M.

TECH
THESIS
UPDATE
Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete
WORKPLAN: METHODOLOGY
Dual System Building by Performance-Based Seismic Design Method
and Limit State Design Method FROM 26TH JULY -28TH AUGUST
Methodology:
The methodology will be as follows:

1. A comprehensive study of previous work and literature review.

2. T-shaped RC framed building will be selected, and nonlinear static analysis will be performed to find the ductility, overstrength, and response
reduction factor. Ductility will be measured in terms of deflection at yield and maximum deflection along with the time period of building.
3. Collection of required data. It involves various data to be taken for analysis of building and also building type.
4. Modeling building using ETABS 2018.
5. Perform an analysis using Service level earthquake (SLE) to make sure that the building remains primarily elastic.
6. Subject the building to larger earthquake like Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) using non-linear Time history analysis to determine post
yield behavior of components.
7. Finally, the value of the response reduction factor will be found out and compared and approximate formulation will be presented for
determining the response reduction factor.

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 2
 Flow chart of Methodology

Review of related Literatures

Selection of suitable Model

Structural modelling using ETABS 2018

Service Level Earthquake (SLE) and Design basis Earthquake (DBE) are done
using linear elastic Response spectrum analysis while Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) is done using non-linear time history analysis

Calculation of Response reduction factor “R” using IS code and Performance

based seismic design (PSBD)
Lateral load and
beam moment

Comparative Performance Evaluation Column Moment

Conclusion and Recommendations Failure Pattern

Fig 1.1 Flowchart of Methodology

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 3
Literature related to Response Reduction Factor:
 Asadi and Bakshi presented a framework for verification of different seismic codes. To verify the seismic codes performance, damage quantity of RC
frames is compared with the target seismic performance. Two types of structures with very high important structures with high ductility and
important medium structures with intermediate ductility are designed by different seismic codes. They had considered that due to the randomness
property of seismic design and earthquake loads excitation, they had developed fragility curves. These diagrams are utilized to evaluate the
performance level of structures that are designed by the seismic codes. These diagrams further illustrate the effect of load combination and
reduction factors of codes on the probability of damage exceedance.

 Barakat et al. had done seismic nonlinear time-history analysis considering four-, six-, and eight-story reinforced concrete buildings. They had
considered three- dimensional space frame modeling of building structures with shear walls in both orthogonal directions. They have considered
five bays with 4.8 m spacing each in the horizontal direction, and three bays with 4.2 m spacing each in the transverse direction. The frames were
designed according to the Jordanian Seismic Code. Time- history analysis was made using the El Centro (N-S) earthquake record of May 1940 as an
actual earthquake excitation. They have considered that response reduction factor (R) that primarily consists of two factors that are the ductility
reduction (Rµ) and the overstrength (Rs) is obtained. They had explained that the seismic zoning has a slight effect on the ductility reduction factor
for different buildings and also observed that, for various buildings and different seismic zones, the ductility reduction factor (Rµ) is slightly different
from the system ductility factor (µ) especially for higher values of µ (i.e., Rµ=µ). They found the overstrength factor was varying with seismic zones
(Z), a number of stories, and design gravity loads; however, the dependency on seismic zones was the strongest. They have concluded that
overstrength increased as the number of stories decreased.

 Mohammadi and Naggar performed a nonlinear seismic analysis of shear building and steel framed buildings. They had introduced an empirical
formula to relate the maximum roof and story displacements. It has been demonstrated that this relationship is a function of the strength (and/or
stiffness) distribution within the structure, a number of stories (fundamental period), and ductility ratio. They had considered that the results of
that study could provide a simple and practical way to determine the nonlinear dynamic response of multi-degree of freedom structures. An
approximate approach is presented to calculate the maximum inelastic deformations in a structure with a given strength distribution. The
relationships proposed by them could be useful in the conceptual design phase, estimating deformation demands for performance assessment, and
improving basic understanding of seismic behavior.

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 4
 Patel and Shah investigated the formulation of key factors for the seismic response modification factor of RC framed staging of the elevated water
tank. They had considered that the analysis revealed that three major factors, called reserved strength, ductility, and redundancy, affect the actual
value of response modification factor, and therefore, they must be taken into consideration while determining the appropriate response
modification to be used during the seismic design process. They have evaluated the response modification factor using static nonlinear pushover
analysis since Pushover analysis is an advanced tool to carry out static nonlinear analysis of framed structures. They had studied the nonlinear
behavior, sequence, and mechanism of plastic hinge formation. They had performed displacement-controlled pushover analysis to apply the
earthquake forces at C.G. of structure. They had measured the capacity of the structure in the nonlinear range by using a pushover curve, which is
basically a plot of base shear versus roof displacement.

 Rainer presented the derivation of force reduction factors for the seismic provisions of the National Building Code of Canada (1985). He had
included the classification of seismic actions, applicable limit states, change in load factor, derivation of force reduction factors, and classification of
structural configurations. Quantitative comparisons are made between the derived force reduction factors and the response modification factors of
the Applied Technology Council, and good agreement was found. He had suggested that seismic requirements should be considered as an
accidental action.

 In NBC 105:1994, the concept of the structural ductility factor is considered as structural performance of different structural systems. The structural
type maybe different in every two directions in a building, and in that case, the appropriate value for K shall be selected for each direction. It has
been stated that when there is more than one structural type used in the structure, for the direction under consideration, the structural
performance factor for the element providing the majority of the seismic load resistance shall be applied provided that the elements of the other
structural types have the ability to accept the resulting deformations. The value of structural performance factor K varies from 1 to 4 depending
upon different structural configurations.

 Whittaker et al. had stated that the response modification factor plays a key role in the seismic design of new buildings in the United States. They
had considered that the values assigned to this factor are based on engineering judgment and have a little sound technical basis and any
improvement in the reliability of modern earthquake-resistant buildings in the United States will require the systematic evaluation of the building
response characteristics that most affect the values assigned to the factor. They had presented a draft formulation that represents the response
modification factor as the product of factors related to reserve strength, ductility, and redundancy. They had presented different data from various
analytical and experimental studies on reserve strength and ductility. There is no allowance in formulation for the effects of plan and vertical
irregularity on building response.

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 5
  Kadid and Bourmik evaluated the performance of framed buildings under future expected earthquakes; a nonlinear static pushover analysis has
been conducted. They had analyzed three framed buildings with five, eight, and twelve-story building and had shown the hinge pattern for different
displacement levels and concluded that properly designed frames will perform well under seismic loads.

 Oguz studied the effects, and the accuracy of invariant lateral load patterns utilized in pushover analysis to predict the behavior imposed on
the structure due to randomly selected individual ground motions causing elastic and various levels of nonlinear response was evaluated in
this study. For this purpose, he had performed pushover analyses using various invariant lateral load patterns on reinforced concrete and
steel moment- resisting frames covering a broad range of fundamental periods. Certain response parameters predicted by each pushover
procedure were compared with the 'exact' results obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis. The primary observations from the study showed
that the accuracy of the pushover results depends strongly on the load path, properties of the structure, and the characteristics of the
ground motion.

The performance-based seismic design is an emerging art. This is to overcome the limitation in the conventional seismic design, which is based on the force
balance against a design seismic force. The performance-based design is a user-friendly approach to take into account the requirements of the seismic
performance of a structure against the probabilistic occurrence of earthquake motions. In conventional seismic design, the design is accomplished based on
the force balance against a design seismic force but design does not provide the information on the performance of a structure when exceeding the limit of
the force balance. In the performance-based design, design earthquake motions are defined in different levels (two or three) and the required performance
of a structure specified in terms of displacements and stress levels for varying levels of the earthquake motions. The performance-based design should be
the key to accomplishing higher reliability of a structure against earthquake without appreciable increase in construction cost. If we demand that limit
equilibrium not be exceeded in conventional design for the relatively high intensity ground motions associated with a very rare seismic event, the
construction/retrofitting cost will most likely be too high. If force-balance design is based on a more frequent seismic event, then it is difficult to estimate
the seismic performance of the structure when subjected to ground motions that are greater than those used in design.

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 6
Response reduction Factor
Patel and Shah investigated and formulated the key factor of the response reduction factor as R = RS * RR * Rμ. …………………….. (3.1)
Where,
RS is over strength
RR is Redundancy
Rμ is Ductility
They had considered that the key components of the Response reduction factor are overstrength and ductility, which can be worked out on the basis of the
pushover curve, as shown in fig 3.1. They further explain that the overstrength factor is a measure of base shear force at the design level, and at yielding
and ductility factor is a measure of roof displacement at yielding and at the specified limit. The redundancy factor depends on the number of vertical
framing participated in seismic resistance.

Definition of response reduction factor; Source [Patel and Shah (2010)]

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 7
BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND MODELING:
1. Introduction
The mathematical model of the building structure is required for the design and analysis of the structures and to find their performance evaluation.
The different assumption is made while designing and analysis of structures to reduce the level of analytical complexity without much variation in
results. So, to reduce complexity, only main structural elements such as beam and column are used for analysis. But actually, the nonstructural
components like partition walls, staircase, bracing etc. also participate to some extent to resist lateral force. At present, the availability of
computers having high processing speed and the available software packages together presents a very robust toolset for analysis of structures. In
this particular study, ETABS 2018 “Integrated software for structural analysis & design” is used for both linear elastic analysis & design and for non-
linear static analysis (Time history) for capacity evaluation of the structures. For modeling of buildings, the buildings with a storey height of 3.2 m
and bay length of 3.65m are taken.
2. Assumptions and Limitations
For simplifying the problem with minimum variation in results, different assumptions made during the modeling of the building are as follows.
a) Floor Slabs: Floor slabs are assumed to be rigid in their own plane. This assumption reduces the number of unknown displacements to be
determined. The slab action has been modeled by a master joint at each floor with three degrees of freedom.
b) Rigid Foundation: It is assumed that there is no soil interaction, i.e., the foundation is assumed to be rigid. In reality, however, the structure
always interacts with soil, which causes soil deformation.
c) Participating Components: In the study, the primary components are assumed to participate in the response. The effects of secondary
structural components and nonstructural components are assumed to be negligible.
d) For simplicity, the lateral load is applied only on one side of the building; here in this review paperwork, all models are pushed in the x-
direction to incorporate the effect of lateral forces.
e) This study is limited to the concrete grade of M20, M25, M30, M35, M40, and steel of Fe250, Fe415, Fe500 N/mm2 only.
f) This study is limited to the framed structure only, i.e., beam, column, shear walls and slab are considered, but infill walls, the staircase has
not been found.
g) To simplify the analysis, the secondary effects such as temperature, creep, shrinkage are not considered.
h) To assign the coefficient for various parameters of the building element, the bay length is taken as 3.65m, and column height is taken as
3.2m. The concrete grade of M25 and steel strength of Fe415N/mm2 is made. Column size of 900 mm x 600 mm is taken. A live load of 4
KN/m2 is considered for all floors except the roof, where the live load is taken 1.5 KN/m2.

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 8
3. Material Properties
The grade of concrete is taken as M25 except for those buildings taken for concrete properties variation. For concrete property variation, the grade
of concrete taken is of M20, M30, M35, and M40. The unit weight of concrete is taken as 25 KN/m3.Poisson’s ratio is taken as 0.2. IS 456:2000
assumes the modulus of elasticity E to be 5000√fck. fck is characteristic cube strength of the concrete. Thus, modulus of elasticity, E is taken as
22.36 x x106 KN/m2, 25 x106 KN/m2, 27.38 x x106 KN/m2, 29.58 x106 KN/m2 and 31.62 x x106 KN/m2 for M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40
respectively. The unit weight of reinforcement is taken to be 76.9KN/m3.Poissoin’s ratio is taken as 0.3 and modulus of elasticity is 2 x 108KN/m2.
Modal damping ratio is taken to be 0.05.

4. Typical Plan and 3D view of building

Fig- 3D view for irregular building model

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 9
 Fig- Typical plan for irregular building model
Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 10
5. Frame section properties
Beam elements and column elements are used as frame elements for modeling of buildings.
a) Beam
The size of beam section adopted in the building is 600mm X 300mm.
b) Column
The section assumed is 900mm x 600mm

6. Area Section Properties

Thickness of slab is taken as 150mm. Rigid floor diaphragm is assigned for all floors. Shear wall thickness is taken as 300mm
7. Loads
Dead loads, Live loads are types of loads assigned to models. Dead loads are calculated by program itself using the unit weight of materials
assigned. Live loads at all floors are taken as 4 KN/m2. Floor finish of 1.5 KN/m2 is assigned to all slabs
Unit weight of brick wall is taken as 18.75 KN/m2.
For 230 mm thick external wall with reduction of opening Wall load = 0.75 X 18.75 x .23 X (3.2-0.6) = 8.74 KN/m
For 230 mm thick external wall without reduction of opening Wall load = 18.75 x .23 X (3.2-0.6) = 11.65 KN/m
For 115 mm thick internal wall without opening Wall load = 18.75 X .115 x (3.2-0.6) = 5.82 KN/m
For 115 mm thick internal wall with reduction of opening Wall load = 0.75 X 18.75 X 0.115 X (3.2-0.6) = 4.4KN/m
For 230 mm thick parapet wall. Wall load = 18.75 X 0.23 X 0.85 = 3.66 KN/m

8. Load Combination
All building models are designed for load combinations as per IS 1893:2016 as shown below.
1.5 (DL+LL)
1.2(DL+LL+EL)
1.2(DL+LL-EL)
1.5(DL+EL)
1.5(DL-EL)
0.9 DL+1.5 EL
0.9 DL-1.5EL

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 11
9. Mass Source
Mass source is defined as to assign from where the program shall derive the mass of the structure. Seismic weight is the total dead weight of the
structure plus part of the imposed loads that may reasonably be expected to be attached to the structure at the time of earthquake shaking. It
includes the weight of permanent and movable partitions, permanent equipment and a part of live load etc. In the present study, 50% of live load is
considered together with self-weight and wall load.

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Dual System Building By Performance-Based Seismic Design Method and Limit State Design Method 12