See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225827766

A Step Towards Evaluation of the Seismic

Response Reduction Factor in Multistorey
Reinforced Concrete Frames
ARTICLE in NATURAL HAZARDS JUNE 1997
Impact Factor: 1.96 DOI: 10.1023/A:1007972616511

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Abdallah Husein Malkawi

Anis Shatnawi

Jordan University of Science and Technology

University of Jordan

49 PUBLICATIONS 463 CITATIONS

13 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Anis Shatnawi

Retrieved on: 28 August 2015

65

Natural Hazards 16: 6580, 1997.

c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

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 final 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 five 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 significant 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 coefficient if the structure were to remain elastic.

base shear coefficient at first significant yield;
maximum yield strength base shear coefficient;
code-prescribed unfactored design base shear coefficient;
response reduction factor;
ductility reduction factor;
overstrength factor; and
base shear force.

66

SAMAR A. BARAKAT ET AL.

1. Introduction
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 ( ) defined as

= CCwy ;

(1)

where Cy is the base shear coefficient corresponding to the actual yielding of the
structure; Cw is the code-prescribed unfactored design base shear coefficient, and
Cs (from Figure 1) is the base shear coefficient at the first significant 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 coefficient that develops in the structure, if
it were to remain elastic.
The inertia force due to earthquake motion, at which the first significant 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 specified 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 first significant 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 significantly 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
significantly 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 coefficient of 0.092 could theoretically resist 7.65 times as much. Uang (1991) reported
results on the variation of overstrength for one-, three-, and five-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 first 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 five
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 floor 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 floors. The design base shear
static force for each building was calculated as per the Jordanian Seismic Code
(1980) using the seismic coefficient 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 coefficient Cy divided by the unfactored
design base shear coefficient Cw was taken as the overstrength ( ) factor of the
structure. The maximum base shear coefficient that develops in the structure, if it
were to remain elastic (Ceu ) divided by the maximum base shear coefficient (Cy )
was taken as the ductility reduction factor (R ) of the structure.

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

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

Design lateral force, Fi (kN)

Zone 4
Zone 3
Zone 2

Zone 1

722.61
662.55
441.26
240.53

541.95
496.91
330.95
180.40

361.31
331.28
220.63
120.26

180.65
165.64
110.32
60.13

2066.95

1550.21

1033.47

516.74

Table II. Design lateral forces at different levels of six-storey building in different seismic zones

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

Design lateral force, Fi (kN)

Zone 4
Zone 3
Zone 2

Zone 1

750.79
764.59
611.54
458.49
306.10
166.85

563.10
573.44
458.65
343.87
229.57
125.14

375.40
382.29
305.77
229.24
153.05
83.43

187.70
191.15
152.88
114.62
76.53
41.71

3058.36

2293.77

1529.18

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 figure shows that the overstrength of
buildings in lower seismic zones is significantly 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 significantly 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.

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

Design lateral force, Fi (kN)

Zone 4
Zone 3
Zone 2

Zone 1

765.43
818.25
702.31
584.37
467.76
350.49
233.88
127.13

574.08
613.69
526.73
438.28
350.82
262.87
175.41
95.35

382.72
409.13
351.15
292.19
233.88
175.25
116.94
63.56

191.36
204.56
175.58
146.09
116.94
87.62
58.47
31.78

4049.62

3037.23

2024.82

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 significant, 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
significant 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 significantly 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 coefficient,
Ceu, maximum nonlinear base shear coefficient, 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

Earthquake
time history

Ceu

Cy

R = Ceu =Cy

Zone 4
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1

El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)

0.656
0.645
0.496
0.456

0.277
0.259
0.204
0.181

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 significantly more flexible than those in Zone 4, and thus attract significantly
low seismic force; and (c) the buildings in Zone 1 have a significantly 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

Earthquake
time history

Ceu

Cy

R = Ceu =Cy

Zone 4
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1

El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)

0.340
0.305
0.277
0.246

0.192
0.173
0.161
0.138

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

Earthquake
time history

Ceu

Cy

R = Ceu =Cy

Zone 4
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1

El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)
El Centro (XDIR)

0.220
0.208
0.182
0.148

0.193
0.171
0.152
0.125

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 confirms, 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 significantly
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

77

SEISMIC RESPONSE REDUCTION IN MULTISTOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

Table VII. Response reduction factor for the three buildings.

No. of
storeys

Four-storey

Six-storey

Eight-storey

Seismic
zone

R

R = R

R

R = R

R

R = R

4
3
2
1

2.37
2.49
2.43
2.52

3.04
3.81
4.44
7.87

7.21
9.49
10.79
19.83

1.77
1.76
1.72
1.78

2.56
3.09
4.24
7.26

4.53
5.44
7.29
12.92

1.14
1.22
1.20
1.18

2.24
2.63
3.53
5.68

2.55
3.21
4.24
6.70

design live load. The dependency of overstrength is most significant 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 influence 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 modified R, using the Jordanian
Seismic Code (1980) formula, and secondly, with applying the modified 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 influence 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 significantly 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 coefficient for higher zones. The coefficient 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 significant 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 significant 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 modified R as applied to Jordan.
No. of storeys
Seismic
zone

Four-storey
Jordanian UBC
seismic
(1988)
code
(1980)
Base shear force, V (kN)

Six-storey
Jordanian
seismic
(1980)

UBC
(1988)

4
3
2
1

2066.93
1550.21
1033.47
516.74

3058.36
2293.77
1529.18
764.59

5726.89
3576.67
1556.92
376.50

2380.17
1356.25
695.83
162.26

Eight-storey
Jordanian UBC
seismic
(1988)
code
(1980)
4049.62
3037.23
2024.82
1012.40

13617.40
8113.20
3583.01
971.77

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 coefficient for
higher zones and the coefficient 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 modified 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. Significant 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 configurations.
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 first and second authors.
References
Al-Zoubi, O. Y.: 1995, Evaluation of the seismic zoning factor and local site coefficient as applied to
the Jordanian seismic code, Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment 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 modification 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 modification factors for earthquake resistant
design of short period buildings, Earthquake Spectra 5(3), 571590.
Royal Scientific 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 Officials, Whittier, California.
UBC: 1988, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 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.