadcrossUploaded byKumarecit
- Astero_E0201E-20_991063Uploaded byThinh Nguyen
- Centrum KlimaUploaded bycentrumklima
- 2014.11.27.Debates on LTE-unlicensed and WiFi (KT, SK Telecom, Qualcomm).pdfUploaded byAbdulqader Al-kaboudei
- An Offshore Wind Farm for the South Fork (by Clint Plummer)Uploaded byGordian Raacke
- Mao33431.pdfUploaded byPablo Javier Cardenas Catalan
- Hobart HL600-1STD MixerUploaded bywsfc-ebay
- 4400_4pgUploaded bywalk002
- EW_IDCBookextract.pdfUploaded byBhethho
- InventionsUploaded byRania Sarri
- Hydropower PlantUploaded byjackson2
- 1-s2.0-S0266892009000125-mainUploaded byAcbal Achy
- Kassa's ProposalUploaded byGetachew Tikue
- Specialty PumpsUploaded byDGW