International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 8, Special Issue 5, May 2018)

Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor of Aircraft

Hangar Constructed by Double Layer Grid System
Satish N. Prajapati1, Vijay R. Panchal2, Jignesh A. Amin3
1
Post Graduate Student (Structural Engineering), Department of Civil Engineering, Chandubhai S. Patel Institute of
Technology, Charotar University of Science and Technology, Changa, Gujarat, India
2
Professor and Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Chandubhai S. Patel Institute of Technology, Charotar University of
Science and Technology, Changa, Gujarat, India
3
Professor and Head of Civil Engineering Department, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute of Technology, Vasad, Gujarat,
India

earthquake force is higher than the structure is designed

Abstract— The most of the seismic design codes used today
integrate the nonlinear response of the structure by the
provision of a proper response reduction factor ‘R’. Higher
value of R factor is adopted due to significant reduction in the
base shear leading to more economical structure. As per IS
1893:2016 (Part-1), the value of R factor ranges from 3 to 5
for different moment resisting frames. But, it does not give
any kind of information about the components of R factor. R
factor depends on ductility factor, over strength factor, and
redundancy factor which is calculated from the pushover
curve, a plot of base shear v/s roof displacement. This study
focuses on the estimation of actual value of R factor for
aircraft hangar structure constructed with double layer grid
which is designed for all the seismic zones. The grid is
supported by the RCC columns of 12 m height on three sides
of the perimeter. R factor is computed from the obtained
pushover curve for all the seismic zones for the aircraft
hangar.
Keywords— Ductility factor; Nonlinear static pushover
analysis; Over strength factor; Redundancy factor; Response
reduction factor;
I. INTRODUCTION
Earthquakes are one the most disastrous natural hazards
that adversely affect life, property, livelihood and industry.
The nonlinear response of the structure is not integrated in
seismic design philosophy but its effect is integrated by
using proper response reduction factor. R factor is an
important seismic design tool, which describes the intensity
of inelasticity predictable in the structural systems
throughout an earthquake. During earthquake, large amount
of horizontal and overturning forces are produced and it
acts majorly on the mass of the structure.
We cannot design a structure for the actual intensity of
earthquake taking cost considerations and also actual
for. Hence, IS codes introduced the response reduction
factor „R‟ by which the base shear is decreased and the
economy can be obtained with higher ductility. Kaushik et
al. [1] had carried out pushover analysis in SAP2000 on
four story RC frame with different framing conditions.
Value of R factor ranges from 3 to 5 in IS 1893:2016 (Part-
1) code which depends on the type of moment resisting
frames but it does not give any information on what basis
values of R factor is considered [2].
In the present study, R factor is computed for the aircraft
hangar structure designed for all the seismic zones and
comparison is made with the adopted value of R provided
in seismic code. R factor is computed parameter wise to
find out the effect of every parameters, i.e., over strength,
ductility and redundancy. Here, R factor provided is
computed from the pushover curve which is based on
available literatures.
II. CONCEPT OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR
The concept of R factor depends on the observation that
an efficiently detailed seismic frame can withstand large
amount of inelastic deformation without collapse. The R
factor is termed as “response reduction factor” in IS Code,
“response modification factor” in ASCE Code and
“behaviour factor” in Euro Code. R factor imitates the
capacity of the structure to disperse energy by inelastic
behaviour. This factor is utilized to decrease the design
base shear forces in earthquake resistant design and stands
for over strength, damping and energy dispersion capability
of the structure. It can be easily understood from the Figure
1.
91
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)

taken as 5. The aircraft hangar is supposed to be located in

zones II, III, IV, and V. As per IS seismic codes, we do not
take seismic forces and wind loads simultaneously. Hence
in this study, only seismic forces are taken into
considerations.

Figure 1 Concept of R factor [IS 1893 (Part-1) Draft code]

As per ATC-19, response reduction factor comprises of,

over strength factor (RS), ductility factor (Rµ ), structural
redundancy factor (RR) and damping factor (Rξ) [3]. In
equation form, it is given by:
Figure 2 Aircraft hangar frame
R = R S × Rμ × RR × Rξ (1)
For evaluation of R factor, only one single frame is
III. DESCRIPTION OF AIRCRAFT HANGAR CONSIDERED considered from the aircraft hangar frame which is shown
in Figure 2 and pushover analysis is performed on this
The double layer grid aircraft hangar with RCC columns frame. The description and various other parameters of the
is analyzed and designed by using SAP2000 V19. The grid single frame are given in Tables I and II for all seismic
is supported by the perimeter RCC columns at three sides zones.
with one side kept open. The RCC columns of 12 m clear
height are designed as per IS 456:2000 [4] and HYSD415 TABLE I
DESCRIPTION OF AIRCRAFT HANGAR FOR ZONE II AND III
reinforcement bars are used in columns. Moreover, the
distance between the neighboring columns is taken as 10 Zones
m. The design of double layer grid is done as per IS Parameters
800:2007 [5]. Hollow circular steel pipe sections of Fe345 Zone-II Zone-III
are used in the design of double layer grid members. In this
double layer grid, dimensions of top and bottom chord Size of plan 40 10 m 40 10 m
members are kept same, i.e., outer diameter of 0.2 m, inner Size of top layer
diameter of 0.16 m with the thickness of 0.02 m are used. 35 5m 35 5m
grid
While the dimensions of diagonal members are kept lower Size of bottom
than the top and bottom chord members, i.e., outer diameter 40 10 m 40 10 m
layer gird
of 0.15 m, inner diameter of 0.114 m with the thickness of
0.018 m are used. The distance between the top chord and Size of column 0.45 0.45 m 0.50 0.50 m
bottom chord members is kept as 2 m with 45° angle is
taken into consideration in this study. Size of tie beam 0.45 0.30 m 0.45 0.30 m
Reinforcement
In this study, the aircraft hangar structure is considered as 12 – 20# 16 – 20#
special moment resisting frame hence value of R factor is in column

92
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)

Reinforcement uniformity of steel are utilized in the frame. The frame

6 – 20# 6 – 20#
in tie beam considered for study is shown in Figure 3.
Grade of
M20 M25
concrete
Height of tie
6m 6m
beam
Soil type Medium Medium

TABLE II
DESCRIPTION OF AIRCRAFT HANGAR FOR ZONE IV AND V

Zones
Parameters
Zone-IV Zone-V

Size of plan 40 10 m 40 10 m
Size of top layer
35 5m 35 5m
grid
Size of bottom Figure 3 Single frame of aircraft hangar
40 10 m 40 10 m
layer gird
Nonlinear static analysis which is also known as
Size of column 0.60 0.60 m 0.60 0.60 m pushover analysis is done to find out the capacity of a
structure. By pushover analysis, pushover curve is obtained
Size of tie beam 0.45 0.30 m 0.45 0.30 m
and is used to understand the nonlinear behaviour of
Reinforcement structure which is subjected to lateral loads. Pushover
12 – 25# 16 – 25#
in column analysis requires an expertise of moment curvature
Reinforcement relationship, stress-strain model, material property, plastic
6 – 20# 6 – 20# hinge property, types of hinge, hinge length and its
in tie beam
Grade of location. In the pipe sections of double layer grid, only
M25 M30 axial hinges (P) are assigned and in tie beams only flexural
concrete
Height of tie hinges (M3) are assigned, while in the case of columns
6m 6m axial and biaxial moment hinges (P-M2-M3) are assigned
beam
as per FEMA-356 [6].
Soil type Medium Medium
Live load of 18.75 kN is applied on the nodes of the top
layer grid only and dead load of G.I. roof sheets of 3.375
IV. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT HANGAR kN is also applied to the double layer grid. Along with
For the nonlinear static pushover analysis of aircraft pushover load case, gravity load case is also defined in
hangar frame, SAP2000 V19 software is used. The RCC which dead load and 25% of live load is taken. Pushover
columns and tie beams are modelled as 3D frame elements. load case starts after the gravity load case. Gravity load is
Columns are fixed at the bottom and damping ratio is applied as per force controlled procedure and the pushover
assumed as 5% for all the models considered. In this frame, load is applied as per the displacement controlled
the members of the double layer grid are interconnected procedure. Earthquake load is applied according to IS
through the connecter and whole weight of the grid is 1893:2016 (Part-1). Lateral force is applied incrementally
supported by the columns. Also, this type of structure is in the x-direction until the structure reaches its target
vulnerable to be damaged during the earthquake because displacement and the pushover curve is obtained. As per
failure of one critical compression member leads to the ATC-40 [7], various performance levels of the structure are
failure of whole structure. Here, advantages of compressive shown in Figure 4.
nature of concrete and high strength, ductility, toughness,
93
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)

shown in Figures 5 to 8 respectively. Bilinearisation of

pushover curve is done by the equal area procedure and
hence yield displacement and maximum displacement are
obtained. Bilinearisation is represented by the blue line in
the pushover curve.

Figure 4 Performance levels of structure

(ATC-40)

 Line AB shows the linear elastic range which

represents operational level in which facility remains


uninterrupted with minor damage.
Line BC shows the strain hardening portion of the Figure 5 Pushover curve of aircraft hangar for zone-II
structure with 5-10% of initial slope. Line BC consists
of three points, i.e., immediate occupancy (IO), life
safety (LS), and collapse prevention (CP) and these


points are knows as the nonlinear states of the hinges.
Point C to D represents the sudden drop which shows
the failure of the structural components and also that of
the whole structure may occur. After point C, lateral


loads are assumed as irresistible.
Structure‟s capacity of resistance may be zero or
pretended as 20% of the nominal strength from point D
to E. In this stage, structure is not capable to resist


lateral loads but it can resist the gravity loads.
Point E represents the ultimate deformation capacity,
after point E, structure is not allowed to deform
because it cannot resist any type of gravity loads.
Hence after point C response of the structure is not
allowable. Figure 6 Pushover curve of aircraft hangar for zone-III

V. RESULTS
As given in ATC-19, R factor comprises of, over
strength factor (RS), ductility factor (Rµ ), redundancy factor
(RR), and damping factor (Rξ). But in this study, damping
factor is neglected as damped and undamped natural
frequencies are equal for the structure. Pushover curve is
the plot between base shear v/s target displacement.
Different pushover curves for all the seismic zones are

94
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)

B. Calculation of ductility factor

Maximum displacement obtained from pushover curve,

∆m = 283.317 mm

Yield displacement obtained from pushover curve,

∆y = 155 mm

Displacement ductility ratio given in ATC-19,

µ = ∆m/∆y = 283.317/155 = 1.83

Now, using equation of ductility factor which is given by

Miranda and Bertero [8],
Figure 7 Pushover curve of aircraft hangar for zone-IV
Rμ = {(μ-1/Φ)+1} (2)

Φ = 1+{1/(12T-μT)}–{(1/5T)*exp[-2{ln(T)-0.2)^2]} (3)

For medium soil,

T = 0.93 seconds (from pushover analysis)

Putting all these values in above Equation 3, we get,

Φ = 0.675

Now, putting value of Φ and µ in Equation 2, we get,

Rμ = 2.23

C. Calculation of redundancy factor

Figure 8 Pushover curve of aircraft hangar for zone-V
The value of redundancy factor is given by ATC-19 which
Calculation of R factor of aircraft hangar for zone-V is is shown in Table III.
explained below:
TABLE III
REDUNDANCY FACTOR AS PER ATC-19
A. Calculation of over strength factor
Maximum base shear obtained from pushover curve, Lines of vertical seismic
Redundancy factor
framing
Vu = 481.947 kN 2 0.71
Design base shear obtained by earthquake calculation, 3 0.86
Vd = 125.18 kN 4 1.00
As per ATC-19, over strength factor is given by,
So, RR = 0.71
RS = Vu/ Vd = 481.947/125.18 D. Calculation of response reduction factor R
RS = 3.85 Equation of R factor is given in Equation 1 wherein,
damping factor is Rξ is taken as 1.
95
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 7, Issue No., Current Month 2017)

So, R = RS × Rμ × RR = 3.85 × 2.23 × 0.71 = 6.10 [3] ATC 19 (1995), „Structural Response Modification Factors Report‟,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, USA.
Now, Table IV shows the different values of factor with its [4] I.S. 456 (2000) „Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and
components for all seismic zones. Reinforced Concrete‟, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
TABLE IV
[5] I.S. 800 (2007) „Indian Standard Code of Practice for General
RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALL SEISMIC ZONES
Construction in Steel‟, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
Zones
[6] FEMA 356 (2000), „Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Parameters
Zone Zone Zone Zone Rehabilitation of Buildings‟, Federal Emergency Management
II III IV V Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
Over strength factor [7] ATC 40 (1996), „Seismic Evaluation and retrofit of concrete
5.51 4.43 4.75 3.85
(RS) buildings‟, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California,
USA.
Ductility ratio (μ) 1.48 1.57 1.80 1.83
[8] Miranda, E. and Bertero, V. V. (1994), „Evaluation of strength
Ductility factor (Rµ ) 1.72 1.78 2.16 2.23 reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design‟, Earthquake
Spectra, EERI, vol. 2, pp. 357-379.
Redundancy factor
0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71
(RR)
Response reduction
6.73 5.60 7.29 6.10
factor (R)

VI. CONCLUSION
A detailed study is conducted here to obtain the
appropriate values of R factor for aircraft hangar. The work
described here consists of four models of aircraft hangar
which are located in seismic zones II, III, IV and V with
clear height of 14 m. The major outcomes of this study are
summarized below:
1) Evaluation of R factor by exact analysis procedure will
be helpful to do economical design of the structure.
2) The value of R factor for all the four models of aircraft
hangar varies from 5.60 to 7.29 for all the seismic
zones.
3) The actual value of R factor is taken lower in actual
designs due to lack of ductile detailing as per codal
provisions, poor workmanship, poor quality control,
and irregularities in dimensions, etc.

References
[1] Kaushik, H., Rai, D. and Jain, S. (2009) „Effectiveness of Some
Strengthening Options for Masonry-In filled RC Frames with Open
First Story‟, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 135, pp. 925-
937.
[2] I.S. 1893 (2016) „Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures Part-1, General Provisions and Buildings‟,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

96