Seismic Performance of A New Capacity Design Scheme For RC Framed Building

Journal of Earthquake Engineering
Fo
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A NEW CAPACITY DESIGN

SCHEME FOR RC FRAMED BUILDING
rP
Journal: Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ee
Manuscript ID UEQE-2020-4186
Manuscript Type: Full Length Papers

rR
Date Submitted by the

13-Mar-2020
Author:
ev
Complete List of Authors: ZADE, NIKHIL; National Institute of Technology Rourkela, CIVIL
ENGINEERING
Das, Bijoya ; Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd, Engineering Design and
Research Centre Division
iew
Sarkar, Pradip; National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Department of

Civil Engineering
DAVIS, ROBIN; National Institute of Technology Calicut, Civil Engineering
beam-to-column joint, capacity design, moment capacity ratio, seismic

Keywords:
risk, shear demand
On
ly
URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: gencturk@usc.edu

Page 1 of 27 Journal of Earthquake Engineering
1
2
3 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A NEW CAPACITY DESIGN SCHEME FOR RC
4
5 FRAMED BUILDING
6
7
8
9
10 Nikhil P. Zade B. E., M. Tech. (Corresponding Author)
11
12 Ph. D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha
13
14 769008, India, Email: nikhilzade648@gmail.com, Ph.: +91-92843 80929
15
16
17
18 Bijoya Das B. Tech., M. Tech.
Fo
19
20 Post Graduate Engineer Trainee, Engineering Design and Research Centre Division, L&T Construction,
21
rP
22 Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600089, India, Email: biju2095@gmail.com, Ph.: +91-87874 92359
23
24
ee
25
26
Pradip Sarkar B.E., M.E., Ph.D.
27
28
rR
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela,

29
30
31 Odisha 769008, India, Email: sarkarp@nitrkl.ac.in, Ph.: +91-94394 29739
ev
32
33
34
iew
35 Robin Davis B.E., M.E., Ph.D.

36
37 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Calicut,
38
39 673601, India, Email: robin@nitc.ac.in, Ph.: +91-80758 73378
40
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
Journal of Earthquake Engineering Page 2 of 27
1
2
3 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A NEW CAPACITY DESIGN SCHEME FOR RC
4
5 FRAMED BUILDING
6
7
8
9
10 Nikhil P. Zade1*, Bijoya Das2, Pradip Sarkar3, Robin Davis4
11
12
13
1*Ph. D Scholar, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India, Email:
14
15
16 nikhilzade648@gmail.com, Ph.: +91-9284380929
17
18
Fo
2Formerly, M. Tech Scholar, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India, Email:
19
20 biju2095@gmail.com, Ph.: +91-87874 92359
21
rP
22 3Associate Professor, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India, Email:
23
24 sarkar.pradip@gmail.com, Ph.: +91-94394 29739
ee
25
26 4Assistant Professor, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kerala 673601 India, Email:
27
28
rR
29 robin@nitc.ac.in, Ph.: +91-80758 73378

30
31
ev
32
33 ABSTRACT
34
iew
35 Limiting values of column-to-beam moment capacity ratio (MCR) that ensure a desirable collapse
36
37 mechanism has been presented by many international standards as well as published literature.
38
39 However, compliance of such requirements is reported to be computationally involved, which makes it
40
On
41 unattractive to the design office. Also, the studies on the effectiveness of this requirement in terms of
42
43 seismic performance of the building and associated cost-benefit are limited. The present study proposes
44
ly
45
an alternate scheme of MCR for the capacity design of RC framed building, which is easy to comply
46
47
48
with and leads to an economical design without affecting its seismic safety. The result of this study
49
50 shows that a higher value of MCR in the design yields better strength and ductility to the RC buildings
51
52 but fails to achieve the preferred failure modes.
53
54
55
56 Keywords: capacity design, moment capacity ratio, beam-to-column joint, seismic risk, shear demand.
57
58
59
60 INTRODUCTION
2
1
2
3 The beam-column joint is considered as the most crucial zone in reinforced concrete moment resisting
4
5 framed buildings, which initiated the failures of many such buildings in past earthquakes. Beam-column
6
7
joints control the effective transfer of forces and also ensure a preferable failure mode in a building
8
9
10 structure. It is an established fact that the beam sway mechanism in a framed building (Fig. 1a) leads to
11
12 ductile modes of failure whereas both column sway mechanism and combined sway mechanism
13
14 (Figs. 1b and 1c) cause non-ductile failures. A great amount of research (Nahar et al., 2019; Mou et al.,
15
16 2019; Sasmal and Voggu, 2019; Allam et al., 2018; Gan et al., 2018; Fox et al., 2014; Li and Leong,
17
18
Fo
2014; Priestley et al., 2007; Hibino and Ichinose, 2005; Dooley and Bracci, 2001; Priestley and
19
20 Kowalsky, 2000) has been carried out based on capacity design philosophy to ensure a better collapse
21
rP
22 mechanism in the building. In order to ensure a satisfactory failure mechanism and a better performance,
23
24 various design standards (ACI 318-2019; IS 13920-2016; NZS 3101-2006 and EN 1998-1-2004) have
ee
25
26
recommended a minimum value of moment capacity ratio (MCR), defined as the ratio of summation of
27
28
rR
29 moment carrying capacity of columns to the summation of moment carrying capacity of beams framing
30
31 into a particular joint as follows:
ev
32
33
MCR 
 Mc (1)
34
 Mb
iew
35
36
37 Where Mc and Mb are moment carrying capacities of columns and beams, respectively, framing into the
38
39 selected joint. Table 1 presents the minimum MCR values to be maintained for the design of RC framed
40
On
41 buildings, as suggested by the different international standards. This table shows that there is a wide
42
43 range of values of MCR suggested by various design codes. MCR value as per New Zealand Standard
44
ly
45 NZS 3101-2006 can be more than 2.0 (Uma and Jain, 2006), whereas American Standard ACI 318-
46
47 2019 recommends a lower MCR value of 1.2. It is intelligible that the higher value of MCR is expected
48
49 to yield better seismic performance of the building at the expense of higher cost. However, the detailed
50
51
experimental or analytical basis for the MCR values suggested by the design codes is not available.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21 (a) Beam sway mechanism (b) Column sway mechanism (c) Combined sway mechanism
rP
22
23
Fig. 1. Failure modes for moment-resisting frames
24
ee
25
26
27
28 Table 1 MCR suggested by various international codes
rR
29 Source MCR
30
31 ACI 318-2019 1.2
ev
32
33 EN 1998-1-2004 1.3
34
IS 13920-2016 1.4
iew
35
36
NZS 3101-2006a 1.4×ω
37
aω is the overstrength factor
38
39
40
On
41
42 The accurate calculations of MCR are computationally complicated since the axial load influences the
43
44
ly
flexural strength of the column. Columns experience a range of axial forces during earthquake loading,
45
46 and the most conservative flexural capacity of the column under this range of axial forces is needed for
47
48
MCR calculation. This concern makes the code approach of minimum MCR unappealing to the design
49
50
51 engineers (Mistri et al., 2018). Therefore, the development of a simplified yet accurate approach
52
53 suitable for the design office environment is necessary to ensure the capacity-based design of framed
54
55 buildings. A recent study (Paul, 2018) concluded that maximum joint shear demand in a multi-storeyed
56
57 framed building occurs only in some lower floors of the building. Previous studies (Murthy et al., 2012)
58
59 indicated that the increase of MCR beyond a certain value does not necessarily improve the seismic
60
4
1
2
3 performance of the building. Based on these literature, the present study proposes a new scheme of
4
5 MCR which will reduce the computational and construction cost of the building without compromising
6
7
its safety.
8
9
10
11
12 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
13
14 Design codes set the strength hierarchy in terms of MCR to utilize the full potential of building and,
15
16 subsequently, a preferred mode of its failure when the building is subjected to extreme lateral load.
17
18
Fo
However, due to computational complexity and the uneconomical results, the relevant design code
19
20 guidelines are not very popular among the practicing engineers. A cost-benefit analysis of such MCR-
21
rP
22 based design of the building is also not available in the published literature. Failure of many code-
23
24 designed buildings during past earthquakes by the formation of storey mechanism highlights the need
ee
25
26
for the MCR-based code provision. In this context, the present study proposes an improved scheme of
27
28
rR
29 MCR which reduces the computation effort. The study shows that the proposed scheme significantly
30
31 improves the economy without compromising the safety of the building.
ev
32
33
34
iew
35 PROPOSED SCHEME OF MCR

36
37 Past literature (Paul, 2018; Murthy et al., 2012) has indicated that shear demand in a beam-column joint
38
39 is significantly higher in a few lower storey levels of regular framed buildings. The analysis result shows
40
On
41 that the intended beam sway mechanism is very difficult to achieve through MCR criteria (Sunayana,
42
43 2014; Murthy et al., 2012). The formation of the combined beam and column sway mechanism is
44
ly
45
observed with failure concentrated mostly in the lower floor levels of regular building even with high
46
47
48
MCR values. Paul (2018) concluded that joint shear demand in a building is critical up to an
49
50 approximate height of H 0.7 from the ground, based on elastic analysis (where H is the total height of
51
52 the building). Motivated by these literature, the proposed scheme requires the compliance of the MCR
53
54 0.7
limit for beam-to-column joints only up to a critical height ( H from the ground) of the building. On
55
56
57 the basis of the critical joint shear demand recommended by Paul (2018), the present study proposes a
58
0.7
59 scheme of MCR limit to comply with beam-to-column joints located up to the critical height ( H from
60
5
1
2
3 the ground) of the building. Seismic Performance is studied for building (a) designed considering MCR
4
5 criteria up to the critical height as the proposed scheme, (b) designed considering MCR criteria for the
6
7
entire building as suggested by major international design codes and (c) designed without considering
8
9
10 the MCR criteria as reference. The minimum MCR value of 1.4 recommended by Indian Standard IS
11
12 13920-2016 is considered for the proposed scheme. The performance of the proposed scheme is
13
14 compared with major international standards (ACI 318-2019; IS 13920-2016; NZS 3101-2006 and EN
15
16 1998-1-2004).
17
18
Fo
19
20 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
21
rP
22 A probability-based performance assessment methodology (Cornell et al., 2002) is utilized in the

23
24 present study to assess the effectiveness of the proposed scheme of MCR. This method uses a closed-
ee
25
26
form equation combining structural response and seismic hazard to evaluate the seismic risk
27
28
rR
29 analytically. Several researchers (Bhosale et al., 2017; Haran et al., 2016; Rajeev and Tesfamariam,
30
31 2012; Celik and Ellingwood, 2010; Davis et al. 2010; Wu et al., 2015; Ellingwood et al., 2007;
ev
32
33 Ramamoorthy et al., 2006; Cornell et al., 2002) have widely used this method for probabilistic seismic
34
iew
35 risk assessment of framed building. The performance of the selected buildings is expressed in terms of
36
37 probabilistic seismic demand models (PSDM), fragility curve, drift hazard curve, and the probability of
38
39 unacceptable behaviour (PPL). PSDM and fragility curves are evaluated based on incremental dynamic
40
On
41 analysis (IDA) outlined by earlier researchers (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002). In IDA, a building
42
43 model is subjected to a suite of ground motion data, scaled to a different level of peak ground
44
ly
45
acceleration (PGA), which is the intensity measure (IM) considered in the present study.
46
47
48
The fragility function represents the probability of exceedance of a selected demand parameter beyond
49
50 the chosen structural limit state when subjected to a ground motion of given PGA. It can be expressed
51
52 in the closed-form (Celik and Ellingwood 2010) as follows:
53
54  
55  ln( D̂ )  ln( Ĉ ) 
P( C  D IM )     (2)
56   2D IM   c2   2m 
57  
58
59
60
6
1
2
3 Where  is the standardized Gaussian cumulative distribution function, D is the drift demand, C is the
4
5
6 drift capacity at a chosen limit state; D̂ , and Ĉ are median of demand and chosen limit state
7
8 respectively. The values of Ĉ for various performance levels of RC moment-resisting frame are
9
10 considered from published literature (Bhosale et al., 2017; Haran et al., 2016) as 1%, 2% and 4% for
11
12
13
immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS), and collapse prevention (CP) respectively.  D IM ,  c , and
14
15  m are the dispersions in intensity measure, capacity, and modeling, respectively. The value of  c is
16
17
taken as 0.25 considering the moderate quality of construction as per ATC 58-2012, whereas the  m is
18
Fo
19
20 considered as per Mistri et al., (2018). Nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA) is conducted to obtain
21
rP
22 maximum ISD, which is the demand parameter considered in the present study. This method uses two
23
24 analytical approximations. The first one is the power-law relationship between median drift demand
ee
25
26 and the intensity measure (Cornell et al., 2002).
27
28
rR
Dˆ  a ( IM ) b (3)
29
30
31 Where a and b are the constant coefficients. The second approximation is that the drift demand D is
ev
32
33 distributed log-normally (Shome, 1999) with a standard deviation  D IM about the median. The three
34
iew
35
36 parameters a, b, and  D IM are obtained by regression analysis on the NLTHA results. The power-law
37
38 relation in Eq (3) represents the PSDM for the corresponding frame.
39
40
On
Seismic hazard is an important parameter to predict the likelihood of the unacceptable behaviour of a
41
42
43
selected RC frame at a given site. The mean annual probability of the drift demand of a selected building
44
ly
45 frame can be assessed by combining PSDM with the seismic hazard function at a given site. Drift hazard
46
47 function, HD(d) measures the annual probability that the drift demand value (D) exceeds any specified
48
49 value (d). If the cumulative annual probability of occurrence of an earthquake of given intensity ( IM =
50
51 x) is defined by hazard function, H (IM ) , then the probability of exceedance of drift demand can be
52
53 obtained by conditioning on all possible levels of the ground motion using the theorem of total
54
55
probability (Benjamin and Cornell, 2014) as follows:
56
57
58 
H D (d )  P [ D  d IM  x] dH ( x) (4)
59
60
7
1
2
3 Where dH (x) can be obtained from the hazard curve, H (IM ) . In the present work, a second-order
4
5
6 power-law approximation of the hazard curve is considered around the region of interest (Vamvatsikos,
7
8 2013) as follows:
9
10
11

H ( IM )  k 0 exp  k 2 ln 2 ( IM )  k1 ln( IM )  (5)
12
13 Where k0 , k1 , and k 2 are the constant coefficients. Incorporating PSDM (Eq. 3) and the second-
14
15 order power-law approximation of hazard curve (Eq. 5), the simplified form of the drift hazard function
16
17 can be expressed as follows:
18
Fo
19
 k2 
20 H D (d )  P[ D  d ]  q k 01q H ( IM d ) exp  1 (1  q ) (6)
21  4k 2 
rP
22
23
Where IM d is the intensity measure corresponding to the drift level, Dˆ  d and this can be obtained
24
ee
25
26 from Eq. (7). The constant q can be calculated as per Eq. (8).
27
28 1
rR
d  b
29 IM d
  (7)
30 a
31
ev
32  b2 
33 q 2  (8)
 b  2k 2  2 
34  D IM 
iew
35
36 The mean annual probability of exceedance (PPL) is another measure of seismic performance, which
37
38 gives the seismic risk of buildings at a given limit state in a quantitative manner. The PPL can be
39
40
On
calculated by relating the drift hazard curve and chosen limit state capacity. Using the total probability
41
42
43
theorem, PPL can be defined as:
44
ly
45 PPL  P[C  D]   P[C  D D  di ] P [D  di ] (9)

46 all di
47
48 Considering the second-order power-law approximation of hazard curve, Vamvatsikos (2013) has given
49
50 a simplified equation to calculate PPL as follows:
51
52
 k2 
53 PPL   k01  [ H ( IM Ĉ )]  exp  1 ( 1   ) (10)
54  4k 2 
55
56
57 where, the constant  and the intensity measure corresponding to the median drift capacity ( Ĉ ), IM Ĉ
58
59 can be obtained from Eq. (11) and Eq. (12) respectively:
60
8
1
2
3
b2
4  (11)
5 b  2k 2 (  2D IM   c2 )
2
6
7
8 1
9  Ĉ  b
IM   
Ĉ
(12)
10
a
11
12
13
14
15
16 STRUCTURAL MODEL
17
18 Three typical RC framed buildings are considered in the present study: six storey four bay (6S4B), eight
Fo
19
20 storey four bay (8S4B), and ten storey five bay (10S5B). Uniform storey height of 3.5 m and uniform
21
rP
22 bay width of 5 m are considered for all the three selected buildings. The buildings are considered to be
23
24 symmetric in plan and elevation, and a representative central frame is considered for the analysis. Fig. 2
ee
25
26 presents the elevation of the selected building frames. The buildings are designed using relevant Indian
27
28
rR
Standards for seismic load associated with the highest seismic zone of India, considering three MCR
29
30
schemes as follows:
31
ev
32
33
(a) Proposed Scheme: the frames are designed with limiting MCR of 1.4 up to the critical height.
34
(b) Scheme recommended in the design code: the frames are designed with code recommended
iew
35
36
37 MCR value for the entire building height. Different standards, ACI 318-2019; IS 13920-2016;
38
39 NZS 3101-2006 and EN 1998-1-2004 are considered in this case. The buildings designed as
40
On
41 per the international codes are named as the respective code numbers.
42
43 (c) No Capacity Design (NCD): the frame is designed without considering any MCR criteria
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
9
1
2
3
4 @ 5.0m @ 5.0m @ 5.0m
5
6
7
8
@ 3.5m
@ 3.5m
10
@ 3.5m
11
12
13
14 (a) 6S4B
15
16
17 (b) 8S4B
18
Fo
19
20 (c) 10S5B
21
rP
22 Fig. 2. RC frames considered in the study

23
24
ee
25
26
27
As discussed earlier, the seismic performance assessment of the buildings in this study is based on
28
rR
29 NLTHA. Therefore, the selected building frames are modelled for nonlinear dynamic analysis using the
30
31 Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), a laboratory tool developed by
ev
32
33 McKenna et al. (2018). A discretized force-based nonlinear fiber section with spread plasticity is used
34
iew
35 for modelling the frame elements. Details of the nonlinear material model of the RC frames and their
36
37 validation can be available elsewhere (Bhosale et al., 2018; Dhir et al., 2018).
38
39 As this study employs probability-based seismic assessment techniques, uncertainty in both the
40
On
41 structural model and the seismic load is taken into consideration. A suite of 44 far-field natural
42
43
earthquake ground motion records (FEMA P695-2012) is used to model the uncertainty in the seismic
44
ly
45
load. Five random input variables are identified through sensitivity analysis to model the uncertainty in
46
47
48 structural capacity: characteristic compressive strength of concrete ( f ck ) , yield strength of the steel
49
50 ( f y ) , the elastic modulus of concrete ( Ec ) , the elastic modulus of steel ( E s ) and global damping ratio
51
52
( ) . The mean and coefficient of variation (COV) of the above parameters are obtained from published
53
54
55 literature and presented in Table 2.
56
57
58
59
60
10
1
2
3 Table 2. Details of random variables considered in the seismic risk assessment
4
5
6
Random variables Mean COV (%) PDF Source
7
fck, (MPa) 24.9 8.5 Lognormal Bal et al. (2008)
8
9 fy, (MPa) 393 12 Lognormal Seo et al (2012)
10
11 Ec, (MPa) 30822 13 Lognormal Val et al. (1997)
12
13 Es, (MPa) 2x105 5 Lognormal Mitropoulou et al. (2011)
14
15 ξ, (%) 4.3 76 Lognormal Celik and Ellingwood (2010)
16
17
18
Fo
ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC RISK

19
20
21 The performance of the proposed MCR scheme with reference to that of the code-based scheme is
rP
22
23 assessed through an associated seismic risk of designed buildings in terms of PSDM, fragility curve,
24
drift hazard curve and PPL. Selected 44 ground motions are linearly scaled from a PGA of 0.1g to 1.0 g,
ee
25
26
27 and 44 building models are generated through the sampling of selected input variables (Table 2).
28
rR
29 NLTHA is conducted for each of the 44 buildings considering a randomly selected earthquake. The
30
31 maximum ISD of the building is plotted with the corresponding PGA on a log-log scale (Figs. 3-5). The
ev
32
33 power-law relation between the maximum ISD and the corresponding PGA is developed through
34
iew
35 regression analysis, which represents PSDMs for each building frame. The regression coefficients a,
36
37
38 and b (Eq. 3), and the dispersion in maximum ISD (  D IM ) for each frame are presented in Table 3. A
39
40
On
higher value of ISD corresponds to the higher vulnerability of the buildings. It can be observed that, for
41
42 a given PGA, the maximum ISD demand is highest for NCD. The maximum ISD for the building
43
44
ly
designed using both of the proposed and code-based (IS 13920-2016) MCR schemes are found to be
45
46
47
almost same as shown in Figs. 3-5.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ISD (%)
11 1
12
13
14
15
16
NCD IS 13920-2016
17
18
Fo
Proposed Power (NCD)

19
20 Power (IS 13920-2016) Power (Proposed)
21 0.1
rP
22 0.1 1
PGA (g)
23
24
ee
25 Fig. 3. PSDM for 6S4B RC frame

26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38 1
ISD (%)
39
40
On
41
42
43
NCD IS 13920-2016
44
ly
45
Proposed Power (NCD)
46
48 0.1
49 0.1 PGA (g) 1
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 1
ISD (%)
12
13
14
15
16
17 NCD IS 13920-2016
18
Fo
19 Proposed Power (NCD)

20
rP
0.1
22
0.1 1
23 PGA (g)
24
ee

26
27
28
rR
29
30
Table 3. PSDMs and dispersions for selected frames
31
ev
32 Frame MCR Scheme PSDM (a IM b) R2  D IM

33
34 NCD 4.10(PGA)0.91 0.25 1.00
iew
35
36 6S4B IS 13920-2016 2.85(PGA)0.82 0.28 0.81
37
38 Proposed 2.84(PGA)0.83 0.30 0.78
39
NCD 4.40(PGA)0.66 0.22 0.77
40
On
41 8S4B IS 13920-2016 3.33(PGA)0.90 0.26 0.94

42
43 Proposed 2.75(PGA)0.68 0.29 0.87
44
ly
45 NCD 2.68(PGA)0.72 0.29 0.71

46
47 10S5B IS 13920-2016 2.40(PGA)0.67 0.28 0.67
48
49
Proposed 2.47(PGA)0.67 0.30 0.65
50
51
52 The performance of the proposed MCR scheme is studied by comparing the fragility curves of the
53
54 selected buildings at three selected limit states. The typical plots of fragility curves at CP performance
55
56 level are presented in Fig. 6-8. The results are found to be similar for other limit states, IO, and LS.
57
58
These figures show that the probability of exceedance at a given PGA is highest for NCD and almost
59
60
13
1
2
3 equal in case of proposed and code specified (IS 13920-2016) MCR scheme. The fragility curves are
4
5 plotted (Fig. 9) for a typical building (6S4B) designed with MCR values specified in various
6
7
international standards (ACI 318-2019; IS 13920-2016; NZS 3101-2006 and EN 1998-1-2004). The
8
9
10 fragility curve for the proposed MCR scheme and NCD are also plotted in Fig. 9 as a reference.
11
12
13
14
1
15
16 NCD
Probability of Exceedance
17 0.8
18 IS 13920-2016
Fo
19 Proposed
20 0.6
21
rP
22
23 0.4
24
ee
25
0.2
26
27
28
rR
0
29 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
30 PGA (g)
31
ev
32
33 Fig. 6. Fragility curve for 6S4B at CP
34
iew
35
36
37 1
38 NCD
39
40 0.8
On
Probability of Exceedance
IS 13920-2016
41
42 Proposed
43 0.6
44
ly
45
46 0.4
47
48
49 0.2
50
51
52 0
53 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PGA (g)
54
55
57
58
59
60
14
1
2
3
4 1
5
6 NCD
0.8
Probability of Exceedence
7
8 IS 13920-2016
9 0.6 Proposed
10
11
12 0.4
13
14
15 0.2
16
17
18
Fo
0
19 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
20 PGA (g)
21
rP

23
24
ee
25
26
27 1.00
NCD
28
rR
29 ACI 318-2019
0.80
Probability of Exceedence
30 EN 1998-1-2004
31
ev
32 IS 13920-2016
0.60
33 NZS 3101-2006
34
iew
35 Proposed
0.40
36
37
38 0.20
39
40
On
41 0.00
42 0 0.5 1 (g) 1.5 2
43 PGA
44
ly
45 Fig. 9. Fragility curves at CP for 6S4B designed with different codes

46
47
48
49 This figure shows that the order of frames in terms of increasing drift demand or vulnerability is NZS
50
51 3101-2006 < IS 13920-2016 < Proposed < EN 1998-1-2004 < ACI 318-2019 < NCD. It is to be noted
52
53
here that this order of vulnerability is exactly matching with the order of decreasing MCR values (refer
54
55
56 Table 1). This indicates that the vulnerability is inversely proportional to the value of MCR. Fig. 9
57
58 shows that ACI 318-2019 has the maximum, and NZS 3101-2006 has the minimum probability of
59
60 exceedance for a given PGA among the selected design codes. This is because the extremum values of
15
1
2
3 MCR are recommended in these two codes. The probability of exceedance at a given PGA is found to
4
5 be quite similar for IS 13920-2016 and the proposed scheme of MCR.
6
7
The seismic hazard curve for the Guwahati region, India (Iyengar et al., 2010), is chosen for the
8
9
10 development of drift hazard curves in the present study. The hazard curve is approximated as a second-
11
12 order polynomial function (Eq. 5), as shown in Fig. 10, and the values of three constants, k0, k1, and k2
13
14 are obtained. The drift hazard curves are then plotted by combining both PSDMs and hazard curves for
15
16 the selected buildings 6S4B, 8S4B, and 10S5B, as shown in Figs. 11-13. The result of drift hazard
17
18
Fo
curves is found to be in agreement with the results of PSDM and fragility curves. It can be observed
19
20
that the order of frames in increasing drift hazard is NCD > Proposed > code designed (IS 13920-2016).
21
rP
22
23 However, the difference between the proposed and code MCR scheme in terms of drift hazard curve is
24
ee
25
marginal.
26
27
28
rR
29
30 1
31
ev
32
33 Zone V, Guwahati
34 0.1
iew
35 2nd order fitted

36
H (PGA)
37
38 0.01 ln y   0.235 ln 2 x   2.303 lnx   7.111
39
40
On
41
42 0.001
43
44
ly
45
46 0.0001
47 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
48 PGA (g)
49
50 Fig. 10. Selected seismic hazard curve with a second-order fit
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
1
2
3
0.1
4
5
NCD
Annual Mean Rate of Exceedance

6
7
Proposed
8
9 0.01
IS 13920-2016
10
11
12
13
14 0.001
15
16
17
18
Fo
19 0.0001
20 0 1 2 3 4
21 ISD (%)
rP
22
23
24 Fig. 11. Drift hazard curve for 6S4B
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
0.1
29
30
NCD
31
ev
32
Proposed
33 0.01
34
IS 13920-2016
iew
35
36
37
38
0.001
39
40
On
41
42
43
0.0001
44
ly
45 0 1 2 3 4
46 ISD (%)
47
49
50
51
52
53 The values for the mean annual probability of collapse or mean annual probability of exceeding a given
54
55 performance level (PPL) are calculated for the selected buildings at three selected limit states as per
56
57 Eq. 10 and presented in Table 4. This table shows that the values of PPL are highest for NCD for the
58
59
60
17
1
2
3 obvious reason. However, the values of PPL for the buildings designed with proposed and code MCR
4
5 (IS 13920-2016) schemes are within close proximity.
6
7
8
9
10 0.1
11
12 NCD
13 Proposed
14
15 IS 13920-2016
0.01
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
0.001
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26 0.0001
0 1 2 3 4
27 ISD (%)
28
rR
29
31
ev
32
33
34 Table 4. Mean annual probability of exceedance
iew
35
36
37 Annual Probability of collapse 𝑃𝑃𝐿(10-3)
38 Frame
39 IO LS CP
40
On
41 NCD 7.50 1.99 0.40

42
6S4B Proposed 5.27 1.08 0.16
43
44 IS 13920-2016 5.26 1.06 0.15
ly
45
46 NCD 6.24 1.82 0.43
47
48 8S4B Proposed 5.75 1.52 0.32
49
50 IS 13920-2016 5.41 1.47 0.31
51
NCD 6.15 0.99 0.10
52
53 10S5B Proposed 5.95 0.82 0.07
54
55 IS 13920-2016 5.38 0.72 0.06
56
57
58
59
60
18
1
2
3 The results of PSDM, fragility curve, drift hazard curve, and PPL indicate that the scheme of MCR has
4
5 an important role in controlling the seismic risk of the framed building. The performance of buildings
6
7
with higher MCR is better than those with lower MCR. The proposed scheme of MCR is found to be
8
9
10 equally effective as the code specified MCR scheme. The proposed scheme considers the MCR criteria
11
12 only up to the critical height of the building, which can lead to a significant saving of computational as
13
14 well as construction cost. The following section presents a cost-benefit analysis for all the selected
15
16 schemes of MCR.
17
18
Fo
19
20 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
21
rP
22 A cost-benefit analysis is carried out in line with the method available in published literature (ElSayed
23
24 et al., 2015; Hong et al., 2006; Ellingwood and Wen 2005) to assess the effectiveness of the proposed
ee
25
26
scheme of MCR. The effect of MCR on the seismic performance or the damage and associated cost of
27
28
rR
29 the building is studied. The parameters ‘Cost Index’ (CI) and ‘Damage Index’(DI) introduced for this
30
31 purpose are defined as follows:
ev
32
33 Cost
CI  (13)
34 Cost NCD
iew
35
36
37
PPL
DI  (14)
38 PPL , NCD
39
40
On
Where, Cost and CostNCD are the cost of materials for construction of the selected building and that
41
42
43
of NCD building, respectively. Similarly, PPL and PPL , NCD are the mean annual probability of
44
ly
45 exceedance of the selected building and that of the NCD building, respectively. It is to be noted that
46
47 the CI defined in Eq. 12 does not take into consideration of computational cost, damage cost, and the
48
49 risk aversion. Lesser the value of DI better is the seismic performance. Certainly, DI is expected to
50
51 be less than unity for buildings designed with code MCR criteria.
52
53 Table 5 and Fig. 14 compare the values of CI vis-à-vis the values of DI for a typical 6S4B frame
54
55
designed with selected MCR schemes. The damage index of the building designed with NZS 3101-
56
57
58 2006, is found to be the lowest with the highest construction cost. The highest damage index is found
59
60 to be for the building designed for the MCR scheme as per ACI 318-2019, with the lowest cost of
19
1
2
3 construction. The building designed with the proposed scheme has almost equal DI as that of the
4
5 building designed with IS 13920-2016 with a much lower cost index in comparison to the Indian
6
7
standard. This benefit of the cost associated with the proposed scheme of MCR is in addition to the
8
9
10 computational ease. So it is clear that the proposed MCR scheme can result in equal performance in
11
12 terms of seismic risk at a lower construction cost of the building.
13
14
15
16 Table 5. CI and DI for various MCR values
17
18
Fo
Standards MCR CI DI (at IO) DI (at LS) DI (at CP)

19
20 ACI 318-2019 1.2 1.10 0.80 0.71 0.63
21
rP
22 BS EN1998-1-2004 1.3 1.21 0.72 0.63 0.55

23
24 IS 13920-2016 1.4 1.38 0.70 0.53 0.38
ee
25
26 NZS 3101-2006 2.01 1.69 0.61 0.32 0.13
27
28 Proposed 1.4* 1.17 0.70 0.55 0.40
rR
29 * MCR criterion up to the critical height

30
31
ev
32
33
34 1.8
iew
35 NZS 3101-2006
36
37
1.6
38
39
40
On
IS 13920-2016
41
CI
1.4
42
43
EN 1998-1-2004
44
ly
45 1.2
Proposed
46 ACI 318-2019
47
48 1
49 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
50 DI
51
52 Fig. 14. Correlation of cost index (CI) and damage index (DI) for different schemes of MCR
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
20
1
2
3 FAILURE MECHANISM
4
5 The primary purpose of the capacity design through the MCR criterion is to ensure a preferable beam
6
7
sway mechanism in the framed building at the event of an extreme earthquake. A study on the failure
8
9
10 pattern of a typical framed building (6S4B) is conducted to check the relative performance of the
11
12 selected design codes in achieving the beam sway mechanism. Nonlinear static analysis with point
13
14 plastic hinges and a load pattern corresponding to the fundamental mode shape is utilized for this study.
15
16 Fig. 15 presents the capacity curves of selected buildings obtained from the nonlinear static analyses.
17
18
Fo
The formations of hinges of building 6S4B designed with different MCR schemes at failure are
19
20 presented in Fig. 16.
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25 1500
26
27
28 1200
rR
29
Base Shear (kN)
30
900 NCD
31
ev
32 ACI 318-2019
33
600 EN 1998-2004
34
iew
35 IS 13920-2016
36
37 300 NZS 3101-2006
38 Proposed
39
40 0
On
41 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Displacement (m)
42
43
Fig. 15. Capacity curves of a typical framed building (6S4B) designed with different MCR schemes
44
ly
45
46
47
48 Fig. 15 shows that both the strength and ductility of the building increases as the value of MCR
49
50 increases. It can be seen that the distribution of plastic hinges and the ductility achieved are quite good
51
52 for the building designed as per MCR scheme of NZS 3101-2006. However, the preferable beam sway
53
54 mechanism is not achieved even with a significantly higher MCR value in this case. Fig. 16 shows that
55
56 a combined beam and column sway mechanism is responsible for the failure of all the building frames.
57
58
59
60
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 NCD ACI 318M-2014
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32 EN 1998M-2004 IS 13920-2016
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46
47
NZS 3101-2006 Proposed
48
49
50 Fig. 16. Distribution of hinges at failure (o - represents member just yielded;  - represents members
51
52
53 with plastic rotation)
54
55
56
57 Nevertheless, higher energy dissipation is observed as the MCR value increases. It is to be noted that
58
59 the results of the proposed scheme of MCR and the scheme suggested by IS 13920-2016 are not much
60
22
1
2
3 different in terms of the capacity curve and failure mechanism although IS 13920-2016 MCR scheme
4
5 results in slightly higher deformation capacity. This result justifies the effectiveness of the proposed
6
7
MCR scheme in the capacity design of RC framed buildings.
8
9
10
11
12 CONCLUSIONS
13
14 The present study proposes a capacity design of RC multi-storeyed framed building with a new scheme
15
16 of column-to-beam moment capacity ratio. The performance of the proposed scheme is evaluated using
17
18
Fo
an accepted probability-based seismic performance assessment method, pushover analysis, and a cost-
19
20 benefit analysis. The salient conclusions of the present study are as follows:
21
rP
22 i) Capacity design based on minimum column-to-beam moment capacity ratio is found to

23
24 improve the seismic performance of framed buildings significantly. For example, the
ee
25
26
seismic risk (in terms of PPL at CP) can be decreased by approximately 40% when the
27
28
rR
29 building is designed with MCR criteria recommended in any of the international standards
30
31 considered here. This decrease in the seismic risk is found to be reduced for lower limit
ev
32
33 states (IO and LS).
34
iew
35 ii) The analysis result shows that the preferred beam sway mechanism cannot be achieved
36
37 perfectly by limiting MCR values, although a higher value of MCR can improve the
38
39 strength, ductility, and distribution of plastic hinges properties of the building.
40
On
41 iii) The proposed scheme, which recommends limiting of minimum MCR up to critical
42
43 building height, reduces the cost of construction and brings simplicity in the design
44
ly
45
calculation without compromising with seismic safety and the collapse mechanism. The
46
47
48
proposed approach will be more attractive to practicing engineers in comparison with the
49
50 existing design code approach.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
23
1
2
3 REFERENCES
4
5 ACI 318 (2019). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.” Farmington Hills,
6
7 American Concrete Institute.
8
9
Allam, S. M., Elbakry, H. M., and Arab, I. S. (2018). “Exterior reinforced concrete beam column
10 joint subjected to monotonic loading.” Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(4), 4133-4144.
11
12 ATC 58, (2012). “Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings.” Redwood City,
13 CA, USA, Applied Technology Council.
14
15 Bal, I. E., Crowley, H. and Pinho, R. (2008). “Detail assessment of structural characteristics of
16
Turkish RC buildings stock for loss assessment models.” Soil Dynamic and Earthquake
17
18
Fo
Engineering, 28, 914-932.

19
20 Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A. (2014). “Probability, statistics and decision for civil engineers.”
21 McGraw-Hill, New York.
rP
22
23 Bhosale, A. S., Davis, R., and Sarkar, P. (2017). “Vertical irregularity of buildings: Regularity index
24 versus seismic risk.” ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part
ee
25
26 A: Civil Engineering, 3(3): 04017001.
27
Bhosale, A. S., Davis, R., and Sarkar, P. (2018). “Seismic Safety of Vertically Irregular Buildings:
28
rR
29 Performance of Existing Indicators.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24(3), 04018013.

30
31 Celik, O., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2010). “Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete
ev
32 frames – Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties.” Structural Safety, 32(1), 1–12.
33
34 Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., and Foutch, D. A. (2002). “The probabilistic basis
iew
35
for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
36
37 128(4), 526-533.
38
39 Davis, R., Menon, D., and Prasad, M. (2010). “Earthquake-resistant design of open ground storey
40 RC framed buildings.” Journal of Structural Engineering(Chennai), 37(2), 117-124.
On
41
42 Dhir, P. K., Davis, R., and Sarkar, P. (2018). “Safety assessment of gravity load–designed
43 reinforced concrete–framed buildings.” ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in
44
ly
45 Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 4(2), 04018004.

46
Dooley, K. L., and Bracci, J. M. (2001). “Seismic evaluation of column-to-beam strength ratios in
47
48 reinforced concrete frames.” Structural Journal, 98(6), 843-851.
49
50 Ellingwood B R. (2001). “Earthquake risk assessment of building structures.” Reliability
51 Engineering and System Safety, 74(3), 251-262.
52
53 Ellingwood B. R., Celik O. C., and Kinali K. (2007). “Fragility assessment of building structural
54 systems in Mid‐America.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(13), 1935-1952.
55
56 Ellingwood, B. R., and Wen, Y. K. (2005). “Risk‐benefit‐based design decisions for
57
58
low‐probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid‐America.” Progress in Structural
59 Engineering and Materials, 7(2), 56-70.
60
24
1
2
3 ElSayed, M., Campidelli, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., and Tait, M. (2015). “Simplified framework
4
5 for blast-risk-based cost-benefit analysis for reinforced concrete-block buildings.” Journal of
6
performance of constructed facilities, 30(4), 04015077.
7
8 EN 1998 (2004). “Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic
9
10 actions and rules for buildings.” Brussels, European Committee for Standardization.
11 FEMA P695 (2012). “Quantification of building seismic performance factors.” Redwood City:
12
13 California, Applied Technology Council.
14 Fox, M. J., Sullivan, T. J., and Beyer, K. (2014). “Capacity design of coupled RC walls.” Journal
15
16 of Earthquake Engineering, 18(5), 735-758.
17
Gan, D., Zhou, Z., Zhou, X., and Hai Tan, K. (2018). “Seismic Behavior Tests of Square
18
Fo
19 Reinforced Concrete–Filled Steel Tube Columns Connected to RC Beam Joints.” Journal of

20
21 Structural Engineering, 145(3), 04018267.
rP
22 Haran, P. D. C., Bhosale A, Davis R. P., and Sarkar P. (2016). “Multiplication factor for open
23
24 ground storey buildings – A reliability based evaluation.” Earthquake Engineering and
ee
25
Engineering Vibration, 15(2), 283-295.
26
27 Hibino, Y., and Ichinose, T. (2005). “Effects of column-to-beam strength ratio on seismic energy
28
rR
29 distribution in steel frame structures.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 51B, 277-284.

30 Hong, H. P., Allouche, E. N., and Trivedi, M. (2006). “Optimal scheduling of replacement and
31
ev
32 rehabilitation of water distribution systems.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 12(3), 184-191.

33 IS 13920. (2016). “Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces–
34
iew
35 code of practice.” New Delhi, Bureau of Indian Standards.

36
Iyengar, R. N., Chadha, R. K., Rao, K. B., and Raghukanth, S. T. G. (2010). “Development of
37
38 probabilistic seismic hazard map of India.” Final Rep., National Disaster Management
39
40 Authority, New Delhi, India.
On
41 Li, B., and Leong, C. L. (2014). “Experimental and numerical investigations of the seismic
42
43 behavior of high-strength concrete beam-column joints with column axial load.” Journal of
44
ly
Structural Engineering, 141(9), 04014220.

45
46 McKenna, F., and Fenves, G. L. (2018). Open system for earthquake simulation framework
47
48
(OpenSees). ver 8.6.9, University of California, Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
49 Center (PEER).
50
51 Mistri, A., Sarkar, P., and Davis, R. (2018). “Column–beam moment capacity ratio and seismic
52 risk of reinforced concrete frame building.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
53
54 Structures and Buildings, 172(3), 189-196.
55
Mitropoulou, C. C., Lagaros, N. D., and Papadrakakis, M., (2011). “Life-cycle cost assessment of
56
57 optimally designed reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions”. Reliability Engineering
58
59 and System Safety, 96(10), 1311-1331
60
25
1
2
3 Mou, B., Zhao, F., Qiao, Q., Wang, L., Li, H., He, B., and Hao, Z. (2019). “Flexural behavior
4
5 of beam to column joints with or without an overlying concrete slab.” Engineering Structures,
6
199, 109616.
7
8 Murty, C. V., Goswani, R., Vijayanarayanan, A., and Mehta, V. V. (2012). “Some Concepts in
9
10 Earthquake Behaviour of Buildings.” Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, Gujarat.
11 Nahar, M., Billah, A. M., Kamal, H. R. and Islam, K. (2019). “Numerical seismic performance
12
13 evaluation of concrete beam-column joint reinforced with different super elastic shape memory
14 alloy rebars.” Engineering Structures, 194, 161-172.
15
16 NZS 3101 (2006). “Concrete structures standard Part 1, The Design of Concrete Structures.”
17
Wellington, New Zealand Standard.
18
Fo
19 Paul, P (2018). “Reliability Based Seismic Behaviour of Beam-Column Joints in Multi-Storeyed

20
21 RC Framed Structure.” Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology,
rP
22 Shibpur, West Bengal.

23
24 Priestley M. J. N., Calvi, M. C., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). “Displacement-Based Seismic Design
ee
25
of Structures”. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
26
27 Priestley, M. J. N. (2000). “Direct displacement-based seismic design of concrete buildings.”
28
rR
29 Bullentin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 33(4), 421-444.
30 Rajeev, P., and Tesfamariam, S. (2012). “Seismic fragilities for reinforced concrete buildings with
31
ev
32 consideration of irregularities.” Structural Safety, 39 (Nov): 1–13. DOI:

33 10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.06.001.
34
iew
35 Ramamoorthy, S. K., Gardoni, P. and Bracci, J. M. (2006). “Probabilistic demand models and
36
fragility curves for reinforced concrete frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(10),
37
38 1563-1572.
39
40 Sasmal, S., and Voggu, S. (2019). “Performance evaluation of differently designed beam-
On
41 column joints under cyclic shear-torsion loading.” Engineering Structures, 197, 109447.
42
43 Seo, J., Osorio, L. D., Craig, J. I., and Goodno, B. J., (2012), “Metamodel-based regional
44
ly
vulnerability estimate of irregular steel moment-frame structures subjected to earthquake events”

45
46 Engineering Structures, 45, 585–597.
47
48
Shome, N. (1999). “Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures.” Rep. No. RMS-
49 35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
50
51 Sunayana, S (2014). “Moment capacity ratio at beam – column joint in a regular RC framed
52 building.” MTech Thesis, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha.
53
54 Uma, S. R. and Jain, S. K. (2006). “Seismic design of beam-column joints in RC moment
55
resisting frames-Review of codes.” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 23(5), 579.
56
57 Val, D. V., and Melchers, R. E. (1997). “Reliability of deteriorating RC slab bridges.” Journal of
58
59 Structural Engineering, 123(12), 1638-1644.
60
26
1
2
3 Vamvatsikos, D. (2013). “Derivation of new SAC/FEMA performance evaluation solutions with
4
5 second‐order hazard approximation.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(8),
6
1171-1188. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2265.
7
8 Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A., (2002). “Incremental dynamic analysis.” Earthquake
9
10 Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491-514. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.141.
11 Wu, D., Tesfamariam, S., Stiemer, S. F., and Cui, J., (2015). “Comparison of seismic
12
13 performance of an RC frame building before and after the Wenchuan earthquake in Sichuan
14 province.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 29(1): 04014038. DOI:
15
16 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000466.
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
rP
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
ev
32
33
34
iew
35
36
37
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
ly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
27

Seismic Performance of A New Capacity Design Scheme For RC Framed Building

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Performance of A New Capacity Design Scheme For RC Framed Building

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A NEW CAPACITY DESIGN

Journal: Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Manuscript Type: Full Length Papers

Date Submitted by the

Sarkar, Pradip; National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Department of

beam-to-column joint, capacity design, moment capacity ratio, seismic

URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ueqe Email: gencturk@usc.edu

Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela,

35 Robin Davis B.E., M.E., Ph.D.

29 robin@nitc.ac.in, Ph.: +91-80758 73378

35 PROPOSED SCHEME OF MCR

22 A probability-based performance assessment methodology (Cornell et al., 2002) is utilized in the

45 PPL  P[C  D]   P[C  D D  di ] P [D  di ] (9)

22 Fig. 2. RC frames considered in the study

ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC RISK

Proposed Power (NCD)

25 Fig. 3. PSDM for 6S4B RC frame

19 Proposed Power (NCD)

25 Fig. 5. PSDM for 10S5B RC frame

32 Frame MCR Scheme PSDM (a IM b) R2  D IM

41 8S4B IS 13920-2016 3.33(PGA)0.90 0.26 0.94

45 NCD 2.68(PGA)0.72 0.29 0.71

22 Fig. 8. Fragility curve for 10S5B at CP

45 Fig. 9. Fragility curves at CP for 6S4B designed with different codes

35 2nd order fitted

Annual Mean Rate of Exceedance

41 NCD 7.50 1.99 0.40

Standards MCR CI DI (at IO) DI (at LS) DI (at CP)

22 BS EN1998-1-2004 1.3 1.21 0.72 0.63 0.55

29 * MCR criterion up to the critical height

41 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

22 i) Capacity design based on minimum column-to-beam moment capacity ratio is found to

Engineering, 28, 914-932.

29 Performance of Existing Indicators.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24(3), 04018013.

45 Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 4(2), 04018004.

19 Reinforced Concrete–Filled Steel Tube Columns Connected to RC Beam Joints.” Journal of

29 distribution in steel frame structures.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 51B, 277-284.

32 rehabilitation of water distribution systems.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 12(3), 184-191.

35 code of practice.” New Delhi, Bureau of Indian Standards.

Structural Engineering, 141(9), 04014220.

19 Paul, P (2018). “Reliability Based Seismic Behaviour of Beam-Column Joints in Multi-Storeyed

22 Shibpur, West Bengal.

32 consideration of irregularities.” Structural Safety, 39 (Nov): 1–13. DOI:

vulnerability estimate of irregular steel moment-frame structures subjected to earthquake events”

You might also like