Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Porto, Portugal, 30 June - 2 July 2014

A. Cunha, E. Caetano, P. Ribeiro, G. Mller (eds.)
ISSN: 2311-9020; ISBN: 978-972-752-165-4

Accounting for ductility and overstrength in seismic design

of reinforced concrete structures
1

Branci Taeb_11, Bourada Sofiane_21

Department of Civil Eng., Faculty of Engineering and Architectural, Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef, Hai Es-Salam,
BP. 151, Route de Senjas, 02000 Ech Chlef, Algeria
email: brancit@yahoo.fr, sofiane9500@yahoo.fr

ABSTRACT: This study is conducted to review the methods proposed by seismic codes in order to take account both of the
concept of ductility and overstrength of structural elements. Otherwise, in order to assess how to take account of the
overstrength in reinforced concrete structures, the factors that affect the overstrength and their possible sources are presented,
and reinforced concrete building structures having moment resisting frames or mixed (frames + shear wall), are analyzed for
their responses to lateral loading by applying the static non linear push-over analysis . These structures are assumed located in a
region of high seismicity and are subject to lateral loads deducted from the European seismic code and are designed with the
Algerian codes. The results of this study show the importance of the overstrength that has this type of structures in their ability
to resist horizontal loads caused by earthquakes.
KEY WORDS: Reinforced concrete structure; Overstrenght; Base shear; Ductility; Pushover analysis; Code.
1.

INTRODUCTION

Past experience and observations of building behavior

following severe earthquakes has shown that structural
overstrength plays a very important role in protecting
buildings from collapse [1, 2]. This is explained by the
presence of such structures with significant reserve strength
not accounted for in design. In the literature, several studies
have been carried out in order to evaluate the effect of the
overstrength on the seismic response of reinforced concrete
(R/C) and steel moment-resisting framed buildings [1-7].
These studies have shown in their globality that the
overstrength depends on different factors which the most
important of them is member ductility factor. Recently, a
study was conducted to investigate the overstrength factor of
reinforced concrete frame irregular in elevation [7].
According to this study it is found that the geometry and
ductility supply of the frames affect significantly the
overstrength factor. The objective of this work tries to
evaluate the overstrength factor of the R/C structures, having
different geometric form in elevation and lateral force
resisting structural system, through their seismic behavior by
nonlinear static procedure or pushover analysis. Structural
irregularities are commonly found in constructions and
structures.
2.

RELATION BETWEEN
DESIGN STRENGHT

OVERSTRENGHT AND

The overstrength, which is specified as member or structural

capacity, is usually defined using overstrength factor, which
may be defined as the ratio of maximum base shear in actuel
behavior to first significant yield strength in structure. Figure
1 presents a typical relationship between base shear and top
displacement of a structure [8-9]. The terms used in the figure
are: Ve : elastic base shear, Vy : yield base shear, V1 : base
shear at first plastic hinge and Vd : design base shear.

Ductility
factor :
= Ve/Vy
Overstrength
factor :
Rs = Vy/V1

V11

Figure 1. Definition of non-linear parameters.

3.

ROLE OF OVERSTRENGHT IN SEISMIC CODES

Many seismic codes permit a reduction in design loads, taking

advantage of the fact that the structures possess significant
reserve strength (overstrength) and capacity to dissipate
energy (ductility) [4].
4.

MAIN SOURCES OF OVERSTRENGTH

The main sources of overstrength are reviewed in other

researches [1-2]. These include: (1) the difference between the
actual and the design material strength; (2) conservatism of
the design procedure and ductility requirements; (3) load
factors and multiple load cases; (4) accidental torsion
consideration; (5) serviceability limit state provisions; (6)
participation of nonstructural elements; (7) effect of structural
elements not considered in predicting the lateral load capacity
(e.g. actual slab width); (8) minimum reinforcement and
member sizes that exceed the design requirements; (9)
Redundancy of the structure and redistribution of forces

311

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

(stresses) between structural members; (10) strain hardening;

(11) actual confinement effect; and (12) utilizing the elastic
period to obtain the design forces.
5.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL STRUCTURES

In this study three 6-storey moment resisting frame structures

(regular and irregular in elevation) and one 6-storey framewall structure are assessed. The structures are designed and
detailed in accordance with the Algerian seismic code (RPA
99/v.2003) [10] and Algerian code for concrete structures
(CBA 93) [11]. The considered geometrical configurations are
depicted in figure 2. The span length and the inter-storey
height for all structures are equal to 5.0 m and 3.3 m,
respectively. The member dimensions and reinforcements is
provided in Table 1. The specified 28-day concrete
compressive strength is 30 Mpa and the specified yield stress
of the steel is 400 Mpa. The analysis of structures was carried
out using SAP2000 software, which is a structural analysis
program for static and dynamic analyses of structures [12].
The weights of the systems were assumed to consist of total
dead load, Gk plus 20% of live load, Qk.

C1

C3

C2

C1

B1

C4

C6

C5

C2

C1

B3

B2

B1

3 @ 5.0 m

3 @ 5.0 m

STR1

STR2

B3

C3

B2

C4

3 @ 5.0 m

C2

B1

C1

B3
C6

C5

B2

C4

B1

3 @ 5.0 m

STR3
STR4
Figure 2. Geometry of the structures under investigation.
6.

STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Static pushover analysis was performed to evaluate the

ductility and overstrength of the structures under investigated.
The four structures were subjected to an incremental static
pushover analysis for the gravity and earthquake forces
tributary to them. The gravity loads are held constant at their
full value. The earthquake forces are assumed to be
distributed along the height according to the provisions of
EC8 [13]. The lateral forces were increased in suitable
increments until a mechanism forms, or an interstorey

312

Table 1. Dimensions and the reinforcements of members.

Member
Symbol
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
B1
B2
B3
Wall
7.

6 @ 3.3 m

B2

C5

C3

6 @ 3.3 m

C2

B3

C6

Wall

C3

displacements goes past the design limit of 2% of the storey

height. In the analysis it is assumed that the plastic hinges
form only at the ends of the members. The moment-rotation
relationship for a potential hinge is taken to be bilinear or
elasto-plastic. The analysis includes an elastic and inelastic
range. Inelastic range starts at the stage of first plastic hinge
formation and ends when the mechanism is formed. The
objective was to estimate the capacity curves, the overstrength
factors and the ductility factors.
Dimensions
(cm)
60x60
45x45
40x40
50x50
45x45
40x40
40x60
40x50
40x40
15x500

Longitudinal
Reinforcement
8-HD20
8-HD16
8-HD14
12-HD20
12-HD16
12-HD14
8-HD20
8-HD20
8-HD20
HD10

RESULTS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

The capacity curves (pushover curves), in terms of top

displacement-base shear, are shown in figure 3. Each
pushover curve is plotted until the displacement
corresponding to the available capacity at near collapse limit
state. In this study, analyses have been performed using SAP
2000 computer program. Maximum base shear in actual
behavior, Vy, base shear relevant to formation of first plastic
hinge, V1, overstrenght factor, Rs, ductility factor, , and
behavior factor, R and q, for all structures under investigation
are listed in Table 2. Displacement ductility is defined in
terms of maximum structural drift and the displacement
corresponding to the idealized yield strength. The behavior
factors, R and q, are computed from table 4.3 in RPA and
from table 5.1 in Eurocode 8 (for medium ductility class
(DCM)), respectively. Code gives constant value of behavior
factor, R, for all structures. The overstrength factor was found
to be in the range of 1.29 to 2.33. Also, member ductility
factors for the most critical beams and columns were plotted
against calculated overstrength factors for all structures
separately and are illustrated in figures 4 to 5. From this
figure, it can be possible to obtain the overstrength factor
directly using ductility factor.
Table 2. Summary of static pushover results.
Structures
STR1
STR2
STR3
STR4

R
(RPA)
3.5
2.0
3.5
3.5

q
(EC8)
3.90
3.90
3.12
3.12

Vy
(kN)
1800
3500
1350
1100

V1
(kN)
1000
1500
1000
850

Rs=Vy/V1

1.80
2.33
1.35
1.29

5.0
5.5
4.5
4.0

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

Figure 3. Pushover curves of the structures under

investigation : Base shear versus displacement.
8.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Based on the results obtained above, the following

conclusions were taken:
1- The overstrength factor, Rs, increases as the displacement
ductility, , of the structures increases.
2- Structures with uniform profile in elevation (or regular)
have more lateral load capacity compare to structures with
non-uniform profile in elevation (or with setbacks). In other
words, the structures with vertical geometric irregularity have
lower demands than regular structures.
3- The behavior factor of the 6-storey regular structures
calculated by EC8s formula was much higher than the RPA
value, while the opposite was observed for irregular
structures.
4- For the same value of the ductility factor in all structures,
the overstrength factor in the beams is higher than that in
columns. In other words, the effect of beams ductility factors
on overstrength factor is higher than columns ductility factors
effect.
5- A comparison of overstrengths developed in the members
show that overstrengths in resisting-moments frames are
smaller than the corresponding ones in the frame-wall. In
other words, the most rigid structures have the higher

overstrength.

Figure 5. Overstrength-ductility relationship

for structures under investigation.
9.

CONCLUSION

In the present work the assessment of the performance of four

reinforced concrete structures, with six stories and three bays,
has been investigated through static non-linear (pushover)
analyses. Two of these structures have irregularities in
elevation. The results obtained from the pushover analyses
leads to the following main conclusions:
- The overstrength factor increases when the ductility of the
frame increases.
- The decrease in strength of the structure results in an
decrease in overstrength.
- The structures with vertical geometric irregularity have
lower demands than regular structures.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

Figure 4. Overstrength-ductility relationship

for structures under investigation.

[3]

D. Mitchell and P. Paultre, Ductility and overstrength in seismic design

of reinforced concrete structures, Canadian journal of civil Engineering,
Vol. 21, N6, 1994.
A.S. Elnashai and A.M. Mwafy, Overstrength and force reduction
factors of multistory reinforced concrete buildings.The structural design
of tall buildings, 11(5).329-351, 2002.
M.A. Rahgozar and J.L.Humar, Accounting for overstrength in seismic
design of steel structures, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, pp.115, 1998.

313

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014

[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

314

R. M. Mahmoud and R. Akbari, Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel Xbraced and knee-braced RC buildings, Engineering Structures, Elsevier,
25 15051513, 2003.
C. D. Annan, M. A. Youssef, and M. H. El Naggar, Seismic
Overstrength in Braced Frames of Modular Steel Buildings, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 1-21, 2009.
M. Mahmoudi, M. Zaree, Evaluating the overstrength of concentrically
braced steel frame systems considering members post-buckling strength,
International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 57-62,
March 2011.
Z. A. M. Z. Mohd, R. Debbie, S. Fatehah, An Evaluation of
Overstrength Factor Of Seismic Designed Low Rise RC Buildings,
Procedia Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 53, pp. 48-51, 2013.
M. Fischinger, P. Fajfar, Seismic force reduction factors, Earthquake
Engineering, A. Runtenberg, Balkema, pp. 279-296, 1994.
D. Dubina, Ductility and seismic performance of thin-walled coldformed steel structures, Steel structures, vol. 4, pp. 209-222, 2004.
RPA99/Version 2003, Rgles parasismiques Algriennes, Document
Technique Rglementaire DTR B C 248, Centre de Recherche
Applique en Gnie Parasismique, Alger, 2003.
CBA-93, Code du bton algrien 1993, DTR-BC-CGS, Alger, 1994.
SAP-2000 (v12), Computer and structures, inc. Berkeley, California,
USA, 2005.
EC8. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, 2004.