Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic behavior and response reduction factors for concrete moment-resisting frames

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The existing seismic provisions across the world account the non-linear response of a structure in a linear elastic design implicitly using a constant behavior factor, or response reduction factor (R). However, this factor (R) does not address the effects of changes in structural configurations, which eventually alters the dynamic behavior of the structure. Hence, the adequacy of prescribing a constant factor to account for the variable dynamic characteristics of structural systems always appears contentious. Further, seismic analysis of RC buildings usually ignores the interaction of the infill wall with the structural frame leading to inappropriate evaluation of dynamic characteristics of the structure. Hence, in the present research, it is attempted to investigate the sufficiency of the code-based ‘R’ factor in assessment of seismic behavior using non-linear static analysis (NLS) and non-linear dynamic analysis (NLD) for the structural models considered. Moreover, the results obtained, clearly envisages the influence of structural configuration changes and interaction of the infill wall with the RC MRF on dynamic characteristics in terms of ductility and over strength values. It can be clearly observed that, the code specified constant ‘R’ for a particular structural type appears erroneous, emphasizing the need for its adequate estimation. This should involve consideration of the dynamic characteristics of the structure resulting in a realistic assessment of seismic demand, thereby contributing to a safe, functional and economical design configuration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Software application and custom code.

References

  • Abdi H, Hejazi F, Jaafar MS, Karim IA (2016) Evaluation of response modification factor for steel structures with soft story retrofitted by viscous damper device. Adv Struct Eng 19(8):1275–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216642036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abou-Elfath H, Elhout E (2018) Evaluating the response modification factors of RC frames designed with different geometric configurations. Int J Civ Eng 16(12):1699–1711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0322-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abou-Elfath H, Fahmy AS, Khalifa KM (2018) Response modification factors of buckling-restrained braced frames designed according to the Egyptian code. Alex Eng J 57(4):2851–2864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE 7–16 (2016) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston

  • ASCE/SEI 41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA

  • ATC-19 (1995) Structural response modification factors. Applied Technology Council, Redwood

  • ATC-34 (1995) A critical review of current approaches to earthquake-resistant design. Applied Technology Council, Redwood

  • Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

  • Bhosale AS, Davis R, Sarkar P (2017) Vertical irregularity of buildings: regularity index versus seismic risk. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A Civ Eng 3(3):04017001. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhosale A, Davis R, Sarkar P (2018) New Seismic Vulnerability Index for Vertically Irregular Buildings. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A Civ Eng 4(3):04018022. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton H, Deierlein G (2014) Simulation of seismic collapse in nonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings with masonry infills. J Struct Eng 140(8):A4014016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F (2014) Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: Experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:224–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Spacone E, Guragain R, Mallik R, Varum H (2014) Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13(3):455–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014-0255-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COSMOS (Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems) https://strongmotioncenter.org/vdc/scripts/earthquakes.plx. Accessed 14 November 2020

  • Dhir PK, Davis R, Sarkar P (2018) Safety assessment of gravity load–designed reinforced concrete–framed buildings. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A Civ Eng 4(2):04018004. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Sarno L, Wu JR (2021) Fragility assessment of existing low-rise steel moment-resisting frames with masonry infills under mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01080-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earthquake Disaster Risk Index Report (2019) A publication of the National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India. National Disaster Management Authority, New Delhi

  • ECP-201 (2012) Egyptian code for calculating loads and forces in structural work and masonry. Housing and Building National Research Center, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Planning, Cairo

  • ECP-203 (2007) Egyptian code of practice for design and construction of concrete structures. Research Center for Housing and Construction, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Planning, Cairo

  • Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions, and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

  • Faggella M, Barbosa AR, Conte JP, Spacone E, Restrepo JI (2013) Probabilistic seismic response analysis of a 3-D reinforced concrete building. Struct Saf 44:11–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA 273 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC

  • FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC

  • FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Federal Emergency Managment Agency, Washington, DC, USA

  • Ghassemieh M, Kargarmoakhar R (2013) Response modification factor of steel frames utilizing shape memory alloys. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 24(10):1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X12471869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldar P, Singh Y, Paul DK (2012) Effect of URM infills on seismic vulnerability of Indian code designed RC frame buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11(2):233–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-012-0113-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IS 1893 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistance design of structures - Part 1, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  • IS 456 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete - code of practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  • IS 875 (1987) Code of practice for design loads other than earthquake for buildings and structures—Part I. Dead loads—unit weights of building. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  • IS 875 (1987) Design loads (other than earthquake) for buildings and structures—Part II. Imposed loads—code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

  • Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2007) Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 19(9):728–739. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:9(728)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louzai A, Abed A (2015) Evaluation of the seismic behavior factor of reinforced concrete frame structures based on comparative analysis between non-linear static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses. Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1773–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9689-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maniyar M, Khare RK, Dhakal RP (2009) Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of non-seismic RC frame buildings. Struct Eng Mech 33:725–745. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2009.33.6.725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondal A, Ghosh S, Reddy GR (2013) Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. Eng Struct 56:1808–1819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mucedero G, Perrone D, Monteiro R (2021) Nonlinear static characterisation of masonry-infilled RC building portfolios accounting for variability of infill properties. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01068-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark NM, Hall WJ (1982) Earthquake spectra and design. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland

  • Oggu P, Gopikrishna K (2017) Seismic behavior and its influence on damage probabilities of irregular R.C. buildings. Proceedings of the International Conference on Composite Materials and Structures- ICCMS 2017, 27–29th December 2017, Hyderabad, India

  • Oggu P, Kumar VK, Gopikrishna K (2016) Seismic fragility analysis of Vertical Setback RC Structures, Proceedings of the International Conference on the Trends and Recent Advances in Civil Engineering (TRACE-2016), August 11–12, Amity University, Noida, India

  • Oggu P, Pithadiya M, Gopikrishna K (2019) Influence of Real Ground Motion Records in Performance Assessment of RC Buildings. Int J Eng 32(12):1745–1752. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2019.32.12c.07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oggu P, Gopikrishna K, Sewaiwar S (2020a) Seismic assessment of existing gravity load-designed RC framed building: a case study from Warangal, India. SN Appl Sci 2:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2690-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oggu P, Gopikrishna K, Jha S (2020b) Importance of ‘DAF’in evaluating structural adequacy of gravity-load designed RC buildings. Mater Today Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre) Strong motion database. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/site. Accessed 14 November 2020

  • SAP2000 (2016) Analysis reference manual, Computer and Structures Inc., Berkeley

  • SeismoSoft SeismoMatch v.5.1.0 www.seismosoft.com. Accessed 14 November 2020

  • Sharifi S, Toopchi-Nezhad H (2018) Seismic response modification factor of RC-frame structures based on limit state design. Int J Civ Eng 16(9):1185–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0276-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. reliability of marine structures. Program report no. RMS-35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA

  • Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. J Struct Div 96(12):2557–2573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uva G, Raffaele D, Porco F, Fiore A (2012) On the role of equivalent strut models in the seismic assessment of infilled RC buildings. Eng Struct 42:83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 31(3):491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20(2):523–553. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1737737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B (2012) Review of different structural irregularities in buildings. J Struct Eng 39(5):393–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B (2013) Determination of inelastic seismic demands of RC moment resisting setback frames. Arch Civ Mech Eng 13(3):370–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the National Institute of Technology Warangal for providing laboratory facilities to conduct the work, and Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), India for project fellowship to the corresponding author.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Warangal, Warangal, Telangana, 506004, India

    Praveen Oggu, K. Gopikrishna & Ayur Nagariya

Authors
  1. Praveen Oggu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Gopikrishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayur Nagariya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Praveen Oggu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oggu, P., Gopikrishna, K. & Nagariya, A. Seismic behavior and response reduction factors for concrete moment-resisting frames. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 5643–5663 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01184-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01184-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation