Sei sulla pagina 1di 66

Dissertation-II Presentation on

Determination of Response Reduction Factor


using nonlinear analysis of SMRF and
OMRF structures

Guided by : Dr. P.B. MURNAL Presented by : PATHAN H. S.


[ME16F09F02]
CONTENT

1 Introduction

2 Literature review

3 Methodology

4 Modeling

5 Results and discussion

6 Conclusion

7 References
WHAT IS MEAN BY RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR (R)??

 According to IS 1893
“It is the factor by which the actual base shear force shall be reduced to
obtain the design lateral force when it id subjected to design base
earthquake shaking”
 It permits a designer to use a linear elastic force-based design while
accounting for non-linear behavior and deformation limits.
 The value of R according to IS 1893-2016
SMRF 5
OMRF 3
Why to use R?
 maximum lateral strength of a structure always exceeds its
design strength
 it possess a significant amount of reserve strength
 In inelastic phase the structure is capable of resisting and
absorbing a large amount of seismic energy
 To take benefits of Overstrength and ductility factors
What is mean by SMRF and OMRF?
SMRF OMRF
It is a moment-resisting frame specially It is a moment-resisting not meeting special
detailed to provide ductile behavior and detailing requirement for ductile behavior.
comply with the requirements given in IS
13920.

Used under moderate-high earthquakes Used in low earthquakes


R=5 R=3
Low design base shear. High design base shear.
It is safe to design a structure with ductile It is not safe to design a structure without
detailing. ductile detailing.
Types of analysis

There are four types of analysis considering the linearity and nonlinearity
of geometry, loading and other parameters.

i. Linear Static analysis

ii. Linear dynamic analysis: a) Linear time history analysis

b) Response spectrum analysis

iii. Nonlinear static analysis: a) P-delta analysis

b) Pushover analysis

iv. Nonlinear dynamic analysis: a) Nonlinear time history analysis


Objectives of the present study

 To determine over-strength and ductility factors for SMRF and OMRF frames

using nonlinear static pushover analysis and incremental dynamic analysis and

use these to find the response reduction factor(R).

 Compare these values with the recommended R vales for SMRF and OMRF

frame in IS 1893 (Part-I) 2016

 To compare Nonlinear static pushover analysis and Nonlinear dynamic

Incremental dynamic analysis


LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature on Response reduction factor and SMRF OMRF frames

Hemchandra chaulagain et.al. (2014) [2]

 Investigated R value in Kathmandu valley

 Nonlinear pushover analysis was performed

 12 irregular structures were studied

 Various factors affecting overstrength and ductility were studied

 Values obtained are less as per given IS standard


S. Elnashai and A. M. Mwafy (2002) [3]

 Try to determine overstrength factor relationship with the force reduction factor

 12 RC buildings with various characteristics were studied

 eigenvalue, inelastic pushover and time-history collapse analysis method were used

 ADAPTIC software was utilized to perform the inelastic analyses.

 minimum observed overstrength factor is 2

 Overstrength factor obtained during earthquakes were higher than the values obtained

from inelastic static analyses


Mitesh Surana et. al. (2017) [4]

 The effect of the level of inelasticity (strength ratio) was studied

 incremental dynamic analyses were performed

 30 suite of recorded ground motion time histories used

 mid-rise reinforced-concrete (RC) moment-resisting frame buildings were analyzed

 PFA demand at the building’s roof level decreases with increasing period of vibration

 Also as strength ratio increases PFA demand decreases.


Divya Brahmavrathan and C. Arunkumar (2016) [5]

 OMRF and SMRF models with 3, 6 and 9 stories were analyzed

 Nonlinear static pushover analysis was carried out

 the actual value of the R factor was found to be less than the value given in IS 1893

 The R value decrease with the increase in the number of stories.


Samar A. Barakat et. al. (1997) [6]

 four, six, and eight stories building located in Seismic Zones 4, 3, 2, and 1 of Jordan

 Nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis

 the overstrength of buildings in lower seismic zones is significantly higher than the

overstrength of buildings in higher seismic zones

 four-story building has a higher base shear coefficient and less roof displacement than

the six-story building


P. Pravin Venkat rao and l. M. Gupta (2016) [7]

 variation of overstrength and ductility factors in steel moment resisting frame were analyzed

 frames with different height and different seismic zones were considered

 12 steel moment resisting frames were analyzed and designed.

 non-linear static pushover analysis performed

 values of overstrength factor in Zone-II 63% higher as compared to Zone-V


Andreas J. Kappos et. al. (2013) [8]

 estimation of ductility and overstrength factors for concrete bridges

 Two type of bridges

1. Yielding piers of the column type

2. Bridges with bearings and non-yielding piers

 pushover curves are derived for a number of typical bridge

 A methodology for evaluating the force reduction factors available in concrete bridges

was proposed;
More Mahesh (2011) [11]

 the response reduction factor is determined at various performance levels

 the G+3, G+6 and G+9 R.C.C. building with bare frame, infilled frame and frame

with ductile shear walls.

 Nonlinear static pushover analysis was performed

 from the R value at different performance level, it is possible to quantify the

inelastic capacity of the structure.


Litrature Review on incremental dynamic analysis.

Konstantinos Kostinakis and Asimina Athanatopoulou [16]

 estimated maximum interstorey drift ratios of 3D R/C buildings

 four medium-rise buildings are studied

 97 pairs of horizontal bidirectional earthquake records are used

 efficiency of the examined IMs depends on

1 the characteristics of the structures,

2 on the degree of nonlinearity experienced by the building,

3 and on the incident angle of the seismic input


Prakit Chomchuen and Virote Boonyapinyo (2016) [17]

 They studied the seismic performance of the typical single column reinforced concrete

bridges in Thailand

 The concept of IDA by equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system (ESDOF) was adopted

 the different load patterns result in significantly different seismic behavior

 To account for the higher mode nonlinear static analysis (NSA) and nonlinear time history

analysis (NTHA) of ESDOF is performed

 The results also show that the studied bridges can resist the considered earthquakes without

any damage
Asghar Bahramirad et al. (2015) [18]

 introduce a new double-stage (N1- N2) static method


 used to estimate capacity curves of MR frames.
 The technique is regulated to resemble IDA results with specific emphasis on near-
field ground motions.
 Used an ensemble of 56 near-field earthquake records
 IDAs have been carried out for SAC-Los Angeles 3-, 9- and 20-story buildings and an
additional 15-story building.
 this study was mainly concerned with well detailed MR frames and more studies were
needed to investigate the applicability of the proposed technique for buildings with
poor seismic details.
Athanasia Zacharenaki et al (2014) [19]
 propose a new methodology in order to quantify the bias introduced in IDA
 they have used a large number of ground motion records to compare the predictions
of IDA with that of unscaled ground motions
 conducted broadband ground motion simulations for rupture scenarios of weak,
medium and large magnitude events to expand record database.
 The investigation is performed on a series of inelastic single-degree-of-freedom
systems and on two multistory steel moment frame buildings.
 The results pinpoint both qualitatively and quantitatively, for the full range of limit-
states, the bias that IDA introduces on the structural performance estimation.
A. Zafeirakos et al (2013) [20]
 This paper presents a 3D finite element Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) study
of caisson foundations carrying single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structures on
clayey soil
 Structural nonlinearity is considered through a simplified moment-curvature law and
the yield strength is deliberately chosen
 The analysis is performed with several earthquake records, each scaled to multiple
levels of intensity
 The results emphasize a potentially beneficial role of foundation nonlinearities in
reducing the seismic demands on the superstructure, but at the cost of residual
foundation settlements and rotations.
Komeyl Karimi Moridani and Rasoul Khodayari (2013) [21]
 The purpose of this study is to conduct an efficient response and exact with to
apply incremental dynamic analysis IDA applies to an existing tall building with
a fundamental period of one second
 A set is used which contains 31 near-source ground motion records.
 They are considered separately to study the influence of different seismic source
characteristics on the outcomes of the IDA.
 In this study, the trend of to obtain seismic vulnerability of a structure with the
mathematical and statistical formulation is represented
Katsuichiro Goda and Hiromichi Yoshikawa (2013) [22]
 In this paper IDA is applied to conventional wood- frame houses in Canada, across
which dominant earthquake scenarios and associated hazard levels vary significantly
Effects due to different seismic environments, site conditions, CMS-based record
selection methods
 This wasinvestigated by comparing various seismic fragility models
 The results obtained from this work provide a close examination of regional seismic
hazard characteristics using seismic hazard curve
 A comprehensive and systematic assessment of key uncertainties associated with
seismic fragility is provided
J. Marasingha, K.K et al (2013) [23]

 This study investigate the effect of energy content, duration and frequency content of

an accelerogramme in estimation of ultimate drift ratio by comparing the ultimate

drifts obtained from IDA analysis and the pushover analysis.

 IDA and pushover analysis are performed for selected two storey school building

 the pushover analysis is a static analysis it cannot take into account the effects of

energy content, duration and frequency content of an accelerogramme

 IDA analysis perform a dynamic analysis of structure under input accelerogramme

and then the effect of those parameters to the ultimate drift can be estimated.
P. Zarfam and M. Mofid (2010) [24]

 In this paper an attempt is made to investigate the performances of RC frames and to


compare the results obtained through the modal incremental dynamic analysis
(MIDA) against those obtained from exact IDA

 For this purpose, an eight-story concrete frame subjected to 30 different earthquake


records is studied with the trilinear idealization model, and the damage measures,
important for the seismic vulnerability of buildings, such as the maximum
displacement and the interstorey drift ratio, are considered

 Comparison of the results has shown reasonable and/or acceptable precision and
reveals good agreement of the modal incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA) method
with the new idealization behavior model for concrete frames.
Alireza Azarbakht and Matjaz Dolsek (2011) [25]
 Since the number of ground-motion records is large then, the method becomes
computationally demanding, progressive analysis is devloped

 progressive IDA analysis, the IDA curves are computed progressively, starting from
the first ground-motion record in the precedence list

 This approach may significantly reduce the computational effort for first-mode-
dominated structures, since the seismic response can be computed only for a certain
number of ground-motion records

 The proposed implementation of incremental dynamic analysis, which is


demonstrated using an example of a 4-story reinforced concrete frame, can also be
used for the selection of ground-motion records from a very large set of records
Summery
 It shows behavior of the structures in a range of different intensities of earthquakes.
 the results of this method are closer to the reality of structural behavior and
earthquakes.
 In the papers a review on the history and concepts and techniques of performing
incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) are discussed
 The IDA curve with one record cannot fully express the structural behavior for
future events
 Studying of multiple records produce a series of IDA curves
 a set of IDA curves for structural models parameterized for the same IMs and EDPs.
 from literature that the code based values assigned to response reduction factor are

based on engineering judgment.

 From literature we get clear idea about how to calculate the R

 in most of the literature the R value calculated using pushover analysis.

 So in this study we try to determine the R values from comparing Incremental

dynamic analysis curve with static pushover analysis curves for the SMRF and

OMRF models
METHODOLOGY

1 Pushover analysis

 RCC framed buildings subjected to increasing lateral forces is carried out until the preset performance level
(target displacement) is reached.

 As the loads are increased, the building undergoes yielding at a few locations.

 Every time such yielding takes place, the structural properties are modified approximately to reflect the
yielding.

 The analysis is continued till the structure collapses, or the building reaches certain level of lateral displacement

 With the increase in magnitude of lateral loading, the progressive non-linear behavior of various structural
elements is captured, and weak links and failure modes of the structure are identified.
(i) force controlled :the total lateral force is applied to the structure in small increments.

(ii) displacement controlled. : the displacement of the top story of the structure is incremented
step by step, such that the required horizontal force pushes the structure laterally

For inelastic region displacement controlled method is preferred


Lateral loads Roof displacement

(Structural Model) Base Shear

Fig. Static application of pushover analysis


Different performance level from pushover analysis

I) Immediate Occupancy Performance Level (IO),

 post-earthquake damage state in which only very limited structural damage has

occurred

 The risk of life-threatening injury as a result of structural damage is very low

 The transient drift will be about 1%,

 minor cracking and minor spalling of plaster


II)Life Safety Performance Level (LS)

 damage in the beams

 spalling of concrete cover and shear cracking

 The transient drift will be around 2%, with 1% being permanent

 In brick masonry extensive cracking But the walls are expected to remain in place

 It should be possible to repair the structure


III) Collapse Prevention Performance Level (CP)

 Substantial damage to the structure

 significant degradation in the stiffness and strength

 about 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent

 extensive cracking and crushing in the brick infill walls

 may not be technically practical to repair

 not safe for re-occupancy


Fig. various performance level of structure
2.Incremental dynamic analysis

 it is a seismic analysis of structures based on the structural performance

 behavior of the structures in a range of different intensities of earthquake.

 we plot the graph between Intensity Measures (IM) versus Destruction Measure

(DM).

 results of this method in comparison to the other types of analyses are closer to

the reality of structural behavior.


INTENSITY MEASURE (IM)
 is a non-negative scalar
 depends on the unscaled accelerogram,a1,which increases
monotonously with scale factor
 Vector form IMPROP =λ*f a1

 examples : 1 peak ground acceleration (PGA),


2 peak ground velocity(PGV),
3 spectral acceleration of the first mode of the structures
Sa (T1, 5%) with 5% damping ratio
DESTRUCTION MEASURE (DM)
 Also known as the Engineering Demand Parameter EDP
 It is a non-negative scalar
 it shows response of structure and seismic load.
 Response in the form of
1 maximum base shear,
2 rotation of the nodes,
3 Maximum ductility of the stories,
4 different damage indicators
5 maximum relative displacement of the roof,
6 the maximum relative angel of displacement for a n-story building,
To plot IDA curve-
1 plot the response of structure as damage measure for given scaled Intensity measure as a
one point fig (a)
2 again scale the Intensity measure with scalar to get one more point as structural damage
on the same plot fig (b)
3 then continue until we get a curve which covers elastic region, nonlinear region and then
collapse. fig(c)
4 incremental dynamic analysis would be greatly dependent on the selected records,
therefore, sufficient number of records is required to cover all areas of responses.
5 As a result, we have to analyze a structural model for a set of seismic records fig (d).
0.12

0.1 0.25

INTENSITY MEASURE(PGA)

INTENSITY MEASURE(PGA)
0.08 0.2

0.06 0.15

0.04 0.1

0.02 0.05

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50
DESTRUCTION MEASURE(MAX DISPLACEMENT) DESTRUCTION MEASURE(MAX DISPLACEMENT)

(a) (b)
1.2
1.2

INTENSITY MEASURE (PGA)


1
INTENSITY MEASURE(PGA)

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
DESTRUCTION MEASURE(MAX DISPLACEMENT) DESTRUCTION MEASURE (MAX DISPLACEMNT)

(c) (d)

Fig. representation of incremental dynamic analysis curve


Response reduction factor(R)
1)Components of response reduction factor
ductility reduction factor (Rµ)
overstrength factor (RΩ) and
damping factor (R𝜁).
R= (Rµ)* (RΩ)* (R𝜁)
(R 𝜁 ) included only to account for supplementary viscous
damping devices,(R𝜁)=1
R= (Rµ)* (RΩ)
Overstrength factor (RΩ)

 component of response reduction factor

 overstrength factor is due the reserve strength that exist between the code
prescribed design force and maximum lateral strength of the structure.

 So it is defined as ratio of excess strength of structure till significant yield to


the code specified minimum seismic design strength the overstrength factor is
given as

(RΩ) = Vy/Vd
MODELING APPROACH

 Total models analyzed in this study are

1 G+3 SMRF and OMRF

2 G+6 SMRF and OMRF

3 G+12 SMRF and OMRF

 situated in seismic zone III with an importance factor 1on The soil type is
medium stiff soil as per IS 1893(part I)-2016.
Fig. The floor plan and elevation of all the frames
Table 2 sizes of beam and column

Serial number Structure Beam size (mm) Column size (mm)

1 G+3 300x300 300x350

2 G+6 300x450 450x450

3 G+12 450x550 450x600

Table 3 Design base shear


Serial number Frame Type Height (m) Design Base Shear, 𝑽𝒅(kN)

1 G+3 SMRF 12 427.58

2 G+3 OMRF 12 536.94

3 G+6 SMRF 21 697.329

4 G+6 OMRF 21 819.329

5 G+12 SMRF 39 1057.564

6 G+12 OMRF 39 1227.563


Table 5 properties of steel used for modeling in SAP2000

Property Value

E (Modulus of Elasticity) 2.000E+08 kN/sq.m.

µ (Poisson’s ratio) .3

Mass per unit volume 7.849 kN/cu.m.

Coefficient of thermal expansion 1.170E-05 /m

Fe415 steel (Longitudinal rebars)-

Fy (Yield stress) 415 MPa

Fu (Ultimate stress) 485 MPa

Fe250 steel (Stirrups and diagonal members)-

Fy (Yield stress) 250 MPa

Fu (Ultimate stress) 410 MPa


Table 6 Properties of concrete used for modeling in SAP 2000

Property Value

E (Modulus of Elasticity) 2.236E+07 kN/sq.m.

µ (Poisson’s ratio) .2

Weight per unit volume 24.99 kN/cu.m

Coefficient of thermal expansion 5.500E-06 /m

Fck 20 MPa
Results and discussion
a)Incremental dynamic analysis: performed on given frame with
three time history data shown in table-7.

Name of Earthquake Date PGA(g)

El-Centro 18-5-1940 Scaled from .1g to 1.1g

Bhuj 26-01-2001 Scaled from .1g to 1.1g

Chamoli 29-3-1999 Scaled from .1g to 1.1g


Results obtained from Incremental dynamic analysis for G+3, G+6 and
G+12 structures are shown below.

G+3 SMRF
G+6 SMRF G+12 SMRF
chammoli BHUJ EL-CENTRO
CHAMMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO
1.2 EL CENTRO BHUJ CHAMOLI
1.2
1.2
1
1
1
0.8
0.8
PGA(G)

0.8
0.6

PGA(G)

PGA(G)
0.6 0.6
0.4

0.4 0.4
0.2

0 0.2 0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
MAX DISPLACEMENT (MM) 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
MAX DISPLACEMENT (MM) MAX DISPLACEMENT (MM)
G+3 OMRF
G+6 OMRF G+12 OMRF
CHAMOLI BHUJ EL-CENTRO
EL CENTRO BHUJ CHAMMOLI
CHAMMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO
1
1.2
0.9 1
0.9
0.8 1
0.8
0.7
0.7 0.8
0.6
0.6

PGA(G)
PGA(G)

PGA(G)
0.5 0.5 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1
0.1
0 0
0 0 200 400 600 800
0 200 400 600 800
0 100 200 300 400 500 MAX DISPLACEMENT (MM)
MAX DISPLACEMENT (MM)
MAX DISPLACEMENT (MM)

The components of above IDA curves


 Intensity measure: PGA
 The Damage measure: maximum top story displacement of the
structure
PUSHOVER CURVE G+3 PUSHOVER CURVE G+6 PUSHOVER CURVE G+12
point IO LS CP on omrf points IO LS CP on SMRF IO, LS, CP points on OMRF IO, LS,CP points on SMRF smrf OMRF
omrf smrf smrf OMRF IO,LS,CP on OMRF IO,LS,CP on SMRF
1000 2000 4000
900 1800
3500
800 1600
3000
700 1400
BASE SHEAR(KN)

BASE SHEAR(KN)
BASE SHEAR(KN)
600 2500
1200
500 2000
1000
400
800 1500
300
600 1000
200
400 500
100
0 200 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000
MAX DISPLACEMENT(MM) 0 100 200 300 400 500 MAX DISPLACEMENT(MM)
MAX DISPLACEMENT(MM)

b) Pushover analysis
 Displacement control method was used
 Performance points were also determined
IO 1% story drift
LS 2% story drift
CP 4% story drift
The results obtained are shown in figures above
Comparison of IDA with Pushover:
 PGA values multiplied with the seismic weight of the structure
 The calculated seismic weight of structure are shown in table below

Table-11Seismic weight of Structure


Serial number Frame Seismic Weight(kN/g)

1 G+3 993.7883

2 G+6 2000.669

3 G+12 4401.574
SMRF G+3 SMRF G+6 SMRF G+12
pushover chamoli bhuj el-centro pushover chamoli bhuj el-centro pushover chamoli bhuj el-centro
1200 2500 5000
4500
1000
2000 4000

800 3500
BASE SHEAR(KN)

BASE SHEAR(KN)
BASE SHEAR(KN)
1500 3000
600 2500
2000
1000
400
1500
1000
200 500
500

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
MAX DISPLACEMENT(MM) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 MAX DISPLACEMENT(KN)
MAX DISPLACEMENT(MM)
OMRF G+3 OMRF G+6 OMRF G+12
pushover chamoli bhuj el-centro pushover chamoli bhuj el-centro
pushover chamoli bhuj el-centro
1200 5000
2500

4500
1000
4000
2000

3500
800
BASE SHEAR (KN)

BASE SHEAR (KN)


3000

BASE SHEAR (KN)


1500
600 2500

2000
1000
400
1500

1000
200 500
500

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 0 200 400 600 800
MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (MM) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (MM)
MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (MM)
Calculation of Response Reduction Factor
From incremental dynamic analysis.
a. Over-strength factor

Sr number SMRF OMRF


CHAMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO CHAMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO

1 G+3

3.083282 3.08328 3.08328 1.911805 1.9118046 1.911804


2 G+6

3.083744 3.08374 3.08374 1.911876 1.9118755 1.911875


3 G+12

2.94341 2.94344 2.94342 1.911876 1.9118755 1.911875


b) Ductility factor
Sr number SMRF OMRF

CHAMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO CHAMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO

1 G+3
3.557335 3.61108 3.68509 3.243176 3.3303094 3.286447
2 G+6
3.197846 3.27949 3.22757 3.082748 3.1416244 3.224142
3 G+12
2.99454 2.96193 2.99937 2.653898 2.64834 2.716745

c) Response reduction Factor


Sr number SMRF OMRF

CHAMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO CHAMOLI BHUJ EL CENTRO

1 G+3
10.9626 11.12185 11.33929 6.20150 6.36629 6.28293
2 G+6
9.8556 10.0932 10.25381 5.89350 6.0061 6.16364
3 G+12
8.81404 8.7155 8.8124 5.07204 5.0631 5.19254
From pushover analysis
Values of Response reduction factor from
Pushover Analysis

Sr
number
Over strength factor Ductility factor Response reduction factor

SMRF OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF OMRF


1
G+3 2.6741 1.4884 2.685219 2.48761 7.17995 3.70171
2
G+6 2.4105 1.4038 2.710401 2.54336 6.53257 3.5698
3

G+12 2.2617 1.315 2.683402 2.55464 6.06997 3.3440


Variation of overstrength factor
 for G+3 structure is 12.92% more as compare to G+12 -pushover

 As height increases the overstrength factor decreases –pushover

 Value not shows any variation according to height- IDA

 As seismic weight is used to multiply the PGA

Variation of ductility factor

 Value not shows any variation according to height- pushover

 As height increases the ductilty factor decreases –IDA

 G+3 structure is 18.72% more as compare to G+12 structure

 Due to increase in dimensions size column make sturute stiff.


Variation of response reduction factor

 for G+3 structure is 28.671 % more as compare to G+12-IDA

 99.40%, 79.3% and 60.2% more as compare to value given in IS 1893-


2016(5) for G+3, G+6 and G+12 SMRF structures

 65.26%, 57.1% and 35.26% more as compared to values given in IS


1893-2016(3) for G+3, G+6 and G+12 OMRF frames respectively

 As height increases the response reduction factor decreases


Remark
 we used only bare frame is under consideration
 the top story displacement for bare frames are always higher as
compared with infilled
 for incremental dynamic analysis, we only consider the three
earthquake ground motion records
 IS 1893 (part-I) 2016 there is no provision of changes in R value as
changes in the height of the structure
 recommended r values for bare frames according to height
Table 5-16 Recommended R values for SMRF and OMRF
Sr number Frame SMRF OMRF

1 Upto G+6 8.5 5.0

2 Upto G+12 7.0 4.0


 Conclusion
 The response reduction factor values obtain from nonlinear dynamic time history
analysis is more compare to the values given in IS 1893 (part-I)
 As the height of structure increases the values of response reduction factor decreases.
 As the height of structure increases the ductility factor decreases, but there is no
significant variation in overstrength factor in nonlinear dynamic time history analysis.
 The values are obtained for response reduction factor from pushover analysis are
nearly equal to the values given in IS 1893 (part-I)
 The values obtained from incremental dynamic analysis are more realistic and higher as
compared with nonlinear static pushover analysis
Future scope

 Analysis is may be done for infilled frame and a frame with shear walls.

 increase the number of time history record to see more variation in the results.
REFERENCES
[1] Minnu M M “Evaluation of Response Reduction Factors for Moment Resisting RC Frames” ME thesis (2014),
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela.

[2] Hemchandra Chaulagain, Radhakrishna Mallik And Humberto Varum “Response Reduction Factor of Irregular RC
Buildings In Kathmandu Valley” Journals Of Earthquake Engineering And Engineering Vibration (September, 2014),
vol.13, no.3 page number 455-470

[3] S. Elnashai And A. M. Mwafy “Overstrength And Force Reduction Factors of Multistorey Reinforced-Concrete
Buildings” Journals of Structural Design Of Tall Building (2002) vol 11, page number 329–351.

[4] Mitesh Surana, Yogendra Singh Dominik H. Lang “Effect Of Response Reduction Factor On Peak Floor
Acceleration Demand In Mid-Rise Rc Buildings” Journals of Institution of Engineers, India,(June 2017), serial A, page
number 156-164, springer

[5] Divya Brahmavrathan And C. Arunkumar “Evaluation Of Response Reduction Factor Of Irregular Reinforced
Concrete Framed Structures” Indian Journal of Science And Technology (June 2016) vol. 9 (23), page number 845-852

[6] Samar A. Barakat, Abdallah Husein Malkawi And Anis S. Al-Shatnawi “A Step Towards Evaluation of The Seismic
Response Reduction Factor In Multistorey Reinforced
Concrete Frames” Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997) vol.16: page number 65–80, 1997.
[7] P. Pravin Venkat Rsao And L. M. Gupta “Effect Of Seismic Zone And Story Height On Response Reduction
Factor For SMRF Designed According to IS 1893(Part-1):2002” Journals Of Institution Of Engineers, India,( June
2016 ), serial A, page number 286-294, Springer.

[8] Andreas J. Kappos, Themelina S. Paraskeva And Ioannis F. Moschonas “Response Modification Factors For
Concrete Bridges In Europe” Journal of Bridge Engineering (December 2013),vol. 18, no. 12page number 1328-1335,
ASCE.

[9] Andrew Whittaker, Gary Hart and Christopher Rojahn (M. Asce) “Seismic Response Modification Factors”
Journal of Structural Engineering, (April, 1999), vol.125, no. 4, Page number 438-444, ASCE.

[10] Jorge Varela Jennifer Tanner and Richard Klingner “Development of Response Modification Coefficient and
Deflection Amplification Factor For Design Of AAC Structural Systems” 13th World Conference On Earthquake
Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada , (August 1-6, 2004),
Page no. 1058-1067.

[11] More Mahesh “Estimation of Response Reduction Factor Using Performance Based Approach For Earthquake
Resistant Design Of Building With Shear Wall” ME Thesis (2011) Department of Applied Mechanics, Government
College Of Engineering, Karad.

[12] Kruti Tamboli, and J. A. Amin “Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor and Ductility Factor of RC Braced
Frame” Journal of Materials and Engineering Structures (2015) vol. 2, page number 120–129.
[13] Mussa Mahmoudi and Mahdi Zaree “Determination of The Response Modification Factors of Buckling Restrained
Braced Frames” The 2nd International Conference on Rehabilitation and Maintenance In Civil Engineering (2013) vol.
54, page number 222 – 231 Elsevier Ltd.

[14] Asgarian and H.R. Shokrgozar “BRBF Response Modification Factor” Journal of Constructional Steel Research
(2009) vol.65, page number 290-298 Elsevier ltd.
[15] Apurba Mondal, Siddhartha Ghosh and G.R. Reddy “Performance-Based Evaluation of The Response Reduction
Factor For Ductile RC Frames” Journals of Engineering Structures (2013) vol. 56, page number 1808–1819, Elsevier ltd.

[16] Konstantinos Kostinakis, Asimina Athanatopoulou “Incremental Dynamic Analysis Applied to Assessment of
Structure-Specific Earthquake Imps In 3d R/C Buildings”, Journal Of Structural Engineering(July 2016) ,vol.6, page
number 864-873, Elsevier Science Ltd.

[17] Prakit Chomchuen , Virote Boonyapinyo “Incremental Dynamic Analysis With Multi-Modes For Seismic
Performance Evaluation of R C Bridges” Journal of Structural Engineering (November 2016), vol. 43, page number 654-
662, Elsevier Science Ltd.

[18]Asghar Bahramirad, Mohsen Tehranizadeh and Amir Moshref, “Equating Incremental Dynamic Analysis with Static
Nonlinear Analysis at Near-Field Excitation” Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration (September,
2015) Vol.14, No.3, page number 789-801.
[19]Athanasia Zacharenaki,, Michalis Fragiadakis, Dominic Assimaki and Manolis Papadrakakis “Bias Assessment in
Incremental Dynamic Analysis Due To Record Scaling” Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (September
2014) Vol.37, page number 236-248, Elsevier Science Ltd.

[20] A. Zafeirakos, N .Gerolymosn, V. Drosos “Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Caisson–Pier Interaction” Journal of
Structural Engineering (March 2013), vol. 52, page number 421-432, Elsevier Science Ltd.

[21] Komeyl Karimi Moridani and Rasoul Khodayari “Seismic Performance Assessment Uses Incremental Dynamic
Analysis” Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research (2013), vol. 13, page number 56-69, TextRoad Publication

[22]Katsuichiro Goda and Hiromichi Yoshikawa “Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Wood-Frame Houses In Canada:
Effects of Dominant Earthquake Scenarios on Seismic Fragility” Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
(march 2013) , vol. 22, page number 102-113,elsevier science ltd

[23] J. Marasingha, K.K. Wijesundara and U.I. Dissanayake “Comparison of Incremental Dynamic Analysis Curve With
Pushover Curve” SAITM Research Symposium On Engineering Advancements 2013

[24] P. Zarfam and M. Mofid “The Modal Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Using A
Trilinear Idealization Model” Journal Of Structural Engineering (December 2010),vol.34, page number 36-45,Elsevier
Science Ltd.
[25]Alireza Azarbakht and Matjaz Dolsek “Progressive Incremental Dynamic Analysis For First-Mode
Dominated Structures” Journal Of Structural Engineering (March 2011), vol. 8, page number 345-357,
ASCE

[26]FEMA (2000) “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of buildings”, FEMA 356,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington.

[27]IS 1893 (part-I), 2016 “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of Structures”, Bureau of Indian
standards, New Delhi.

[28] IS 13920-2016 “Ductile Design and Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic
Forces - Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
Thank you !!!!