Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
A THESIS
Submitted by
NALLATHAMBI P
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DECEMBER 2017
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT v
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xviii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxi
1 INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSE
REDUCTION FACTOR 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 LATERAL FORCE INDUCED IN THE
BUILDING DUE TO EARTHQUAKE 2
1.3 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR 3
1.4 R VALUES SPECIFIED IN IS 1893: 2000
PART- 1 4
1.5 PRESENT STUDY ON ESTIMATION OF
R FACTOR FOR RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES 5
1.6 OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS 7
1.7 SCOPE OF THE THESIS 8
1.8 STUDY PARAMETRES 9
1.9 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS 9
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
2.1 GENERAL 11
2.2 STRESS - STRAIN MODELS AND
CONFINEMENT EFFECT IN
REINFORCED CONCRETE 11
CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
8 EVALUATION OF OVERSTRENGTH,
DUCTILTITY AND R FACTORS FOR RCC
FRAMED STRUCTURES 125
8.1 GENERAL 125
8.2 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR 126
8.3 ESTIMATION OF STRENGTH, DUCTILITY
AND R FACTORS FOR RCC FRAMED
STRUCTURES 130
8.4 ESTIMATION OF R FACTOR FROM
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS 134
8.5 DISCUSSIONS ON R VALUES 140
8.6 SUMMARY 141
REFERENCES 154
CHAPTER 1
1.1 GENERAL
The total design lateral force or design base shear along any
principal direction is estimated by the equation VB= Ah W,
)
A = (1.1)
where,
R = Rs * R * RR (1.2)
where,
The research work was carried out to achieve the desired outcome
and the thesis study has been organized in nine chapters to cover the entire
work.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 GENERAL
confined concrete has been a topic of research for a several years. Several
models for the stress-strain relation of concrete have been proposed in the past.
Although the behavior of concrete up to the maximum concrete strength is
well established, the post-peak branch and the behavior of high-strength
concrete has been an area of extensive research more recently. Confinement
in concrete is achieved by the suitable placement of transverse reinforcement.
Lot of research is happening in establishing a good stress-strain relation for
confined concrete. A brief review of the various models that are considered
for the stress-strain relation of confined concrete study are reviewed in this
section. Therefore, it is important to study the confinement effect of RCC
members and the contribution of various parameters on R factor.
f= (2.1)
where,
= Concrete strain
f = Concrete stress
E = Modulus of elasticity
x = 'c
14
r= (2.2)
’ )
F =( )( ) (2.3)
The tensile yield stress for the Mander unconfined curve is taken at
7.5 in psi.
= Concrete strain
f = Concrete stress
E = Modulus of elasticity
f= (2.4)
where,
x = / 'cc
R = E / ( E- Esec)
s= (2.5)
17
fL= (2.6)
ke= (2.8)
Durga & Seshu (2013) have studied many designs based on the
simplified stress block of unconfined concrete and observed that these designs
do not account for the strength gain due to the presence of confinement. To
investigate the effects of lateral confinement on column capacity an analytical
study was carried out. In this study the design stress-strain diagrams for
confined concrete are developed by considering different proposed confined
models and its effect on column capacity is studied in terms of load – moment
interaction diagram of column and found that the presence of lateral
reinforcement expands the interaction diagram of the column particularly
when it is in the compression-controlled region.
hinge sections, €cc = 0.005+0.1 0.02, the value of €cc was restricted to
compressive strength of concrete, the axial load ratio and the quantity of
longitudinal reinforcement.
Displacement ductility. Park & Paulay (1975) have explained the effect of
nonlinear behaviour on the response of a structure to severe earthquake
motions and compared to a single degree of freedom oscillator. The oscillator
responding elastic and elasto-plastic behavior due to load deflection
relationship are shown in Figure 2.3(a) and 2.3(b).
In Figure 2.3(a), the area abc under the curve represents the
potential energy stored at the maximum deflection and as the mass returns to
the zero position, the energy is converted into kinetic energy. If the oscillator
is not strong enough to carry the full elastic response inertia load and
develops a plastic hinge elasto-plastic characteristic, the load-deflection curve
as in Figure 2.3(b). When the plastic hinge capacity is reached, the deflection
response proceeds along line de, and point e represents the maximum
24
Thus it is evident that in the elastic structure the full stored energy
is returned as velocity energy in each cycle, whereas in the elasto-plastic
structure, only part of the energy is returned. Hence the potential energy
stored in the elasto-plastic structure in each cycle is not required to be so great
as in the elastic structure, and the maximum deflection of the elasto-plastic
structure is not necessarily much greater than that of the elastic structure. In
fact, a number of dynamic analysis have indicated that the maximum
deflection reached by the two structures may be approximately the same.
Behaviour of the structure based on the assumption of equal maximum
deflection is shown in Figure 2.4.
the end of the post elastic range and y is the lateral deflection when yield is
first reached. When a number of load cycles are involved, y is taken as the
lateral deflection when yield is first reached in the first load excursion into the
post elastic range.
In the last three decades, significant work has been carried out to
establish the ductility factor based on SDOF systems subjected to various
types of ground motions. (Newmark & Hall 1982), (Riddell & Newmark
1979), (Vidic et al. 1992) and (Krawinkler & Nassar 1992) have done
significant work to establish the ductility factor based on SDOF systems
subjected to various types of ground motions. Newmark & Hall provided
relationships that can be used to estimate the ductility factor (Rµ) for elasto-
plastic SDOF systems. For frequencies below 33Hz, Rµ = 1.0 and for
frequencies above 33Hz, Rµ = (2µ - 1) and for frequencies less than 1Hz
Rµ = µ. Krawinkler & Nassar had developed a Rµ - µ - T relationship for
SODF system on rock or stiff soil sites. These relationships were based on a
detailed statistical study of the response of inelastic SDOF systems (with 5%
damping) on rock or stiff soil subjected to strong motion records of the United
States. Miranda & Bertero (1994) had developed Rµ - µ - T relationships for
rock, alluvium, and soft soil sites as Rµ=µ-1+ 1. It is obvious that the elastic
force demand on the system (Ve) can be reduced by the factor Rµ owing to the
inelastic displacement capacity (µ) available with the system.
calculated equivalent plastic hinge lengths were insensitive to axial load level
and concluded that equivalent length of plastic hinge lp= 0.4h can be used as
a simple and safe approximation for plastic hinge evaluating the ultimate
curvature requirements in columns and should not define the length of the
column that needs to be confined along the critical section.
In the last two decades, much effort has been carried out to simulate
the inelastic response of RC structural walls subjected to large cyclic
deformation reversals. Numerous analytical models incorporating information
from experimental investigations and on field observations of the hysteretic
behavior of RC structural walls have been proposed.
Devi & Nandini Devi (2015) have studied the response reduction
factor of various RC structural systems. The R factor depending on the
perceived seismic damage performance of the structure, characterized by
ductile or brittle deformation. The concept of R factor is to deamplify the
seismic force and accounts nonlinearity with the help of over-strength,
redundancy and ductility. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis is carried out
36
by using various software and pushover curves (base shear vs. roof
displacement) are obtained from the analysis.
2.10 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3
3.1 GENERAL
Mander et al. (1988), Kent & Park (1971), Popovics (1973) and
Desayi et al. (1978) had carried out considerable amount of research work on
unconfined and confined concrete stress- strain behavior. In this chapter, an
38
analytical study using Mander equations was carried out to estimate the
effects of lateral confinement on ultimate compressive strength of the
concrete column for different parameters .
stress - strain curve at high strains in RCC member are influenced by many
parameters such as grade of concrete, grade of steel, percentage of
main reinforcement and lateral reinforcement spacing.
reinforcement was about 15% in Fe500 and Fe550 grade over Fe415 grade
with M20 grade concrete and lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm at
0.003 strain (before yield stress) and about 23% at 0.02 strain (after yield
stress). The increase in compressive strength of concrete was about 10% for
lateral reinforcement spacing of 100 mm at 0.003 and about 26% at 0.02
strain.
There was not much increase of confinement effect for the spacing
above 150mm by increasing the grade of steel. Similar trend was witnessed
for increased grade of concrete but with only 3% - 5% at 0.003 strain and 7%-
14% at 0.02 strain. Beyond 150mm spacing of lateral reinforcement, there
was no impact on increase of strength due to grade of steel on confinement
effect. The increase of ultimate confined concrete strength was 10% - 40%
due to increase of grade of steel from Fe415 to Fe500 and 10% - 55% from
Fe415 to Fe550. The confined strength was considerably increased about 45%
due to increase of grade of steel in M20 and M25 grade of concrete with
lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm and 100mm.
Variation of Concrete Strength of 1.3% Main Steel over 0.8% Main Steel in %
3.5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 4
4.1 GENERAL
strain s, then the curvature of the element is defined as, =( c s)/d. When
the moment is increased in the member, the strain in concrete, strain in steel
and depth of neutral axis will vary across the cross section. Since cracks
occurs in the section due to concrete strain and the depth of neutral axis is
fluctuating, the gradient of the strain profile (curvature ) of the element also
varies along the length of the member. The relationship between moment M
and curvature is defined as
M= EI (4.1)
Table 4.1 The properties of RCC beam and column member used for
estimation of M- values
in beam and column members over M20 grade of concrete was derived and
given in Table 4.2 and in Figure 4.3.
From the Table 4.2 and Figure 4.3, it can be observed that the
increase of ultimate curvature in concrete beam with 1.0% of main steel over
M20 concrete grade was 10% - 75% in M25 and above grades of concrete
and all grades steel. Similarly, the ultimate moment variation in concrete
beam over M20 concrete grade was 2% - 11% in M25 and above grades of
concrete. The similar trend was continued and the increase of ultimate
curvature in concrete column with 1.3% of main steel over M20 concrete
grade was 10%- 60% in M25 and above grades of concrete and all grades
steel. The ultimate moment variation in concrete column over M20 concrete
grade was 10% - 35% in M25 and above grades of concrete.
Effect of steel grade on moment and curvature. The curvature and moment
difference at ultimate level of confined concrete due to variation of steel grade
was not significant. It is observed that the ultimate strain in concrete was
more in higher grade of steel. The variation of moment in beam section gets
decreased in case of high strength steel. But the variation of moment in
column section is still reduced. The ultimate curvature and moment for
various grades of steel and other parameters were estimated and the results are
tabulated. From these results, the variation in curvature and moment at
ultimate strength in RCC beam and column members over Fe415 grade was
derived and given in Table 4.3.
59
From the Table 4.4, it can be seen that the beams with higher
quantity of reinforcement gives less amount of curvature of 13% - 30% and
more moment of 67% - 73% for ultimate confined concrete strength.
Similarly the columns with higher quantity of reinforced condition gives the
less curvature of 3% - 14% and more moment of 20% - 33% for ultimate
confined concrete strength.
125mm was 6% - 80%, for spacing of 100mm was 3% - 35% and for
spacing of 75mm was 10% - 15% in all grades of steel and concrete.
Variation of curvature in % for different grades of concrete in RCC beam and column members
Beams with M20,M25,
Lateral M30, M35 and M40 Columns with M20,M25, M30, M35 and M40 concrete grade
reinfor-
Steel 0.8% 1.3% Main 0.8% 1.3% 0.8% Main 1.3% Main
S No cement
grade 1.0% 1.8% Main Main Steel Steel and Main Steel Main Steel Steel and Steel and
Spacing
in mm Main steel steel and 300 300 kN and 450 and 450 600 kN 600 kN
kN axial axial kN axial kN axial axial axial
1 Fe 415 200 15-59 16-66 20-83 21-79 18-84 14-70 17-81 16-69
2 Fe 415 175 16-55 15-54 20-91 29-84 27-94 16-77 24-91 20-77
3 Fe 415 150 18-57 16-54 21-99 24-99 21-97 13-78 18-89 16-73
4 Fe 415 125 15-50 12-44 18-80 40-75 10-77 35-56 11-63 11-40
5 Fe 415 100 10-36 07-27 11-60 33-56 14-56 27-37 09-40 06-31
6 Fe 415 75 06-22 03-14 09-33 10-33 10-35 03-26 06-32 05-26
7 Fe 500 200 26-74 16-62 28-90 17-70 20-82 16-64 24-80 20-64
8 Fe 500 175 21-61 19-61 25-92 17-73 20-87 16-69 22-84 18-66
9 Fe 500 150 16-58 15-54 23-86 12-67 13-76 09-60 12-69 10-52
10 Fe 500 125 12-46 10-39 12-65 14-41 8-56 06-42 09-45 07-32
11 Fe 500 100 07-31 05-22 10-45 11-41 8-34 05-30 08-31 05-23
12 Fe 500 75 01-12 06-11 09-28 10-30 9-32 06-29 02-24 01-14
13 Fe 550 200 28-71 18-65 23-87 15-77 20-80 16-61 23-78 19-60
14 Fe 550 175 19-64 18-63 21-85 12-65 19-81 15-61 18-76 14-58
15 Fe 550 150 16-59 13-53 28-88 7-56 10-65 07-49 11-58 09-42
16 Fe 550 175 11-43 06-34 26-77 6-47 8-47 06-33 09-38 07-26
17 Fe 550 100 10-26 05-19 10-38 9-36 7-33 04-26 07-29 05-20
18 Fe 550 75 06-14 01-11 02-23 9-27 9-30 05-27 05-27 03-19
63
Variation of Moment in % for different Grade of Concrete in RCC beam and column members
Beams with
M20,M25, M30, Columns with M20,M25, M30, M35 and M40
Lateral
M35 and M40
reinfor-
Steel 0.8%
S No cement 0.8% Main 1.3% Main 0.8% Main 1.3% Main 1.3% Main
Grade 1.0% 1.8% Main
Spacing in Steel with Steel with Steel with Steel with Steel with
Main Main Steel with
mm 300 kN 300 kN 450 kN 450 kN 600 kN
Steel Steel 600 kN
axial axial axial axial axial
axial
1 Fe 415 200 02-07 02-07 05-13 11-19 15-26 14-26 11-28 11-30
2 Fe 415 175 03-08 04-07 09-17 16-25 17-29 22-36 22-43 21-43
3 Fe 415 150 04-11 03-09 09-22 18-32 10-30 21-43 21-54 19-51
4 Fe 415 125 04-11 03-09 10-23 13-29 11-35 15-38 13-46 11-42
5 Fe 415 100 02-09 02-07 05-18 10-22 08-25 13-28 11-33 10-31
6 Fe 415 75 01-06 01-04 04-11 09-16 05-15 11-21 09-24 08-24
7 Fe 500 200 02-07 02-07 09-18 12-20 16-28 15-29 20-39 18-39
8 Fe 500 175 04-09 04-09 09-22 13-25 14-29 16-37 22-52 19-50
9 Fe 500 150 03-11 03-09 10-24 11-25 11-30 10-36 13-49 11-45
10 Fe 500 125 03-10 02-08 05-19 06-20 10-30 09-28 11-38 09-34
11 Fe 500 100 02-08 01-05 04-14 04-12 08-20 08-20 10-28 08-27
12 Fe 500 75 01-04 01-02 03-08 03-09 05-13 06-14 08-21 07-22
13 Fe 550 200 03-07 03-07 11-21 14-23 17-32 15-33 21-39 18-43
14 Fe 550 175 04-10 04-09 11-24 13-27 13-33 15-39 19-45 15-48
15 Fe 550 150 03-11 03-09 09-23 08-24 11-35 09-34 12-36 10-41
16 Fe 550 175 03-09 02-07 05-17 07-18 09-27 08-26 10-27 09-31
17 Fe 550 100 01-06 01-04 04-12 04-11 07-18 07-19 09-22 08-26
18 Fe 550 75 01-03 01-02 03-08 03-08 04-12 06-14 08-17 07-20
From the Table 4.6, it was observed that the decrease of curvature
at ultimate strength of column over 300 kN was in the range of 10% - 25%
for axial load of 450kN and was in the range of 20% - 40% for axial load of
600kN. Similarly, the increase of moment at ultimate strength of column over
300 kN was ranging from 9% - 22% for axial load of 450kN was in the range
of 8% - 41% for axial load of 600kN. Increase of longitudinal reinforcement
and axial load results in decrease of moment but increase of curvature at
ultimate strength of concrete.
64
Table 4.6 Variation of curvature and moment for different axial load
in RCC column over 300 kN axial load.
4.5 SUMMARY
180 beam and 540 column members with various parameters were
analysed for M- relationship and the results obtained are summarized below:
CHAPTER 5
5.1 GENERAL
the curvature at ultimate load when the concrete compression strain reaches a
specified limiting value and y is the curvature when the tension
reinforcement first reaches the yield strength, c is the concrete compressive
strain, values of a, k and 1 are depth factors shown in Figure 5.1. When a
ductile structure is subjected to overloading it will tend to deform in-
elastically and redistributes the excess load to other parts of the structure.
estimated using KSU_RC program. Similarly, non linear push over analysis
of RCC framed structure was adopted to estimate the overall displacement
ductility of the structure for various parameters.
___________________________________________________________
R=Design load/Elastic response load 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
_____________________________________________________________
= 1/R 5.0 2.5 1.67 1.25 1.0
= )/2 13.0 3.63 1.89 1.28 1.0
______________________________________________________________
69
Generally the beam depth is L/12 ratio, then lp/l = 1/12 (0.083), the
From the above literature, it is evident that when load factor Ve/ Vd
ranges from 2.25 to 3, the displacement ductility, µ ranges from 3 to 5, and
length of plastic hinge ranges, lp varies from 0.05 to 0.10, then the curvature
ductility ranges from 10 to 25.The increased value of curvature ductility is
due to formation of plastic hinge beyond yield strength of the RCC member.
These values are the indicator of inelastic behavior of RCC member during
seismic loading.
71
column sections were used to study the ductility effects for different
parameters. Material and section properties are given in Table 5.1 and 5.2.
Curvature ductility = u/ y
Beam size
1.0% Main steel 1.8% Main steel
Steel Concrete
grade grade 4 Nos - 12# at 4 Nos- 12# at 4 Nos- 16# at 4 Nos- 16# at
B in mm D in mm bottom 2 Nos - bottom 4 Nos - Bottom 2Nos - bottom 4 Nos-
12# at top 12# at top 16# at top 16# at top
Fe 415 M20 230 300 8.90 10.26 6.01 8.15
Fe 415 M25 230 300 10.14 11.13 6.88 8.75
Fe 415 M30 230 300 11.28 11.93 7.68 9.31
Fe 415 M35 230 300 12.33 12.67 8.42 9.82
Fe 415 M40 230 300 13.32 13.36 9.11 10.31
Fe 500 M20 230 300 6.40 7.76 4.13 6.01
Fe 500 M25 230 300 7.41 8.52 4.82 6.52
Fe500 M30 230 300 8.33 9.15 5.46 6.98
Fe 500 M35 230 300 9.19 9.77 6.05 7.42
Fe 500 M40 230 300 9.99 10.36 6.61 7.83
Fe 550 M20 230 300 5.36 6.66 3.37 5.08
Fe 550 M25 230 300 6.26 7.33 3.98 5.54
Fe 550 M30 230 300 7.08 7.94 4.54 5.97
Fe 550 M35 230 300 7.84 8.51 5.06 6.37
Fe 550 M40 230 300 8.57 9.04 5.56 6.75
74
Effect of ductility for different grades of concrete. From the Table 5.1, it is
observed that the curvature ductility increases with increase of grade of
concrete. The ductility variation for different grades of concrete over Fe415
steel grade was about 12% - 44% in 1.0% of Fe500 steel grade and was about
6% - 22% in 1.8% of Fe500 steel grade. Similarly, the ductility variation over
Fe415 grade was about 10% -36% in 1.0% of Fe550 grade and was about 7%
- 25% in 1.8% of Fe550 grade of steel.
Effect of ductility for main reinforcement ratio. When the main steel ratio
increases in the RCC member then the ductility ratio reduces. The ductility
reduction of 1.8% main steel and 0.9% of compression steel over 1.0% of
main steel was about 48% - 46% with Fe415 steel, 51% - 55% with Fe500
steel and 54% - 59% with Fe550 steel. Similarly, the ductility reduction for
1.8% main steel and 1.8% of compression steel over 1.0% of main steel
content was about 26% - 30% with Fe415 steel, 29% - 32% with Fe500 steel
and 31% - 34% with Fe550 steel. It is observed that the ductility is high for
lower content of main steel. When compression steel is increased then the
ductility ratio increases in all grades of steel.
75
Lateral Curvature ductility ratio for axial load Curvature ductility ratio for axial load
Steel Concrete with 1.3% main steel with 0.8% main steel
Reinforcement
Grade Grade
Spacing in mm 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN
Curvature ductility for M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of
confined concretes were estimated with Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 steel grades
with 1.3% and 0.8% main steel. The variations of curvature ductility for
various concrete grades were derived by comparing with M20 grade and the
results are given in Table 5.4.
From the results, it can be observed that with 1.3% main steel
content in RCC column, the increase of curvature ductility over M20 concrete
grade was about 5% - 34% for M25 to M40 grades of concrete and with 1.3%
main steel content, increase of the curvature ductility over M20 concrete
grade was about 7% - 37% for M25 to M40 grades. The ductility variation
over Fe415 steel grade was about 15% - 26% for Fe500 and 4% - 12% for
Fe550 steel in all grades of concrete. There was a negligible variation of
ductility in grades of concrete due to 1.3% and 0.8% of main steel.
Ductility effect for different grades of steel. Curvature ductility for Fe415,
Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel with M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades
of confined concretes were estimated and the variations for various grades of
steel were derived by comparing with Fe415 grade and the results were given
in Table 5.4. Higher the grade of steel, decrease of curvature ductility in all
grades of concrete.
From the results, it was observed that with 1.3% main steel, the
curvature ductility decreases about 12% - 25% for Fe500 and Fe550 steel
grades and with 0.8% main steel, the curvature ductility decreases about 14%
- 27% for Fe500 and Fe550 steel grades. There was a negligible ductility
variation in steel grades due to different grades of concrete.
78
Variation of Curvature Ductility in Fe500 and Fe550 Over Fe415 Steel Grade
FE 500 M20 75- 200 09-14 09-15 09-22 03-15 05-19 03-17
FE 500 M25 75- 200 02-14 08-15 05-13 06-15 02-15 05-14
FE 500 M30 75- 200 01-14 03-14 06-14 01-14 01-15 05-15
FE 500 M35 75- 200 01-13 01-14 04-14 05-17 02-14 02-14
FE 500 M40 75- 200 02-12 01-13 02-14 06-16 02-13 02-13
FE 550 M20 75- 200 12-23 10-22 07-21 04-27 07-26 11-22
FE 550 M25 75- 200 01-22 12-26 07-25 07-21 06-22 07-21
FE 550 M30 75- 200 01-22 04-23 09-22 01-22 04-23 07-22
FE 550 M35 75- 200 01-21 01-22 06-22 06-24 02-22 03-23
FE 550 M40 75- 200 03-20 02-21 02-22 06-23 02-21 03-22
Variation of Curvature Ductility in 1.3% Main Steel Over 0.8% Main Steel in Percentage
Lateral Curvature Ductility Ratio for Axial Load
Concrete
Steel Grade Reinforcement
Grade 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN
Spacing in mm
FE415 M20 75- 200 01-04 01-04 01-07
FE415 M25 75- 200 02-08 01-04 01-02
FE415 M30 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-03
FE415 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-03
FE415 M40 75- 200 02-09 01-04 01-02
FE 500 M20 75- 200 01-05 01-02 01-03
FE 500 M25 75- 200 01-04 01-04 01-02
FE 500 M30 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-02
FE 500 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-03
FE 500 M40 75- 200 01-06 01-03 01-03
FE 550 M20 75- 200 01-05 01-02 01-03
FE 550 M25 75- 200 01-03 01-02 01-02
FE 550 M30 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-02
FE 550 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-02 01-02
FE 550 M40 75- 200 01-04 01-04 01-03
curvature ductility for various confined spacing over 200mm spacing are
given in Table 5.7 and Figure 5.2.
Variation of Curvature Ductility in Various Lateral Reinforcement Spacing Over 200mm Spacing
Lateral Curvature ductility ratio for Curvature ductility ratio for
Steel Concrete
Grade Grade Reinforcement axial load with 1.3% main steel axial load with 0.8% main steel
Spacing in
mm 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN
FE415 M20 - M40 175 08-15 07-14 07-13 06-13 05-13 05-13
FE415 M20 - M40 150 18-38 18-28 11-19 08-21 13-23 16-23
FE415 M20 - M40 125 24-36 40-52 25-52 28-44 25-34 30-39
FE415 M20 - M40 100 45-67 39-70 38-75 41-60 41-58 35-72
FE415 M20 - M40 75 67-124 70-125 73-127 56-111 60-114 67-124
FE 500 M20 - M40 175 09-11 07-12 06-12 09-10 07-11 07-11
FE 500 M20 - M40 150 17-22 21-23 16-27 15-20 15-18 15-26
FE 500 M20 - M40 125 30-36 26-47 24-53 26-44 24-46 23-51
FE 500 M20 - M40 100 46-74 35-80 45-90 52-88 37-80 35-89
FE 500 M20 - M40 75 81-134 84-131 87-165 66-144 73-136 80-156
FE 550 M20 - M40 175 04-11 09-11 08-12 07-10 07-09 06-10
FE 550 M20 - M40 150 12-27 17-28 16-31 14-19 14-26 14-30
FE 550 M20 - M40 125 31-47 27-53 26-58 25-35 24-54 25-57
FE 550 M20 - M40 100 55-90 49-88 51-97 40-88 48-87 52-97
FE 550 M20 - M40 75 103-145 98-141 96-168 74-158 81-145 88-158
From the Table 5.7 and Figure 5.4, it was observed that with 1.3%
main steel, the curvature ductility increases about 15% - 166% due to
decrease of spacing of lateral reinforcement from 175mm to 75mm and with
81
0.8% main steel, the curvature ductility increases about 13% - 158%. The
variation of curvature ductility was about 15% - 124% for Fe415 grade , 11%
- 165% for Fe500 grade and 11% - 168% for Fe550 grade. There was a
marginal variation of curvature ductility due to 1.3% and 0.8% of main steel.
The increase of curvature ductility was very high to the range of 90% - 165%
for the lateral reinforcement spacing of 100mm and 75mm.
Ductility effect due to axial load on column. Curvature ductility for axial
load of 300kN, 450kN and 600kN for 0.8% and 1.3% longitudinal steel and
for the different grades of concrete, different grades of steel and varying
confinement reinforcement spacing were estimated. The ductility effect for
450kN and 600kN axial loads were compared with 300kN the variations are
tabulated in Table 5.8.
Variation of Curvature Ductility in 450 kN and 600 kN Axial Load Over 300 kN Axial Load
Curvature Ductility Ratio For Curvature Ductility Ratio For
Lateral Axial Load With 1.3% Main Axial Load With 0.8% Main
Concrete
Steel Grade Reinforcement Steel Steel
Grade
Spacing in mm
450 kN 600 kN 450 kN 600 kN
FE415 M20 75- 200 01-06 02-15 01-05 02-09
FE415 M25 75- 200 01-06 01-05 01-05 01-07
FE415 M30 75- 200 01-07 01-08 01-07 01-08
FE415 M35 75- 200 02-08 01-08 01-05 02-08
FE415 M40 75- 200 02-08 02-09 02-04 01-05
FE 500 M20 75- 200 01-09 01-12 02-09 03-09
FE 500 M25 75- 200 01-03 01-07 01-02 01-06
FE 500 M30 75- 200 01-07 01-04 01-03 01-05
FE 500 M35 75- 200 01-07 01-05 01-05 01-06
FE 500 M40 75- 200 01-04 01-09 01-05 03-05
FE 550 M20 75- 200 01-02 01-09 01-05 03-07
FE 550 M25 75- 200 01-05 01-06 01-03 01-07
FE 550 M30 75- 200 01-02 01-04 01-03 01-04
FE 550 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-02 01-04 02-04
FE 550 M40 75- 200 01-07 01-08 02-03 01-04
82
From the results, it was observed that when the axial load increases,
the curvature ductility decreases about 6% - 9% for 450kN axial load and 5%
- 12% for 600kN axial load. Variation of curvature ductility with axial load is
found less in higher grades of steel.
Effect of ductility for tension steel ratio in beams. Increase of tension steel
ratio in a beam can increase the ductility till the beam is under reinforced
section. If excessive reinforcement is provided then the concrete will crush
before the steel yields, leading to brittle failure Therefore, a beam should be
designed as under reinforced. The ultimate strain in unconfined concrete
depends on the characteristics strength of concrete, rate of loading and
strengthening effect of stirrups and IS code recommends a ultimate strain
value as 0.0035. The variation of ductility between 1.8% (4-16# at bottom
and 2-16# at top) and 1.0% (4-12# at bottom and 2-12# at top) tension steel
for various grades of concrete and steel is given in Table 5.9 and Figure 5.3.
Table 5.9 The variation of ductility between 1.8% main steel and
1.0 % main steel for various grades of concrete and steel
From the Table 5.7 and Figure 5.3, it was observed that the ductility
gets decreased to the range of 8% - 33% due to increase of tension steel ratio
in all grades of steel.
Table 5.10 The ductility variation for compression steel ratio in beams
5.6 SUMMARY
From the study of ductility effect on RCC beam and column elements, it is
observed that the ductility get increased by increase of compressive strength
of concrete , decrease of tensile strength of steel, decrease of tension steel
content and increase of compression steel content, decrease of confined
reinforcement spacing and decrease of axial load. Curvature ductility µ=
)
u/ y = and the values of depth factors k and a are given in Figure
5.1. The following are summarized from the estimation of curvature ductility
of RCC elements:
CHAPTER 6
6.1 GENERAL.
100% dead load and 25% of live load were considered as initial
loads in Pushover analysis. The design gravity loads were applied before
applying the incremental lateral forces. The gravity loads were applied as
distributed element loads based on yield line theory and concentrated loads
from secondary beams. In all cases, lateral forces were applied monotonically
in a step-by-step nonlinear static analysis. The applied lateral forces were
proportional to the product of mass and the first mode shape amplitude at
90
each storey level under consideration. Although the first mode shape was used
in this study, a non-modal shape vector, such as an inverted triangular shape,
was used for the lateral load pattern. Initially, a static analysis was performed
for the full gravity load in a single step. The state of the structure from this
analysis were saved. Subsequently, the static pushover analysis was started
from this state of the structure. For the nonlinear static analysis, both the load
control and the displacement control strategies were adopted. The analysis
was load controlled up to the first yield and displacement controlled thereafter.
P– effects were not considered in the analysis. Reinforcement in the
members were defined using auto hinges.
FEMA - 356 (2000), the values used as effective stiffness of RCC members
were 0.5EcIg for beams and 0.7EcIg for columns. Ec is the modulus of
elasticity of concrete and Ig is the gross moment of inertia of the section.
Six types of RCC framed structures, G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and
G+14 residential building configurations were considered for nonlinear
pushover analysis. These buildings considered were three-dimensional space
frame structures in both orthogonal directions. Each structure was 12m in
length and 12m width having three bays of 4.0m each in both direction. The
building was symmetrical about both axes, and floor to floor heights were
3.0m. The frames were designed according to the Indian seismic code of
practice for seismic zones II and III. The foundation systems considered was
on medium soil. A typical framing plan and elevations, beams and column
sizes used for analysis of G+2 configuration were shown in Figure 6.2.
Dead load. Self weight of the members were considered as dead load
automatically. In addition, 4.0 kN/sqm was consider as dead load of 125mm
thick slab for a residential building of 4m x 4m size area. The floor load shall
be converted as member load (eg. 12m x 12m x 4.0kN/sqm= 576 kN. There
were 12 outer members and 12 inner members. The outer member will have
one side load and inner member will have both side load. Therefore load per
m on outer member = 576/(4x(12+2x12))= 4kN/m and inner members were
double the outer member = 8kN/m. Wall load on each beam (both inner and
outer) for 3m high wall = 3x 0.25x20= 15kN/m. Linear static load was
considered in the analysis.
Live load. 2.0 kN/m2 was consider as live load for a residential building. The
load per m on outer member was 2 kN/m and inner member was 4kN/m.
Linear static load was considered in the analysis. (c) Model load was
considered in the analysis to get mode shapes of the structure. Adopt 1.0DL
and 0.25LL as mass participation factor. First mode shape in X and Y
direction were considered as pattern of horizontal push loading.
both column and beam members were already designed using STAAD pro/
SAP 2000 and assigned the sizes and reinforcement as required, no need of
designing or checking reinforcement again using SAP 2000. Before run
analysis, display the deformed shape of modal load 1, 2 etc and verify the
mode shape adopted for displacement considered is correct. Hinge results also
to be verified.
Process of pushover analysis. The program records base shear and roof
displacement at first yielding from the analysis. Then the gravity loads were
removed and a new lateral load increment was applied to the modified
structural model such that additional member(s) yield. A separate analysis
with zero initial conditions was performed on modified structural model under
each incremental lateral load. Thus, member forces at the end of an
incremental lateral load analysis were obtained by adding the forces from the
current analysis to the sum of those from the previous increments. In other
words, the results of each incremental lateral load analysis were superimposed.
Similarly, the lateral load increment and the roof displacement increment
were added to the corresponding previous total values to obtain the
accumulated values of the base shear and the roof displacement. The above
steps were repeated until the roof displacement reaches a certain level of
deformation or the structure becomes unstable as the hinge capacity reaches
its collapse state. The roof displacement was plotted with the base shear to get
the global capacity (pushover) curve of the structure
Non linear pushover analysis using SAP 2000 was performed for G,
G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and G+14 framed structures. The parameters
considered were M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of concrete, Fe415,
Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel and lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm,
100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm and 200mm. Typical hinge formation and
lateral load vs base reaction of pushover curve for G+8 structure in Zone III
load for M30 grade of concrete, Fe500 steel and lateral spacing of 150mm is
shown in Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.3(a) Typical hinge formation in for G+8 structure for Zone III
seismic loads
99
Figure 6.3(b) Typical pushover curve for G+8 structure for Zone III
seismic loads
Displacement Vs Base shear at ultimate point in pushover curve for Zone II loads
Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For
G+8 Floors G+11 Floors G+14 Floors
Steel Concrete
Grade Grade Base Base Base
Displacement Displacement Displacement
Shear Shear Shear
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(kN) (kN) (kN)
FE 415 M20 1045.00 185.25 1805.00 132.00 1500.00 90.20
FE 415 M25 1146.00 226.50 1910.00 137.60 1583.70 88.80
FE 415 M30 1200.00 251.00 2005.00 145.35 1688.40 90.50
FE 415 M35 1229.00 248.75 2090.00 144.00 1745.00 89.00
FE 415 M40 1251.00 247.00 2189.00 145.00 1793.80 87.50
FE 500 M20 1110.00 171.00 1995.00 135.00 1682.70 96.70
FE 500 M25 1268.00 207.00 2101.00 129.75 1769.40 92.70
FE 500 M30 1351.00 241.30 2208.00 135.00 1854.90 92.00
FE 500 M35 1400.00 238.80 2292.00 136.00 1925.40 91.70
FE 500 M40 1425.00 232.80 2390.00 137.90 1993.20 90.50
FE 550 M20 1104.00 161.50 2095.00 144.00 1800.00 102.60
FE 550 M25 1309.00 193.00 2197.00 135.00 1874.20 96.40
FE 550 M30 1447.50 242.50 2292.00 132.00 1938.90 93.50
FE 550 M35 1500.00 250.00 2388.00 131.25 2000.00 91.70
FE 550 M40 1512.00 234.00 2487.50 133.00 2085.70 92.00
Displacement Vs Base shear at ultimate point in pushover curve for Zone III loads
Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For
Single Floors G+2 Floors G+5 Floors
Steel Concrete
Grade Grade Base
Base Displacement Base Displacement Displacement
Shear
Shear (kN) (mm) Shear (kN) (mm) (mm)
(kN)
FE 415 M20 540.00 72.52 920.54 171.60 1445.00 252.00
FE 415 M25 558.60 72.00 970.00 171.00 1520.00 252.20
FE 415 M30 588.00 73.50 1025.40 176.70 1568.00 254.80
FE 415 M35 617.40 72.96 1059.00 174.40 1615.00 257.40
FE 415 M40 637.00 72.52 1122.70 191.20 1649.00 258.10
FE 500 M20 617.40 75.46 1059.00 165.20 1615.00 256.00
FE 500 M25 646.80 75.46 1102.00 179.20 1710.00 264.60
FE 500 M30 656.60 74.48 1051.00 153.00 1833.50 252.20
FE 500 M35 686.00 72.96 1055.00 150.00 1843.00 265.95
FE 500 M40 695.80 72.52 1220.00 188.00 1890.50 262.50
FE 550 M20 670.00 77.00 1066.00 152.10 1746.00 264.00
FE 550 M25 700.00 74.88 1242.00 216.90 1835.00 221.95
FE 550 M30 705.60 74.48 1233.00 172.10 1920.00 278.60
FE 550 M35 715.40 74.48 1266.50 174.40 1990.00 278.60
FE 550 M40 725.20 74.00 1300.00 176.70 2040.00 279.00
101
(a) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe415 grade of steel for zone II loads
(b) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe500 grade of steel for zone II loads
(c) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe550 grade of steel for zone II loads
Figure 6.4 Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various
parameters with zone II loads
(a) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe415 grade of steel for zone III loads
(b) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe500 grade of steel for zone III loads
(c) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe550 grade of steel for zone III loads
Figure 6.5 Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various
parameters with zone III loads
105
From the results, it was evident that the yield strength decreases
and the ultimate strength increases with high strength of concrete. The higher
strength concrete members are stiffer than lower strength concrete members,
because the flexural rigidity of concrete increases with strength. Increase in
the characteristic strength of concrete increases the neutral axis depth, hence
increases the moment capacity of the section. It is confirmed that there was
significant change with an increase in the concrete strength.
106
Effect of seismic zone. When the structure is designed for various seismic
zone, the member size and reinforcement changes according to the seismic
forces resistance. The changes of member size influence the base shear. A
comparative study on Zone II and Zone III was considered for seismic
variation. The increase of base reaction in zone III over zone II was about
80% - 87% for G+2, 83% - 97% for G+5, 79% - 104% for G+8, 20% - 30%
for G+11 and 24% - 34% for G+ 14 structures. These increases due to larger
size beam and column elements provided to resist high seismic forces
generated in zone III. The results indicate that seismic performance of
medium tall structures are better than very tall structure for both zone II and
III seismic loads.
Effect of lateral reinforcement spacing. The pushover curves for the various
lateral spacing such as 200mm, 175mm, 150mm, 125mm , 100mm and 75mm
for different concrete was compared for six type of RCC framed structures. It
was noticed that differences in base shear between the pushover curves was
very negligible but the change in the displacement capacity was significant.
However, there was a difference in hinge formation in pushover analysis.
Decrease of confinement spacing make the frame more stiffer and delay the
hinge formation for few more steps. But, the variation due to confined spacing
does not give any change in the base shear value at ultimate displacement.
The variations in confined reinforcement spacing was influencing the
individual member behavior but not noticed in frame as a complete structure.
The little effect in RCC frame structure was in the form of delay in hinge
formation during pushover analysis.
Effect of plastic hinge forming mechanism. Plastic hinge patterns for the six
different RCC framed structures are compared at the different levels of roof
displacements to provide information about local and global failure
mechanisms in the structure. The global yielding point corresponds to the
108
displacement on the capacity curve where the system starts to soften. The
ultimate point was considered as displacement at the first 20% decrease in
lateral load capacity. Plastic hinge formation starts with beam ends at lower
stories, then propagates to upper stories, and continues with yielding of base
columns.
6.5 SUMMARY
ii. The increase of base reaction for Fe500 and Fe550 grade of
steel over Fe415 grade of steel was about 4% - 10% .
iv. The size of beam and column elements were larger to resist
seismic load of zone III than zone II. Thus the base reaction in
zone III framed structures were much higher than the framed
structures in zone II. The increase of base reaction in Zone III
over Zone II for the same configuration was about 80% -
100%. Zone effect on RCC framed structure was very
significant due to high strength RCC members.
CHAPTER 7
7.1 GENERAL
elastic limit. However, the behavior of the wall was different during inelastic
stage due to formation of plastic hinge at the wall base and it allows large
rotations and yielding of reinforcement. The ductility of high rise RCC
buildings can be enhanced by use of high strength concrete, higher grades of
steel, confined lateral reinforcement spacing and its lateral force resisting
performance was improved during an earthquake.
The R values given the IS 1893:2002 are: ordinary shear wall with
OMRF is 3.0, ordinary shear wall with SMRF is 4.0, ductile shear wall with
OMRF is 4.5 and ductile shear wall with SMRF is 5.0. These values are not
supported with detailed explanation and variable parameters were not
considered for arriving the R value. A study was performed using nonlinear
pushover analysis using SAP 2000 to estimate the response deduction factor
(R) for the moment resisting frames with shear walls in high rise building and
roof displacement vs base shear curve was obtained.
Description of Shear Wall Model. Shear wall models used for the study of
confinement effect is described in details. M25 grade of concrete and Fe415
grade of steel reinforcement materials were used and 15mm thick concrete
cover was provided in the model. Lateral reinforcement arrangement was
similar to the column ties and it was provided using 8mm ties with 100mm,
150mm and 200mm spacing. Lateral reinforcement could not be scaled as the
smallest available bar size was 8mm. Beam - column joints and end regions of
all elements were con ned using ties with 135 hooks to simulate common
construction practice. Strain and deflection due to vertical and lateral loads
were measured to compare the confinement effect and influence of ductility
parameters. The details of geometrical, material properties and load applied
on RCC shear wall specimen is given in Table 7.1.
The size and reinforcement of shear wall model was chosen based
on the availability of testing facility and the model was scaled as a single
storey shear wall supported with roof slab. Except wall thickness, one fourth
scale to actual shear wall was considered in this experimental study. 100mm
thickness of shear wall was considered to accommodate two layers of
reinforcement with 15mm cover, which will have 54mm concrete core to
study the confinement behaviour of the concrete. The geometry of shear wall
model used in this experiment is given in Figure 7.1.
Experimental Setup. The shear wall model was prepared with reinforcement
as shown in Figure 7.1(a). The base was fixed on the floor using base plate
and bolt & net arrangement as shown in Figure 7.1(b). More over the
combination of vertical and lateral load application on the specimen is
prevented from lifting or rotating. Loading frame of 2000 kN capacity,
hydraulic jack of 400 kN vertical load capacity and 100 kN lateral load
114
capacity wee used for testing the shear wall model. Different combinations of
vertical and lateral loads were applied simultaneously as shown in Figure
7.2(c). 50mm length strain gauges (10 Nos) were used to measure the surface
strain in the wall part and 0.01mm least count dial gauges (03 Nos) were used
to measure the deflections due to lateral load as shown in Figure 7.2(d). The
vertical load relates to the gravity load (Dead load and Live load) and lateral
loads relate to earthquake force. Lateral load up to 60 kN in 5 kN intervals
along with vertical load of 380 kN in 10 kN interval were applied. The lateral
load value was restricted to lower or equal than applied vertical loads to avoid
toppling and shearing effect in the shear wall model. The strain at various
location of the shear wall and deflection at top level were measured.
(a) Reinforcement for wall model (b) Fixing of shear wall shear
using base plate and bolt & nut
Strain Gauge
Location
When the lateral load was below 15 kN with constant vertical load
of 35 kN, the strain reduction between 100mm and 200mm spacing of lateral
reinforcement was about 60%. However, when the lateral load was increased
to 35 kN with same vertical load of 35 kN, the difference in compressive
strain between 100mm and 200 mm spacing of lateral reinforcement was
reduced to 10%. This phenomena was observed for vertical load up to 50 kN.
When the lateral load was below 15 kN with constant vertical load
of 55 kN, strain reduction between 100mm and 200mm spacing of lateral
reinforcement was 50%. However, when the lateral load has been increased to
55 kN with same vertical load of 55 kN, the difference in compressive strain
between 100mm and 200 mm spacing of lateral reinforcement was reduced to
5%. This phenomena was observed for vertical load of 60 kN. It was evident
from the results that the strain reduction was more when vertical load was
more compared to lateral load. In short buildings, the lateral force induced
due to earthquake may be lesser than the gravity load acting on the structure.
116
factor for the building with shear wall was estimated and the same was
compared with R values given in IS 1893: 2002.
The shear wall and the columns on both ends were modeled as a
single frame element. In all the models, the bottom ends of the columns and
the shear walls were modeled as xed based. The column elements were
modeled with default plastic hinges so that lumped plasticity behavior was
observed on their ends. The load and displacement values assigned to these
points were used to determine the nonlinear behaviour by varying the quality
of the material used in the cross section, the reinforcement details and the
axial load on the element. The pushover analysis using SAP 2000 had
considered the Mander (1988) stress– strain curve for the con ned concrete
with strain hardening of steels.
121
Results are obtained from non linear pushover analysis using SAP
2000 software for G+19 storied residential building with shear wall. The
parameters considered are M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of
concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel with lateral reinforcement
spacing of 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm and 200mm.
It was observed that the tall and slender RCC buildings design per
IS 1893 may have more possibilities of failing in flexure rather than shear.
This because of slender shear walls are force- controlled with limited ductility
behavior may be restricting to achieving the design requirements. However,
code based design for flexural strength was adequate to resist inelastic
deformations within the permissible limits. The lateral displacement and
base reaction values at ultimate point is given in Table 7.2 and results are
discussed below:
122
Ultimate Point
Steel Concrete Time
Base Shear Displacement
Grade Grade Period
(kN) (mm)
FE 415 M20 3.79500 2600.00 196.00
FE 415 M25 3.59682 2674.36 184.38
FE 415 M30 3.43656 2763.02 176.38
FE 415 M35 3.30663 2821.13 169.50
FE 415 M40 3.19807 2878.46 164.38
FE 500 M20 3.80317 3120.00 238.75
FE 500 M25 3.59682 3150.81 208.63
FE 500 M30 3.43656 3194.88 197.13
FE 500 M35 3.30663 3250.00 187.88
FE 500 M40 3.19807 3322.67 181.38
FE 550 M20 3.80317 3356.99 274.38
FE 550 M25 3.59682 3462.29 233.75
FE 550 M30 3.43656 3486.08 209.88
FE 550 M35 3.30663 3541.20 199.25
FE 550 M40 3.19807 3590.60 192.13
Effect on grade of concrete. From the results, it was observed that the
increase of base reaction due to increase of grade of concrete for M25 to M40
grades were about 3% - 10% over M20 grade for Zone III seismic loads.
Effect of on grade of steel. From the result, it was observed that the increase
of base reaction was about 10% - 19% for Fe500 grade of steel and 16% -
28% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone III seismic loads.
123
Effect of base shear on shear wall as long column. The G+19 storied
farmed structure with shear wall building was modeled as long column
elements instead of shell element in nonlinear pushover analysis. It was
observed that the increase of R value due to long column effect was about 5%
- 7% for various grades of concrete.
7.6 SUMMARY
ii. The increase of base reaction was about 10% - 19% for Fe500
grade of steel and 16% - 28% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone
III seismic loads.
i. The strain reduction was more when vertical load was more
compared to lateral load acting on the structure.
ii. When vertical load and lateral load are high, then deflection
was effectively controlled in the confined RCC shear wall.
CHAPTER 8
8.1 GENERAL
R = Rs * R * RR , (8.1)
the foundation. In these systems, the lateral load is shared by different frames
depending on the relative (lateral) stiffness and strength characteristics of
each frame. A system may have a lower redundancy factor or a higher
redundancy factor but the value is not larger than one. ATC - 19 (1995)
proposed values of the redundancy factor on the effects of the structure is in
Table 8.1.
parametric study on RCC framed structure was carried out and the results
obtained were discussed in Chapter 6 and 7.
R = {( - 1 / ) + 1} (8.2)
where,
for rock soil = 1+{1/(10T- T)}- {1/2T exp(-1.5(ln(T)-0.6)^2)}
for alluvium soil =1+{1 /(12T - T)}–{(2 / 5T)*e -2(ln(T) – 0.2)^2}
for soft soil = 1+{(T1/3T)}-{3T1/4Texp(-3 (ln(T/T1)-0.25)^2)}
where, T1 is the predominant period of the ground motion.
Estimation of response reduction factor R - The response reduction factor
(R) was calculated as the product of the strength-ductility, and redundancy
factors,
Ultimate Point
Permissible Curvature Ductility Factor Response Reduction
Over
Steel Concrete Base Displace- Base Displace- Ductility Factor (R) Value
Strength
Grade Grade Shear ment Shear ment in
Ratio
(kN) (mm) mm Rock Alluvial Soft Rock Alluvial Soft
Ratio
Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil
FE 415 M20 2000.00 283.00 998.30 2.00 114.00 2.48 2.64 2.95 2.38 5.28 5.91 4.76
FE 415 M25 2132.80 266.50 998.30 2.14 114.00 2.34 2.44 2.73 2.24 5.21 5.82 4.79
FE 415 M30 2162.70 269.22 998.30 2.17 114.00 2.36 2.43 2.72 2.26 5.26 5.89 4.89
FE 415 M35 2268.80 263.00 998.30 2.27 114.00 2.31 2.34 2.62 2.21 5.33 5.94 5.02
FE 415 M40 1842.00 89.06 998.30 1.85 114.00 0.78 0.77 0.73 0.80 1.42 1.34 1.47
FE 500 M20 2268.80 285.50 998.30 2.27 114.00 2.50 2.66 2.98 2.40 6.04 6.77 5.45
FE 500 M25 2391.30 279.50 998.30 2.40 114.00 2.45 2.56 2.87 2.35 6.12 6.87 5.62
FE 500 M30 2483.00 259.50 998.30 2.49 114.00 2.28 2.34 2.61 2.18 5.82 6.50 5.42
FE 500 M35 2520.60 260.90 998.30 2.52 114.00 2.29 2.33 2.59 2.19 5.87 6.55 5.53
FE 500 M40 2558.20 262.30 998.30 2.56 114.00 2.30 2.31 2.58 2.20 5.93 6.60 5.64
FE 550 M20 2387.50 297.00 998.30 2.39 114.00 2.61 2.77 3.11 2.49 6.61 7.44 5.96
FE 550 M25 2509.00 279.85 998.30 2.51 114.00 2.45 2.56 2.87 2.35 6.43 7.22 5.90
FE 550 M30 2619.00 275.90 998.30 2.62 114.00 2.42 2.49 2.79 2.31 6.52 7.32 6.07
FE 550 M35 2686.50 261.90 998.30 2.69 114.00 2.30 2.33 2.60 2.20 6.28 7.01 5.92
FE 550 M40 2800.00 238.75 998.30 2.80 114.00 2.09 2.11 2.33 2.01 5.92 6.54 5.64
134
R factor was estimated from the non linear static pushover analysis
by using an inverted triangular load pattern. The analysis determine the
maximum roof displacement and the corresponding base reaction developed
in the structures and plot the pushover curve. Various parameters used for non
linear static pushover analysis and the results obtained were already discussed
in chapter 7. The pushover analysis considered 4 percent target drift ratio and
assumed that the structure to reach its ultimate capacity in this range. The R
factor estimated for various configuration such as G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11
and G+14 residential buildings with M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades
of concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel are given in Table 8.3 (a),
(b), (c) and (d).
Figure 8.2 Variation of R factor for G+5 structure located in Zone III
rock and soft soil
137
Effect of R factor on grade of concrete. R factors for rock, alluvial and soft
site conditions were estimated from pushover analysis with various
parameters such as M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of confined
concretes, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 steel grades and for earthquake zone II
and Zone III loads. The variations were compared with M20 grade of concrete.
From the results, it was observed that the increase of R factor for M25 to M40
grades of concrete was about 6% - 26% for zone II seismic loads and 4% -
19% for zone III seismic loads. The increase of R factor due to grade of steel
was about 6% - 10% for Fe500 grade and 09% - 18% for Fe550 grade in zone
II loads. Similarly, The increase of R factor due to grade of steel was about
4% - 11% for Fe500 and 10% - 19% for Fe550 steel in zone III loads. From
the results, it was observed that the over strength and ductility factors were
increased when the compressive strength of the concrete was increased , with
the result R factor was also increased .
Fe550 steel in zone II loads. Similarly, the increase of R factor was about 9%
- 18% for Fe500 and 5% - 12% for Fe550 steel in zone III loads. In higher
steel grade, tension force was higher at ultimate strain and more concrete was
active in resisting moment. Therefore, the base reaction increases with
increase of grade of steel in both zone II and III.
Effect of R factor on seismic zone. When the structure was designed for
various seismic zone, the member size and reinforcement changes according
to the seismic forces resistance. The changes of member size influence the
base shear. A comparative study on Zone II and Zone III was considered for
seismic variation. The increase of R values for zone III loads over zone II
loads to the range of 80% - 87% for G+2, 83% - 97% for G+5, 79% - 104%
for G+8, 20% - 30% for G+11 and 24% - 34% for G+ 14. These increase
due to larger size beam and column elements contribute in resisting more
seismic load of zone III load. The results conclude that seismic response of
medium height structure was better than tall structure in both zone II and III
loads.
139
Effect of R factor on types of soil. Ductility factor was arrived based on soil
types such as rock, alluvium and soft site. Miranda & Bertero (1994)
relationship Rµ - µ - T was adopted for rock, alluvium, and soft soil sites as
Rµ= µ-1+ 1 and R values were estimated. The range of R values of G+5, for
zone III seismic design building for rock site was between 8 - 13, alluvium
site was between 7 - 12 and soft site was between 7 - 11. Similarly, the range
of R values of G+8, zone III seismic design building for rock site was
between 5 - 7, alluvium site was between 6 - 8 and soft site was between 5 - 6.
There was a marginal variation in R value due to different type of site soil.
140
In the present study, the response reduction factor for RCC framed
structures with different configurations were analytically estimated and the
results were compared with Indian seismic code IS 1893 and with R values
specified in other countries seismic code. From the study, it was observed that
R factor is sensitive to both geometric configuration and material properties.
Confinement effect in concrete enhances the ductility and R value
significantly. Adopting higher value of R for high strength concrete and high
yield strength of steel with lateral confinement, significant percentage of
seismic forces can be reduced and achieve very good saving in structural
members.
ultimate displacement which was useful to resist sudden force induced during
an earthquake.
8.6 SUMMARY
ii. The increase of R factor was about 9% - 16% for Fe500 steel
and 4% - 8% for Fe550 steel in zone II loads. Similarly, the
increase of R factor was about 9% - 18% for Fe500 and 5% -
12% for Fe550 steel for zone III loads.
142
iii. The increase of R factor over the height of the structure was
about 3% - 18% in G, 4% - 22% for G+2, 3% - 26% for G+5,
9% - 28% for G+8, 5% - 21% for G+11 and 5% - 20% for
G+14 for zone II and III loads.
iv. The size beam and column elements were larger to resist
seismic load of zone III than zone II. Thus the base reaction in
zone III frames were much more than the frames designed for
zone II, in the range of 80% - 100%. Zone effect on RCC
framed structure was very significant due to high strength RCC
members.
CHAPTER 9
9.1 GENERAL
Variations in main steel - 1.0% and 1.8% in beams and 0.8% and 1.3%
in columns
Variations over number of floors - G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and G+14
ii. The increase of base reaction was about 10% - 19% for Fe500
grade of steel and 16% - 28% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone
III seismic loads.
The use of response reduction factors was not limited to the seismic
design of buildings in India alone but are used in a number of countries for
seismic design. Introduction of response reduction factor will reduce the
seismic design forces in all seismic design codes and account the effect of
inelastic energy dissipation of the structure. The different values of R factor
were considered based on the ductility classes of various buildings. The
numerical values of response reduction factors R used in USA, Europe, New
Zealand, Japan and Mexico codes were compared with Indian code. The
investigation shows that larger value of R was considered in the Unites States
than in Europe and Mexico. As the seismic performance objectives were
similar in all cases, the conclusion drawn from the study was that the values
of R in the United States seismic codes may not be conservative. Comparison
151
of R factors in other countries seismic code given by Yogendra Singh & Vijay
Namdev Khose (2012) are reproduced in Table 9.1.
9.4 CONCLUSION
summarized and concluded in this chapter. From the limited study carried out,
the following conclusions are made:
pushover analysis. More number of frames with shear walls can be considered
for non linear pushover analysis and R factor can be estimated.
REFERENCES
14. ASCE 7, 2005, ‘Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures’, American Society of Civil Engineers. USA.
15. Au FTK, Bzz Ba & Kawan, AKH 2005, ‘Complete moment- curvature
relationship of reinforced normal – and high strength concrete beams
experiencing complex load history’, Computers and concrete, vol. 2,
no. 4, 309-324.
16. Baker, ALL & Amarakone, AMN 1964, ‘Inelastic Hyper Static Frames
Analysis’, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Flexural
Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Miami, Florida, ASCE 1965-50,
ACI SP-12, pp. 85-142.
22. Branci Taïeb & Bourada Sofiane 2014, ‘Accounting for ductility and
over strength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures’,
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural
Dynamics, EURODYN , Porto, Portugal, 30 June - 2 July.
35. Desayi, P, Iyengar, KTSA & Reddy, TS 1978, ‘Equation for stress-
strain curve of concrete confined in circular steel spiral’, Materials and
Structures, vol. 11, no. 65, pp. 339-345.
38. Elnashai, AS & Mwafy, AM 2002, ‘Over strength and Force Reduction
Factors of Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Buildings’, The Structural
Design of Tall Buildings Struct. Design Tall Build, vol. 11,
pp. 329–351.
40. Fahjan, YM, Kubin, J & Tan, MT 2010, ‘Nonlinear Analysis Methods
for Reinforced Concrete Buildings with shear walls’, ECEE 14,
Turkey.
47. Gill, WD, Park, R & Priestley MJN 1979, ‘Ductility of Rectangular
Reinforced Concrete Columns with Axial Loads’, Research Report
79-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New
Zealand.
55. Hasan Kaplan, Salih Yilmaz, Nihat Cetinkaya & Ergin Atimtay 2011,
‘Seismic strengthening of RC structures with exterior shear walls’,
Indian Academy of Sciences, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 17–34.
62. IS 456 2000, ‘Indian Standard for Plain and Reinforced Concrete -
Code of Practice’, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
73. Krawinkler, H & Seneviratna, GDPK 1998, ‘Pros and cons of a push-
over analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering
Structures’, vol. 20, no. 4-6, pp. 452– 464.
74. Kwan, AKH, Ho, JCM, Pam HJ 2002, ‘Flexural strength and ductility
of reinforced concrete beams, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers: Structures and Buildings, vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 361-369.
93. Nassar AA & Krawinkler H 1991, ‘Seismic Demands for SDOF and
MDOF Systems’, Report No.95, John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford University.
94. Oh, YH, Han, YH & Lee LH 1998, ‘Evaluation of strength reduction
factor in earthquake resistant Design’, 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3.
100. Park, YJ & Ang, AHS 1985, ‘Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for
Reinforced Concrete’, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
vol. 111, no. 4.
106. Rahul Rana, Limin Jin & Atila Zekioglu 2004, ‘Pushover Analysis of
A 19 Storey Concrete Shear Wall building, 13th World Conference On
Earthquake Engineering’, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 133.
107. Ravi Kumar, CM, Sreenivasa, MB, Anil Kumar, Vijay Sekhar Reddy,
M 2013, ‘Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Of RC Buildings With
Shear Wall’ - International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA), vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 646-652.
112. Riza Ainul Hakim, Mohammed Sohaib Alama & Samir A Ashour
2014, ‘Application of pushover analysis for evaluating seismic
performance of RC building’, International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 3, no. 1.
164
116. Scott, BD, Park, R & Priestley, MJN 1982, ‘Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates’, J.
American Concrete Institute, vol. 79, pp. 13-27.
123. Smith, B & Coull A 1991, ‘Tall Building Structures: Analysis and
Design, John Wiley and Sons.
124. Smith, BS & Girgis, A 1984, ‘Simple Analogous Frames for Shear
Wall Analysis’, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 110, no. 11.
129. Swajit Singh Goud & Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar 2014, ‘Seismic
Design Provisions for Ductile Detailed Reinforced Concrete
Structures’, 15th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering,(15SEE),
Report No: IIIT/TR/2014/-1, Centre for Earthquake Engineering,
International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad - 500
032, India.
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
International Journal
National Seminars