You are on page 1of 13

SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR DUCTILE DETAILED

REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES


by
Swajit Singh Goud, Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla

in
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
December 2014

Swajit Singh Goud and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar

925

SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR DUCTILE


DETAILED REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURES
Swajit Singh Goud1 and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar2
Abstract
Most seismic design codes allow structure to be designed for lesser force than elastic force, thus
allowing structure to damage at appropriate locations. Indian seismic code IS 1893-2002 divides
seismic design of structures into three categories; Ordinary moment resisting frame, Intermediate
moment resisting frame and Special moment resisting frame. The classification differs based on
reinforcement detailing and response reduction factor. It is expected that the performance of ductile
detailed building would be better than non ductile detailed building and the capacity shall be more
and damage is less compared to non ductile detailed building.
This paper compares the performance of structure designed considering non ductile detailing and
ductile detailing, in terms of capacity, damage, response reduction factor and drift. As a case study, a
5 storey building designed for Gravity loads as well as lateral load as per IS: 1893-2002 for seismic
zone III is considered. Static Non Linear (Pushover) analysis and fragility analysis are performed
for estimation of post damage yielding behavior of structure. The change in non linear behaviour of
structure based on assumed load patterns in pushover analysis is done. This paper also provides other
important conclusions on seismic design provisions, response reduction factor and interstorey drift.
Introduction
Huge amount of damage during the past earthquakes is because of not following code provisions
in design and improper execution (EERI Special Earthquake Report, 2001). This results in most
common type of problems i.e., 1) slender column to make them flush with infill walls, 2) buildings
with open ground storey, 3) torsion induced due to more number of infill panels on one side, 4)
strong beam weak column, 5) lapping of column reinforcement above beam-column joint, 6)
inadequate lapping of column reinforcement, 7) abrupt reduction in column dimensions and 8)

PhD Student, EERC, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad,


swajitsingh.goud@research.iiit.ac.in
2
Prof., EERC, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad, ramancharla@iiit.ac.in
1

926

15th SEE-2014

Improper detailing (Hafeez & Ramancharla, 2009). On the other hand, earthquake resistant design
significantly increases the performance of the structures.
Seismic design of structures is based on elastic force, the nonlinear response of structure is
incorporated in design by using appropriate response reduction factor (R). The concept of R is to
de-amplify the seismic force and incorporate nonlinearity with the help of over strength, redundancy
and ductility. Ductile detailing is done in structure to increase the ductility and to reduce the amount
of damage, compared to non-ductile detailed structure. High ductile designed frame will attract
more damage compared to structure designed for lower ductility, due to large yield excursion (Lu,
Hao, & Carydis, 2001). The design seismic forces are reduced drastically by using higher values
of R and incorporating higher ductility. The reduction in seismic forces leads to reduced member
cross section. The capacity of structure depends on initial stiffness, strength and ductility. If ductile
detailing is required to be done for a building than only ductility should be increased and other two
parameters to be kept same for comparatively less damage, above mentioned behaviour cannot be
achieved using provisions given in current seismic code.
Response reduction factor (R) is defined differently in different countries for different types
of structural systems. In Indian seismic code, IS1893 (2002), value of R for reinforced concrete
structure is specified based on, ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) and special moment
resisting frame (SMRF), and in the latest proposed draft one additional R value incorporated for
reinforced concrete structure based on Intermediate moment resisting frame (IMRF). The value of
R varies from 3 to 5 in IS code, depending on the type of resisting frame, but the existing literature
does not provide information on what basis R values are considered.
In the present study, a non-linear static pushover analysis (POA) and fragility analysis for damage
estimation of a five storey reinforced concrete building designed with different values of R and
computation of provided R based on existing literature is done. Effect of assumed load patterns
considered in POA and determination of damage based on storey drift is also studied.
BUILDING DETAILS
For the current study a 5 storey building is considered (Figure 1). Horizontal or vertical irregularities,
cantilever projections or heavy overhangs are avoided in the building as per the principals of
earthquake resistant design. It is also symmetric about X and Y axes to avoid torsion. The building
is assumed to be located in seismic zone III. External, internal wall thickness and slab thickness are
considered as 230 mm, 100 mm and 120 mm, respectively. Floor finish of 1 kN/m2 is considered.
Design live loads are assumed as 2.5 kN/m2, 1.25 kN/m2 and 5 kN/m2 on floors, roof and staircase,
respectively. M20 and Fe415 grade of concrete and steel (HYSD) are considered, respectively. For
analysis, dead load, imposed load and seismic loads were considered as per IS 875 (1987) and IS
1893 (2002), respectively.
Following 4 cases have been considered in the study:
Model I: Building designed for Gravity Loads only.
Model II: Building designed for Gravity and Seismic Loads of Zone III (OMRF)
Model III: Building designed for Gravity and Seismic Loads of Zone III (IMRF)
Model IV: Building designed for Gravity and Seismic Loads of Zone III (IMRF) with same
member sizes as model II.
Fundamental natural time period of the building was found to be 0.339 sec and 0.319 sec along
X and Y directions, respectively as per IS 1893 (2002). Base shear values obtained for structure
and Frame 4 are given in Table 1.

927

Swajit Singh Goud and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar

Fig. 1: Building plan with column orientation and Building Model


Table 1: Base Shear values on building and frame
Model

II

III

IV

R Factor

Building Base Shear (kN)

1196

902

905

Frame Base Shear (kN)

396

228

328

dESIGn
All considered models are designed as per IS design codes. Model I and II were designed as per
IS 456-2000 (Non Ductile Detailing), and model III and IV were designed as per IS 456-2000
and IS 13920-Proposed Draft (Ductile Detailing). Increase in R factor lead to significant decrease
in base shear which ultimately lead to significant amount of decrease in member dimensions and
reinforcement. Beam column dimensions of models are shown in Table 2. Reinforcement detailing
of column C-4 (First floor) and beam connecting columns of C-4 and B-4 (First floor) are shown
in Fig. 2.
Table 2: Dimensions of Beams and Columns for different models
Model
I
II, III
IV

Column Dim. (mm)


Exterior

Interior

Plinth

350 x 230 400 x 230 230 x 300


450 x 300 450 x 300 250 x 300
350 x 300 350 x 300 230 x 300

Beam Dimension (mm)


I
II
III
IV
Terrace
Floor
Floor
Floor
Floor
230 x 300 230 x 300 230 x 300 230 x 300 230 x 300
250 x 450 250 x 350 250 x 350 250 x 300 250 x 300
250 x 350 230 x 325 230 x 325 230 x 300 230 x 300

928

15th SEE-2014

Fig. 2: reinforcement detailing of column and Beam

PuSHoVEr AnALYSIS
Lateral load pattern assumed for the structure to perform POA affects the capacity of the structure
(Khoshnoudian, S. Mestri & Abedinik, 2011). If the curve over estimates or under estimates the
seismic capacity of the building, then results would not be realistic. Therefore, the selection of a
reasonable lateral load pattern is particularly important in pushover analysis (Jingjiang, Ono &
Yangang, 2003). Several load patterns are suggested in the literature. The objective of different
load patterns is to obtain results closer to NTHA. In the present study, three lateral load patterns
were considered based on Mode I, IS-1893 and Uniform along with Triangular. POA was performed
using SAP2000 Version 15. For the present study POA is done for a two dimensional frame along
Grid 4 of each structure (Figure 1g.1). Equivalent Loads from third dimension were applied on
considered frame. For POA 100 % Dead load and 25 % of Live loads were considered as initial
load. Auto hinges with hinge type P-M2-M3 and M3 hinges were assigned to columns and beams,
respectively. Shear hinges were assigned to beams and columns. Several formulae for plastic hinge
length were proposed in the literature. In current study hinge length given by Park and Paulay Eq.
(1) was used. Locations of hinges as shown in Fig. 3 were calculated using Eqs. (2, 3 and 4) (Inel
& Ozmen, 2006). Mander model for confined concrete and Park model for steel stressstrain were
considered. Table 3 shows the distribution of lateral load for different load patterns.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Lp = Length of Plastic Hinge, H = Depth of Section, HBeam = Depth of Beam,
Hcolumn = Depth of Column
Fig. 4 shows the obtained pushover curves for all the models. Fig. 4 shows that model II and
model IV has same stiffness and are higher than model I and model III. Change in stiffness is

929

Swajit Singh Goud and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar


Table 3: Normalized distribution of lateral load for different load pattern
Floor \ Load Pattern

Modal

IS

Tri. + Uni.

Top

18

43

25

IV

29

27

22

III

24

17

18

II

17

15

10

12

Plinth

0.1

Fig. 3: Hinge location at column and beam

because of change in column dimensions. Strength of Model III is significantly less that of model
II and IV, where as the max displacement of model III and IV are almost same. Decrease in strength
and stiffness of model III significantly reduces the capacity of the structure and is susceptible to
severe damage comparatively. Decrease in strength and increase in ductility of model IV compared
to model II is because of decrease in longitudinal and increase in shear reinforcement, respectively.

Fig. 4: Pushover curves for different load pattern (a) Mode I, (b) IS Code, and (c) Tri. + Uni.

930

15th SEE-2014

Table 4 shows the pushover parameters in terms of elastic stiffness (KElastic), Yield base shear (Vy),
maximum base shear (Vmax) and Ductility, values in bracket shows the corresponding displacement.
The distribution of lateral load considering different load patterns clearly shows the change in
pushover curve (Fig. 4). In Triangular along with Uniform load pattern strength had higher value at
yield and maximum force compared to other load patterns. IS load pattern had higher displacement
at maximum base shear and max displacement. The yield displacement for the entire load pattern is
almost equal. Fig. 5 shows the formation of hinges at ultimate displacement for mode I load pattern.
More number of hinges formed in model IV shows that the strength of each member was utilized
properly compared to other models.
Fig. 6 shows the interstorey drift profile of all models. Interstorey drift is direct estimation of
damage occurred in the storey. Fig. 6 shows that drift is more in model I compared to other models.
Model III has higher maximum interstorey drift compared to model II and IV, which clearly shows
that non ductile design with reduced member dimension, will have more damage. The interstorey
drift in floors will not have the same proportion, as it depends on the relative strength of storey
which ultimately depends on the design. The values of interstorey drift also depend on load pattern,
the change in load pattern leads to significant change in the damage pattern of the building. Thus
assumption of lateral load pattern plays a significant role in estimating the response of structure.
Fig. 7 shows the displacement profile of buildings. The maximum storey drift ranges from 1.5% to
2.5% for all buildings considering different load patterns indicates that structure is safe, whereas
the interstorey drift ranges from 2.5% to 4%. Thus it is important to determine the interstorey drift
also, as the structure may be safe in storey drift but may fail in interstorey drift criteria specified in
ATC-40 and FEMA-356.
Table 4: Comparison of pushover parameters
Parameter
Initial Stiffness (kN/m)

Type/ Model
Mode I
IS Load
Tri. +Uni.
Mode I

First Yield (kN)

IS Load
Tri. +Uni.
Mode I

Maximum Capacity (kN)

IS Load
Tri. +Uni.

Ultimate Displacement (m)

Mode I
IS Load
Tri. +Uni.

I
5319
4319
5483
100
(0.02)
121
(0.03)
136
(0.03)
369
(0.29)
313
(0.31)
389
(0.30)
0.45
0.35
0.33

II
10330
8143
10555
682
(0.07)
584
(0.07)
718
(0.07)
1008
(0.20)
901
(0.29)
1043
(0.18)
0.22
0.33
0.19

III
7113
5690
7232
445
(0.06)
424
(0.07)
480
(0.06)
649
(0.23)
600
(0.36)
682
(0.22)
0.26
0.40
0.24

IV
10366
8170
10592
687
(0.07)
601
(0.07)
716
(0.07)
925
(0.24)
803
(0.35)
981
(0.23)
0.26
0.06
0.26

931

Swajit Singh Goud and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar

(a) Model I

(b) Model II

(b) Model III

(c) Model IV

Fig. 5: Hinge status at ultimate displacement

Fig. 6: Interstorey Drift for different load pattern (a) Mode I, (b) IS Code, (c) Tri. + Uni.

Fig. 7: Displacement profile for different load pattern (a) Mode I, (b) IS Code, (c) Tri. + Uni.

932

15th SEE-2014

RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR


Response reduction factor consists of majorly four parameters; strength, redundancy, ductility and
damping.

R = RS RR R R

(5)

where RS, RR, R, R and Rs are overstrength, redundancy, ductility and damping factors, respectively.
RS is defined as the ratio of yield base shear (Vy) to design base shear (Vd). RR is defined as ratio
of maximum base shear (Vm) to yield base shear (Vy). Structure having more number of vertical
members comes in category of redundant structural system. Frame aligned in same direction forms
a redundant system thus the parameter depends on multiple number of bays in a frame. ASCE 07
suggests conservatively RR as 1. In the last decade extensive work has been done to determine the
ductility factor by Newmark and Hall, Nassar and Newmark, Vidic, Fajfar and Fischinger, and
Krawinkler and Nassar. In the present study relationships developed by Pristley is used. Damping
factor R is applicable for the structures installed with additional energy dissipating devices, the
damping factor is assumed to be 1 for buildings without such devices.
IS code defines R as Response Reduction factor, ASCE defines as Response modification
coefficient and EC defines as Behaviour factor.IS-1893 provides R factor for reinforced concrete
structures with three ductility classes; Moment OMRF, IMRF and SMRF with R value as 3, 4 and
5, respectively. EC8 provides behaviour factor for regular RC structures with two ductility classes:
Medium ductility (DCM) and High ductility (DCH). Behaviour factor includes over strength factor
with a value of 1.3 for multistorey multi-bay frame. Euro code also mentions a reduction in behaviour
factor for irregular buildings. ASCE07 provides appropriate response modification coefficient (R),
system over strength factor (o) and the deflection amplification factor (Cd), these factors shall
be used in determining the base shear, element design forces and design storey drift, respectively.
IS code does not provide any background on the different values of R and also it does not
differentiate the over strength and deflection amplification factor as defined in ASCE07. Table 4
shows the response reduction factor calculation.
The Response reduction factor obtained in table 5 from pushover curves are higher than the
provide R in all cases. Ductility factor for model III and IV is almost same. The slight higher value
of ductility in model IV is because of higher longitudinal reinforcement, as shear reinforcement
is almost same. The change in value of R in model III and IV is because of change in member
dimensions. The obtained R values the R defined in the IS 1893 is on conservative side.
Table 5: Response reduction factor calculation
Load Pattern
Model
y (m)
m (m)
V Desi
Vmax
= m/y
R=sqrt(2-1)
Rs=Vmax/Vd
R

II
0.10
0.21
396
1008
2.19
1.84
2.55
4.68

Mode I
III
0.09
0.25
228
649
2.78
2.14
2.85
6.08

IV
0.09
0.26
328
925
2.90
2.19
2.82
6.18

II
0.11
0.31
396
901
2.82
2.16
2.28
4.91

IS-1893
III
0.11
0.40
228
600
3.78
2.56
2.63
6.74

IV
0.10
0.37
328
803
3.80
2.57
2.45
6.29

II
0.10
0.19
396
1043
1.93
1.69
2.63
4.45

Tri. + Uni
III
0.09
0.24
228
682
2.53
2.02
2.99
6.03

IV
0.09
0.24
328
981
2.61
2.06
2.99
6.15

Swajit Singh Goud and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar

933

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS
Fragility curves are used for representing extent of damage structure can have when subjected to
seismic forces. If maximum PGA value of ground motion is known than expected level of damage
from that earthquake can be approximately estimated. In the current study fragility curve was
developed from pushover curve (Murty & Ramancharla, 2013). Conversion factors (ATC 40, 1996).
Conversion form base shear to damage

(6)

Emax = Area under the pushover curve with line dropped parallel to initial stiffness at the end point.
Ei = Energy dissipated at every displacement (Area under the curve at every displacement with
line dropped parallel to initial stiffness.
Conversion from roof displacement to spectral acceleration:

(7)

Sdi: Spectral displacement


roof: Roof displacement obtained from pushover curve
PF1: Participation factors for the first natural mode of the structure
1, roof: Roof level amplitude of the first mode

(8)

T: Time period of the structure


g: Acceleration due to gravity
Fragility curves for all models are shown in Fig. 8. Extent of damage in buildings was computed
from fragility curves with respect to Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) shown in Table 6. It was
clearly observed from Table 6 that extent of damage was more for model I, difference in damage
up to DBE was not significant but after DBE the damage was very high. Model III is having more
damage compared to model II, thus ductile detailed structure will give less damage only if member
dimensions are kept more than or equal to normal detailed structures. Model IV has the least
damage compared other models, thus by providing ductile detailing in the building the damage can
be reduced to greater extent.
RESULTS
Ductile detailed building (Mode III), considering higher values of R factor leads to decrease in
member size and has shown higher amount of damage compared to non ductile detailed structure
(Model II).
Ductile detailed building (Mode IV), considering higher values of R factor and keeping member
size same as in non ductile detailed structure (Model II) and has shown less damage compared to
ductile detailed reduced member size (Model III) and non ductile detailed structure (Model II).
Response of the structure changes completely based on the load pattern assumed in pushover
analysis, thus it becomes important to assume load pattern, which gives results closer to actual
capacity of the structure.

934

15th SEE-2014

Fig. 8: Fragility curve for different load pattern (a) Mode I, (b) IS Code, (c) Triangular along with Uniform
Table 6: Amount of damage at different seismic hazard levels
Load Pattern
Modal

IS

Tri.+ Uni.

Model
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV

DBE
6
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0

2 DBE
25
1
14
1
24
0
4
0
25
1
14
0

3 DBE
76
43
75
36
73
19
38
21
79
51
83
38

4 DBE
>100
>100
>100
77
>100
50
75
47
>100
>100
>100
84

Increase in storey drift in ductile detailed structure ranges from 0.5% to 0.75%, but max
interstorey drift was reduced by 1% to 2% compared to non ductile detailed structure.
Interstorey drift value changes based on the assumed lateral load pattern in pushover analysis,
Damage in top floors was more for IS load patterns and less for modal and triangular along with
uniform load pattern. Damage in ground floors was more for modal and triangular along with
uniform load pattern, and less for IS load pattern.
The provided R is greater than the IS code and shows the recommended values are more
conservative. Ductility factor not only depends on shear reinforcement but also on the longitudinal
reinforcement.
Damage obtained from fragility analysis clearly shows that increase in ductility only without
reducing the stiffness will lead to lesser damaged structure.

Swajit Singh Goud and Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar

935

CONCLUSIONS
The results obtained from POA and fragility analysis clearly shows that earthquake resistant design
will reduce the damage in the structure significantly. Assumed load pattern in pushover analysis
plays an important role in the non linear response of structure. Design provisions for ductile detailing
need to be modified as it has been observed that with increased R values, the member size decreases
and lead to structures having more damage compared to normal detailed structures thus R need to
be defined more clearly as in other seismic codes.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Hafeez, A., & Ramancharla, P. K. (2009), Recommendations on reinforcement detailing for earthquake
resistant construction of RC buildings, National Workshop on reinforcement detailing and formwork.
Jain, S. K., & Nigam, C. N. (2000), Historical Developments and Current Status of Earthquake
Engineering in India, 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering .
Jingjiang, S., Ono, T., Yangang, Z., & Wei ,W., (2003), Lateral load pattern in pushover analysis,
Earthquake Engineering And Engineering Vibration, 2, pp. 99-107.
Kadid, A., & Bourmkik, A. (2008), Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame structures, Asian
Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), 9, pp. 75-83.
Khoshnoudian, F., Mestri, S., & Abedinik, F. (2011), Proposal of lateral load pattern for pushover analysis
of RC buildings, Computational Methods in Civil Engineering, pp. 169-183.
Krawinkler, H., & Nassar, A. (1992), Seismic Design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands
and capacities, Nonlinear seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, pp. 27-47.
Lu, Y., Hao, H., & Carydis, P. G. (2001). Seismic performance of RC frames designed for three different
ductility levels. Engineering Structures , 23, 537-547.
Mehmet, I., & Hayri, B. O. (2006). Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete buildings. Engineering Structures , 28, pp. 1494-1502.
Miranda, E., & Bertero, V. (1992). Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake resistant design.
Earthquake Spectra , 10, pp. 357-379.
Mondal, A., Ghosh, S., & Reddy, G. R. (2013). Performance based evaluation of the response reduction
factor for ductile RC frames. Engineering Structures , 56, pp. 1808-1819.
Murty, C. V. R., & Ramancharla, P. K. (2013). Critical Review of Indian Seismic code IS 1893:2002 .
International colloquium on Architecture & Structure Interaction for Sustainable Development.
Riddell, R., & Newmark, N. (1979), Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to
earthquakes, Structural research series no. 468, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois.
Tso, W.K., & Moghadam, A.S. (1997), Seismic response of asymmetric buildings using pushover analysis,
Proceedings Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of codes, Balkema.
Mehmet, I., & Hayri, B. O. (2006), Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concrete buildings, Engineering Structures, 28, pp. 1494-1502.
Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., & Fischinger, M. (1992), A procedure for determining consistent inelastic design
spectra, Nonlinear seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings.
Whittaker, A., Hart, G., & Rojahn, C. (1999), Seismic response modification factors, Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE), 125, pp. 438-44.
Preliminary observations on the origin and effects of the January 26, 2001 Bhuj (Gujarat, India)
earthquake, Special Earthquake Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (1999). Capacity-Demand-Diagram method for estimating seismic
deformation of inelastic structure: SDF system. College of Engineering , Pacific Engineering Research
Center. Berkeley: University of California.

936

15th SEE-2014

19. Jain, S. K., & Murty, C. R. Proposed Draft Provisions and Commentary on Ductile Detailing of RC
Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces. IIITK-GSDMA Project of Builiding Codes.
20. Newmark, N., & Hall, W. (1982), Earthquake spectra and design, Engineering monograph, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
21. Riddell, R., & Newmark, N. (1979). Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to
earthquakes. Structural research series no. 468, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois .
22. ASCE 7-05, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston (USA): American Society
of Civil Engineers.
23. CEN Eurocode 8, Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures (European Prestandard ENV
1998). Brussels (Belgium).
24. Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete,IS 456: 2000. New Delhi: Bureau
of Indian Standards.
25. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures Part I: General Provisions and
Buildings, IS 1893:2002. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
26. Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforce Concrete Structures subjected to Seismic Forces - Code
of Practice, IS 13920: 1993. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
27. Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356-2000. Washington D.C:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
28. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, ATC 40-1996. California: Applied Technology
Council (ATC).

You might also like