Natural Hazards 16: 6580, 1997. c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

65

A Step Towards Evaluation of the Seismic Response Reduction Factor in Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Frames
SAMAR A. BARAKAT, ABDALLAH I. HUSEIN MALKAWI and ANIS S. AL-SHATNAWI
Jordon University of Science and Technology, PO Box 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan (Received: 8 July 1996; in nal form: 2 December 1996) Abstract. A seismic nonlinear time-history analysis was made for four-, six-, and eight-storey reinforced concrete buildings. These buildings were made as three-dimensional space frame structures with shear walls in both orthogonal directions. They have ve bays with 4.8 m spacing each in the horizontal direction, and three bays with 4.2 m spacing each in the transversal direction. The frames were designed according to the Jordanian Seismic Code of practice for Seismic Zones 4, 3, 2, and 1 as proposed for Jordan by several authors. Time-history analysis was made using the El Centro (N-S) earthquake record of May 1940 as an actual earthquake excitation. The response reduction factor (R) that primarily consists of two factors that are the ductility reduction (R ) and the overstrength (
), is obtained. It has been seen that the seismic zoning has a slight effect on the ductility reduction factor for different buildings, since it ranges from Zone 4 to Zone 1 as 2.37 to 2.52, 1.72 to 1.78, and 1.14 to 1.18 for four-, six-, and eight-storey buildings, respectively. Moreover, it is observed that, for different buildings and different seismic zones, the ductility reduction factor (R ) is slightly different from the system ductility factor () especially for higher values of  (i.e., R = ). The response reduction factor, called overstrength (
), was evaluated. The overstrength factor was found to vary with seismic zones (Z ) , number of stories, and design gravity loads. However, the dependency on seismic zones was the strongest. The average overstrength of these buildings in Zones 4 and 1 was 2.61 and 6.94, respectively. The overstrength increased as the number of storeys decreased: overstrength of a four-storey building was higher than an eight-storey building by 36% in Zone 4, and 39% in Zone 1. Furthermore, buildings of the three heights had an average overstrength 165.9% higher in Zone 1 than in Zone 4. These observations have a signicant implications for the seismic design codes which currently do not take into account the variation of the response reduction factor, R (i.e., ductility reduction factor times overstrength).

Key words: ductility; earthquake; overstrength; seismic codes; seismic zone.

Notation

Ceu = Cs = Cy = Cw = R= R = V=

maximum base shear coefcient if the structure were to remain elastic. base shear coefcient at rst signicant yield; maximum yield strength base shear coefcient; code-prescribed unfactored design base shear coefcient; response reduction factor; ductility reduction factor; overstrength factor; and base shear force.

66 1. Introduction

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

A structure during its lifetime has a very low probability of experiencing ground motion from a severe earthquake. But when a structure is subjected to inertia forces caused by a severe earthquake, it will not collapse if capable of responding in the elastic range. In order for a structure to become earthquake resistant, however, very expensive designs and materials are required. The philosophy of earthquakeresistant design is that a structure should resist earthquake ground motion without collapse, although it may undergo some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Consistent with this philosophy, the structure is designed for much less base shear forces than would be required if the building is to remain elastic during severe shaking at a site. For example, in the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), a response reduction factor, (R), is used to reduce the elastic demand forces; 12 R is currently recommended for special moment-resisting frames. Such large reductions are mainly due to two factors: (1) the ductility reduction factor (R ), which reduces the elastic demand force to the level of the maximum yield strength of the structure, and (2) the overstrength factor, ( ), which accounts for the overstrength introduced in code-designed structures. Thus, the response reduction factor (R) is simply R times . The seismic design codes specify the value of the response reduction factor depending on the structural type and the detailing procedure used for the design. Codes at present do not give the deterministic values of R and to be used in the design because of the scarcity of research results currently available to evaluate the overstrength in structures. Therefore, this paper is aimed at studying the variation of the overstrength factor in reinforced concrete buildings with differing seismic zones, number of stories, and design gravity loads.

2. Ductility Reduction and Overstrength Factors The load-displacement relationship for the nonlinear response of structures is often approximated to be elastoplastic. The idealization response adopted in the present study is shown in Figure 1, with the overstrength ( ) dened as

Cy
= C ; w

(1)

where Cy is the base shear coefcient corresponding to the actual yielding of the structure; Cw is the code-prescribed unfactored design base shear coefcient, and Cs (from Figure 1) is the base shear coefcient at the rst signicant yield of the structure. The ductility reduction factor, R , is a factor which reduces the elastic force demand to the level of maximum yield strength of the structure and, hence, it may be represented as the following equation:

C R = eu ; Cy

(2)

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

67

Figure 1. Typical global structural response idealized as linearly elastic-perfectly plastic curve.

where Ceu is the maximum base shear coefcient that develops in the structure, if it were to remain elastic. The inertia force due to earthquake motion, at which the rst signicant yield in a reinforced concrete structure starts, may be much higher than the prescribed unfactored base shear force because of many factors such as (1) the load factor applied to the code-prescribed design seismic force; (2) the lower gravity load applied at the time of the seismic event than the factored gravity loads used in design; (3) the strength reduction factors on material properties used in design; (4) a higher actual strength of materials than the specied strength; (5) a greater member sizes than required from strength considerations; (6) more reinforcement than required for the strength; and (7) special ductility requirements, such as the strong-column, weakbeam provision (Jain and Navin 1995). Even following the rst signicant yield in the structure, after which the stiffness of the structure decreases, the structure can take further loads. This is the structural overstrength which results from internal forces distribution, higher material strength, strain hardening, member oversize, reinforcement detailing, effect of nonstructural elements, strain rate effect, etc. (Uang, 1991). Besides, common analysis assumptions may neglect the secondary stiffening and strengthening effect associated with three-dimensional action (Bertero et al., 1991). The importance of overstrength in the survival of buildings during a severe ground motion has been realized for long time. Blume (1977) discussed

68

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

22 items that contribute to overstrength in a severe ground motion. Bertero et al. (1986, 1991) discussed the effect that the survival of a code-designed structure in the event of signicantly high seismic shaking is possibly only because of implicitly assumed overstrength. Miranda and Bertero (1989) evaluated the performance of a low-rise building in Mexico City using static and time-history analyses and noticed high overstrength values. The overstrength values range from 2 to 5, and signicantly higher if slab contribution and masonry distribution are taken into consideration. Cassis and Bonelli (1992) and Shahrooz and Moehle (1990) made an interesting experimental evaluation of the contribution of different sources of overstrength on a quarter scale model of a six-storey concrete frame structure. The results have shown that a structure designed for an unfactored base shear coefcient of 0.092 could theoretically resist 7.65 times as much. Uang (1991) reported results on the variation of overstrength for one-, three-, and ve-bay steel frames with four, eight, and 12 storeys located in a region of high seismic risk. The results indicated that the overstrength in the four-storey frame is 40% higher than that in the 12-story frame; while the overstrength is not very sensitive to the number of bays. Jain and Navin (1995) evaluated the overstrength of multistorey RC frames by means of nonlinear pseudostatic analysis on four-bay frames of three-, six-, and nine-storey height, designed for Zones I to V as per the Indian seismic code. The results showed that the overstrength increases as the number of storeys decreases, and the average overstrength of the frames in Zones V and I was 2.84 and 12.7, respectively. The ductility reduction factor (R ) takes advantage of the energy dissipating capacity of properly designed and well-detailed structures and, hence, primarily depends on the global ductility demand, , of the structure ( is the ratio between the maximum roof displacement and yield roof displacement). Newmark and Hall (1973, 1982) made the rst attempt to relate R with  for a single-degree-offreedom (SDOF) system with elasto-perfectly plastic (EPP) resistance curve. They concluded that for a structure of a natural period less than 0.1 second, the ductility does not help in reducing the response of the structure. Hence, for such structures, no ductility reduction factor should be used. For moderate period structures, corresponding to the acceleration region of elastic response spectrum T 0:1 to 0.5 sec the energy that can be stored by the elastic system at maximum displacement is the same as that stored by an inelastic system. For relatively long-period structures corresponding to velocity region (T 0:5 to 3.0 sec.) and displacement region (T 3:0 to 10.0 sec.) of the elastic response spectrum, Newmark and Hall (1973, 1982) concluded that inertia force obtained from an elastic system and the reduced inertia force obtained from an inelastic system cause the same maximum displacement. This gives the value of ductility reduction factor in a mathematical representation as

R = :

(3)

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

69

In their study of evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra and computing inelastic response of EPP SDOF systems subjected to recorded ground motions, Mahin and Bertero (1981) evaluated the reliability of the equation suggested by Newmark and Hall (1982). The results indicated that the inelastic response is particularly sensitive to the actual excitation input as well as to the dynamic mechanical characteristics of the structure. Hwang and Jaw (1989) statistically evaluated the R factor for MDOF RC-structures that were represented by stick models. Twelve structural models were analyzed for 90 synthetic earthquake motions representing different soil conditions. They concluded that the R factor depends on structural period (T ), dominant period of earthquake motion (Tg ) (which depends on soil conditions), viscous damping ratio ( ), and maximum story ductility ratio (m ). Anagnostopoulous and Nikolaou (1992) investigated the relationship between the ductility reduction factor and ductility demand depending on a natural period of the structure for SDOF systems and for frames designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) provisions. The structural systems were subjected to 10 synthetic accelerograms compatible with the UBC design spectrum and ve historical accelerograms. It was shown that the ductility reduction factor for SDOF systems depends heavily on the time period of the structure in the low period ranges. This dependency becomes weaker for frame structures and disappears completely in the medium and low period ranges. Also in their study of the evaluation of the ductility reduction factor and overstrength for RC multistory frame structures designed per the Indian Code, Jain and Navin (1995) ensured the rule of equal ductility reduction factor and ductility demand ratio for long-period structures. They observed that for a given frame, the values of R and  from different time histories varies up to 30%, and for different frames and different time histories (30 in all) values of R and  are nearly equal. 3. Analysis Nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis was performed to evaluate the seismic ductility reduction and overstrength factors of some reinforced concrete buildings. The buildings used for the analysis are of four, six, and eight storeys, and they are located in Seismic Zones 4, 3, 2, and 1 of Jordan as proposed by Al-Zoubi, (1995); Husein Malkawi et al. (1995), and Fahmi et al. (1996) for regionalization. The design seismic forces for these four zones vary by a ratio of 1: 2: 3: 4. All buildings have the same oor plan (Figure 2). The ground storey has a height of (3.8 m), while all other storeys have a height of 3.0 m each. The design live load was taken as 2.0 kN/m2 on roof and 4.0 kN/m2 on all other oors. The design base shear static force for each building was calculated as per the Jordanian Seismic Code (1980) using the seismic coefcient method, in which the fundamental time period in seconds was estimated as a tenth of the total number of stories. The lateral forces for the three buildings situated in different seismic zones are distributed according to the Jordanian Seismic Code formula (Tables IIII).

70

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

Figure 2. Plan of the buildings.

Nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis was made for the three buildings in all the four seismic zones using different computer packages developed by Golubka (1993) (i.e; the Program Package for Selected Static Values (PPSS), the Computer Program for Determination of Strength and Deformability Characteristics (RESIST), and the Computer Program of Inelastic Analysis of RC Buildings (INELA)). Analyses for these buildings were done in the east-west direction (Xdirection) using the north-south component records obtained from the 18 May 1940 El-Centro Earthquake. Furthermore, analyses were carried out through modeling buildings as three-dimensional space frames. The member sizes in all three buildings were kept the same in order to have the same lateral stiffness which is based on gross moment of inertia. Sectional reinforcement was designed according to the limit state method and standards set by the Jordanian seismic code (1980). This design is obtained with the RESIST computer program using different load combinations. The maximum base shear coefcient Cy divided by the unfactored design base shear coefcient Cw was taken as the overstrength ( ) factor of the structure. The maximum base shear coefcient that develops in the structure, if it were to remain elastic (Ceu ) divided by the maximum base shear coefcient (Cy ) was taken as the ductility reduction factor (R ) of the structure.

4. Results The force-displacement relationship and the design base shear coefcient for the four-, six-, and eight-storey buildings are shown in Figures 35. These gures show that the four-storey building has a higher base shear coefcient and less roof displacement than the six-storey building, which in turn has higher base shear coefcient and less roof displacement than the eight-storey building. This is due

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

71

Table I. Design lateral forces at different levels of a four-storey building in different seismic zones. Design lateral force, Fi (kN) Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 722.61 662.55 441.26 240.53 2066.95 541.95 496.91 330.95 180.40 1550.21 361.31 331.28 220.63 120.26 1033.47

Level No. 4 3 2 1 Total design lateral force, V (kN)

Zone 1 180.65 165.64 110.32 60.13 516.74

Table II. Design lateral forces at different levels of six-storey building in different seismic zones Design lateral force, Fi (kN) Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 750.79 764.59 611.54 458.49 306.10 166.85 3058.36 563.10 573.44 458.65 343.87 229.57 125.14 2293.77 375.40 382.29 305.77 229.24 153.05 83.43 1529.18

Level No. 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total design lateral force, V (kN)

Zone 1 187.70 191.15 152.88 114.62 76.53 41.71 764.59

to the increasing stiffness associated with the presence of a higher amount of steel required to support additional gravity loads in higher buildings. The variation of overstrength with the number of storey for different seismic zones is clearly shown in Figure 6. This gure shows that the overstrength of buildings in lower seismic zones is signicantly higher than the overstrength of buildings in higher seismic zones. For example, the overstrength of a four-storey building in Zone 4 is 3.04, while it is as high as 7.87 in seismic Zone 1. The same is for the case of the six-storey building (overstrength, 2:56 in Zone 4, and 7:26 in Zone 1), and for the eight-storey building ( 2:24 in Zone 4, and 5:68 in Zone 1). Thus, the overstrength for different zones may vary by as much as 300%, primarily due to the prominence of gravity loads in the design for low seismic zones. The design base shear force is less for buildings in the lower seismic zones. Hence, gravity loads become more prominent in the design of some structural members, and this signicantly increases the overstrength against lateral loads. For example, during the actual seismic event, a full design gravity load might not be present and, thereby, the structure may have only a dead load and one-fourth of the live load, although the design was performed for different load combinations.

=
=

=
=

72

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

Table III. Design lateral forces at different levels of eight-storey building in different seismic zones. Design lateral force, Fi (kN) Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 765.43 818.25 702.31 584.37 467.76 350.49 233.88 127.13 4049.62 574.08 613.69 526.73 438.28 350.82 262.87 175.41 95.35 3037.23 382.72 409.13 351.15 292.19 233.88 175.25 116.94 63.56 2024.82

Level No. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total design lateral force,V (kN)

Zone 1 191.36 204.56 175.58 146.09 116.94 87.62 58.47 31.78 1012.40

Figure 3. Force displacement relationship for the four-storey building.

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

73

Figure 4. Force displacement relationship for six-storey building.

Thus, the effective load factor on the earthquake load is expected to be higher than the design factor of 1.0. Since in lower seismic zones, the contribution of the gravity load in design is signicant, the value of the effective load factor on the earthquake load is expected to be higher in these zones. Figure 6 also shows that the four-storey building has a higher overstrength as compared to the six-storey building, which in turn has higher overstrength than the eight-story building. This is because in low-rise buildings the gravity loads play a more prominent role in the design of members than in high-rise buildings located in the same seismic zone. Furthermore, variation in overstrength with the number of storeys is more signicant in lower seismic zones as compared to higher seismic zones. This is again due to a greater prominence of gravity loads in design of low-rise buildings in lower seismic zones. The results obtained by Jain and Navin (1995) showed the same trends for overstrength factors with the seismic zones and number of storeys. However, the values of the overstrength obtained in this study are lower and have smaller variations in comparison to the values determined in their study. This is because seismic zones in Jordan do not differ signicantly in seismic risk,

74

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

Figure 5. Force displacement relationship for eight-storey building.

compared to those of the India Seismic Code that were used by Jain and Navin (1995). From the lateral load versus roof displacement relationship obtained by linear and nonlinear time-history analyses, the maximum linear base shear coefcient, Ceu, maximum nonlinear base shear coefcient, Cy , maximum nonlinear roof displacement, max, and idealized yield roof displacement, y, have been obtained. Those values of four-, six-, and eight-storey buildings are shown in Tables VIVI, respectively. It was observed that the ductility demand ratios, as well as the ductility reduction factors, decrease as the number of stories increases. It has been seen that the seismic zoning has a slight effect on the ductility reduction factor (R ) for all studied buildings. It was also seen that the ductility demand factor for all buildings, irrespective of the seismic zone, is low. For instance, the frames designed for Zone 1 when subjected to time history with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.30 g, show average ductility demand about 1.79, whereas, for seismic Zone 4 the obtained ductility is around 1.67 for the same time history and the same PGA. This

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

75

Figure 6. Variation of overstrength for buildings with seismic zones and number of storeys. Table IV. Ductility reduction factor and overall ductility demand of four-storey building obtained from time-history analysis. Seismic zone Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Earthquake time history El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR)

Ceu
0.656 0.645 0.496 0.456

Cy
0.277 0.259 0.204 0.181

R = Ceu =Cy
2.37 2.49 2.43 2.52


2.41 2.43 2.45 2.49

is because (a) all buildings have rather high fundamental time period values, which gives a rather low seismic force for a given time history; (b) the frames in Zone 1 are signicantly more exible than those in Zone 4, and thus attract signicantly low seismic force; and (c) the buildings in Zone 1 have a signicantly higher values of overstrength.

76

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

Table V. Ductility reduction factor and overall ductility demand of six-storey building obtained from time-history analysis. Seismic zone Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Earthquake time history El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR)

Ceu
0.340 0.305 0.277 0.246

Cy
0.192 0.173 0.161 0.138

R = Ceu =Cy
1.77 1.76 1.72 1.78


1.79 1.73 1.73 1.74

Table VI. Ductility reduction factor and overall ductility demand of eightstorey building obtained from time-history analysis. Seismic zone Zone 4 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Earthquake time history El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR) El Centro (XDIR)

Ceu
0.220 0.208 0.182 0.148

Cy
0.193 0.171 0.152 0.125

R = Ceu =Cy
1.14 1.22 1.20 1.18


0.81 0.89 0.99 1.15

The values of ductility reduction factor (R ) and the overall ductility ratio, , for four-, six-, and eight-storey buildings, and for different seismic zones are approximately equal. This is reasonable because the natural period of the buildings ranges from 0.700 to 1.649 sec, which is in the velocity region of the response spectrum, for this region the relationship R  is considered reasonable particularly for the low values of ductility. This relationship was suggested by Newmark and Hall (1973) for SDOF systems, while the results of Riddell et al. (1989) also indicates the same for ductility values less than 5.0. For eight-storey buildings (see Table VI) it is observed that the value of the overall ductility factor is less than 1. This is due to the fact that the overall ductility is a function of a particular pattern of displacement corresponding to the preferred or executed mode of deformation of the structure. Furthermore, increasing the normal forces on the columns of these buildings reduces the ductility in such columns, this in turn reduces the overall ductility for the building. The results of a study by Hwang and Jaw (1989) for MDOF shear-stick type buildings show that for this period range, R is only slightly less than for low ductility values. The limited data presented here conrms, based on the study of rather realistic RC frames, that for buildings with a fundamental period in the velocity region and with low ductility, the ductility reduction factor (R ) may be taken to be the same as the overall structural ductility factor, . It is obvious that overstrength ( ) against lateral load is very signicantly affected by the gravity loads used in the design. This results in the overstrength being much higher for low seismic zones, for low-rise buildings, and for higher

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

77

Table VII. Response reduction factor for the three buildings. No. of storeys Seismic zone 4 3 2 1

Four-storey

Six-storey
 R = R

Eight-storey
 R = R

R
2.37 2.49 2.43 2.52

3.04 3.81 4.44 7.87

R
1.77 1.76 1.72 1.78

2.56 3.09 4.24 7.26

R
1.14 1.22 1.20 1.18

2.24 2.63 3.53 5.68

 R = R

7.21 9.49 10.79 19.83

4.53 5.44 7.29 12.92

2.55 3.21 4.24 6.70

design live load. The dependency of overstrength is most signicant on seismic zone. The overstrength in Zone 1 can be as much as three times that in seismic Zone 4. This has very serious implications for seismic design codes. The response reduction factor (R) obtained by multiplying overstrength ( ) values with the ductility reduction factors (R ) obtained for the same buildings. The response reduction factor (R) for the three buildings with different zones is presented in Table VII. This Table shows that the seismic zones have a strong inuence on the response reduction factor (R). The effect of this factor on base shear force (V ) is shown in Table VIII. This effect is presented by calculating base shear force using two formulas. Firstly, without applying the modied R, using the Jordanian Seismic Code (1980) formula, and secondly, with applying the modied R, using the UBC (1988) formula. It demonstrated in Table VIII, that the response reduction factor (R) affects the magnitude of base shear force. However, Figure VII shows, graphically, this inuence of the response reduction factor on the magnitude of the static base shear force. It is clearly shown in Figure VII that the base shear force is increased signicantly in higher seismic zones, especially for higher buildings and reduced in low seismic zones. Most experimental and analytical research in earthquake engineering is focused on high-risk seismic zones. While formulating the design codes, debate is normally focused on the seismic coefcient for higher zones. The coefcient for lower zones is simply prorated in proportion to the expected ground motion intensity in different zones. Thus, the variation in overstrength for different zones is never considered, even implicitly. This results in design provisions for lower seismic zones being much more conservative than those for higher seismic zones. Similarly, the seismic design for low-rise buildings is more conservative than it is for high-rise buildings.

5. Commentary and Conclusions Gravity loads used in the design have signicant effect on the overstrength against lateral load. This resulted in a higher overstrength factor for low seismic zones and low-rise buildings. The dependency of overstrength is most signicant on seismic

78

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

Figure 7. Effect of the response reduction factor on base shear force. Table VIII. Comparison of base shear, V , between Jordanian code (1980) formula and UBC (1988) formula using modied R as applied to Jordan. No. of storeys Seismic zone Four-storey Jordanian UBC seismic (1988) code (1980) Base shear force, V (kN) 2066.93 1550.21 1033.47 516.74 2380.17 1356.25 695.83 162.26 Six-storey Jordanian seismic (1980) UBC (1988) Eight-storey Jordanian UBC seismic (1988) code (1980) 4049.62 3037.23 2024.82 1012.40 13617.40 8113.20 3583.01 971.77

4 3 2 1

3058.36 2293.77 1529.18 764.59

5726.89 3576.67 1556.92 376.50

zone (e.g., the overstrength in Zone 1 can be as much as three times that in Zone 4). This has serious implications for seismic design codes, especially that the ductility

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

79

reduction factor increases slightly with decreasing the risk of the seismic zone. The variation in overstrength for different zones is not considered, even implicitly, because the seismic codes are normally focused on the seismic coefcient for higher zones and the coefcient for lower zones is simply prorated in proportion to the expected ground-motion intensity in different zones. Similarly, the seismic design for low-rise buildings is more conservative than for high-rise buildings. Codes, in general, account for many factors in evaluating design seismic force. Many of these factors vary by 20 50%. Hence, the consideration of variation in overstrength, which may vary by even 250 to 300% for different seismic zones and by even 40% with number of stories, is also warranted. Then the response reduction factor (R) affects directly on the values of base shear force. Base shear obtained by using modied R increases with large variation in the higher seismic zones and higher number of stories, but it decreases in lower zones and lower buildings. This means the further amendments are required for the Jordanian Seismic Code to achieve safer and cheaper design. This present study clearly shows that the overstrength in RC frame buildings could have a very large variation, and this has important implications for seismic design codes. Signicant research efforts are required with the ultimate aim to account for overstrength in an explicit manner through the evaluation of design seismic force on such buildings and other type of structures. The values presented in this study, however, are only indicative of the trend. Of course, actual values will vary with different building congurations. Acknowledgements This paper is part of a research program to develop seismic engineering ground motion parameters for Jordan and conterminous areas. It is a part of the third authors MSc thesis conducted under the supervision of the rst and second authors. References
Al-Zoubi, O. Y.: 1995, Evaluation of the seismic zoning factor and local site coefcient as applied to the Jordanian seismic code, Thesis submitted in partial fulllment of requirements of the degree of master in civil engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. Anagnostopoulous, S. A. and Nikolaou, D. A.: 1992, Behavior versus ductility factors in earthquake resistant design, Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, Vol. 7, pp. 37273732. Bertero, V. V., Anderson, J. C., Krawinkler, H., and Miranda, E.: 1991, Design guidelines for ductility and drift limits: review of the state-of-the-practice and state-of-the-art in ductility and drift-based earthquake-resistant design of buildings, Report No. UCB/EERC-91/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, CA. Blume, J. A.: 1977, Allowable stresses and earthquake performance, Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sarita Prakashan, Meerut, India, pp. 165174. Brisegshella, L., Zaccaria, P. L., and Giuffre, A.: 1982, Inelastic response spectra, Proc. 7th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee, Vol. 1, pp. 159162. Engineering Geoscience, 11(1), Spring 1996.

80

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

Cassis, J. H. and Bonelli, P.: 1992, Lessons learned from the March 3, 1985 Chile earthquake and related research, Proc. 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. X, pp. 56755680. Fahmi, K. J., Husein Malkawi, A. I., and Al-Zoubi, O. Y.: 1996, Seismic engineering ground motion maps for Jordan employing local attenuation relations, Environ. Eng. Geosci. 11(1), Spring 1996. Golubka, N. C.: 1993, Program package for selection of static values (PPSS), Inst. of Earthquake Engrg. and Engineering Seismology University, Skopje, Macedonia. Golubka, N. C.: 1993, Computer program of inelastic analysis of RC buildings (INELA), Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology University, Skopje, Macedonia. Golubka, N. C. and Simeonov, B.: 1993, Computer program for determination of strength and deformability characteristics (RESIST), Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology University, Skopje, Macedonia. Husein Malkawi, A. I., Fahmi, K. J., and Al-Zoubi, O. Y.: 1995, Evaluation of the seismic zoning factor (Z) a step toward appending this factor in the Jordanian seismic code of practice, Housing and Development Corporation Conference, October 24, Amman, Jordan. Hwang, H. and Jaw, J. W.: 1989, Statistical evaluating of response modication factors for reinforced concrete structures, Report No. NCEER-89-0002, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York. Jain, S. K. and Navin, R.: 1995, Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE 121(3), 580585. Mahin, S. A. and Bertero, V. V.: 1981, An evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra, J. Struct. Division, ASCE 107(ST9), 17771795. Meli, R.: 1992, Code-prescribed seismic actions and performance of buildings, Proc. 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. X, pp. 57835788. Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J.: 1982, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, El Cerrito, California, 103 pp. Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J.: 1973, Procedures and Criteria for Earthquake Resist and Design, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, Building Science Series 46, US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., pp. 209236. Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P., and Cruz, E.: 1989, Response modication factors for earthquake resistant design of short period buildings, Earthquake Spectra 5(3), 571590. Royal Scientic Society of Jordan: 1980, Jordanian National Construction Code, Amman, Jordan. Shahrooz, B. M. and Moehle, J. P.: 1990, Evaluation of seismic performance of R.C. frames, J. Struct. Engineering, ASCE 116(5), 14031422. Uang, C. M.: 1991, Establishing R (or Rw ) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE 117(1), 1928. UBC: 1982, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Ofcials, Whittier, California. UBC: 1988, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Ofcials, Whittier, California. Zhu, T. J., Tso, W. K., and Heidebrecht, A. C.: 1992, Seismic performance of RC ductile momentresisting frame buildings located in different seismic regions, Canad. J. Civil Engrg. 19(4), 688710. Wilson, E. L. and Dovey, H. H.: 1977, Three dimensional analysis and building systems-TABS77, Report No. EERC 72-8, December 1977.