See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299559942

Seismic Behaviour of RC Moment Resisting Frame Buildings Designed and

Detailed as per First Revision of IS 13920 - Draft Provisions

Article  in  Indian Concrete Journal · April 2016

CITATION READS

1 517

3 authors:

Sunitha Palissery Rupen Goswami

International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad Indian Institute of Technology Madras
6 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    239 PUBLICATIONS   224 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

C.V.R. Murty
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
337 PUBLICATIONS   1,654 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GSDMA Project View project

IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Tips View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sunitha Palissery on 19 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TECHNICAL PAPER Special Issue - Design

Seismic behaviour of RC moment resisting frame

buildings designed and detailed as per first
revision of IS 13920 draft provisions
P. Sunitha, Rupen Goswami and C.V.R. Murty

Capacity design precludes brittle actions thereby maximising energy dissipation capacity of moment resisting frame buildings
through flexural yielding in beams before possible yielding in columns during strong earthquake shaking. The flexural strength
of columns is required to be more than that of beams framing into it. Seismic design codes stipulate guidelines for design and
detailing of members to achieve desired ductile behaviour of buildings. This paper examines seismic behaviour of RC moment
frame buildings in seismic Zone V and IV designed as per the column-to-beam strength ratio (CBSR) requirements of the draft
IS 13920, and its adequacy along with the detailing requirements. The CBSR of 1.4 specified in the draft code is not sufficient
for buildings in seismic Zone V.

Keywords: Capacity design; column-to-beam strength ratio; collapse mechanism; confinement; pushover analysis.

Introduction and Background The draft of first revision of IS 13920 (hereinafter referred
to as, the draft code), includes this SCWB requirement to
A ductile moment resisting frame (MRF) is expected to
account for the required relative strength of columns and
dissipate energy through ductile inelastic actions primarily
beams framing at a joint. This paper examines the behaviour
at the ends of all beams. Usually, inelasticity is not allowed in
of RC Special MRF (SMRF) buildings in seismic Zones IV
columns to ensure that gravity load carrying capacity of the
and V designed as per the new requirement of column-to-
frame is not jeopardised even after a damaging earthquake.
beam strength ratio (hereinafter referred to as, CBSR) in the
This requires that columns are stronger than beams, and
draft code. Alongside, the adequacy of this new provision on
thereby help resist severe shaking during earthquakes. Hence,
CBSR and other detailing provisions to achieve the desired
seismic design codes should include a strong-column weak-
behaviour is studied. Seismic behaviour of study building
beam (SCWB) requirement in addition to the usual design
is assessed based on results of nonlinear static pushover
and detailing requirements of frame members. IS: 13920-
analyses of buildings designed and detailed as per provisions
1993 (hereinafter referred to as, the current code) prescribes
of the draft code.
relevant member-level capacity design requirements along
with prescriptive detailing provisions of members with the
Capacity Design and CBSR
intent of improving ductile behaviour of members of MRF
buildings, but does not include the SCWB requirement. Two critical actions of capacity design procedure towards
effecting only ductile damage are, ensuring a (i) strength
hierarchy within each member, and between individual
The Indian Concrete Journal, April 2016, Vol. 90, Issue 4, pp. 64-71.

64 The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016

TECHNICAL PAPER Special Issue - Design

members, and (ii) predetermined collapse mechanism of the

building, to maximize energy dissipation and deformability.
The most suited ideal collapse mechanism towards this is the
beam sway collapse mechanism with ductile flexural plastic
hinges at the ends of all beams, along with flexural plastic
hinges at column bases in buildings with fixed column
bases [1]. Traditionally, this is achieved through code
provisions that require structural members to be stronger
in brittle actions (e.g. shear) than in flexural actions. A brief
description is presented here of design criteria of achieving
strength hierarchy within and across structural members.

Beams of RC MRF buildings are designed to avoid brittle

shear failure by designing beam shear capacities to be more
than the corresponding equilibrium shears estimated from
under-reinforced flexural actions at ends of beams (Figure
1). The maximum equilibrium shear demand (VΩ) arising
out of flexural action, is estimated using the overstrength
demand on columns framing at a joint, should be considered
moment capacity MΩ at the ends of beams, in addition to
in arriving at a reasonable value of CBSR [1,4,5,8]. Still, past
the shear force due to gravity loads. Also, columns are
studies have demonstrated that the values of CBSR normally
designed to avoid brittle shear failure by keeping the design
being prescribed could be inadequate to prevent undesirable
column shear capacity to be more than the equilibrium
failure of buildings. Also, the CBSR requirement alone
shear estimated from plastic actions at the ends of the beams
does not guarantee that column hinges will not be formed
framing into the column (Figure 2). These two requirements
prematurely [5,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
are available in the current code.
Draft IS 13920 Provisions on Capacity
Some International seismic design codes require flexural
Design and CBSR
strength of columns to be more than that of beams by a CBSR
factor (denoted here as β). In general, this ratio is given by: IS 13920:1993 adopts capacity design philosophy to estimate
required shear strength of beams and columns, and thereby


M c
 1.0 ,
to determine the amount of transverse reinforcement in them
(1)
...(1) [22]. Clause 6.3.3 therein ensures in beams that brittle shear
M b
failure does not precede the flexural yielding. Similarly,

 Mc  1.0 , Clause 7.3.4 ensures that
(1)
brittle shear failure in columns
where  c and  Mb are summations of design moment
M
 Source
  1.0 , Definition (1)
capacities Mofb columns and beams, respectively, framing
into aACI318,
joint. CBSR20118is employed to prevent the formation
Source 
Mc , no minofal
Definition  1.2
undesirable storey mechanism and thereby to enhance the
Source
likelihood of formation
ACI318, 20118 Definition
of ideal collapse mechanism [1,3,4,5].
M 
b , noM minc , noalmin al
 1.2
ISACI318,
800, 2007
An investigation on behaviour of some 
20119 8 Mc , no minM
buildings 
al 
of
M
past
c , design
 1.2
b , no min al
 1.2
earthquakes shows that the probability of 
IS 800, 20079 Mb ,no minM
collapse al 
is 
4-5% Mc , design
b , design of  1.2
buildingsIS 800, 20079
conforming to such SCWB design Mc , design 
criterion, and M40-

b , design
Eurocode [EN 1998-1, 2003]10 M
 1.2
50% of those not conforming to1998-1, 2003][6].b ,Not
the criterion M  Mc ,design
design ensuring
c , design
Eurocode [EN 10
 1.3
a minimum CBSR
Eurocode [ENin design
1998-1, results
2003] 10 in smaller sized
 c ,design  
M
M 
columns
b , M
design
b , design
 1.3

with NZseismic 1.3 of

3101,demand
2006 in the compression failure
NZ113101, 200611  Mb ,design region M Mc , design
c , design
P-M interaction envelope of such columns [7]. Columns  1.4  1.4
 c , designM
NZ 3101, 200611
Dooley and Bracci,
M
with high axial force have limited flexural ductility;b which  M
, no
20015  Mb , no min al  Mc , design
b , no min al
1.4min al
induces
Dooleylargeand
values Dooley
damage
Bracci,in2001
and Bracci,in2001
recommended
buildings.
5
5 Table 1 lists M

typical β  2.0
Mc , design  Mb , design
seismic codes andliteratures.
c , design
 2.0
Paulay, 198612; Paulay, 2001 13 M
b , design


Mb , design
2.0
 c ,no min al  2.0 (2.0 to 2.5) ; 2.0 - 2.8
M
Further,
Paulay,definition
Paulay, 1986 12 of flexural
198612; ;Paulay,
Paulay,2001
effect of slab on beam moment capacity
13 capacity
2001 13 of Mmembers,
 cthat M 
 Mand
, no min al c , no min
 2.0 (2.0 
increase
almin al
b , no
to 2.0
2.5) ;(2.02.0 -to 2.82.5) ; 2.0 - 2.8
Kuntz and Browning, 2003  Mb ,no minM
14

al M
b , no min
c , no min alal ( top storey external )
= 1.8 to 4.0
Kuntz and Browning, 2003 14
Mc , no min al ( top storey external
Mb , no) min al ( average )
Kuntz and Browning, 200314 Mc , no min al ( top storey
= 1.8 to 4.0
external )
Mb , no min al ( average ) = 1.8 to 4.0
Mb , no min al ( average ) The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016 65
M c , design
 M b , no min al

Kuntz and Browning, 200314 Mc , no min al ( top storey externa

M
b , no min al ( average )
TECHNICAL PAPER Special Issue - Design

M c
 in various
Table 1. Recommended values of
and seismic codes M
1.0 ,
studies
b

Mc , design
 1.4 ,

...(2)
(1)

Source Definition M b , design

ACI318, 2011 [8]

∑M c , no min al
≥Source
1.2 where Mc,design is the design moment capacity of column
Definition
∑M estimated corresponding
Mc , no min al to zero axial load on the design
ACI318, 20118

b , no min al

∑M P-M interaction diagram, and  1.2Mb,design is the design moment

IS 800, 2007 [9]
∑M
c , design
≥ 1.2  Mb ,no min
capacity of beam, both framing
al at a joint. This study examines

b , design
IS 800, 2007 9
Mc , design designed as per these provisions of
behaviour of buildings
∑M the draft code, and
Mb ,draws
1.2 inferences on the adequacy
critical
Eurocode [EN 1998-1,
2003] [10]
∑M
c , design

b , design
≥ 1.3  design
of CBSR proposed therein.

∑M
Eurocode [EN 1998-1, 2003]10 M c , design
c , design
≥ 1.4 Numerical  Study 1.3
M
NZ 3101, 2006 [11]
∑ M b , no min al
b , design
Seismic behaviour is assessed of low-rise RC MRF buildings
designed and
NZ 3101, 200611 M
detailed as  per
1.4provisions of the draft code
c , design
Dooley and Bracci,
2001 [5]
∑ M c , design
≥ 2.0 through  M
nonlinear static pushover
b , no min al analyses performed
∑M b , design Dooley and Bracci, 20015 using a software [24]. In particular, the efficacy of the
M c , design
 2.0 to achieve a desired ductile
proposed CBSR β is investigated
Paulay, 1986 [12];
∑ M c , no min al
≥ 2.0 mechanism.  M typical 5-storey study buildings are
Two b , design
Paulay, 2001 [13] ∑M Paulay, 1986 12;- Paulay,

200113considered: plan
b , no min al
(2.0 to 2.5) ; 2.0 2.8 Mdimension 40m × 16m; storey height 3.7m;
c , no min al
4m bay length; located in  2.0 (2.0
seismic to 2.5)
Zones IV; and
2.0 -V;
2.8230 mm
Kuntz and Browning,
Mc , no min al ( top storey external )  M b , no min al
thick exterior (with 20% openings) and 150 mm thick interior
2003 [14] Mb , no min al ( average
Kuntz )
and Browning, 200314 Mc , nocolumns
URM infill walls; fixed
min al ( top storey at base
external ) and founded on hard
= 1.8 to 4.0
rock. Live load of 2.5kN/m 2
, and = 1.8
floor to 4.0
finish of 1kN/m2 are
Mb , no min al ( average )
considered, in addition to dead loads. These study buildings
are designed as SMRFs with response reduction factor R of 5
and importance factor I of 1 [25]. Grades of steel and concrete
M  1.4 ,
c , design considered in design are Fe415 and M30, respectively.
(2)
 M b , design
does not precede flexural yielding of beams. The factor 1.4,
Stiffness and strength of beams are kept constant for first
four storeys, while strength alone is varied at roof level, in
in the expressions of equilibrium shear force, accounts for each zone. Also, exterior and interior columns are kept same.
the effect of possible strain hardening of reinforcement bars The percentage of reinforcement considered in columns is
in estimating overstrength flexural capacity of the section. limited to 3%. Closely spaced transverse reinforcement
These important provisions are retained in the draft code (stirrups or ties) are provided at ends of both beams and
[23]. In addition, the draft code stipulates that the CBSRβ, columns. Cross-section properties of beams and columns
to be considered are listed in Table 2. Typical moment-curvature

Table 2. Cross-section properties of select sections considered in the study

Columns Beams
Zone CBSR
Size Longitudinal Transverse Size Longitudinal Reinforcement Transverse
(mm) Reinforcement Reinforcement (mm) (mm2) Reinforcement
(mm2)
Positive Negative
1.4 400 × 400 2495 Y10@100 300 × 350 600 1200 Y10@100
IV 2.5 400 × 400 4830 Y10@100 300 × 350 600 1200 Y10@100
1.4 450 × 450 2715 Y12@100 300 × 400 675 1350 Y10@100
1.8 450 × 450 3695 Y12@100 300 × 400 675 1350 Y10@100
V
4.0 500 × 500 7480 Y12@100 300 × 400 675 1350 Y10@100

66 The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016

TECHNICAL PAPER Special Issue - Design

and P-M interaction curves of select sections shown in as often used in real constructions. P-M interaction hinges
Figures 3 to 6. are considered separately in columns for these two cases.
Further, effective cracked section properties of 0.5Ig and 0.7Ig
For undertaking pushover analysis of the designed study are used for beams and columns, respectively, in pushover
buildings, lumped plastic hinges with idealised bilinear analyses of the buildings [27].
response characteristics are modelled at distance of D/2 from
the face of columns/beams, where D is the overall depth of
the member. Possible strain-hardening in reinforcing steel
and confinement of concrete, estimated using Mander’s
Confinement Model, are used in estimating overstrength M-
φ characteristics of beam sections [26]. Contribution of slab
is ignored in the calculation of flexural stiffness and strength
capacities of beams. For columns, two distinct cases are
considered, namely: (i) confined concrete due to presence
of closely spaced ties with 135° hook as prescribed in the
code, and (ii) unconfined concrete due to ties with 90° hook,

The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016 67

TECHNICAL PAPER Special Issue - Design

68 The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016

TECHNICAL PAPER
Discussion of Results from Pushover
Analyses
Pushover response curves of the study buildings are shown in
Figure 7, with base shear normalised with seismic weight of
the building, and lateral deformation expressed as percentage
drift. Figure 7(a) shows pushover curves of buildings with
unconfined column sections, both in Zone IV and Zone V.
Here, pushover analysis is repeated with increasing values
of CBSR until the elastic maximum displacement is achieved
without formation of column hinges in intermediate storeys.
The elastic maximum displacement is obtained by extending
the initial stiffness line of the pushover curve to the force
level corresponding to elastic maximum base shear [3].
Satisfactory seismic performance of a building is said to have
been achieved when the building exhibits drift capacity at
least equal to displacement demand corresponding to elastic
behaviour.
Special Issue - Design
Observations
Three main observations made are: (i) increase in CBSR
helps increase deformability of the building; (ii) higher CBSR
is required in a higher seismic zone to achieve the elastic
maximum displacement demand, and (iii) buildings with
confined column sections have higher displacement capacity
than those with unconfined columns. CBSR of 1.4 and 1.8 are
required to achieve the elastic maximum displacement for
buildings designed for Zones IV and V, respectively. Ideal
sway mechanisms with plastic hinges at ends of beams and
at column bases are achieved in four cases of CBSR: (i) 4.0
(with unconfined columns) and 1.8 (with confined columns)
in Zone V, and (ii) 2.5 (with unconfined columns) and 1.4
(with confined columns) in Zone IV (Figure 8 (d)). Typical
hinge pattern at collapse for other CBSR values are shown in
Figures 8 (a) to 8(c).
Further, the draft code recommends a constant CBSR value
of 1.4 across all zones. CBSR of 1.4 is not enough to guarantee
desired seismic performance of frame buildings under
strong seismic shaking more than or equal to that envisaged
in Zone V, even with proper confinement of beams and
columns by use of closely spaced transverse reinforcement,
with 135° hooks, as determined using capacity design
concept. Also, lack of confinement in columns, either due to
absence of closely spaced stirrups or absence of 135° hooks,
would require significantly higher CBSR for satisfactory
seismic performance of buildings. Thus, complying with the
ductile detailing provisions of IS 13920 is critical; ensuring
the specified minimum CBSR is not enough to significantly
improve ductility of buildings. But, the combination of an
adequate CBSR to prevent formation of column hinges
and special detailing provisions to achieve ductility and
target deformability as prescribed in the draft code is a
step forward towards ensuring seismic safety of built
environment in India. Although, the actual CBSR required
varies with various structural characteristics of buildings
(e.g., bay length and storey height, number of bays and
number of storeys, slenderness of beams and columns),
buildings in seismic Zone V require CBSR of about 1.8 or
more, while those buildings in seismic Zone IV and III of 1.4
as prescribed in the draft code.
Conclusions
The study demonstrates the effect of column-to-beam
strength ratio on seismic behaviour of RC MRF buildings.
The salient conclusions drawn from the study are:
1. Drift capacity of buildings cannot be improved
by providing higher CBSR alone; plastic rotation
The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016 69
TECHNICAL PAPER
capacity of beams and columns plays crucial role in
imparting ductility to buildings. Special detailing
provisions requiring closely spaced transverse
reinforcement with 135° hooks are essential not only
in beams but also in columns, to improve ductility
and deformability of RC MRF buildings.
2. While prescribed value of 1.4 of column-to-beam
strength ratio appears adequate for regular RC MRF in
Zone IV and III, a higher value of about 1.8 is required
to prevent formation of plastic hinges in columns and
to achieve required displacement capacity in seismic
Zone V.
References
1. Park R. and Paulay,T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1975, pp. 559-562.
2. Murty C.V.R., Goswami R., Vijayanarayanan A.R., and Mehta V.V.,
Some Concepts in Earthquake Behaviour of Buildings, Gujarat State
Disaster Management Authority, Gandhinagar, 2012.
3. Paulay T. and Priestley M.J.N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1992,
pp.76-77.
4. Kappos A.J., Influence of Capacity Design Method on the Seismic
Response of RC Columns, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1 (2),
1997, pp. 341-399.
5. Dooley K.L. and Bracci J.M., Seismic Evaluation of Column-to-Beam
Strength Ratios in Reinforced Concrete Frames, Structural Journal,
ACI, 98(6), 2001, pp. 843-851.
6. Deierlein G.G. and Haselton C.B., Benchmarking the Collapse Safety
of Code-Compliant Reinforced Concrete Frame Building Systems,
Proceedings of an International Workshop, ATC/JSCA US-Japan
Workshop on Improvement of Structural Design and Construction
Practices Kobe, Japan, 2005, 12 p.
7. Jain S.K. and Murty C.V.R., Some Views on Code for Ductile Detailing
for Seismic Design of RC Structures (IS:13920-1993), Proceedings
of the National Workshop on Codes of Practice for RC structures,
Hyderabad, 1995.
8. ______Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary,
ACI 318 : 2011 American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills,
MI.
9. ______Indian standard code of practice for general construction in steel, IS
800 : 2007, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
10. ______Design of structures for earthquake resistance (part 1): general rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, Eurocode 8: 2003, EN1998-1, British
Standards Institution, London, United Kingdom.
11. ______The design of concrete structures, concrete structures standard,
Part 1, NZS: 3101-2006, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New
Zealand.
70 The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016
Special Issue - Design
12. Paulay T., A Critique of Special Provisions for Seismic Design of
Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83),
Structural Journal, ACI, 83(2), 1986, pp. 274-283.
13. Paulay T., Seismic Evaluation of Column-to-Beam Strength Ratios
in Reinforced Concrete Frames, Comments on Paper by Dooley KL,
Bracci JM., Structural Journal, ACI; 98(6), 2001, 843.
14. Kuntz G.L. and Browning J.A., Reduction of Column Yielding During
Earthquake for Reinforced Concrete Frames, Structural Journal, ACI,
100(5), 2003, pp. 573-580.
15. Moehle J.P. and Mahin S.A., Observations on the Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings During Earthquakes, Earthquake
Resistant Concrete Structures – Inelastic Response and Design, SP
127, ACI, 1991.
16. Bondy K.D., A More Rational Approach to Capacity Design of
Seismic Moment Frame Columns, Earthquake Spectra, 12 (3), 1996,
pp. 395–406.
17. Lee H.S., Revised Rule for Concept of Strong-Column Weak-Girder
Design, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 122(4), 1996, pp.
359-364.
18. Villaverde R., Discussion of “A More Rational Approach to Capacity
Design of Seismic Moment Frame Columns” by K. Dirk Bondy,
Earthquake Spectra, 13 (2), 1997, pp. 321-322.
19. Nakashima M. and Sawaizumi S., Column-to-Beam Strength Ratio
Required for Ensuring Beam-Collapse Mechanisms in Earthquake
Responses of Steel Moment Frames, Proceedings, 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1109, Auckland, New Zealand,
2000, 8 pp.
20. Haselton C.B., Goulet C.A., Mitrani-Reiser J., Beck J.L., Deierlein
G.G., Porter K.A., Stewart J.P. and Taciroglu E., An Assessment
to Benchmark the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming
Reinforced Concrete Moment-Frame Building, PEER Report No.
2007/12, 2007, 382 pp.
21. Lignos D.G., Krawinkler H., and Whittaker A.S., Prediction and
Validation of Side Sway Collapse of Two Scale Models of a 4-story Steel
Moment Frame, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.,
40, 2011, pp. 807–825.
22. ______Indian standard code of practice for ductile detailing of reinforced
concrete structures subjected to seismic forces, IS 13920 :1993, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
23. ______Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic
forces, IS 13920 : 2014, Code of Practice - First Revision of IS 13920, Doc
No: CED 39 (7941), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
24. CSI, (2012), Structural Analysis Program (SAP) 2000, Version 15,
Computers and Structures Inc, USA, 2012.
25. ______Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design for structures,
IS 1893 Part 1 (2002), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
26. Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N. and Park R., Theoretical Stress-Strain
Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Proceedings of ASCE, Vol.114, No.8, 1988, pp. 1804-1826.
27. ______Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings, FEMA 356: 2000, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington DC.
TECHNICAL PAPER Special Issue - Design

P. Sunitha received her M.Tech. in Civil Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology Madras; pursuing
doctoral studies at the same institute. Prior to joining the doctoral programme, she was a faculty member at
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, TN. She has also worked with NICMAR, Hyderabad for few
years. Her research interests include ductile design of RC buildings and nonlinear analysis of structures.

Rupen Goswami holds a BE (Civil) (Hons), from Jadavpur University; M.Tech. from IIT Kanpur; PhD
from IIT Kanpur. He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai. His research interests include nonlinear behaviour of steel and reinforced-
concrete structures, and earthquake resistant design of buildings and bridges.

C.V.R. Murty is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai. His areas of research include research on seismic design of steel and RC structures, development
of seismic codes, modelling of nonlinear behaviour of structures and continuing education. He is a member
of the Bureau of Indian Standards Sectional Committee on earthquake engineering and has been closely
associated with the comprehensive revision of the building and bridge codes.

The Indian Concrete Journal April 2016 71

View publication stats