Estimation of R Factor For RCC Framed Structures - Nallathambi

ESTIMATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION
FACTOR FOR REINFORCED CEMENT

CONCRETE FRAMED STRUCTURES
A THESIS
Submitted by
NALLATHAMBI P
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CHENNAI 600 025
DECEMBER 2017
ABSTRACT
Seismic resistant structures are designed to withstand large base

shear force induced during an earthquake. When the structure behaves linearly
elastic, the seismic force generated during strong earthquake shaking is much
higher than the actual design force. Earthquake occurs occasionally and
designing the structure for full expected seismic load is uneconomical. In
seismic design philosophy, the structure is allowed to sustain damages in the
event of severe shaking but with no loss of life. Appropriate response
reduction factor value is introduced and non linear response of the structure is
indirectly incorporated in the base shear calculation.
The R values specified in Indian Standard IS 1893:2002 Part I for

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames and Special Moment Resisting Frames
are 3 and 5 respectively. The basis on which these R values considered for
different type of frames are not explained in IS code. R values specified in
different international standards varies depending on the geometry of the
structural system, material properties, confinement effect, ductility factor and
sub soil strata of the structure under consideration. Providing single R value
to a typical building may not ensure the desired performance during seismic
resistance design of structures.
R value is complex in nature and can not be determined by simple

equations for many conditions. There are many interconnected parameters
which are to be studied independently for their influence in R value. An
attempt was made in this study to estimate the value of R, considering the
geometrical and material properties of RCC beam and column members and
for a framed structural system. The seismic response reduction factor of RCC
framed structure is the only factor which relates the type of structure, grade of
materials used, configuration and factor of safety to resist seismic forces.
The process of estimation of response reduction factor involves the

study of individual RCC member (beam and column) and for a system
(framed structure) with various parameters. A parametric study was carried
out for RCC members on effect of material properties such as stress - strain
behavior, confinement effect, moment - curvature relationship, ductility factor
of RCC members by considering typical beam size as 230mm x 300mm and
column size as 230mm x 400mm. The effect of geometric variation was also
studied on framed structural system considering the above material properties
by performing non linear pushover analysis for different configuration of
RCC framed structures.
Different grades of concrete such as M20, M25, M30, M35, M40

and grades of steel such as Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 were considered for
estimation of confinement effect, ductility factor and R value in this analysis.
The lateral reinforcement spacing such as 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm,
150mm, 175mm, 200mm and the main steel reinforcement such as 0.8% and
1.3% for columns, 1.0% and 1.8% for beams were also considered for
estimation of R value in this analysis. Influence of geometric variation in G,
G+2, G+5,G+8, G+11, G+14 storied structures and G+19 storied building
with shear wall was studied using pushover analysis and R value was
estimated.
The M- relationship of RCC beams and columns were estimated

from the fundamental principles of mechanics of solids. The effect of ultimate
strain and the compressive strength of confined concrete for various grades of
concrete, grades of steel, percentage of main reinforcement and different
lateral reinforcement spacing were calculated using the Mander un-confined
and confined concrete stress- strain equations. From the M- analysis using
KSU_RC software for various parameters, curvature ductility was estimated
for RCC beam and column members.
Parameters influencing ductility factors such as tension steel ratio,

compression steel ratio, grade of concrete, grade of steel, longitudinal
reinforcement ratio and lateral reinforcement spacing were estimated. Yield
curvature and ultimate curvatures for unconfined and confined RCC members
and the ductility factor were estimated for rock, alluvium and soft site
conditions.
Nonlinear pushover analysis using SAP 2000 was performed and

strength factor, ductility factor and response reduction factor of RCC framed
structures were estimated for various parameters and geometric effect.
Strength and ductility factors were estimated from displacement- controlled
pushover analysis and base shear versus roof displacement graphs (pushover
curves) were obtained.
The results obtained from estimation of R values for various RCC

framed structures were compared with Indian seismic code IS 1893 and with
R values specified in other countries seismic code. From the study, it was
observed that R factor is sensitive to both geometric configuration and
material properties. Confinement effect in concrete enhances the ductility
property and R values significantly. Adopting higher values of R for high
strength concrete and high yield strength of steel with confined lateral
reinforcement spacing, significant amount of seismic forces can be reduced
and saving in structural members can be achieved. Therefore, introducing
more number of R values in IS code by considering various parameters of
RCC members in framed structures are essential in economical seismic
design of structures to resist the force generated during earthquakes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
ABSTRACT v
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xviii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xxi
1 INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSE
REDUCTION FACTOR 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 LATERAL FORCE INDUCED IN THE
BUILDING DUE TO EARTHQUAKE 2
1.3 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR 3
1.4 R VALUES SPECIFIED IN IS 1893: 2000
PART- 1 4
1.5 PRESENT STUDY ON ESTIMATION OF
R FACTOR FOR RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES 5
1.6 OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS 7
1.7 SCOPE OF THE THESIS 8
1.8 STUDY PARAMETRES 9
1.9 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS 9
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
2.1 GENERAL 11
2.2 STRESS - STRAIN MODELS AND
CONFINEMENT EFFECT IN
REINFORCED CONCRETE 11
2.3 MOMENT - CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP

OF RCC BEAMS AND COLUMNS 19
2.4 EFFECT OF DUCTILITY IN RCC MEMBERS 22
2.5 PLASTIC HINGE ROTATION IN RCC
MEMBERS 27
2.6 NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF RCC
STRUCTURES 29
2.7 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC FRAMED
STRUCTURES 30
2.8 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF FRAMED
STRUCTURE WITH SHEAR WALL 33
2.9 ESTIMATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION
FACTOR 34
2.10 SUMMARY 36
3 CONFINEMENT EFFECT IN REINFORCED

CEMENT CONCRETE 37
3.1 GENERAL 37
3.2 CONFINEMENT IN CONCRETE 38
3.3 MANDER MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF
CONFINED CONCRETE STRENGTH 39
3.4 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON CONFINEMENT
EFFECT OF CONCRETE REINFORCED
CEMENT CONCRETE 39
3.5 SUMMARY 48
4 MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP

OF RCC BEAM AND COLUMN MEMBERS 50
4.1 GENERAL 50
4.2 THEORITICAL MOMENT - CURVATURE
OF RCC MEMBERS 51
4.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF MOMENT -
CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP OF
RCC MEMBERS 52
4.4 EFFECT OF MOMENT - CURVATURE FOR
VARIOUS PARAMETERS 55
4.5 SUMMARY 64
5 DUCTILITY EFFECT IN RCC BEAM

AND COLUMN MEMBERS 66
5.1 GENERAL 66
5.2 DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY 68
5.3 CURVATURE DUCTILITY 69
5.4 DUCTILITY FACTOR 71
5.5 PARAMETRIC STUDIES ON DUCTILITY
IN REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE 71
5.5.1 Parametric Study on Curvature Ductility
of Unconfined Concrete 73
5.5.2 Parametric Study on Curvature Ductility
of Confined Concrete 75
5.6 SUMMARY 85
6 NON LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC

FRAMED STRUCTURE WITHOUT SHEAR WALL
FOR BASE SHEAR AND ROOF DISPLACEMENT 88
6.1 GENERAL 88
6.2 NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER
ANALYSIS OF RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES 89
6.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON RCC FRAMED
STRUCTURES FOR ESTIMATION OF
BASE SHEAR AND ROOF DISPLACEEMNT 92
6.3.1 Description of Building used for
Pushover Analysis 92
6.3.2 Procedure Adopted in Displacement -
Controlled Pushover Analysis 94
6.4 OUTCOME OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF
RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES 98
6.5 SUMMARY 108
7 NON LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC

FRAMED STRUCTURE WITH SHEAR WALL
FOR BASE SHEAR AND ROOF DISPLACEMENT 110
7.1 GENERAL 110
7.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON
CONFINEMENT EFFECT OF SHEAR WALL 111
7.3 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF G+19 STORIED
RCC FRAMED STRUCTURE WITH SHEAR
WALL 118
7.4 MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF FRAMED
STRUCTURE USING PUSHOVER METHOD 120
7.5 RESULTS FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

OF FRAMED STRUCTURE WITH SHEAR
WALLS 121
7.6 SUMMARY 123
8 EVALUATION OF OVERSTRENGTH,
DUCTILTITY AND R FACTORS FOR RCC
FRAMED STRUCTURES 125
8.1 GENERAL 125
8.2 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR 126
8.3 ESTIMATION OF STRENGTH, DUCTILITY
AND R FACTORS FOR RCC FRAMED
STRUCTURES 130
8.4 ESTIMATION OF R FACTOR FROM
PUSHOVER ANALYSIS 134
8.5 DISCUSSIONS ON R VALUES 140
8.6 SUMMARY 141
9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE

RESEARCH STUDY 143
9.1 GENERAL 143
9.2 RESULTS FROM VARIOUS PARAMETRIC
STUDY 144
9.3 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED R
VALUES WITH OTHER COUNTRIES R
VALUES SPECIFIED IN THEIR
SEISMIC CODES 150
9.4 CONCLUSION 151

9.5 FUTURE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 152
REFERENCES 154
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 167

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
3.1 Details of RCC column for estimation of 40

confinement effect using Mander equations
3.2 Variation of ultimate confined concrete 43
strength for various grades of concrete over
M40 grade
strength for various grades of steel - Fe500
and Fe550 steel over Fe415 steel
3.4 The increase of confined concrete strength in 46
1.3% of main steel over 0.8% of main steel
strength for various lateral reinforcement
spacing
4.1 The properties of RCC beam and column 55
members used for estimation of M- values
4.2 Variation of curvature and moment for 57
different grades of concrete in beam and
column members over M20 grade of concrete
4.3 Variation of moment and curvature at 59
ultimate strength in beam and column
members over Fe415 grade of steel
4.4 Variation of curvature and moment in beam 60
and column members for different main
reinforcement
4.5 Variation of ultimate curvature and moment 62

for different lateral confined reinforcement
spacing over different grades of concrete
4.6 Variation of curvature and moment for 64
different axial load in RCC column over 300
kN axial load
5.1 Details of RCC beam properties considered 72
for estimation of ductility effect in RCC
beam
5.2 Details of RCC column considered for 72
estimation of ductility effect in RCC column
5.3 Ultimate curvature ductility for unconfined 73
RCC beams
5.4 Variation of curvature ductility for different 76
grades of concrete over M20 grade
5.5 Variation of curvature ductility for different 78
grades of steel over Fe415 grade
5.6 Variation of curvature ductility between 1.3% 79
main steel and 0.8% main steel
5.7 Variation of curvature ductility for various 80
lateral reinforcement spacing over 200mm
spacing
5.8 Variation of curvature ductility for axial loads 81
on column over 300kN axial load
5.9 The variation of ductility between 1.8% main 82
steel and 1.0 % main steel for various grades
of concrete and steel
5.10 The ductility variation for compression steel 84

in beams
6.1 The lateral displacement and base reaction 99
values at ultimate point for various
configuration, Zone II and zone III loads
7.1 Details of RCC shear wall used in 112
experimental study
7.2 Displacement vs base shear at ultimate point 122
from pushover curve for G+19 storied with
shear wall in Zone III
8.1 Redundancy factors from ATC-19: 1995 129
8.2 Estimation of R values for the G+8 133
configurations with different parameters for
Zone III loads
8.3 Estimation of R factor for various parameters 134
in zone II and zone III loads
9.1 Comparison of response reduction factor 151
values with other countries code
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
2.1 Stress-strain model proposed for 13

monotonic loading of confined and
unconfined concrete
2.2 Confined strength determination from 17
lateral confining stresses for rectangular
sections
2.3 Elastic response and elasto-plastic of 23
oscillators to Earthquake motion
2.4 Assumed response of elastic and 24
elasto- plastic structures
3.1 Typical Column Section adopted for 40
estimation of confinement effect using
Mander equations
3.2 Compressive stress vs strain for different 41
grades of concrete and steel
4.1 Typical input and output screenshot of 53
KSU-RC software
4.2 Typical M- analysis of beam and column 56
obtained from KSU-RC software
4.3 Average variation of curvature for different 57
grades of concrete in beam and column
members over M20 grade of concrete
5.1 Typical moment- curvature curve and 67
strain distribution of a RCC member
5.2 Average variation of curvature ductility 80

over confined lateral reinforcement spacing
5.3 Variation of ductility between 1.8% and 83
1.0 % in tension reinforcement in beam
member
6.1 Inelastic force-deformation relationships 90
6.2 Details of G+2 framed structural members 93
6.3(a) Typical hinge formation in for G+8 98
structure for Zone III seismic loads
6.3(b) Typical pushover curve for G+8 structure 99
for Zone III seismic loads
6.4 Ultimate displacement and base shear 102
values for various parameters with zone II
loads
6.5 Ultimate displacement and base shear 103
values for various parameters with zone III
loads
6.6 Variation of base shear and displacement at 105
ultimate point in pushover curve for G+5
building
7.1 Geometry of shear wall model used in 113
experiment
7.2 Experimental set up to measure 114
compressive strain and deflections in a
shear wall element
7.3(a) Lateral load vs compressive strain in a 116
shear wall element
7.3(b) Lateral load vs deflection in a shear wall 117

element
7.4(a) Vertical load vs Compressive strain in a 118
shear wall
7.4(b) Vertical load vs Deflection in a shear wall 118
7.5 Typical floor plan of G+19 storied framed 120
structure with shear wall arrangements
8.1 Conception of response reduction factor 127
8.2 Variation of R factor for G+5 structure 136
located in Zone III rock and soft soil
8.3 Variation of R factor for G+5 structure 137
located in Zone II rock and soft soil
LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS
ACI - American Concrete Institute

ATC - Applied Technology Council
P - Axis force
fck - Characteristic Strength of concrete
CP - Collapse Prevention
f'c - Concrete compressive strength
- Curvature
u - Curvature at ultimate load
y - Curvature when steel reaches the yield strength.
fc' - Cylinder Strength of Concrete
R€ - Damping factor
DL - Dead Load
VB - Design base shear
DBE - Design Basis Earthquake
Ah - Design Horizontal seismic coefficient for a structure
DS - Ductile Structures
DCH - Ductility Class High
DCL - Ductility Class Low
DCM - Ductility Class Medium
- Ductility reduction factor
EL - Earthquake load
lp - Equivalent length of plastic hinge
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
IS - Indian Standard
IMRF - Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames
IO - Intermediate Occupancy
BSL - Japanese building standard law
KSU-RC - Kansas State University- Reinforced Concrete
kN - Kilo Newton
LS - Life Safety
LL - Live Load
LDMF - Low Ductile Moment Frames
MCE - Maximum Considered Earthquake
m - Maximum displacement
MDMF - Medium Ductile Moment Frames
MCB - Mexico City Building Code
M - Moment
NBCC - National Building Code of Canada
kd - Neutral axis depth
NDS - Nominal Ductile Structures
NSP - Nonlinear Static Procedure
OMRF - Ordinary RC moment resisting frames
RS - Over strength factor
- Period of vibration of the building
p - Plastic rotation
RR - Redundancy factor
RCC - Reinforced Cement Concrete
R - Response Reduction Factor
roof - Roof displacement
Ø - Rotation
W - Seismic weight of the building
Z - Seismic Zone factor
SDOF - Single Degree of Freedom
SDMR - Special Ductile Moment Frames
SMRF - Special RC Moment Resisting Frames
SLD - Structures of Limited Ductility
TDOF - Two Degree of Freedom
Vu - Ultimate base shear
u - Ultimate displacement
u - Ultimate rotation
Vy - Yield base shear
y - Yield displacement
y - Yield rotation
fy - Yield Strength of Lateral Steel
y - Yield stress of steel
- Young’s modulus of elasticity of concrete
- Young’s modulus of elasticity of steel
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR
This chapter briefly describes about the significance of response

reduction factor and its application in estimation of base shear during seismic
force on reinforced cement concrete framed structures. A brief introduction
of the present work is also presented in this chapter.
1.1 GENERAL
Seismic resistant structures are designed to withstand large base

shear force induced during an earthquake. When the structure behaves linearly
elastic, the seismic force generated during strong earthquake shaking is much
higher than the actual design force. Earthquake occurs occasionally and
designing the structure for full expected seismic load is uneconomical. In
seismic design philosophy, the structure is allowed to sustain damages in the
event of severe shaking with no loss of life.
Response reduction factor value (R) is used to describe the level

of inelasticity expected in lateral load and reflects the capacity of structure
to dissipate energy through inelastic behavior. Seismic design code introduced
appropriate R value for Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) framed structures
and non linear response of the structure is indirectly incorporated in the base
shear calculation. Accordingly, the design lateral force is reduced from the
actual base shear force which is generated during an earthquake and building
is designed economically.
2
1.2 LATERAL FORCES INDUCED IN THE BUILDING DUE TO

EARTHQUAKE
During the earthquake, the building is subjected to random ground

acceleration at its foundation level. This motion induces inertia forces due to
the weight of the building which in turn cause displacements and stresses.
Base shear force is defined as the force generated when the structure are
to remain elastic during its response to the design basic earthquake shaking.
The total design lateral force or design base shear along any
principal direction is estimated by the equation VB= Ah W,
where, Ah = Design horizontal seismic coefficient for a structure
W = Seismic weight of building
IS 1893: 2002 Part 1 recommends to determine the design

horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a structure by the following expression:
)
A = (1.1)
where,
Z = Zone factor for various zones in India (zone II to Zone V)
I = Importance factor for the building use (1.0 or 1.5)
Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient for various

ground conditions
R = Response reduction factor.

3
1.3 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR
The design philosophy of earthquake resistance structures

(Murty 2005) ensure that structures possess at least a minimum strength to
withstand minor earthquakes (<DBE- Design Basis Earthquake), which occur
frequently, without damage; resist moderate earthquakes (DBE) without
significant structural damage though some non structural damage may occur;
and aims that structures withstand a major earthquake (MCE- Maximum
Considered Earthquake) without collapse. Therefore, the basic principal of
designing structures for strong ground motion is that the structure should
not collapse but damage to the structural elements is permitted. Hence, the
structure is designed for seismic forces much less than what is expected under
strong shaking, provided the structures were to remain linearly elastic.
The R factor of RCC framed structure is the only factor which

relates the type of structure, grade of materials used, configuration and layout
of the building, factor of safety considered in the design and the type of soil
on which the structure is built. The response of structure to ground motion
depend on the nature of soil and foundation adopted, type of construction
materials used, structural form, size and method of construction and the
duration and characteristics of ground motion. The seismic code specifies
design forces through inelastic response spectrum for structures standing on
rocks, medium and soft soil which experience ground vibrations.
The R factor is based on the observations that well detailed

seismic framing systems can sustain large inelastic deformations without
collapse and have excess of lateral strength over design strength.. The
ductility arising from inelastic material behavior, detailing and over-strength
arising from the additional reserve strength in structures over and above the
design strength are relied upon to account for this difference in actual and
design lateral loads. The nonlinear response of structure is indirectly
4
incorporated in design by using appropriate response reduction factor and the

design lateral force is obtained from actual base shear force.
The response reduction factor depends on many parameters and

Applied Technology Council (ATC) -19 describes the R factor as,
R = Rs * R * RR (1.2)
where,
Rs is the period dependent strength factor,
is the period dependent ductility factor and
RR is the redundancy factor.
1.4 R VALUES SPECIFIED IN IS 1893: 2000- PART 1
R factors in various international standards are based on the type of

structural system adopted and the ductility factor of the framed structure. Is
1893:2002 recommends the R values as 3.0 and 5.0 for ordinary moment
resisting frames (OMRF) and special moment resisting frames (SMRF). The
SMRF shall follow IS 13920 ductile detailing requirements. However, IS
1893 has not included the effect of over-strength , redundancy and ductility
due to confinement effect explicitly while defining the R factor .
Few values of R for various types of buildings, irrespective of

building height, plan geometry, and framing layout given in the code may not
ensure the desired performance during seismic resistance design of structures.
The basis on which these R values are considered for different type of frames;
is not explained in Indian seismic code. The R values given in seismic code
cannot reflect the expected inelastic behavior of all building which has the
same lateral load resisting system. R values specified in different international
5
standards varies depending on the geometry of the structural system, material

properties, confinement effect, ductility factor and sub soil strata of the
structure under consideration.
R value is complex in nature and can not be determined by simple

equations for many conditions. But it is essential to introduce a mathematical
relation for estimating R factor for various types of buildings by considering
different material and geometrical properties. The R values can be defined by
considering the fundamental period of the structure and the type of soil to
ensure consistent level of damage. Different R value for each seismic zone
and soil type can be introduced.
1.5 PRESENT STUDY ON ESTIMATION OF R FACTOR FOR

RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES
Previous research study have formulated the R factor for Single-

Degree- Of- Freedom (SDOF) systems by considering the local seismic
factors and quantifying the ductility component.
In the present study, attempt is made to evaluate the response

reduction factor of six RCC framed structure using pushover analysis with
various parameters, by considering different acceptable limit of variables. The
study focuses on determination of the R factor for beam and column members
and for RCC framed structural system.
There are many interconnected parameters which are to be studied

independently for its influencing variables. An attempt was made in this
study to estimate the R value, considering the geometrical and material
properties of RCC beam and column members and for a framed structural
system.
6
The process of estimation of response reduction factor involves the

study of individual RCC member (beam and column) and for a system
(framed structure) with contribution due to various parameters. A parametric
study was carried out for RCC members on effect of material properties such
as stress- strain behavior, confinement effect, moment- curvature relationship,
ductility factor of RCC members by considering typical beam size as 230mm
x 300mm and column size as 230mm x 400mm. Effect of geometric variation
was also studied on framed structural system considering the above material
properties by performing non linear pushover analysis for different
configuration of RCC framed structures.
Study of confined and unconfined concrete stress - strain behavior

brought out many useful and important aspects for understanding the behavior
of RCC members during earthquake response. The present study has adopted
Mander un-confined and confined concrete stress- strain equations. The
ultimate strain and the compressive strength of confined concrete for various
grades of concrete, grade of steel, percentage of main reinforcement and
different lateral tie spacing are calculated using Excel sheet and the results are
tabulated.
The M- relationship of RCC beams and columns are estimated

from the fundamental principles of mechanics of solids. Parametric Study of
Moment Curvature Relationship was performed using KSU-RC software
which use Mander confined stress strain curve for estimation M- . The
parameters which influence the curvature ductility of RCC members such as
concrete compressive strength, yield strength of steel, percentage of
longitudinal reinforcement, spacing of lateral reinforcement and quantum of
axial load on columns are given as input in KSU-RC software and curvature
ductility was estimated. The curvature effect on RCC members and its
influence on ductility was examined in this the study.
7
From the M- analysis results for various parameters, yield

curvature and ultimate curvatures for unconfined and confined RCC beam and
column members have been estimated and the results of ductility factors are
tabulated.
Nonlinear pushover analysis using SAP 2000 was performed to

estimate the possible roof displacement and base shear due to various
configuration of RCC framed structures with different grade of concrete,
grade of steel and spacing of lateral reinforcement. Single, three, six, nine,
twelve and fifteen storey buildings are considered to represent low- and
medium- rise buildings in this study. Twenty storied building with shear wall
is also considered as high- rise building in this study. Strength and ductility
factors are estimated from displacement controlled pushover analysis result as
base shear versus roof displacement graph.
The results obtained from estimation of R factor for RCC framed

structures having different configurations are compared with Indian seismic
code IS 1893 and with R values specified in other countries seismic codes.
1.6 OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS
To estimate the response reduction factor for various RCC

members such as beams, columns and shear wall in a RCC framed structure
based on stress - strain behaviour, moment- curvature relationship, ductility
of RCC members and non linear pushover analysis results of structures
having different configurations and compare the estimated R values with
codes of other countries R values specified in their seismic code.
8
1.7 SCOPE OF THE THESIS
The scope of the thesis is estimation of R factor for component-

wise and building as a whole of RCC framed structures. To accomplish the
scope, it is proposed to :
i. Study the stress strain and curvature behaviour of RCC

members with unconfined and confined concrete using
Mander model for various parameters to understand the post
yield performance of concrete members.
ii. Study the influence of confinement effect of RCC members in

ductility and response reduction factor.
iii. Study the moment - curvature effect of RCC members using

Kansas State University - Reinforced Concrete (KSU- RC)
software to estimate the effect on ductility and its influence
on response reduction factor.
iv. Study the ductility properties of the RCC members for

different grades of concrete and steel, with varying percentage
of main steel and different spacing of confinement bars.
v. Perform the push over analysis for different configuration of

RCC structure by varying properties such grades of concrete
and steel, confinement spacing and number of floors.
vi. Develop an Excel calculation sheets to estimate the stress

strain, moment - curvature and ductility of RCC members for
various parameters.
vii. Evaluate ductility and response reduction factors by keeping

certain parameters as constant and varying other parameters of
RCC members.
9
1.8 STUDY PARAMETRES
The parameters used in the study of estimation of R factor were:
i. Grades of concrete: M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40.
ii. Grades of steel : Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550.
iii. Percentage of main reinforcement for columns were 0.8 and

1.3 and for beams were1.0 and 1.8.
iv. Lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm, 100mm, 125mm,

150mm, 175mm and 200mm.
v. Framed structures of 4.0m x 4.0m size with three bays in X

and Y directions and floor height of 3.0m in Z direction were
used for estimation of R factors. G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11
and G+14 configurations were considered to represent low-
and medium - rise buildings and non linear pushover analysis
was performed. A G+19 storied structure with shear wall was
considered as high - rise building for non linear pushover
analysis.
1.9 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS
The research work was carried out to achieve the desired outcome
and the thesis study has been organized in nine chapters to cover the entire
work.
Chapter 1 covers the brief of the research study “Estimation of

response reduction factor for reinforced cement concrete framed structures”.
10
Chapter 2 discusses the related work done so far in the area of

confinement effect of concrete, moment curvature relationship, ductility effect
in concrete, non linear pushover analysis and response reduction factor.
Chapter 3 focuses on confinement effect of reinforced concrete

for various parameters and its influence on ductility of concrete members.
Chapter 4 describes the moment curvature relation of beam and

column members for various parameters and its contribution to ductility of
concrete members.
Chapter 5 describes the ductility in RCC members and curvature

ductility of beam and column members for various parameters are estimated.
The influence of ductility factor in estimating R factor is also covered.
Chapter 6 explains the modeling and static nonlinear pushover

analysis of RCC framed structures and estimation of response reduction
factors.
Chapter 7 describes the shear wall effect in estimation of R

factor.
Chapter 8 discusses the estimation of R factor, comparison of R

values with R values given in other country codes, limitations of the work
and future scope of study.
Chapter 9 summaries the results and discussed about the outcome

of the research study.
11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Previous study on parameters contributing towards confinement

effect, moment curvature relationship, ductility, pushover analysis and
response reduction factor is discussed in this chapter. A brief review of
literature pertaining to the present work is presented.
2.1 GENERAL
An extensive literature survey has been made to review the current

knowledge on the response reduction factor of reinforced cement concrete
structure’s performance when subjected to seismic forces. Previous study on
confinement effect on concrete, moment curvature relationship, plastic hinges,
ductility, response factor, procedure for non linear analysis, pushover methods,
nonlinear analysis of RC multistoried framed structures with and without
shear wall has been reviewed.
2.2 STRESS - STRAIN MODELS AND CONFINEMENT

EFFECT IN REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE
Confinement effect in concrete increases the ductility property of

RCC members. As the ductility is a component of R value, confinement effect
in concrete has contribution to R value. Study of confinement effect involve
understanding stress strain behavior of various models used in reinforced
concrete. The investigation of the stress-strain relation of unconfined and
12
confined concrete has been a topic of research for a several years. Several
models for the stress-strain relation of concrete have been proposed in the past.
Although the behavior of concrete up to the maximum concrete strength is
well established, the post-peak branch and the behavior of high-strength
concrete has been an area of extensive research more recently. Confinement
in concrete is achieved by the suitable placement of transverse reinforcement.
Lot of research is happening in establishing a good stress-strain relation for
confined concrete. A brief review of the various models that are considered
for the stress-strain relation of confined concrete study are reviewed in this
section. Therefore, it is important to study the confinement effect of RCC
members and the contribution of various parameters on R factor.
Mander et al. (1988) had developed a theoretical stress-strain model

for confined concrete subjected to uniaxial compressive loading and confined
by transverse reinforcement. The concrete section can contain any general
type of confining steel: either spiral or circular hoops; or rectangular hoops
with or without supplementary cross ties. A single equation is used for the
stress-strain equation. The model allows for cyclic loading and includes the
effect of strain rate. The influence of various types of confinement is taken
into account by defining an effective lateral confining stress, which is
dependent on the configuration of the transverse and longitudinal
reinforcement.
Mander model use energy balance approach to predict the

longitudinal compressive strain in the concrete corresponding to first fracture
of the transverse reinforcement by equating the strain energy capacity of the
transverse reinforcement to the strain energy stored in the concrete as a result
of the confinement. A typical stress-strain curve for monotonic loading of
confined and unconfined concrete by Mander is shown in Figure 2.1.
13
Figure 2.1 Stress-strain model proposed for monotonic loading of

confined and unconfined concrete
The compression portion of the Mander unconfined stress-strain

curve consists of a curved portion and a linear portion and in the compression
portion of the Mander confined concrete stress-strain curves, the compressive
strength and the ultimate strain of the confined concrete values are based on
the confinement steel. The Mander unconfined concrete stress-strain curve is
defined by the following equations:
For 'c (curved portion),
f= (2.1)
where,
= Concrete strain
f = Concrete stress
E = Modulus of elasticity
f'c = Concrete compressive strength
'c = Concrete strain at f'c
u = Ultimate concrete strain capacity
x = 'c
14
r= (2.2)
’ )
For 2 'c u(linear portion),
F =( )( ) (2.3)
Where, r is as defined previously for the curved portion of the curve.
The tensile yield stress for the Mander unconfined curve is taken at
7.5 in psi.
For the compression portion of the Mander confined concrete

stress-strain curves, the compressive strength and the ultimate strain of the
confined concrete are based on the confinement steel. The parameters defined
by the Mander for confined concrete stress-strain curve are:
= Concrete strain
f = Concrete stress
E = Modulus of elasticity
Esec = Secant modulus of elasticity
f'c = Compressive strength of unconfined concrete
f'cc = Compressive strength of confined concrete; this item is

dependent on the confinement steel provided in the
section and is explained later
'c = Concrete strain at cf'
u = Ultimate concrete strain capacity for unconfined concrete

and concrete spalling strain for confined concrete
'cc = Concrete strain at f'cc

15
cu = Ultimate concrete strain capacity for confined concrete;

this item is dependent on the confined steel provided in
the section and is explained later
The Mander confined concrete stress-strain curve is defined by the

following equations:
f= (2.4)
where,
'cc= {5( 1) + 1} 'c
x = / 'cc
Esec = f'cc/ 'cc
R = E / ( E- Esec)
Mander Confined Concrete Compressive Strength, f'cc.. The

following parameters are used in the explanation of f'cc:
Ac = Area of concrete core measured from centerline to

centerline of confinement steel Acc = Concrete core area
excluding longitudinal bars; Acc = Ac (1- cc)
Ae = Concrete area that is effectively confined
Asc = Area of a circular hoop or spiral confinement bar
AsL = Total area of all longitudinal bars
Asx = Area of rectangular hoop legs extending in the x-direction
Asy = Area of rectangular hoop legs extending in the y-direction
bc = Centerline to centerline distance between rectangular

perimeter hoop legs that extend in the y-direction
16
dc = Centerline to centerline distance between rectangular

perimeter hoop legs that extend in the x-direction
ds = Diameter of circular hoops or spirals of confinement steel

measured from centerline to centerline of steel
f'c = Unconfined concrete compressive strength
fL = Lateral pressure on confined concrete provided by the

confinement steel
f'L = Effective lateral pressure on confined concrete provided by

the confinement steel
fyh = Yield stress of confinement steel
Ke = Coefficient measuring the effectiveness of the confinement

steel
s = Centerline to centerline longitudinal distance between

hoops or spirals
s' = Clear longitudinal distance between hoops or spirals
w' = Clear lateral distance between adjacent longitudinal bars

with cross ties
cc = Longitudinal steel ratio; cc = AsL/Ac
s = Volumetric ratio of lateral confinement steel to the

concrete core
x = Steel ratio for rectangular hoop legs extending in the

x-direction; x = Asx/sdc
y = Steel ratio for rectangular hoop legs extending in the

y-direction; y= Asy/sbc
s= (2.5)
17
fL= (2.6)
Acc= d2s (1- cc) (2.7)
ke= (2.8)
f'L= KefL (2.9)
The general solution of the multi-axial failure criterion in terms of

the two lateral confining stresses is presented in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Confined strength determination from lateral confining

stresses for rectangular sections
When the confined concrete core is placed in tri-axial compression

with equal effective lateral confining stresses from rectangular hoops, the
confined compressive strength is calculated using the Mander’s formula:
f'cc = f'c (2.254 1+ -2 – 1.254) (2.10)

18
Mander et al. (1988) had observed the stress - strain behaviour of

confined concrete of circular, rectangular and square full scale columns at
seismic strain rates and investigated the influence of different transverse
reinforcement arrangements on the confinement effectiveness and overall
performance. It was observed that the peak strain and stress coordinates are
found that the performance over the entire stress-strain range was similar,
regardless of the arrangement of the confinement reinforcement used.
Kent & Park (1971) made provisions in their stress-strain model to

accommodate the behavior of confined concrete. It was observed that
confining the concrete with rectangular or square hoops was not very
effective and that there was no substantial increase in the concrete
compressive strength due to confinement. For this reason it was assumed in
this model that the maximum stress reached by confined concrete remained
the same as the unconfined cylinder strength. Thus the ascending branch of
the model is represented by the same second degree parabola. Confinement
only affected the slope of the post-peak branch and empirical equations were
used to adjust this.
Scott et al. (1982) conducted experiments on a number of square

concrete columns reinforced with either 8 or 12 longitudinal re-bars and
transversely reinforced with overlapping hoop sets. Their tests were
conducted at rapid strain rates, typical of seismic loading. They had observed
substantial strength enhancement due to the presence of good confining
reinforcement details. Thus simple modifications were made in order to
incorporate the increase in the compressive strength of confined concrete at
high strain rates.
Li et al. (2000) had conducted an experimental investigation on

circular and square reinforced concrete columns to study the behavior of high-
strength concrete columns confined by normal and high-yield strength
19
transverse reinforcement and with different confinement ratio and

configurations. From the tests they concluded that volumetric ratio and the
yield strength of confining reinforcement significantly affect the shape of the
stress-strain curve. Based on their experimental study, Li had proposed a three
branch stress-strain model for high strength concrete confined by either
normal or high-yield strength transverse reinforcement.
Durga & Seshu (2013) have studied many designs based on the
simplified stress block of unconfined concrete and observed that these designs
do not account for the strength gain due to the presence of confinement. To
investigate the effects of lateral confinement on column capacity an analytical
study was carried out. In this study the design stress-strain diagrams for
confined concrete are developed by considering different proposed confined
models and its effect on column capacity is studied in terms of load – moment
interaction diagram of column and found that the presence of lateral
reinforcement expands the interaction diagram of the column particularly
when it is in the compression-controlled region.
2.3 MOMENT- CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP OF RCC

BEAMS AND COLUMNS
M- relation of RCC frames are complex in nature due to a unique

bonding of two materials with completely different mechanical properties.
Several equations have been suggested to model this nonlinear stress-strain
relationship of concrete. It approximates the stress-strain relationship by a
parabola up to the ultimate strength and a straight line beyond that up to the
crushing of concrete. A simple elastic-perfectly plastic model will be assumed
for the reinforcing steel in tension or compression. It is assumed to be linear
up to the yield point, beyond which the stress is assumed to be constant.
20
Theoretical moment-curvature analysis for reinforced concrete

columns, indicating the available flexural strength and ductility, can be
conducted providing the stress-strain relation for the concrete and steel are
known. The moments and curvatures associated with increasing flexural
deformations of the column may be computed for various column axial loads
by incrementing the curvature and satisfying the requirements of strain
compatibility and equilibrium of forces. Moment – Curvature relationship
reveals the ductility properties of the RCC members and contribution to the R
factor. Hence, parametric study of M- relationship is necessary during
estimation of R values of individual RCC members.
Mander (1988) has developed moment–curvature (M– )

relationship for various RCC sections by considering the confinement effect
of the lateral reinforcements. Priestley (1997) suggested an ultimate
compressive concrete strain for unconfined concrete, €cu = 0.005. Also, the
ultimate compressive strain of concrete confined by lateral reinforcement is
defined in ATC-40 (1996) for estimating the M– characteristics of plastic
hinge sections, €cc = 0.005+0.1 0.02, the value of €cc was restricted to
0.02 to avoid the buckling of longitudinal reinforcement in between two

successive lateral reinforcement hoops.
Sifat Sharmeen Muin (2011) had performed A parametric study of

RC moment resisting frames at joint level by investigating moment -
curvature relations. Numerically derived M- relation of beams and columns
were used to investigate the effect of different parameters on it. This study
was helpful in deciding which parameter to alter and the amount of it required
to get expected strength and ductility. It will also be useful to designers in
defining M- relation during pushover analysis.
21
Srikanth et al. (2007) had developed moment curvature of

reinforced concrete beams using various confinement models and validated
by experiments. This study presents a procedure for finding the analytical
Moment Curvature behaviour of statically determinate reinforced concrete
beams, taking into consideration, the confinement offered by shear
reinforcement to concrete in compression zone. Six selected confinement
models reported in literature in the last decade are used as a stress block for
confined concrete for generating the complete analytical Moment Curvature
behaviour. The Moment Curvature behaviour obtained using the selected
confinement models are compared with experimental results.
Ravi Kumar et al. (2014) had highlighted the investigation of

nonlinear axial-force and moment-curvature relationships for rectangular
reinforced concrete (RC) beam and column cross sections for the reference
reinforced concrete building structure considered for Probabilistic Seismic
Risk Evaluation. The module determines the expected behavior of a user
defined cross-section by first dividing the section into a number of parallel
concrete and steel fibers. Then, the section forces and deformations are
determined from the fiber strains and stresses using fundamental principles of
equilibrium, strain compatibility, and constitutive relationships assuming that
plane sections remain plane.
Sheikh Neaz et al. (2008) had presented simple expressions for

estimating the effective yield curvature for normal- and high-strength circular
reinforced concrete (RC) columns based on moment-curvature analysis of a
large number of column sections. Such expressions were programmed into the
spreadsheet format and was used for the displacement-based design of RC
columns. Effective yield curvature is presented in terms of the gross diameter
of the section and the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement together
with three modification factors that take into account the effects of the
22
compressive strength of concrete, the axial load ratio and the quantity of
longitudinal reinforcement.
Au et al. (2005) had studied the moment-curvature relationship of

reinforced concrete beams made of normal and high strength concrete
experiencing complex load history using a numerical method that employs the
actual stress-strain curves of the constitutive materials and takes into account
the stress-path dependence of the concrete and steel reinforcement. It was
observed that when unloading happens, the variation of neutral axis depth has
different trends for under and over reinforced sections. Various issues related
to the post-peak behavior of reinforced concrete beams are also highlighted.
2.4 EFFECT OF DUCTILITY IN RCC MEMBERS
Ductility of reinforced structures is a desirable property where

resistance to brittle failure during flexure is required to ensure structural
integrity. As the non linear response of RCC structure do not have well
defined yield point, several methods had been proposed to determine the yield
displacement. Studying of ductility is very essential for estimation of response
reduction factor for RCC members and structures. In this chapter, some of the
previous studies about ductility reduction factors are reviewed.
Ductility of a RCC member is influenced by many factors such as

strength of concrete, strength of steel, ratio of main reinforcement, amount of
longitudinal reinforcement and the spacing of lateral tie, etc. Ductility of a
member can be estimated using force-deformation relation, where the force
may be load, moment and stress visa-a-vise the deformation may be
elongation, curvature, rotation and strain. When a ductile structure is
subjected to overloading it will tend to deform inelastically and will
redistribute the excess load to elastic parts of the structure.
23
Displacement ductility. Park & Paulay (1975) have explained the effect of
nonlinear behaviour on the response of a structure to severe earthquake
motions and compared to a single degree of freedom oscillator. The oscillator
responding elastic and elasto-plastic behavior due to load deflection
relationship are shown in Figure 2.3(a) and 2.3(b).
Figure 2.3(a) Elastic response of oscillators to Earthquake motion
Figure 2.3(b) Elasto-plastic of oscillators to Earthquake motion
In Figure 2.3(a), the area abc under the curve represents the
potential energy stored at the maximum deflection and as the mass returns to
the zero position, the energy is converted into kinetic energy. If the oscillator
is not strong enough to carry the full elastic response inertia load and
develops a plastic hinge elasto-plastic characteristic, the load-deflection curve
as in Figure 2.3(b). When the plastic hinge capacity is reached, the deflection
response proceeds along line de, and point e represents the maximum
24
response. The potential energy stored at maximum deflection in this case is

represented by the area adef and the forces acting on the structure have been
limited by the plastic hinge capacity. When the mass returns to the zero
position, the potential energy converted to kinetic energy is represented by the
small triangular area efg, because the energy represented by the area adeg is
dissipated by the plastic hinge by converting into heat and other irrecoverable
forms of energy.
Thus it is evident that in the elastic structure the full stored energy
is returned as velocity energy in each cycle, whereas in the elasto-plastic
structure, only part of the energy is returned. Hence the potential energy
stored in the elasto-plastic structure in each cycle is not required to be so great
as in the elastic structure, and the maximum deflection of the elasto-plastic
structure is not necessarily much greater than that of the elastic structure. In
fact, a number of dynamic analysis have indicated that the maximum
deflection reached by the two structures may be approximately the same.
Behaviour of the structure based on the assumption of equal maximum
deflection is shown in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 Assumed response of elastic and elasto- plastic structures.

(a) Equal maximum deflection response (b) Equal maximum
energy response
25
A measure of the ductility of a structure is the displacement
ductility factor defined as, = , Where, u is the lateral deflection at
the end of the post elastic range and y is the lateral deflection when yield is
first reached. When a number of load cycles are involved, y is taken as the
lateral deflection when yield is first reached in the first load excursion into the
post elastic range.
In a multi-storey buildings, the displacement y and u are

measured at a roof level for estimation of the displacement ductility factor. In
a multi-storey frame, plastic hinges develop at the critical sections throughout
the structure but not at the same load. Hence the lateral load-deflection
relationship will not be bilinear as in Fig. 2.4(b) but will tend to be more
curved because of the stiffness decreasing gradually as the plastic hinges
develop at various load levels. To assess the displacement ductility factor in
such a case, and approximate bilinear lateral load deflection curve can be
assumed by considering the deflection at first yield and the deflection due to
the static design load applied to the frames are behaving elastically. However,
the approximations are such that accurate assessments of the ductility demand
in important cases may require nonlinear dynamic analysis of the structure
responding to the major earthquake.
It is emphasized that ductility is associated with plastic

deformations, hence is associated with permanent structural damage. This
means that a structure designed using a low load reduction factor R is
susceptible to permanent damage during earthquakes of smaller intensity. For
buildings of importance, particularly those which need to function after a
seismic disaster, the potential ductility of the structure may not be utilized,
because damage control will be the overriding design criterion. For such a
structure, a larger load reduction factor could be used.
26
In the last three decades, significant work has been carried out to
establish the ductility factor based on SDOF systems subjected to various
types of ground motions. (Newmark & Hall 1982), (Riddell & Newmark
1979), (Vidic et al. 1992) and (Krawinkler & Nassar 1992) have done
significant work to establish the ductility factor based on SDOF systems
subjected to various types of ground motions. Newmark & Hall provided
relationships that can be used to estimate the ductility factor (Rµ) for elasto-
plastic SDOF systems. For frequencies below 33Hz, Rµ = 1.0 and for
frequencies above 33Hz, Rµ = (2µ - 1) and for frequencies less than 1Hz
Rµ = µ. Krawinkler & Nassar had developed a Rµ - µ - T relationship for
SODF system on rock or stiff soil sites. These relationships were based on a
detailed statistical study of the response of inelastic SDOF systems (with 5%
damping) on rock or stiff soil subjected to strong motion records of the United
States. Miranda & Bertero (1994) had developed Rµ - µ - T relationships for
rock, alluvium, and soft soil sites as Rµ=µ-1+ 1. It is obvious that the elastic
force demand on the system (Ve) can be reduced by the factor Rµ owing to the
inelastic displacement capacity (µ) available with the system.
Monita Olivia & Parthasarathi Mandal (2005) had examined the

influence of three variables on curvature ductility of reinforced concrete
beams. A computer program was developed to predict moment-curvature and
available curvature ductility of reinforced concrete beams with or without
axial loads. Ten beams with different variables were analysed using the
program. The variables measured are concrete strength, amount of
longitudinal reinforcement and spacing of transverse reinforcement. The input
consists of member geometry, material properties and loading. A confined
stress-strain curve for concrete proposed by Saatcioglu & Razvi (1992) was
applied in the program, while, steel stress-strain model was adopted from BS
8110. Computer analysis indicates that the curvature ductility increases with
the increase of longitudinal reinforcement and concrete strength.
27
Si Youcef & Chemrouk (2012) had presented a method of

calculating the ductility of rectangular sections of beams considering
nonlinear behavior of concrete and steel. This calculation procedure allowed
us to trace the curvature of the section according to the bending moment, and
consequently deduce ductility. It also allowed us to study the various
parameters that affect the value of the ductility. A comparison of the effect of
maximum rates of tension steel, adopted by the codes on the value of the
ductility was made. It was concluded that the maximum rate of steels
permitted by the ACI codes and RPA are almost similar in their effect on the
ductility. Therefore, the ductility mobilized in case of an earthquake is low,
the inverse of code EC8.
Nassar & Krawinkler (1991) have made study based on the

response of SDOF non-linear systems subjected to 15 ground motions
belonging to alluvium and rock sites. The effect of the structural natural
period, strain-hardening ratio, yield level and the type of inelastic material
behavior to the ductility reduction factor were considered and examined.
2.5 PLASTIC HINGE ROTATION IN RCC MEMBERS
The inelastic behavior of Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC)

sections leads to a redistribution of moments and forces, resulting in an
increased load carrying capacity of the members in the indeterminate
structure. As the applied load is increased, hinges start forming in succession
at locations where the hinge moment capacity is reached; with further increase
in the applied load, these hinges continue to rotate until the last hinge forms
and convert the structure into a mechanism resulting in failure. Various limit
design methods have been proposed based on the concepts of limit
equilibrium, serviceability, and rotational compatibility in terms of the
available rotation at the plastic hinge and the rotation required to form
collapse mechanism. The plastic hinge rotation, p, of RC beams depends on
28
a number of parameters including the definition of yielding and ultimate

curvatures, member geometry, material properties, compression and tension
reinforcement ratios, transverse reinforcement, cracking and tension
stiffening, the stress-strain curve for the concrete in tension and compression.
Forming of plastic hinge in RCC member is necessary for the structure to
have ductile behavior. A detailed review of plastic hinges are available for
curvature ductility calculations which are used for estimation of R factor
using pushover analysis.
Length of plastic hinge (Lp). If the plastic rotation capacity in a reinforced

concrete member is p, the ultimate curvature is u and the yield curvature is
y of the section, then the length of the plastic hinge region Lp = ( u –
y)/ p. Various researchers had proposed different empirical models to
predict the length of a plastic hinge. One of the most widely used models for
Lp is that proposed by Priestley (1997) as Lp= 0.08L+0.022fyadbl, where L is
the distance from the critical section to the point of contraflexure, fya is the
yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement having a diameter dbl. For a
moment-resisting frame, where lateral loads are predominant, the point of
contraflexure typically occurs close to the mid-span of a member. It is also
found by tests that length of plastic hinge is approximately equal to one-half
the effective depth of the member on either side of the point of maximum
elastic moment. Therefore, the length of a plastic hinge of a beam at a mid
support is taken as effective depth of the member and at end supports of a
beam is assumed as one-half the effective depth.
Park et al. (1982) had tested four full-size reinforced concrete

columns for the yield strength of the longitudinal steel and the transverse
steel. The equivalent plastic hinge length, lp, was calculated and the plastic
displacement was measured beyond the first yield displacement and plastic
curvature. The tests of the reinforced concrete columns showed that the
29
calculated equivalent plastic hinge lengths were insensitive to axial load level
and concluded that equivalent length of plastic hinge lp= 0.4h can be used as
a simple and safe approximation for plastic hinge evaluating the ultimate
curvature requirements in columns and should not define the length of the
column that needs to be confined along the critical section.
2.6 NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF RCC STRUCTURES
Structures are expected to deform in-elastically when subjected to

severe earthquakes, so seismic performance evaluation of structures should be
conducted considering post-elastic behavior. Therefore, a nonlinear analysis
procedure must be used for evaluation purpose as post-elastic behavior can
not be determined directly by an elastic analysis. Moreover, maximum
inelastic displacement demand of structures should be determined to
adequately estimate the seismically induced demands on structures that
exhibit inelastic behaviour. Various simplified nonlinear analysis procedures
and approximate methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement
demand of structures are proposed in literature. Few Past studies on simplified
nonlinear analysis procedures are reviewed in this chapter.
Anam et al. (2002) have investigated the importance of various

nonlinearities involved in the static and dynamic analysis of Reinforced
Concrete structures. The nonlinearities studied were geometric (caused by
large deformations and consequent effect on the elastic properties of the
structure) as well as material (due to the nonlinear stress-strain relationship of
concrete and steel). The nonlinear moment-curvature relationship of arbitrary
Reinforced Concrete cross-sections is developed numerically using nonlinear
stress-strain relationships for concrete and steel. The relative importance of
geometric and material nonlinearity is studied for a simple 2-storied frame
under static vertical load. The study on effect of axial load on the moment-
curvature relationship and the effect of typical axial loads on the flexural
30
behaviour of column was found to be significant. The shear strength of the

beams and columns prove to be very important here. Using the nonlinear
sectional properties, the nonlinear structural dynamic analysis of the building
were performed by subjecting the structure to seismic vibrations using
nonlinear structural dynamics.
Fajfar & Krawinkler (1992) had proposed N2 method as a simple

nonlinear procedure for seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings. The method uses response spectrum approach and nonlinear static
analysis. The method was applied to three 7-storey buildings. The capacity
curve of a MDOF system was converted to that of a SDOF and a global
demand was obtained. A damage model which includes cumulative damage
was determined at global demand. The method yields reasonably accurate
results provided that the structure vibrates predominantly in the first mode.
2.7 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES
Most of the simplified nonlinear analysis procedures utilized for

seismic performance evaluation make use of pushover analysis and/or
equivalent SDOF representation of actual structure. However, pushover
analysis involves certain approximations that the reliability and the accuracy
of the procedure should be identified. For this purpose, researchers
investigated various aspects of pushover analysis to identify the limitations
and weaknesses of the procedure and proposed improved pushover
procedures that consider the effects of lateral load patterns, higher modes,
failure mechanisms, etc.
Hassaballa et al. (2014) had analysed an existing four-storey

residential reinforced concrete building in the city of Khartoum-Sudan,
subjected to seismic hazard. The pushover analysis was performed on the
building using SAP2000 software and base shear versus roof top displacement
curve of the structures were obtained for estimation of seismic performance.
31
Riza Ainul Hakim et al. (2014) had investigated gravity supporting

building and its resistance to expected seismic loading in different regions.
RC building tested for gravity loading was investigated by performing the
nonlinear static pushover analysis according to ATC 40. Pushover analysis
produces the pushover curves, capacity spectrum, plastic hinges and
performance level of the building. The analysis gave better understanding
seismic performance of buildings and also traces the progression of damage
or failure. The building performance level was determined by intersection of
demand and capacity curves and the hinge developed in the beams and the
columns.
Kadid & Boumrkik (2008) have evaluated the performance of

framed buildings in Algeria for future expected earthquakes by non linear
static pushover analysis method. Three framed buildings with 5, 8 and 12
stories were analyzed. The results obtained from this study show that properly
designed frames will perform well under seismic loads.
Hardik Bhensdadia & Siddharth Shah (2015) have studied the

effects of floating column & soft storey in different seismic zones by seismic
analysis. Pushover analysis was adopted for this analysis to yield performance
level of building for design capacity (displacement) carried out up to failure,
it helps determination of collapse load and ductile capacity of the structure.
Three RC bare frame structures with G+4, G+9, G+15stories respectively was
analysed and compared the base force and displacement of RC bare frame
structure in different seismic zones using SAP 2000 analysis package.
Abhijeet et al. (2014) had developed a procedure to strengthen the

buildings for future earthquakes using the nonlinear static pushover analysis
for seismic performance evaluation of existing and new structures. By
conducting this pushover analysis, weak zones in the structure are identified
32
and then the particular part is retrofitted or rehabilitated according to the

requirement. Pushover analysis was performed on multistoried frame
structures on framed buildings with 5 and 12 stories respectively were
analyzed by SAP2000. The results obtained from this study show that
properly designed frames will perform well under seismic loads.
Elnashai & Mwafy (2002) performed a series of pushover analysis

and incremental dynamic collapse analysis to investigate the validity and the
applicability of pushover analysis. Twelve reinforced concrete buildings with
different structural systems with different design accelerations and with
different design ductility levels were utilized for the study. Tall and irregular
structures were accurately analysed by considering the inelasticity of lateral
load and the results were presented.
Gupta (1999) analysed the recorded responses of eight real

buildings that experienced ground accelerations in the excess of 0.25g in 1994
Northridge earthquake to understand the behaviour of real structures and to
evaluate the acceptability of pushover analysis. The selected buildings were 5,
7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20 storey structures having moment resisting and
shear wall lateral force resisting systems and were instrumented at the time of
the earthquake. The recorded storey displacement, inter-storey drift, storey
inertia force and storey shear profiles at various instants of time were
evaluated. It was observed that the response of buildings were significantly
affected by higher modes with the exception of low-rise structures and these
effects were better understood by analysing the inertia force and storey drift
profiles rather than displacements. The results of the proposed adaptive
procedure were compared with the ones obtained from nonlinear dynamic
analysis and pushover analysis with uniform and "code" lateral load patterns.
33
2.8 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF FRAMED STRUCTURE WITH

SHEAR WALL
In the last two decades, much effort has been carried out to simulate
the inelastic response of RC structural walls subjected to large cyclic
deformation reversals. Numerous analytical models incorporating information
from experimental investigations and on field observations of the hysteretic
behavior of RC structural walls have been proposed.
Julian Carrillo et al. (2014) had investigated the ductility by

assessing response measured on 39 walls, tested under shaking table
excitations and quasi- static lateral loads. Variables studied were height to
length ratio and walls with openings, type of concrete and steel ratio and type
of web reinforcement. An equation to estimate the available ductility of a wall
is proposed. Based on the static analysis of data, values of displacement
ductility are recommended. Displacement ductility ratios can be used to
compute both strength modification and displacement amplification factor for
code – based seismic design.
Fahjan et al. (2010) had modeled the concrete and the

reinforcement inside the structural elements with different layers. Different
approaches for linear and nonlinear modeling of the shear walls in structural
analysis of buildings are studied and applied to RC building with shear walls.
The analysis results of different approaches are compared in terms of overall
behavior of the structural systems.
Yannick & Patrick (2010) have presented an assessment of the

seismic performance of a ductile concrete core wall used as a seismic force
resisting system for a 12-storey concrete office building in Montre´al.,
designed according to the 2005 National building code of Canada (NBCC)
and the 2004 Canadian Standards Association standard A23.3. The core wall
34
consists of a cantilever wall system in one direction and a coupled wall

system in the orthogonal direction. The main conclusion from this work is
that the capacity design shear envelope for the studied wall structure largely
underestimates that predicted, primarily in the cantilever wall direction, and
this in turn significantly increases the risk of shear failure.
Ahmed & Ibrahim (2002) had proposed the nonlinear flexural

stiffness model for RC shear walls simplified by using a trilinear bending
moment curvature. It is proposed that the bending moment curvature response of
a wall section including the effect of axial compression acting on the wall, the
amount of vertical reinforcement and the state of cracking can be represented by
a simple trilinear relationship. Two important points could be notified in this
trilinear curve, one is cracking of concrete and another is yielding of the vertical
reinforcement which are associated with the change of slopes.
2.9 ESTIMATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR.
The response reduction factor or force modification factor R

reflects the capacity of structure to dissipate energy through inelastic
behavior. It is a combined effect of over strength, ductility, damping and
redundancy. Reserved strength and ductility can be worked out on the basis of
pushover curve. The strength factor is a measure of base shear force at design
level and at yielding. The ductility factor is a measure of roof displacement at
yielding and at code specified limit. The redundancy factor depends on the
number of framings. In this section, some of the previous studies R factors are
reviewed.
Apurba Mondal et al. (2013) focused on estimating the actual

values of this factor for realistic RC moment frame buildings designed and
detailed following the Indian standards for seismic and RC designs and for
ductile detailing, and comparing these values with the value suggested in the
35
design code. The primary emphasis are in a component-wise computation of

R, the consideration of performance-based limits at both member and
structure levels, a detailed modeling of the RC section behaviour, and the
effects of various analysis and design considerations on R. The results showed
that the Indian standard recommends a higher than actual value of R, which is
potentially dangerous.
Swajit Singh & Pradeep Kumar (2014) computed the value of R,

component wise of a G+4 storey building designed for all seismic zones,
considering ductile and non ductile design provisions and the same is
compared with the assumed R to check the safety of the structures and
computed the R value from the pushover curves.
Bhavin Patel & Dhara Shah (2010) have investigated the

formulation of key factors for seismic response reduction factor of RCC
framed staging of elevated water tank. The analysis revealed that three major
factors, called reserved strength, ductility and redundancy affects the actual
value of response modification factor and therefore they must be taken into
consideration while determining the appropriate response modification to be
used during the seismic design process. The evaluation of response
modification factor is done using static nonlinear pushover analysis and the
pushover curve for the actual capacity of the structure in the non linear range
was obtained.
Devi & Nandini Devi (2015) have studied the response reduction
factor of various RC structural systems. The R factor depending on the
perceived seismic damage performance of the structure, characterized by
ductile or brittle deformation. The concept of R factor is to deamplify the
seismic force and accounts nonlinearity with the help of over-strength,
redundancy and ductility. Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis is carried out
36
by using various software and pushover curves (base shear vs. roof
displacement) are obtained from the analysis.
Sanmi Deshpande et al.(2015) had estimated the seismic Response

reduction factor (R) for a reinforced concrete special moment resisting frame
(SMRF) with shear wall using nonlinear static pushover analysis. R factor
allows the designer to use a linear elastic force based design while accounting
for nonlinear behavior of the structure. The analysis revealed that the four
major factors Strength factor, Ductility factor, Redundancy factor and
Damping factor affect the actual value of the response reduction factor. The
actual values of the response reduction factor were worked out on the basis of
a pushover curve which is the plot between base shear and roof displacement.
The calculated value of the Response reduction factor is compared with the
code value.
2.10 SUMMARY
Literature review brought out various studies already carried out in

the relevant area of current research. It also elaborates the background of each
topic of study and convey the useful information to proceed the research in
right direction. Literature survey in the area of confined concrete, moment
curvature relations, ductility factor, non linear pushover analysis of RCC
framed structure with & without shear wall and estimation of R factor has
been briefly highlighted in this chapter.
37
CHAPTER 3
CONFINEMENT EFFECT IN REINFORCED CEMENT

CONCRETE
A detailed study on confinement effect of lateral reinforcement on

concrete compressive strength was carried out in this chapter. The increase of
ultimate compressive strength in concrete due to various parameters are also
discussed.
3.1 GENERAL
Sufficient lateral steel reinforcement in the form of rectangular,

circular or spirals hoops are provided in order to confine the compressed
concrete, to prevent buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement and to prevent
shear failure. This arrangement is an important design consideration for
improving ductility in plastic hinge regions of reinforced concrete columns.
The confining pressure is developed in the concrete when the surrounding
member undergoes hoop elongation. The mechanics of confinement is
dependent on the tendency of concrete to dilate and the radial stiffness of the
confining member to restrain the dilation. Experiments have confirmed that
confinement of concrete by providing lateral reinforcement has shown
significant increase of strength and the ductility of confined concrete.
Mander et al. (1988), Kent & Park (1971), Popovics (1973) and
Desayi et al. (1978) had carried out considerable amount of research work on
unconfined and confined concrete stress- strain behavior. In this chapter, an
38
analytical study using Mander equations was carried out to estimate the
effects of lateral confinement on ultimate compressive strength of the
concrete column for different parameters .
3.2 CONFINEMENT IN CONCRETE
Compressive strength of concrete is generally considered as the

compressive strength of concrete cubes or cylinders. In practice, concrete is
used along with steel as longitudinal and lateral reinforcement. The
compressive strength of this confined concrete is different from unconfined
concrete. When the axial compressive load on the column is high, the depth
of neutral axis is large and the flexural capacity of the column are depended
on the compressive stress distribution of the concrete. Good confinement of
concrete in column can increases reasonable plastic rotational capacity to
maintain flexural strength and achieve ductile performance.
Lateral reinforcement provided in confined concrete will not be

stressed at low levels of compressive stress and the concrete behavior is
similar to unconfined concrete. When the compressive stresses in the column
are close to the uni-axial strength of concrete, the concrete will undergo
progressive internal fracturing, volumetric change and bear out against the
lateral reinforcement, thereafter confining action is effective in concrete .
Confining action in concrete due to confined lateral reinforcement

causes a significant increase in the strength and ductility of concrete which is
very useful for resisting high seismic force during inelastic behavior of the
structure. Stress - strain characteristics of the confined concrete at high strains,
prevent buckling failure of main reinforcement and shear failure of the
member. The columns with higher grade of concrete and steel with confined
lateral steel have higher capacity due to gain in strength of concrete core of
the column from lateral confinement. Confinement effect and the shape of
39
stress - strain curve at high strains in RCC member are influenced by many
parameters such as grade of concrete, grade of steel, percentage of
main reinforcement and lateral reinforcement spacing.
3.3 MANDER MODEL FOR ESTIMATION OF CONFINED

CONCRETE STRENGTH
The ultimate compressive force of concrete in a column can be

predicted accurately using Mander expressions. Mander had developed stress
- strain relationship model for the confined concrete regardless of the section
shape. It uses energy balance approach to predict the longitudinal
compressive strain in the concrete corresponding to the first fracture of lateral
reinforcement.
Mathematical equations developed by Mander for estimation of

compressive strength and ultimate strain values as a function of the
confinement steel are included in the literature review. These equations were
used for preparation of Excel calculation sheet and estimation of unconfined
and confined strength of concrete was carried out.
3.4 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON CONFINEMENT EFFECT OF

REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE.
Studying of confined and unconfined concrete stress - strain

behavior have indicated many useful information including curvature ductility
property of RCC members for better performance during earthquake response.
Confinement effect in RCC member is influenced by parameters such as 5
Nos of grade of concrete, 3 Nos of grade of steel, 2 Nos of percentage of
main reinforcement and 6 Nos spacing of lateral reinforcement, results in
180(5x3x2x6) column models as the parameters mentioned in Table 3.1 was
considered for estimation of confined concrete strength.
40
Description of model for confinement effect in column. Suitable column

section was adopted for estimation of confinement effect in concrete for
various parameters. The input data considered were based on the current
practice of the structural design and site conditions. A rectangular column
section of size 230mm x 400mm was considered in this study for calculation
of confined concrete strength using Mander equations. The column details are
given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Details of RCC column for estimation of confinement effect

using Mander equations
Section property RCC Column

Column size 230mm x 400mm
Concrete grade M20, M25, M30, M35and M40
Steel grade Fe415, Fe 500 and Fe550
Longitudinal reinforcement 6x 12# (0.8%) and 6x16# (1.3%)
Cover 40 mm
Diameter of lateral reinforcement 8 mm
Confinement reinforcement 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm,
spacing 175mm and 200mm
Figure 3.1 Typical column section adopted for estimation of

confinement effect using Mander’s equations.
41
Confinement effect in column for different grades of concrete. Mander

stress – strain equation suggested that the ultimate strain of concrete depends
on confined concrete compressive strength. Stress - strain relationship for
different grade of concrete and with different lateral reinforcement spacing
obtained using Mander equations are shown in Figure 2.1. It is observed that
the confinement effect has more influence for lower grade concrete than in
higher grade concrete. It is observed from the stress vs strain graphs for M20
concrete (Figure 3.1(a) and 3.1(b)) that the concrete compressive strength get
enhanced due to confinement effect for 75mm, 100mm and 125mm spacing
only. However, for M25 and above grade of concrete (Figure 3.1(c) to Figure
3.1(j)) the concrete compressive strength increases for all confined lateral
reinforcement spacing.
Figure 3.2(a) Compressive stress vs Figure 3.2(b) Compressive stress

vs strain for M20 & strain for M20 &
Fe415 grade Fe500 grade
Figure 3.2(c) Compressive stress vs Figure 3.2(d) Compressive stress vs

strain for M25 & strain for M25 &
42
Figure 3.2(e) Compressive stress vs Figure 3.2(f) Compressive stress vs

Figure 3.2(g) Compressive stress vs Figure 3.2(h) Compressive stress vs

Figure 3.2(i) Compressive stress vs Figure 3.2(j) Compressive stress vs

Figure 3.2 Compressive stress vs strain for different grades of concrete

and steel.
43
The ultimate confined compressive strength for various grades of

concrete and other parameters were estimated and the results are tabulated.
From these results, the variation of ultimate compressive strength for various
grades of concrete over M40 grade was derived and given in Table 3.2. From
the results, it is observed that the ultimate confined concrete strength has
increased due to lateral reinforcement about 80% in M20 and M25 grades of
concrete and about 30% in M30, M35 and M40 grades of concrete. There was
a considerable improvement of confined strength about 65% - 85% due to
lateral reinforcement of spacing for 100mm and 75mm in M20 and M25
grades of concrete.
Table 3.2 Variation of ultimate confined concrete strength for various

grades of concrete over M40 concrete grade.
Variation of Confined Concrete Strength Over M40 Grade of Concrete Strength
0.8% Main steel 1.3% Main steel
Lateral
% of confined % of confined
reinfor-
Grade Grade of concrete strength concrete strength
S No cement
of steel concrete Before After Before After
spacing in
yield yield yield yield stress
mm
stress stress stress
1 Fe415 M20 75- 200 21-46 34-104 24-46 09-92
2 Fe415 M25 75- 200 11-19 05-82 11-27 09-75
3 Fe415 M30 75- 200 03-15 07-45 07-14 02-30
4 Fe415 M35 75- 200 01-09 02-18 01-08 01-10
6 Fe500 M20 75- 200 21-56 29-105 21-48 11-84
7 Fe500 M25 75- 200 11-25 04-84 11-27 05-66
8 Fe500 M30 75- 200 04-16 04-43 05-18 03-29
9 Fe500 M35 75- 200 01-18 04-14 02-09 02-08
11 Fe550 M20 75- 200 22-98 07-107 19-48 09-86
12 Fe550 M25 75- 200 11-30 05-80 10-26 07-67
13 Fe550 M30 75- 200 11-19 05-43 09-16 02-28
14 Fe550 M35 75- 200 01-20 04-14 01-07 01-08
44
Confinement effect in column for different grades of steel. Using the

Mander equations, un-confined and confined concrete compressive strength
and the ultimate strain of the confined concrete for various grades of steel and
other parameters were estimated and the results are tabulated. From these
results, the variation of ultimate compressive strength for various grades of
steel over Fe415 grade was derived and given in Table 3.3.

grades of steel - Fe500 and Fe550 steel over Fe415 steel
grade
Variation of Confined Concrete Strength Over Fe415 Steel Grade Strength

Lateral
% of confined % of confined concrete
reinfor-
S Grade of Grade of concrete strength strength
cement
No. steel concrete Before After Before
spacing After
in mm yield yield yield
yield stress
6 Fe500 M20 75- 200 01-15 08-31 02-23 02-42
7 Fe500 M25 75- 200 01-04 03-17 01-09 07-23
8 Fe500 M30 75- 200 01-05 05-14 02-06 05-12
9 Fe500 M35 75- 200 01-06 02-17 01-06 03-12
10 Fe500 M40 75- 200 01-05 02-10 02-05 05-07
11 Fe550 M20 75- 200 01-15 08-38 02-38 09-56
12 Fe550 M25 75- 200 01-06 07-19 04-11 06-21
13 Fe550 M30 75- 200 01-07 11-25 02-08 06-16
14 Fe550 M35 75- 200 01-07 04-17 01-07 02-14
15 Fe550 M40 75- 200 02-06 01-10 04-07 05-09
Grade of steel influences the confinement effect in RCC member.

Increase of compressive strength of concrete in a column with 1.0% of main
45
reinforcement was about 15% in Fe500 and Fe550 grade over Fe415 grade
with M20 grade concrete and lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm at
0.003 strain (before yield stress) and about 23% at 0.02 strain (after yield
stress). The increase in compressive strength of concrete was about 10% for
lateral reinforcement spacing of 100 mm at 0.003 and about 26% at 0.02
strain.
There was not much increase of confinement effect for the spacing
above 150mm by increasing the grade of steel. Similar trend was witnessed
for increased grade of concrete but with only 3% - 5% at 0.003 strain and 7%-
14% at 0.02 strain. Beyond 150mm spacing of lateral reinforcement, there
was no impact on increase of strength due to grade of steel on confinement
effect. The increase of ultimate confined concrete strength was 10% - 40%
due to increase of grade of steel from Fe415 to Fe500 and 10% - 55% from
Fe415 to Fe550. The confined strength was considerably increased about 45%
due to increase of grade of steel in M20 and M25 grade of concrete with
lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm and 100mm.
Confinement effect in column for different percentage of main steel:

Variation of main reinforcement in RCC column also influences the
confinement effect. Lesser percentage of longitudinal reinforcement shows
the lower stress - strain values over higher percentage of reinforcement. The
increase of concrete compressive strength in 1.3% of main steel over 0.8% at
0.02 strain value are given in Table 3.4.
Increase of compressive strength of concrete in a column with

Fe415 grade of steel was about 20% - 60% in all grades of concrete with
lateral reinforcement spacing of 100mm and 75mm and 3% - 25% in lateral
reinforcement spacing of 200mm, 175mm and 150mm. Similar trend has
been witnessed for Fe500 grade steel also. It was about 20% - 50% in lateral
46
reinforcement spacing of 100mm and 75mm and 6% - 26% in lateral

reinforcement spacing of 200mm, 175mm and 150mm. Increase of
compressive strength in Fe550 grade steel was about 20% - 45% in lateral
reinforcement spacing of 100mm and 75mm and 7% - 25% in lateral
reinforcement spacing of 200mm, 175mm and 150mm. There is no increase
of ultimate strength in M20 grade of concrete when the lateral reinforcement
spacing is more than 150mm and for the increase of steel grade.
Table 3.4 The increase of confined concrete strength in 1.3% of main

steel over 0.8% of main steel
Variation of Concrete Strength of 1.3% Main Steel over 0.8% Main Steel in %
S Grade of Grade of Lateral Reinforcement Spacing

No Steel Concrete 200mm 175mm 150mm 125mm 100mm 75mm
1 Fe415 M20 0 0 35 45 55 65
2 Fe415 M25 15 20 25 30 35 45
3 Fe415 M30 15 20 20 25 30 35
4 Fe415 M35 12 13 14 16 18 20
5 Fe415 M40 3 5 10 16 20 20
6 Fe500 M20 0 0 35 45 50 55
7 Fe500 M25 15 20 25 30 35 45
8 Fe500 M30 14 18 20 20 25 35
9 Fe500 M35 12 14 16 23 25 28
10 Fe500 M40 6 7 8 14 19 21
11 Fe550 M20 0 0 25 30 35 48
12 Fe550 M25 15 20 30 32 39 42
13 Fe550 M30 14 18 20 25 27 30
14 Fe550 M35 9 13 18 23 25 30
15 Fe550 M40 7 13 14 14 24 30
Confinement effect in column for different lateral reinforcement spacing.

The unconfined and confined strength of concrete up to first crack has no
change, however, beyond first yield of steel, the confined strength of concrete
has increased. It was observed that the closer lateral reinforcement in low
47
strength concrete has higher percentage of strength increment due to

confinement effect.
The ultimate confined compressive strength for various lateral

reinforcement spacing and other parameters were estimated and the results
are tabulated. From these results, the variation of ultimate compressive
strength for lateral reinforcement spacing over 200mm spacing was derived
and given in Table 3.5.

lateral reinforcement spacing
Variation of Confined Concrete Strength Over 200mm Lateral Reinforcement Spacing

0.8% Main steel 1.3% Main Steel
Lateral
Confined concrete Confined concrete
reinfor-
S Grade Grade of strength strength
cement
No of steel concrete After Before After
spacing in Before
mm yield yield yield
yield stress
1 Fe415 M20- M40 175 02-32 02-05 02-15 05-26
2 Fe415 M20- M40 150 01-52 04-51 03-30 13-58
3 Fe415 M20- M40 125 03-61 08-71 05-137 19-76
4 Fe415 M20- M40 100 04-101 11-97 10-164 30-115
5 Fe415 M20- M40 75 04-157 24-120 15-186 45-147
6 Fe500 M20- M40 175 02-12 06-16 05-15 07-17
7 Fe500 M20- M40 150 02-42 06-52 13-42 13-58
8 Fe500 M20- M40 125 02-115 08-73 19-142 19-76
9 Fe500 M20- M40 100 05-142 19-102 10-165 31-115
10 Fe500 M20- M40 75 09-164 30-120 15-192 45-160
11 Fe550 M20- M40 175 02-19 05-16 02-14 07-27
12 Fe550 M20- M40 150 04-42 06-52 06-32 13-51
13 Fe550 M20- M40 125 08-85 13-73 07-148 19-97
14 Fe550 M20- M40 100 08-118 19-102 20-179 35-136
15 Fe550 M20- M40 75 14-166 30-120 31-195 53-163
48
From the results, it was observed that the ultimate confined

concrete strength get increased to the range of 45% - 160% due to reduction
of lateral reinforcement spacing from 200 mm to 75mm. Similarly, increase
of strength was about 30% - 140% for lateral reinforcement spacing of
100mm, 20% - 115% for lateral reinforcement spacing of 125mm and 10% -
50% for lateral reinforcement spacing of 150mm. Increase of ultimate
strength due to reduction of lateral reinforcement spacing in M40 grade of
concrete is lesser than M20 grade of concrete. The confined strength was
increased about 45% in M20 and M25 grade of concrete with lateral
reinforcement spacing of 75mm and 100mm. There was an increase of
confined concrete strength about 10% - 15% due to increase of grade of steel
in all grades of concrete.
3.5 SUMMARY
Confinement effect was studied for 180 column models of M20,

M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades concrete with Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550
grades of steel with lateral reinforcement spacing of 200mm, 175mm, 150mm,
125mm, 100mm and 75mm for 0.8% and 1.3 % of main steel. The study has
brought out the following conclusions:
i The increase of ultimate confined concrete strength due to

lateral reinforcement was about 80% in M20 and M25 grades
of concrete and was about 30% M30, M35 and M40 grades of
concrete.
ii The increase of ultimate confined concrete strength due to

increase of grade of steel from Fe415 was about 7% - 30% in
Fe500 and 9% - 40% in Fe550.
49
iii The increase of ultimate confined concrete strength due to

increase of main steel from 0.8% to 1.3% was about 10% -
30%.
iv The increase of ultimate confined concrete strength over

lateral reinforcement spacing of 200 mm was about 100% -
145% for lateral reinforcement spacing of 100mm and 75mm
and about 40% - 50% for lateral reinforcement spacing of
150mm and 175mm for all grades of concrete and steel.
From the study on confinement effect in RCC, it is observed that

the columns designed, detailed and constructed with confined concrete will
enhance its force resisting capacity during strong earthquakes. Provision of
lateral reinforcements as per IS code in higher grades of concrete will prevent
buckling of longitudinal reinforcement, avoid shear failure and enhance the
ductility property of the members.
50
CHAPTER 4
MOMENT - CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP OF

REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE BEAM AND
COLUMN MEMBERS
A parametric study was performed on moment - curvature

relationship in reinforcement cement concrete beam and column members to
estimate the member curvature ductility. Influence of curvature ductility at
ultimate strength of RCC member is quantified in this chapter.
4.1 GENERAL
Concrete and steel are two materials with completely different

mechanical properties and their unique bonding makes M- relation of RCC
frames more complex. Providing lateral reinforcement in the form of stirrups,
ties, hoops, or spirals confines the compression zone of a RCC member and
increases the capacity of yield and ultimate strain which develops more
curvature without failure.
Moment - rotation relationship for a beam under tension failure

indicates that larger rotation capacity without significant decrease in ultimate
moment. Moment - rotation relationship for a beam under compression failure
indicates that the strength and ductility increase due to confined lateral
reinforcement in the concrete.
51
Material stress - strain characteristic of confined concrete is an

important parameter form developing moment curvature relation.
Mander (1988) equations and ATC - 40 (1996) were considered for
estimation of moment - curvature (M- ) relationship of concrete confined by
lateral reinforcement. The curvature ductility of RCC beam and column
members were estimated for influencing parameters such as concrete
compressive strength, yield strength of steel, amount of longitudinal
reinforcement, lateral reinforcement spacing and axial loads on columns. In
this study, a computer program developed by Kansas State University -
Reinforced Concrete (KSU-RC) was used for investigating the effect of
various parameters contributing to the curvature ductility.
4.2 THEORITICAL MOMENT-CURVATURE OF RCC

MEMBERS
Theoretical moment - curvature can be derived for reinforced

concrete sections with flexure and axial load on the basis of assumptions of
plane sections before bending remain plane after bending for the known
stress - strain curves for concrete and steel. Using these assumptions , strain
compatibility and equilibrium of forces, the curvatures associated with a
range of bending moments and axial loads can be determined.
Curvature in a beam member is large due to its bending action by

moments acting at both the ends. But the curvature of column member is
greatly influenced by its axial force and no unique curvature is formed in a
column section. The ultimate capacity and curvature of the section is arrived
for the critical combination of axial load and moment.
A straight reinforced concrete element will start bending due to end

moments and axial forces. If the radius of curvature is R, neutral axis depth is
kd, then concrete strain in the extreme compression fiber c and tension steel
52
strain s, then the curvature of the element is defined as, =( c s)/d. When
the moment is increased in the member, the strain in concrete, strain in steel
and depth of neutral axis will vary across the cross section. Since cracks
occurs in the section due to concrete strain and the depth of neutral axis is
fluctuating, the gradient of the strain profile (curvature ) of the element also
varies along the length of the member. The relationship between moment M
and curvature is defined as
M= EI (4.1)
where, E- Young’s modulus of the concrete and
I - Moment of inertia of the section.
4.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF MOMENT - CURVATURE

RELATIONSHIP OF RCC MEMBERS
Moment - curvature relationship can be obtained from curvature

and the bending moment of the section for a given load increased to failure. A
study has been carried out to estimate M - relationship for various
influencing parameters of a beam and column members.
Description of Model used for M- relationship. Several equations are

available for developing a moment-curvature relationship of any concrete
section using nonlinear stress - strain relationship. Mader model was chosen
in this study due to its applicability and provides the stress - strain
relationship of the confined concrete, regardless of the section shape.
KSU_RC software uses the Mander stress-strain relationship which is
applicable to any cross sectional shapes and reinforcement arrangement in
practice.
53
KSU_RC is a software tool developed by Dr Asad Esmaeily,

Kansas State University, which addresses the analytical needs of several cross
sections, all types of steel arrangements in the section, all types of steel
behavior, all types of loading, unconfined and confined concrete of monotonic
or hysteretic stress-strain relationship. It can also provide force- deflection
analysis under any loading pattern with all kind of lateral displacement
history. The results obtained from KSU- RC software were validated using
MyBiAxial software and moment curvature calculations using Excel sheet.
Input for the program are member geometry, material properties

and axial loads. Using KSU-RC software, moment - curvature analysis was
performed for beam and column members for various grades of concrete and
steel, percentage of main reinforcements and lateral reinforcement spacing etc.
A typical input and output screen layout of KSU-RC software is shown in
Figure 4.1(a) and 4.2(b).
Figure 4.1(a) Typical input screen layout of KSU-RC software

54
Figure 4.1(b) Typical M- curve as output of KSU-RC software
Properties of RCC sections used for study of moment-

curvature relationship. The M- relationship of RCC sections is derived
numerically by the application of simple principles of strength of materials.
The input data considered in the program were based on the current practices
of the structural design and site conditions. The M- curves were generated
for a 230mm x 300mm beam and a 230mm x 400mm column with axial force
of 300kN, 450 kN and 600kN using KSU-RC software program. A section
subjected to only flexure and a section with combined action of flexure and
axial force were considered. Therefore a beam section and a column section
were chosen to study the effects of moment curvature for different parameters.
Material and sectional properties used for estimation of M- values are given
in Table 4.1.
55
Table 4.1 The properties of RCC beam and column member used for
estimation of M- values
Section Property Beam Column

Width 230mm 230mm
Depth/ Breadth 300mm 400mm
Length 4000mm 3000mm
Concrete strength 20,25,30,35 and 40 MPa 20,25,30,35 and 40 MPa
Steel grade 415, 500 and 550 MPa 415,500 and 550 MPa
Main reinforcement 1.0% and 1.8% 0.8% and 1.3%
Lateral reinforcement spacing in mm 75,100,125,150,175 and 200 75,100,125,150, 175 and 200
Diameter of lateral reinforcement 8mm 8mm
Cover 30 mm 40 mm
Axial Load 0 300kN,450kN and 600kN
180 beam and 540 column members with different parameters as

mentioned in Table 4.1 were used for analysis and the results of M-
relationship are tabulated.
4.4 EFFECT OF MOMENT - CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP

FOR VARIOUS PARAMETERS
A parametric study was carried out using KSU_RC Version 1.1

which adopts Mander stress - strain curve of confined concrete. Moment-
curvature was generated for various influencing parameters and the results are
discussed in this chapter.
Moment curvature curve analysis compute the results such as first

yield of longitudinal steel, when longitudinal bar fails, first yield of confined
concrete, when confined concrete reaches peak strength and confined concrete
fails stages. The moment curvature curves exhibit discontinuity at first yield
of the tension steel and continue till the compressive concrete strain reaches
56
0.0035, thereafter it reaches a peak concrete confined strength and then

terminates at failure of confined concrete. The M - curve for different
parameters shows different maximum confined concrete curvature and
moment. A typical beam and column M - analysis obtained from KSU_RC
software is shown in Figure 4.2.
(a) M- for beam section (b) M- for column section
Figure 4.2 Typical M - analysis of beam and column from KSU_RC

Software
Effect of concrete grade on moment and curvature. A member with lower

strength exhibits less curvature at ultimate confined concrete strength than a
member with higher strength. It was evident that the curvature at yield and the
curvature at ultimate are increasing with higher characteristic strength of
concrete. The higher strength concrete members are stiffer than lower strength
concrete members, because the flexural rigidity of concrete increases with
strength. Mandal (1993) also reported that increase in the characteristic
strength of concrete increases the neutral axis depth, hence increases the
moment capacity of the section and high strength concrete result in a greater
reduction in moment capacity at the spalling of the cover concrete.
The ultimate curvature and moment for various grades of concrete

and other parameters were estimated and the results are tabulated. From these
results, the variation of curvature and moment for different grades of concrete
57
in beam and column members over M20 grade of concrete was derived and
given in Table 4.2 and in Figure 4.3.
Table 4.2 Variation of curvature and moment for different grades of

concrete in beam and column members over M20 grade of
concrete
Beam with 1.0 % Column with 1.3 % main

Steel Concrete
S No main steel steel and 450 kN axial load
grade grade
Curvature Moment Curvature Moment
1 Fe 415 M25 10-15 2-4 04-15 10-15
2 Fe 415 M30 20-30 4-6 08-20 15-30
3 Fe 415 M35 25-40 6-9 25-40 18-32
4 Fe 415 M40 35-55 9-11 40-60 20-35
5 Fe 500 M25 12-20 2-4 05-15 10-15
6 Fe 500 M30 15-40 4-6 10-30 15-30
7 Fe 500 M35 22-55 6-8 20-50 15-30
8 Fe 500 M40 30-70 9-10 30-65 20-35
9 Fe 550 M25 10-25 1-4 05-15 10-15
10 Fe 550 M30 20-40 2-5 10-25 10-25
11 Fe 550 M35 30-60 6-8 20-40 10-30
12 Fe 550 M40 40-75 9-10 25-60 15-35
Figure 4.3 Average variation of curvature for different grades of

concrete in beam and column members over M20 grade of
concrete
58
From the Table 4.2 and Figure 4.3, it can be observed that the
increase of ultimate curvature in concrete beam with 1.0% of main steel over
M20 concrete grade was 10% - 75% in M25 and above grades of concrete
and all grades steel. Similarly, the ultimate moment variation in concrete
beam over M20 concrete grade was 2% - 11% in M25 and above grades of
concrete. The similar trend was continued and the increase of ultimate
curvature in concrete column with 1.3% of main steel over M20 concrete
grade was 10%- 60% in M25 and above grades of concrete and all grades
steel. The ultimate moment variation in concrete column over M20 concrete
grade was 10% - 35% in M25 and above grades of concrete.
The result shows that the effect of confined concrete strength on

M- relationship of beam cross section was higher than column section but
the moment carrying capacity was higher in column than the beam. It is
evident that with the increase of concrete compressive strength, moment
capacity increases but ultimate curvature decreases. It reveals that the
ultimate strain of confined concrete depends on concrete compressive strength
and curvature decreases when concrete strength increases.
Effect of steel grade on moment and curvature. The curvature and moment
difference at ultimate level of confined concrete due to variation of steel grade
was not significant. It is observed that the ultimate strain in concrete was
more in higher grade of steel. The variation of moment in beam section gets
decreased in case of high strength steel. But the variation of moment in
column section is still reduced. The ultimate curvature and moment for
various grades of steel and other parameters were estimated and the results are
tabulated. From these results, the variation in curvature and moment at
ultimate strength in RCC beam and column members over Fe415 grade was
derived and given in Table 4.3.
59
Table 4.3 Variation of moment and curvature at ultimate strength in

beam and column members over Fe415 grade of steel
Beam with 1.0 % Column with 1.3 % main steel

S Steel Concrete
main steel and 450 kN axial load
No grade grade
1 Fe 500 M20 2-5 17-19 4-10 6-15
2 Fe 500 M25 3-5 17-19 4-10 6-11
3 Fe 500 M30 3-5 17-18 2-10 5-10
4 Fe 500 M35 2-4 16-18 2-10 5-10
5 Fe 500 M40 2-3 16-18 1-10 5-10
6 Fe 550 M20 2-3 09-12 2-7 3-7
7 Fe 550 M25 2-4 09-11 2-6 2-7
8 Fe 550 M30 2-3 09-11 2-5 2-6
9 Fe 550 M35 2-3 09-10 2-5 3-6
10 Fe 550 M40 1-2 09-10 2-5 3-6
From the Table 4.3, it is observed that the increase of ultimate

curvature in concrete beam with 1.0% of main steel over Fe415 grade of steel
was 3% - 5% in Fe500 and 1% - 4% in Fe550 grade of steel and in all grades
of concrete. The ultimate moment variation in concrete beam over Fe415
grade of steel was 16% - 19% in Fe500 and 9% - 12% in Fe550 grade of steel.
Similarly, the increase of ultimate curvature in concrete column with 1.3% of
main steel over Fe415 grade of steel was 1% - 10% in Fe500 and 2% - 7% in
Fe550 grade of steel and in all grades of concrete. The ultimate moment
variation in concrete beam over Fe415 grade of steel was 5% - 15% in Fe500
and 2% - 7% in Fe550 grade of steel. With the increase of grade of steel,
curvature and moment variation get decreased in all grades of concrete.
Effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on moment and curvature.

Longitudinal reinforcement of 1.0% and 1.8% for beam elements with 0.8%
and 1.3% for column elements were considered in this study for determining
the ultimate moment and curvature of confined concrete and the variations
are given in Table 4.4.
60
With increase in the amount of tension steel, the depth of neutral

axis increases. As the yield point of longitudinal steel is fixed and stress and
neutral axis depth increase with curvature. At ultimate condition, the strain at
the maximum compressive stress of concrete is fixed, therefore, the curvature
at ultimate strength decreases. The member with high quantity of longitudinal
reinforcement experience large curvature at relatively constant level of
moment before the ultimate load is attained. The beam with low quantity of
longitudinal reinforcement can sustain increasing moments, but only a small
curvature is achieved before the ultimate condition.
From the Table 4.4, it can be seen that the beams with higher
quantity of reinforcement gives less amount of curvature of 13% - 30% and
more moment of 67% - 73% for ultimate confined concrete strength.
Similarly the columns with higher quantity of reinforced condition gives the
less curvature of 3% - 14% and more moment of 20% - 33% for ultimate
confined concrete strength.
Table 4.4 Variation of curvature and moment in beam and column

members for different main reinforcement
Column with 1.3% over 0.8%

Beam with 1.8 % over
Steel Concrete main steel and 450kN axial
S No 1.0% main steel
Grade Grade load
1 Fe 415 M20 13-29 68-71 1-5 20-28
2 Fe 415 M25 15-29 67-71 8-11 24-28
3 Fe 415 M30 16-28 67-69 8-11 24-28
4 Fe 415 M35 18-28 66-69 7-11 25-28
5 Fe 415 M40 19-28 66-68 7-12 25-28
6 Fe 500 M20 17-28 68-73 3-6 21-30
7 Fe 500 M25 13-30 67-73 5-9 25-31
8 Fe 500 M30 15-30 67-72 9-12 28-31
9 Fe 500 M35 17-30 67-71 8-13 28-31
10 Fe 500 M40 18-30 67-70 8-14 28-31
11 Fe 550 M20 15-30 67-73 3-6 24-32
12 Fe 550 M25 15-30 67-73 5-10 28-33
13 Fe 550 M30 16-30 67-73 9-12 28-33
14 Fe 550 M35 16-30 67-72 9-14 30-33
15 Fe 550 M40 17-30 67-71 9-14 30-33
61
Effect of lateral reinforcement spacing on moment and curvature.

Provision of lateral reinforcement increases ultimate strain and therefore
ultimate curvature is reduced. 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175 mm and
200 mm lateral reinforcement spacing were considered for parametric studies.
When the stirrup in beams and ties in columns are widely spaced, the
curvature was low. Therefore, lateral reinforcement spacing plays an
important role in improving curvature and moment of the beam and column
section. The ultimate curvature and moment for various lateral reinforcement
spacing and other parameters were estimated and the results are tabulated.
From these results, the variation of curvature and moment at ultimate strength
in RCC beam and column members for different lateral confined spacing was
derived and given in Table 4.5(a) and 4.5(b).
From the Table 4.5(a) and (b), it is observed that as lateral

reinforcement spacing increases, the moment capacity increases but ultimate
curvature decreases because the concrete is active in resisting moment. By
confining the section, the ultimate compressive strain and curvature is
increased. The curvature decreases when the confinement reinforcement
spacing is reduced but the moment capacity is increased.
The ultimate curvature decreases when the confinement

reinforcement spacing is reduced. The decrease of curvature in concrete
beam with lateral reinforcement spacing of 200mm was 15% - 74%, for
spacing of 175mm was 16% - 64%, for spacing of 150mm was 15% -
59%, for spacing of 125mm was 15% - 50%, for spacing of 100mm was
7% - 36% and for spacing of 75mm was 6% - 22% in all grades of steel and
concrete. Similarly, the decrease of curvature in column for lateral
reinforcement spacing of 200mm was 16% - 84% , for spacing of 175mm
was 14% - 19%, for spacing of 150mm was 7% - 99%, for spacing of
62
125mm was 6% - 80%, for spacing of 100mm was 3% - 35% and for
spacing of 75mm was 10% - 15% in all grades of steel and concrete.
The ultimate moment increases when the confinement lateral

reinforcement spacing is reduced. The increase of moment in concrete beam
with lateral reinforcement spacing of 200mm was 2% - 7%, for spacing of
175mm was 3% - 10%, for spacing of 150mm was 3% - 11%, for spacing
of 125mm was 3% - 11%, for spacing of 100mm was 1% - 9% and for
spacing of 75mm was 1% - 6% in all grades of steel and concrete. Similarly,
the decrease of curvature in column with lateral reinforcement spacing of
200mm was 5% - 43%, for spacing of 175mm was 9% - 50%, for spacing
of 150mm was 9% - 51%, for spacing of 125mm was 5% - 46%, for
spacing of 100mm was 4% - 33% and for spacing of 75mm was 3% - 24%
in all grades of steel and concrete.
Table 4.5(a) Variation of ultimate curvature for different lateral

confined reinforcement spacing over different grades of
concrete
Variation of curvature in % for different grades of concrete in RCC beam and column members
Beams with M20,M25,
Lateral M30, M35 and M40 Columns with M20,M25, M30, M35 and M40 concrete grade
reinfor-
Steel 0.8% 1.3% Main 0.8% 1.3% 0.8% Main 1.3% Main
S No cement
grade 1.0% 1.8% Main Main Steel Steel and Main Steel Main Steel Steel and Steel and
Spacing
in mm Main steel steel and 300 300 kN and 450 and 450 600 kN 600 kN
kN axial axial kN axial kN axial axial axial
1 Fe 415 200 15-59 16-66 20-83 21-79 18-84 14-70 17-81 16-69
2 Fe 415 175 16-55 15-54 20-91 29-84 27-94 16-77 24-91 20-77
3 Fe 415 150 18-57 16-54 21-99 24-99 21-97 13-78 18-89 16-73
4 Fe 415 125 15-50 12-44 18-80 40-75 10-77 35-56 11-63 11-40
5 Fe 415 100 10-36 07-27 11-60 33-56 14-56 27-37 09-40 06-31
6 Fe 415 75 06-22 03-14 09-33 10-33 10-35 03-26 06-32 05-26
7 Fe 500 200 26-74 16-62 28-90 17-70 20-82 16-64 24-80 20-64
8 Fe 500 175 21-61 19-61 25-92 17-73 20-87 16-69 22-84 18-66
9 Fe 500 150 16-58 15-54 23-86 12-67 13-76 09-60 12-69 10-52
10 Fe 500 125 12-46 10-39 12-65 14-41 8-56 06-42 09-45 07-32
11 Fe 500 100 07-31 05-22 10-45 11-41 8-34 05-30 08-31 05-23
12 Fe 500 75 01-12 06-11 09-28 10-30 9-32 06-29 02-24 01-14
13 Fe 550 200 28-71 18-65 23-87 15-77 20-80 16-61 23-78 19-60
14 Fe 550 175 19-64 18-63 21-85 12-65 19-81 15-61 18-76 14-58
15 Fe 550 150 16-59 13-53 28-88 7-56 10-65 07-49 11-58 09-42
16 Fe 550 175 11-43 06-34 26-77 6-47 8-47 06-33 09-38 07-26
17 Fe 550 100 10-26 05-19 10-38 9-36 7-33 04-26 07-29 05-20
18 Fe 550 75 06-14 01-11 02-23 9-27 9-30 05-27 05-27 03-19
63
Table 4.5(b) Variation of ultimate moment for different lateral confined `
Variation of Moment in % for different Grade of Concrete in RCC beam and column members
Beams with
M20,M25, M30, Columns with M20,M25, M30, M35 and M40
Lateral
M35 and M40
reinfor-
Steel 0.8%
S No cement 0.8% Main 1.3% Main 0.8% Main 1.3% Main 1.3% Main
Grade 1.0% 1.8% Main
Spacing in Steel with Steel with Steel with Steel with Steel with
Main Main Steel with
mm 300 kN 300 kN 450 kN 450 kN 600 kN
Steel Steel 600 kN
axial axial axial axial axial
axial
1 Fe 415 200 02-07 02-07 05-13 11-19 15-26 14-26 11-28 11-30
2 Fe 415 175 03-08 04-07 09-17 16-25 17-29 22-36 22-43 21-43
3 Fe 415 150 04-11 03-09 09-22 18-32 10-30 21-43 21-54 19-51
4 Fe 415 125 04-11 03-09 10-23 13-29 11-35 15-38 13-46 11-42
5 Fe 415 100 02-09 02-07 05-18 10-22 08-25 13-28 11-33 10-31
6 Fe 415 75 01-06 01-04 04-11 09-16 05-15 11-21 09-24 08-24
7 Fe 500 200 02-07 02-07 09-18 12-20 16-28 15-29 20-39 18-39
8 Fe 500 175 04-09 04-09 09-22 13-25 14-29 16-37 22-52 19-50
9 Fe 500 150 03-11 03-09 10-24 11-25 11-30 10-36 13-49 11-45
10 Fe 500 125 03-10 02-08 05-19 06-20 10-30 09-28 11-38 09-34
11 Fe 500 100 02-08 01-05 04-14 04-12 08-20 08-20 10-28 08-27
12 Fe 500 75 01-04 01-02 03-08 03-09 05-13 06-14 08-21 07-22
13 Fe 550 200 03-07 03-07 11-21 14-23 17-32 15-33 21-39 18-43
14 Fe 550 175 04-10 04-09 11-24 13-27 13-33 15-39 19-45 15-48
15 Fe 550 150 03-11 03-09 09-23 08-24 11-35 09-34 12-36 10-41
16 Fe 550 175 03-09 02-07 05-17 07-18 09-27 08-26 10-27 09-31
17 Fe 550 100 01-06 01-04 04-12 04-11 07-18 07-19 09-22 08-26
18 Fe 550 75 01-03 01-02 03-08 03-08 04-12 06-14 08-17 07-20
Effect of axial force in column on moment and curvature. Moment-

curvature analysis for column section is performed to obtain the curvature for
each load and moment condition and the iteration continues till yield
condition of steel is satisfied or the ultimate condition is reached. The
variation of ultimate curvature and moment at ultimate strength in RCC
column for different axial load is given in Table 4.6
From the Table 4.6, it was observed that the decrease of curvature
at ultimate strength of column over 300 kN was in the range of 10% - 25%
for axial load of 450kN and was in the range of 20% - 40% for axial load of
600kN. Similarly, the increase of moment at ultimate strength of column over
300 kN was ranging from 9% - 22% for axial load of 450kN was in the range
of 8% - 41% for axial load of 600kN. Increase of longitudinal reinforcement
and axial load results in decrease of moment but increase of curvature at
ultimate strength of concrete.
64
Table 4.6 Variation of curvature and moment for different axial load
in RCC column over 300 kN axial load.
Variation of curvature and moment in % for axial load in column members

Column with 1.3 % Column with 0.8% Column with 1.3 %
Column with 0.8%
main steel and 450 main steel and 600 kN main steel and 600
Steel Concrete main steel and 450 kN kN over 300 kN axial over 300 kN axial kN over 300 kN axial
S No
grade grade over 300 kN axial load load load load
Curvature Moment Curvature Moment Curvature Moment Curvature Moment
1 Fe 415 M20 19-22 9-14 11-13 6-9 29-35 11-25 16-26 13-19
2 Fe 415 M25 19-24 11-19 12-22 9-13 30-36 19-31 27-40 13-19
3 Fe 415 M30 19-25 16-22 18-22 10-15 31-37 26-38 28-34 15-25
4 Fe 415 M35 17-24 16-21 16-22 11-15 30-38 30-40 28-33 22-30
5 Fe 415 M40 19-21 18-22 16-25 12-16 31-36 32-41 28-38 22-30
6 Fe 500 M20 15-19 10-14 6-14 4-6 26-31 13-19 16-25 5-9
7 Fe 500 M25 18-21 13-17 12-17 4-9 29-33 16-27 21-25 6-15
8 Fe 500 M30 18-23 13-18 16-21 8-12 30-35 22-29 25-29 12-20
9 Fe 500 M35 17-22 16-19 15-21 9-13 30-36 27-36 27-31 19-24
10 Fe 500 M40 19-22 15-20 15-19 11-14 28-35 29-37 26-33 20-26
11 Fe 550 M20 16-21 7-12 9-13 3-6 20-30 12-18 16-24 6-9
12 Fe 550 M25 18-20 9-14 10-16 4-8 27-31 15-24 19-22 8-12
13 Fe 550 M30 17-21 13-17 14-17 6-10 29-33 21-30 22-26 9-16
14 Fe 550 M35 17-20 14-18 15-17 9-12 28-34 25-34 26-28 14-21
15 Fe 550 M40 16-20 15-19 16-20 10-14 28-34 28-34 26-32 19-26
4.5 SUMMARY
180 beam and 540 column members with various parameters were
analysed for M- relationship and the results obtained are summarized below:
i. It was observed that the available curvature decreases and

moment increases when the concrete compressive strength
increases. The decrease of curvature at ultimate confined
concrete strength in concrete beam was about 10% - 75% and
increase of moment was about 1% - 11%. Similarly, the
decrease of curvature in concrete column was about 10% -
60% and increase of moment was about 10% - 35% in all
grades of steel.
ii. The curvature at ultimate strength decreases and moment

increases when the yield strength of steel increases. The
decrease of curvature at ultimate strength in Fe500 and Fe550
65
was about 50%- 80% , Similarly the variation of moment in

Fe 500 and Fe550 was about 50%- 80%.
iii. It was observed that the available curvature ductility factor is

decreased when the main reinforcement ratio is increased or
the concrete compressive strength is decreased. The confined
concrete strength of concrete was decreased about 10% - 30%
due to increase of main steel from 0.8% to 1.3%
iv. It was noticed that the lateral reinforcement reduce the

curvature and increases the moment capacity at ultimate
strength. The decrease of curvature in beam due to lateral
reinforcement spacing was about 10% -65% and in column
was about 8% -86% . Similarly, increase of moment capacity
in beam was in the range of 2% - 11% and in column in the
range of 5% - 51%.
v. Columns were found to be less ductile in nature than beams

due to effect of axial force. Decrease of curvature due to 450
axial load was in the range of 10% - 25% and increase of
moment was in the range of 9% - 22%. Similarly, decrease
of curvature due to 600 axial load was in the range of 20% -
40% and increase of moment was in the range of 8% - 41%.
Higher grade of concrete and steel, confined spacing of lateral

reinforcement in beam and column members experiences reduced curvature
and increased moments at ultimate strength. Considering these aspect in
seismic design and providing appropriate grade of concrete, steel and
confined lateral reinforcement spacing will reduce the curvature and increase
the moment carrying capacity. This material property will enhance the
ductility property of RCC members and become useful in resisting very large
seismic force.
66
CHAPTER 5
DUCTILITY EFFECT IN RCC BEAM AND COLUMN

MEMBERS
Ductility is an important factors for estimation of response

reduction factor (R) value. A parametric study on ductility effect in RCC
beam and column members were performed and its contribution to R value is
discussed in this chapter.
5.1 GENERAL
Ductility is defined as the ability to undergo deformations without a

substantial reduction in the flexural capacity of the member. Ductility is an
useful property of RCC structures which prevent the sudden failure of
members due to flexure and ensure structural integrity. Formation of plastic
hinges in RCC beam and column members at its appropriate locations in the
structural frame makes the framed structure as ductile and prevent brittle
failure due to yielding of materials. At the time of collapse due to over
loading, RCC ductile structure will give sufficient warning to the occupants
to leave the premises and save their life. A typical moment-curvature curve
and strain distribution in a RCC member considered for estimation of
curvature ductility is shown in Figure 5.1.
67
Figure 5.1 Typical moment- curvature curve and strain distribution of

a RCC member
Ductility of a member can be estimated using force- deformation

relation, where the force may be load, moment and stress vs the deformation
may be elongation, curvature, rotation and strain. The displacement ductility
is defined by an equation µ = u/ y, where, y is the yield deformation
corresponding to yielding of the reinforcement in a cross section and u is
the ultimate deformation beyond which the force - deformation curve has a
negative slope. The ductility of a reinforced concrete section is also expressed
)
in the form of the curvature ductility µ= u/ y = where, u is
the curvature at ultimate load when the concrete compression strain reaches a
specified limiting value and y is the curvature when the tension
reinforcement first reaches the yield strength, c is the concrete compressive
strain, values of a, k and 1 are depth factors shown in Figure 5.1. When a
ductile structure is subjected to overloading it will tend to deform in-
elastically and redistributes the excess load to other parts of the structure.
Estimation of ductility of an individual beam and column members

and for a framed structural system is necessary to understand its influence on
R value. Curvature ductility of unconfined concrete was estimated using Park
& Pauley (1975) equations and curvature ductility of confined concrete was
68
estimated using KSU_RC program. Similarly, non linear push over analysis
of RCC framed structure was adopted to estimate the overall displacement
ductility of the structure for various parameters.
5.2 DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY
The displacement ductility factor ( ) of a structure is defined as the

ratio of elastic response inertia load (Ve) to static design load (Vd), = Ve/ Vd
and the values are ranging from 3 to 5. The ratio of the static design load to
the elastic response inertia load may be referred to as the load reduction factor
R = 1/ . Some dynamic analysis has indicated that the equal maximum
deflection assumption may be unconservative. In particular, reinforced
concrete show a deterioration of stiffness under load reversals, which causes a
reduction in the energy dissipating characteristics. Blume et al. (1961) had
introduced a value for the response reduction factor R that gives a probable
upper limit based on the equal energy concept, which implies that the
potential energy stored by the elastic system at maximum deflection is same
as that stored by the elasto-plastic system at maximum deflection. The
response of elastic and elasto-plastic structures is explained in review of
literature. The value of R is estimated by equating the area of maximum
deflection response and maximum energy response and R factor is derived as
= . The values of obtained from a range of R values is given below.
___________________________________________________________
R=Design load/Elastic response load 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
_____________________________________________________________
= 1/R 5.0 2.5 1.67 1.25 1.0
= )/2 13.0 3.63 1.89 1.28 1.0
______________________________________________________________
69
It is evident that the elasto-plastic system response at a lower

strength level will suffer larger displacement if it is to absorb the same energy
as the elastic system. It also observed that the differences of values are
substantial at lower values of R.
5.3 CURVATURE DUCTILITY
When the flexural deformations is predominate, the ductility of

reinforced concrete sections can be expressed by the curvature ductility ratio
u/ y, where, u is the curvature at the end of the post elastic range and y
is the curvature at first yield. The available curvature ductility ratio in a RCC
beam member is quite large in many cases, but it is important to recognize
that there is a significant difference between the displacement ductility ratio
and the curvature ductility ratio, because once yielding has commenced in
frame, the deformations concentrate at the plastic hinge positions. When a
frame is deflected laterally in the post elastic hinge stage, the required
curvature ductility ratio at a plastic hinge may be greater than the
displacement ductility ratio.
The relationship between curvature ductility and displacement

ductility is arrived based on the lateral deflection at the top of the cantilever
)
column with a lateral load at the end, curvature ductility + 1,
)
where, is the displacement ductility and lp is the length of plastic hinge.
Generally the beam depth is L/12 ratio, then lp/l = 1/12 (0.083), the
for the range of µ values as 1.0 to 5.0 are:

70
µ 5.00 3.63 1.89 1.67 1.28 1.25 1.00
u y 17.70 11.98 4.71 3.80 2.17 2.04 1.00

______________________________________________________________
Otherwise, for = 3, the values are:
lp/l 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
u y 14.68 8.02 5.80 4.70 4.05 3.61 3.31
similarly, for = 4, the values are:
lp/l 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
u y 21.51 11.53 8.21 6.56 5.57 4.92 4.46
and for = 5, the values are:
lp/l 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
u y 28.35 15.04 10.61 8.41 7.10 6.23 5.62

______________________________________________________________
Since the equivalent length of the plastic hinge lp is typically in the

range 0.05 to 0.10 times the member depth, it is evident that the curvature
ductility ratio required for a cantilever column will generally exceed the
displacement ductility ratio and that the equivalent plastic hinge length is a
small proportion of the length l, the curvature ductility demand will be
particularly very high.
From the above literature, it is evident that when load factor Ve/ Vd
ranges from 2.25 to 3, the displacement ductility, µ ranges from 3 to 5, and
length of plastic hinge ranges, lp varies from 0.05 to 0.10, then the curvature
ductility ranges from 10 to 25.The increased value of curvature ductility is
due to formation of plastic hinge beyond yield strength of the RCC member.
These values are the indicator of inelastic behavior of RCC member during
seismic loading.
71
5.4 DUCTILITY FACTOR
The ductility factor (R ), is defined as the ratio of elastic yield

strength required to maintain the SDOF system to inelastic yield strength
required for a given the displacement ductility ratio . R depends on the
period of the structure, damping properties, behavior of structure and it can
be estimated using the relationship between displacement ductility µ based on
SDOF systems and subjected to various ground motions T. At the system or
storey levels, the ductility ratio is normally expressed in terms of the
displacement ductility ratio. At the element level, ductility ratio is expressed
in terms of strain ductility ratio, curvature ductility ratio, and rotation ductility
ratio. Displacement ductility ratio at the system level is used to determine the
ductility factor. It must be recognized that the ductility factor is a measure of
the nonlinear response of the framing system, regardless of which ductility
parameter is used.
There are numerous methods available for estimation of ductility

factors for various conditions and they are discussed in review of literature.
In this study, Miranda & Bertero equations were used for estimation of R
factor for different site conditions and time periods of the structure.
5.5 PARAMETRIC STUDIES ON DUCTILITY IN

REINFORCED CEMENT CONCRETE.
The curvature ductility of RCC beam and column sections are

estimated for confined and unconfined concrete by the application of basic
principles of strength of materials. The input data considered in the program
for estimation of ductility were based on the current practice of the structural
design and site conditions. It was observed that a section behaves differently
when subjected to only flexure (beam) and when subjected to combined
action of flexure and axial force (column). Therefore, both a beam and a
72
column sections were used to study the ductility effects for different
parameters. Material and section properties are given in Table 5.1 and 5.2.
Table 5.1 Details of RCC beam properties considered for estimation of

ductility effect in RCC beam
Section Property RCC Beam

Beam size 230mm x 300mm
Grade of concrete M 20, M25, M30, M35and M40
Grade of steel Fe 415, Fe500 and Fe550
Compression reinforcement 2x 12# , 3x 12#, 2x16# and 3x16#
Tension reinforcement 4x 12# and 4x16#
Cover 30 mm
Lateral reinforcement spacing 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm
and 200mm
Table 5.2 Details of RCC column considered for estimation of

ductility effect on column
Section Property RCC Column

Column size 230mm x 400mm
Grade of concrete M 20, M25, M30, M35 and M40
Grade of steel Fe 415, Fe500 and Fe550
Reinforcement (ratio) 6x 12# (0.8%), 6x16# (1.3%)
Cover 40 mm
Lateral reinforcement spacing 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm and
200mm
Axial load 300 kN, 450 kN and 600 kN
73
5.5.1 Parametric Study on Curvature Ductility of Unconfined

Concrete
Firstly, curvature ductility of unconfined concrete beams were

estimated using excel sheet calculations based on Park & Pulay (1975)
equations. Yield curvature and ultimate curvatures for 30 Nos of RCC
unconfined doubly reinforced beam members were considered for ductility
calculation. The material properties of M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades
of concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel with 1.0% and 1.8 %
bottom main reinforcement were considered for curvature ductility estimation
and the results are given in the Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Ultimate curvature ductility in unconfined RCC beams
Curvature ductility = u/ y
Beam size
Steel Concrete
grade grade 4 Nos - 12# at 4 Nos- 12# at 4 Nos- 16# at 4 Nos- 16# at
B in mm D in mm bottom 2 Nos - bottom 4 Nos - Bottom 2Nos - bottom 4 Nos-
12# at top 12# at top 16# at top 16# at top
Fe 415 M20 230 300 8.90 10.26 6.01 8.15
Fe 415 M25 230 300 10.14 11.13 6.88 8.75
Fe 415 M30 230 300 11.28 11.93 7.68 9.31
Fe 415 M35 230 300 12.33 12.67 8.42 9.82
Fe 415 M40 230 300 13.32 13.36 9.11 10.31
Fe 500 M20 230 300 6.40 7.76 4.13 6.01
Fe 500 M25 230 300 7.41 8.52 4.82 6.52
Fe500 M30 230 300 8.33 9.15 5.46 6.98
Fe 500 M35 230 300 9.19 9.77 6.05 7.42
Fe 500 M40 230 300 9.99 10.36 6.61 7.83
Fe 550 M20 230 300 5.36 6.66 3.37 5.08
Fe 550 M25 230 300 6.26 7.33 3.98 5.54
Fe 550 M30 230 300 7.08 7.94 4.54 5.97
Fe 550 M35 230 300 7.84 8.51 5.06 6.37
Fe 550 M40 230 300 8.57 9.04 5.56 6.75
74
Effect of ductility for different grades of concrete. From the Table 5.1, it is
observed that the curvature ductility increases with increase of grade of
concrete. The ductility variation for different grades of concrete over Fe415
steel grade was about 12% - 44% in 1.0% of Fe500 steel grade and was about
6% - 22% in 1.8% of Fe500 steel grade. Similarly, the ductility variation over
Fe415 grade was about 10% -36% in 1.0% of Fe550 grade and was about 7%
- 25% in 1.8% of Fe550 grade of steel.
Effect of ductility for different grades of steel. Increase of grade of steel,

curvature ductility gets decreased. The decrease of curvature ductility in 1.0%
main steel with Fe415 grade was ranging from 25% - 28%, in 1.8% main steel
with Fe415 grade was ranging from 27% - 37%. Similarly, the decrease of
curvature ductility in 1.0% main steel with Fe500 grade was ranging from
14% - 26% , in 1.8% main steel with Fe500 grade was ranging from 27% -
37%. 1.0% main steel with Fe550 grade was 14% - 26% and 1.8% main steel
with Fe550 grade was 6% - 15%. Increase of grade of steel causes more
ductility reduction in lower grades of concrete than in higher grades of
concrete.
Effect of ductility for main reinforcement ratio. When the main steel ratio
increases in the RCC member then the ductility ratio reduces. The ductility
reduction of 1.8% main steel and 0.9% of compression steel over 1.0% of
main steel was about 48% - 46% with Fe415 steel, 51% - 55% with Fe500
steel and 54% - 59% with Fe550 steel. Similarly, the ductility reduction for
1.8% main steel and 1.8% of compression steel over 1.0% of main steel
content was about 26% - 30% with Fe415 steel, 29% - 32% with Fe500 steel
and 31% - 34% with Fe550 steel. It is observed that the ductility is high for
lower content of main steel. When compression steel is increased then the
ductility ratio increases in all grades of steel.
75
Effect of ductility for compression steel ratio. Curvature ductility increases

in doubly reinforced unconfined concrete when the compression steel content
is increased. The ductility increase of 1.8% tension steel over 0.9% of
compression steel with 1.0% of tension steel was about 1% - 15% with Fe415
steel, 4% - 21% with Fe500 steel and 6% - 24% with Fe550 steel. Similarly,
the ductility increases of 1.8% tension steel over 0.9% of compression steel in
1.8 % of tension steel was about 13% - 36% with Fe415 steel, 18% - 45%
with Fe500 steel and 21% - 51% with Fe550 steel. The increase of ductility is
less in higher grades of concrete than lower grades of concrete.
Effect of ductility for tension steel ratio. Curvature ductility decreases in

doubly reinforced unconfined concrete when the tension steel content is
increased. The decrease of ductility for 1.8% of tension steel over 1.0% of
tension steel in beam section for Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grade steel with
equal top and bottom main reinforcement were 26% - 30%, 29% - 32% and
31% - 34% respectively. Similarly, the decrease of ductility in 1.8% over
1.0% beam section for Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grade steel with 50% top
main reinforcement were 46% - 48%, 51% - 55% and 54% - 59% respectively.
Higher the grade of steel, more of ductility reduction in unconfined concrete.
In higher tension steel content of a section, curvature ductility get reduced
about 26% to 34% due to excess steel.
5.5.2 Parametric Study on Curvature Ductility of Confined Concrete
KSU_RC software tool was used for moment curvature analysis of

RCC members as discussed in Chapter 4.3. The parameters specified in
Table 5.1 and 5.2 were used and moment curvature analysis results were
obtained. Subsequently, the curvature ductility of confined concrete were
estimated from moment curvature analysis results. The results obtained from
ductility calculations are tabulated.
76
Ductility effect for different grades of confined concrete. The comparison

of the curvature ductility for specimens having the same lateral reinforcement
spacing and longitudinal reinforcement but for different concrete strength is
given in Table 5.4. The results shows that a member with lower concrete
strength exhibit less ductility at ultimate point than a member with higher
strength. It is evident that the curvature at yield level decreases and the
curvature at ultimate level increases with high characteristic strength of
concrete. The higher strength concrete members are stiffer than lower strength
concrete members, because the flexural rigidity of concrete increases with
strength. Hence, the curvature corresponding to moment get increased slightly
in the higher grade of concrete. Mandal (1993) also reported that increase in
the characteristic strength of concrete increases the neutral axis depth, hence
increases the moment carrying capacity of the section.
Table 5.4 Variation of curvature ductility for different grades of

concrete over M20 grade
Variation of Curvature Ductility in Grades of Concrete over M20 Grade
Lateral Curvature ductility ratio for axial load Curvature ductility ratio for axial load
Steel Concrete with 1.3% main steel with 0.8% main steel
Reinforcement
Grade Grade
Spacing in mm 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN
FE415 M25 75-200 01-15 04-07 03-09 01-07 01-11 02-10
FE415 M30 75-200 01-22 03-18 07-12 01-28 01-18 02-15
FE415 M35 75-200 03-28 03-24 07-19 02-25 01-26 03-18
FE415 M40 75-200 03-34 02-31 01-27 07-37 05-32 05-27
FE 500 M25 75-200 01-26 02-19 05-34 07-28 05-27 03-32
FE 500 M30 75-200 01-26 04-15 03-19 07-24 08-21 01-21
FE 500 M35 75-200 01-19 06-15 02-14 02-20 05-18 02-19
FE 500 M40 75-200 01-15 01-14 01-15 02-18 01-15 02-16
FE 550 M25 75-200 01-06 01-07 01-06 02-05 01-07 01-07
FE 550 M30 75-200 01-12 03-13 01-21 10-20 07-16 02-17
FE 550 M35 75-200 05-11 04-09 04-14 05-14 03-14 02-12
FE 550 M40 75-200 04-08 01-09 02-08 03-09 01-10 01-09

77
Curvature ductility for M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of
confined concretes were estimated with Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 steel grades
with 1.3% and 0.8% main steel. The variations of curvature ductility for
various concrete grades were derived by comparing with M20 grade and the
results are given in Table 5.4.
From the results, it can be observed that with 1.3% main steel
content in RCC column, the increase of curvature ductility over M20 concrete
grade was about 5% - 34% for M25 to M40 grades of concrete and with 1.3%
main steel content, increase of the curvature ductility over M20 concrete
grade was about 7% - 37% for M25 to M40 grades. The ductility variation
over Fe415 steel grade was about 15% - 26% for Fe500 and 4% - 12% for
Fe550 steel in all grades of concrete. There was a negligible variation of
ductility in grades of concrete due to 1.3% and 0.8% of main steel.
Ductility effect for different grades of steel. Curvature ductility for Fe415,
Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel with M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades
of confined concretes were estimated and the variations for various grades of
steel were derived by comparing with Fe415 grade and the results were given
in Table 5.4. Higher the grade of steel, decrease of curvature ductility in all
grades of concrete.
From the results, it was observed that with 1.3% main steel, the
curvature ductility decreases about 12% - 25% for Fe500 and Fe550 steel
grades and with 0.8% main steel, the curvature ductility decreases about 14%
- 27% for Fe500 and Fe550 steel grades. There was a negligible ductility
variation in steel grades due to different grades of concrete.
78
Table 5.5 Variation of curvature ductility for different grades of steel

over Fe415 grade
Variation of Curvature Ductility in Fe500 and Fe550 Over Fe415 Steel Grade
Lateral Curvature ductility ratio for Curvature ductility ratio for

Steel Concrete
Reinforcement axial load with 1.3% main steel axial load with 0.8% main steel
Grade Grade
Spacing in mm 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN
FE 500 M20 75- 200 09-14 09-15 09-22 03-15 05-19 03-17
FE 500 M25 75- 200 02-14 08-15 05-13 06-15 02-15 05-14
FE 500 M30 75- 200 01-14 03-14 06-14 01-14 01-15 05-15
FE 500 M35 75- 200 01-13 01-14 04-14 05-17 02-14 02-14
FE 500 M40 75- 200 02-12 01-13 02-14 06-16 02-13 02-13
FE 550 M20 75- 200 12-23 10-22 07-21 04-27 07-26 11-22
FE 550 M25 75- 200 01-22 12-26 07-25 07-21 06-22 07-21
FE 550 M30 75- 200 01-22 04-23 09-22 01-22 04-23 07-22
FE 550 M35 75- 200 01-21 01-22 06-22 06-24 02-22 03-23
FE 550 M40 75- 200 03-20 02-21 02-22 06-23 02-21 03-22
Ductility effect due to main reinforcement. Curvature ductility for 0.8%

and 1.3% main steel with axial load of 300kN, 450kN and 600kN for the
same concrete strength and confinement reinforcement spacing were
estimated. The results were compared between 0.8% and 1.3% main steel
content and the values were tabulated.
Marginal difference of 4% increase of curvature ductility in 0.8%

of steel for M20 grade of concrete, however, in M40 grade of concrete with
0.8% of main steel, 6% increase of curvature ductility was noticed. It was
observed that the increase of axial load cause reduction of curvature ductility
in column sections.
79
Table 5.6 Variation of curvature ductility between 1.3% main steel

and 0.8% main steel
Variation of Curvature Ductility in 1.3% Main Steel Over 0.8% Main Steel in Percentage
Lateral Curvature Ductility Ratio for Axial Load
Concrete
Steel Grade Reinforcement
Grade 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN
Spacing in mm
FE415 M20 75- 200 01-04 01-04 01-07
FE415 M25 75- 200 02-08 01-04 01-02
FE415 M30 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-03
FE415 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-03
FE415 M40 75- 200 02-09 01-04 01-02
FE 500 M20 75- 200 01-05 01-02 01-03
FE 500 M25 75- 200 01-04 01-04 01-02
FE 500 M30 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-02
FE 500 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-03
FE 500 M40 75- 200 01-06 01-03 01-03
FE 550 M20 75- 200 01-05 01-02 01-03
FE 550 M25 75- 200 01-03 01-02 01-02
FE 550 M30 75- 200 01-04 01-03 01-02
FE 550 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-02 01-02
FE 550 M40 75- 200 01-04 01-04 01-03
Ductility effect due to lateral reinforcement spacing. Providing lateral

reinforcement in compression zone improves the ductility property of
concrete by preventing the buckling effect of the compression reinforcement
and avoid premature shear failure. Curvature ductility for the confined lateral
reinforcement spacing of 200mm, 175mm, 150mm, 125mm, 100mm and
75mm for beams and columns with the same concrete strength and the same
amount of main steel reinforcement were estimated. The ultimate curvature
ductility results for various lateral reinforcement spacing were derived by
comparing with 200mm spacing. The results shows that the ultimate
compressive strain and ductility are increased due to confinement of lateral
reinforcements. The yield ductility does not show any significant change with
the amount of lateral steel reinforcement, but the ultimate curvature
increases because the increase of compressive strain. The variation of
80
curvature ductility for various confined spacing over 200mm spacing are
given in Table 5.7 and Figure 5.2.
Table 5.7 Variation of curvature ductility for various lateral

reinforcement spacing over 200mm spacing
Variation of Curvature Ductility in Various Lateral Reinforcement Spacing Over 200mm Spacing
Lateral Curvature ductility ratio for Curvature ductility ratio for
Steel Concrete
Grade Grade Reinforcement axial load with 1.3% main steel axial load with 0.8% main steel
Spacing in
mm 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN 300 kN 450 kN 600 kN
FE415 M20 - M40 175 08-15 07-14 07-13 06-13 05-13 05-13
FE415 M20 - M40 150 18-38 18-28 11-19 08-21 13-23 16-23
FE415 M20 - M40 125 24-36 40-52 25-52 28-44 25-34 30-39
FE415 M20 - M40 100 45-67 39-70 38-75 41-60 41-58 35-72
FE415 M20 - M40 75 67-124 70-125 73-127 56-111 60-114 67-124
FE 500 M20 - M40 175 09-11 07-12 06-12 09-10 07-11 07-11
FE 500 M20 - M40 150 17-22 21-23 16-27 15-20 15-18 15-26
FE 500 M20 - M40 125 30-36 26-47 24-53 26-44 24-46 23-51
FE 500 M20 - M40 100 46-74 35-80 45-90 52-88 37-80 35-89
FE 500 M20 - M40 75 81-134 84-131 87-165 66-144 73-136 80-156
FE 550 M20 - M40 175 04-11 09-11 08-12 07-10 07-09 06-10
FE 550 M20 - M40 150 12-27 17-28 16-31 14-19 14-26 14-30
FE 550 M20 - M40 125 31-47 27-53 26-58 25-35 24-54 25-57
FE 550 M20 - M40 100 55-90 49-88 51-97 40-88 48-87 52-97
FE 550 M20 - M40 75 103-145 98-141 96-168 74-158 81-145 88-158
Figure 5.2 Average variation of curvature ductility over confined

lateral reinforcement spacing
From the Table 5.7 and Figure 5.4, it was observed that with 1.3%
main steel, the curvature ductility increases about 15% - 166% due to
decrease of spacing of lateral reinforcement from 175mm to 75mm and with
81
0.8% main steel, the curvature ductility increases about 13% - 158%. The
variation of curvature ductility was about 15% - 124% for Fe415 grade , 11%
- 165% for Fe500 grade and 11% - 168% for Fe550 grade. There was a
marginal variation of curvature ductility due to 1.3% and 0.8% of main steel.
The increase of curvature ductility was very high to the range of 90% - 165%
for the lateral reinforcement spacing of 100mm and 75mm.
Ductility effect due to axial load on column. Curvature ductility for axial
load of 300kN, 450kN and 600kN for 0.8% and 1.3% longitudinal steel and
for the different grades of concrete, different grades of steel and varying
confinement reinforcement spacing were estimated. The ductility effect for
450kN and 600kN axial loads were compared with 300kN the variations are
tabulated in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8 Variation of curvature ductility for axial loads on column

over 300kN axial load.
Variation of Curvature Ductility in 450 kN and 600 kN Axial Load Over 300 kN Axial Load
Curvature Ductility Ratio For Curvature Ductility Ratio For
Lateral Axial Load With 1.3% Main Axial Load With 0.8% Main
Concrete
Steel Grade Reinforcement Steel Steel
Grade
Spacing in mm
450 kN 600 kN 450 kN 600 kN
FE415 M20 75- 200 01-06 02-15 01-05 02-09
FE415 M25 75- 200 01-06 01-05 01-05 01-07
FE415 M30 75- 200 01-07 01-08 01-07 01-08
FE415 M35 75- 200 02-08 01-08 01-05 02-08
FE415 M40 75- 200 02-08 02-09 02-04 01-05
FE 500 M20 75- 200 01-09 01-12 02-09 03-09
FE 500 M25 75- 200 01-03 01-07 01-02 01-06
FE 500 M30 75- 200 01-07 01-04 01-03 01-05
FE 500 M35 75- 200 01-07 01-05 01-05 01-06
FE 500 M40 75- 200 01-04 01-09 01-05 03-05
FE 550 M20 75- 200 01-02 01-09 01-05 03-07
FE 550 M25 75- 200 01-05 01-06 01-03 01-07
FE 550 M30 75- 200 01-02 01-04 01-03 01-04
FE 550 M35 75- 200 01-04 01-02 01-04 02-04
FE 550 M40 75- 200 01-07 01-08 02-03 01-04
82
From the results, it was observed that when the axial load increases,
the curvature ductility decreases about 6% - 9% for 450kN axial load and 5%
- 12% for 600kN axial load. Variation of curvature ductility with axial load is
found less in higher grades of steel.
Effect of ductility for tension steel ratio in beams. Increase of tension steel
ratio in a beam can increase the ductility till the beam is under reinforced
section. If excessive reinforcement is provided then the concrete will crush
before the steel yields, leading to brittle failure Therefore, a beam should be
designed as under reinforced. The ultimate strain in unconfined concrete
depends on the characteristics strength of concrete, rate of loading and
strengthening effect of stirrups and IS code recommends a ultimate strain
value as 0.0035. The variation of ductility between 1.8% (4-16# at bottom
and 2-16# at top) and 1.0% (4-12# at bottom and 2-12# at top) tension steel
for various grades of concrete and steel is given in Table 5.9 and Figure 5.3.
Table 5.9 The variation of ductility between 1.8% main steel and
1.0 % main steel for various grades of concrete and steel
Steel Concrete Lateral reinforcement Curvature

Grade Grade spacing in mm ductility ratio
FE415 M20 200-75 10-33
FE415 M25 200-75 09-30
FE415 M30 200-75 09-27
FE415 M35 200-75 08-24
FE415 M40 200-75 08-22
FE 500 M20 200-75 13-38
FE 500 M25 200-75 10-36
FE 500 M30 200-75 10-33
FE 500 M35 200-75 10-30
FE 500 M40 200-75 10-27
FE 550 M20 200-75 12-35
FE 550 M25 200-75 11-34
FE 550 M30 200-75 11-34
FE 550 M35 200-75 11-33
FE 550 M40 200-75 10-30
83
Figure 5.3 Variation of ductility between 1.8% and 1.0 % in tension

reinforcement in beam member
From the Table 5.7 and Figure 5.3, it was observed that the ductility
gets decreased to the range of 8% - 33% due to increase of tension steel ratio
in all grades of steel.
Effect of ductility for compression steel ratio in beams. It is observed that

ductility increases with the increase in compression steel ratio value. The
ductility variation due to increase of compression steel ratio in beam section
is given in Table 5.10
When the confined lateral reinforcement spacing of 150mm,

175mm and 200mm, the ductility was increased to the range of 1% - 4% due
to increase of top compression reinforcement ratio. For confined lateral
reinforcement spacing of 125mm, 100mm and 75mm, the curvature ductility
was increased to the range of 2% - 10% due to increase of compression steel
ratio. Similarly, When the grade of concrete was increased, the ductility was
increased to the range of 1% - 9% in lateral reinforcement spacing of 150mm,
175mm and 200mm. For confined lateral reinforcement spacing of 125mm,
100mm and 75mm, the curvature ductility was increased to the range of 1% -
15% due increase of grade of concrete.
84
Table 5.10 The ductility variation for compression steel ratio in beams
Curvature ductility ratio for 4-16# Main

Lateral
Steel Concrete steel
Reinforcement
Grade Grade 2-12# at 3-12# at 2-16# at 3-16# at
spacing in mm
Top Top Top Top
FE415 M25 200 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.95
FE415 M25 175 2.28 2.28 2.26 2.23
FE415 M25 150 2.55 2.57 2.55 2.52
FE415 M25 125 2.84 2.89 2.91 2.91
FE415 M25 100 3.27 3.45 3.47 3.53
FE415 M25 75 4.07 4.35 4.48 4.57
FE415 M30 200 2.05 2.04 2.01 1.98
FE415 M30 175 2.32 2.30 2.28 2.24
FE415 M30 150 2.63 2.61 2.58 2.54
FE415 M30 125 2.86 2.87 2.86 2.85
FE415 M30 100 3.23 3.32 3.31 3.36
FE415 M30 75 3.85 4.15 4.15 4.24
FE415 M35 200 2.13 2.10 2.07 2.03
FE415 M35 175 2.38 2.34 2.31 2.26
FE415 M35 150 2.68 2.63 2.59 2.55
FE415 M35 125 2.90 2.89 2.86 2.83
FE415 M35 100 3.21 3.25 3.24 3.26
FE415 M35 75 3.84 3.95 3.95 4.02
FE415 M40 200 2.20 2.16 2.13 2.08
FE415 M40 175 2.44 2.39 2.34 2.29
FE415 M40 150 2.71 2.66 2.61 2.55
FE415 M40 125 2.96 2.93 2.88 2.83
FE415 M40 100 3.21 3.24 3.21 3.21
FE415 M40 75 3.74 3.84 3.81 3.87
85
5.6 SUMMARY
Unconfined and confined concrete were considered for estimation

of ductility effect for various parameters. Curvature ductility ratio was
estimated for 30 doubly reinforced beam elements of unconfined concrete
using Park & Pauley (1975) equations. 180 beam and 540 column members
with various parameters have been analysed using KSU_RC program for
estimation of curvature ductility and the results obtained are tabulated.
From the study of ductility effect on RCC beam and column elements, it is
observed that the ductility get increased by increase of compressive strength
of concrete , decrease of tensile strength of steel, decrease of tension steel
content and increase of compression steel content, decrease of confined
reinforcement spacing and decrease of axial load. Curvature ductility µ=
)
u/ y = and the values of depth factors k and a are given in Figure
5.1. The following are summarized from the estimation of curvature ductility
of RCC elements:
i. It was observed that the ductility increases when the concrete

compressive strength is increased because both k and a are
decreased, therefore, v decreased and µ is increased. When
the grade of concrete increased from M25 to M40, the
curvature ductility factor also increased about 5% - 34% over
M20 grade of concrete in 1.3% main steel and 7% - 37% % in
0.8% main steel.
ii. An increase in the steel yield strength decreases the ductility

because both fy/ Es and a are increased, therefore v increased
and µ is decreased. The decrease of curvature ductility factor
was about 12% - 25% in 1.3% main steel and 14% - 27% in
86
0.8% main steel due to increase of grade of steel from Fe415

to Fe500 and Fe550.
iii. It was observed that the available curvature ductility factor is

decreased if the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is increased.
The reduction of ductility factor in 1.8% main steel over 1.0%
of main steel content with 50% of compression steel was
about 48% - 46% in Fe415 steel, 51% - 55% in Fe500 steel
and 54% - 59% in Fe550 steel.
iv. An increase in the tension steel content decreases the ductility,

because both k and a factors are increased, therefore v
increased and µ is decreased. The ductility factor was

decreased to the range of 8% - 33% due to increase of main
steel content in all grades of steel.
v. An increase in the compression steel content increases the

ductility, because both k and a factors are decreased, therefore
y is decreased and µ is increased. The ductility factor was
increased in the concrete to the range of 1% - 9% due to
increased compression steel ratio and for the lateral
reinforcement spacing of 150mm to 200mm. The ductility
factor was increased to the range of 2% - 15% for the lateral
reinforcement spacing of 125mm to 75mm.
vi. It was observed that the lateral reinforcement reduces the

curvature and increase the moment capacity at ultimate
strength of confined concrete. The curvature ductility factor
increases about 15% - 166% in 1.3% main steel and 13% -
158% in 0.8% main steel due to reduction of lateral
reinforcement spacing from 175mm to 75mm.
87
vii. Columns were found to be less ductile in nature than beams

due to effect of axial force. The decrease of curvature ductility
factor over 300 kN axial load was about 06% - 09% in 450kN
axial load and 05% - 12% in 600kN axial load.
Higher grade of concrete and lesser grade of steel with confined

lateral reinforcement in beam and column members, decrease of axial load in
column will increases the curvature ductility at ultimate strength of confined
concrete.
88
CHAPTER 6
NON LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC FRAMED

STRUCTURES WITHOUT SHEAR WALL FOR BASE
SHEAR AND ROOF DISPLACEMENT
Pushover curves for various parameters considered in this study

are being generated by Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis (NSPA) on RCC
framed structure without shear wall using SAP 2000 software in this chapter.
Base shear values are obtained for the maximum permissible roof
displacement from the pushover curves. The calculation of over strength and
displacement ductility are determined and R factor values are estimated in
Chapter 8. The effects of various parameters such as grades of concrete, grade
of steel, percentage of main reinforcement and different lateral tie spacing on
R factor are discussed in Chapter 9.
6.1 GENERAL.
Non linear pushover analysis is adopted to estimate the possible

roof displacement, base shear, performance point and strength & ductility
factor for various configuration of RCC framed structures with different grade
of concrete, grade of steel and spacing of lateral reinforcement. Configuration
of single, three, six, nine, twelve and fifteen storey buildings were considered
to represent low and medium rise buildings in this study. This analysis
determines the strength and deformation capacities of the structural system
based on the modeling assumptions. Non-linear static analysis uses material
property, stress- strain model, plastic hinge property and moment-curvature
89
relationship to obtain the ductility factor. The ductility factor is a measure of

roof displacement at yielding and at code specified limit. A parametric study
was performed on a RCC framed structure to explore the effects of
geometrical and material properties of the structure for estimation of
displacement ductility factor.
6.2 NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC

FRAMED STRUCTURES.
Non-linear Static Pushover Analysis (NSPA) of the RCC framed

structure adopt Mander (1988) model for confined concrete with the typical
steel stress - strain relationship with degrading, linear, unloading/reloading
stiffness and without tensile strength. In this model, concrete compressive
strains were limited to 0.0035 and the tensile strength of the concrete was
neglected. The analysis was performed by assigning default-hinge properties
of type PMM and M3 hinges to RCC beams and columns in SAP 2000
programs based on the FEMA - 356 and ATC-40 guidelines. For beam
members, the axial load effects were ignored considering the rigid floor
diaphragm effect. No shear hinge formation was considered in these analysis,
as the various design and detailing provisions specified in IS 13920 eliminate
the possibility of such a failure. The joint panel zones were assumed to be
rigid and strong enough to avoid any premature failure before forming a
mechanism by the failure of other members.
100% dead load and 25% of live load were considered as initial
loads in Pushover analysis. The design gravity loads were applied before
applying the incremental lateral forces. The gravity loads were applied as
distributed element loads based on yield line theory and concentrated loads
from secondary beams. In all cases, lateral forces were applied monotonically
in a step-by-step nonlinear static analysis. The applied lateral forces were
proportional to the product of mass and the first mode shape amplitude at
90
each storey level under consideration. Although the first mode shape was used
in this study, a non-modal shape vector, such as an inverted triangular shape,
was used for the lateral load pattern. Initially, a static analysis was performed
for the full gravity load in a single step. The state of the structure from this
analysis were saved. Subsequently, the static pushover analysis was started
from this state of the structure. For the nonlinear static analysis, both the load
control and the displacement control strategies were adopted. The analysis
was load controlled up to the first yield and displacement controlled thereafter.
P– effects were not considered in the analysis. Reinforcement in the
members were defined using auto hinges.
Plastic hinge properties. SAP2000 defines plastic hinge properties as per

FEMA- 356 or ATC-40 and five points such as A, B, C, D, and E define the
force–deformation behavior of a plastic hinge. The points B and C on Figure
6.1 are related to yield and ultimate curvatures. The inelastic behaviour of the
member during the pushover analysis are deformation-controlled (ductile
action) or force-controlled (brittle action). The deformations are expressed
directly using terms such as strain, curvature, rotation, or elongation . Since
deformation ductility was a primary concern, the point C is the focus, and it is
obtained from SAP 2000 using approximate component initial effective
stiffness values according to ATC-40 (1996).
(a) Deformation-controlled flexural failure (b) Force-controlled shear failure
Figure 6. 1 Inelastic force-deformation relationships

91
Calculation of the ultimate rotation capacity of an element was

followed and acceptance criteria were defined as IO, LS, and CP. The terms
IO, LS, and CP stand for Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse
Prevention, respectively. This study defines these three points corresponding
to 10%, 60%, and 90% use of plastic hinge deformation capacity. The value
of these points obtained from moment curvature relationship of element
depends on the type of geometry, material property, longitudinal
reinforcement, lateral reinforcement and axial loads subjected to particular
member.
Shear failure in RCC framed structures. No shear failures were observed

in any cases of pushover analysis. This is primarily due to the assumed
concrete compressive strength, which was sufficient to prevent shear failures.
Even in the case of a 200 mm lateral steel spacing, the shear strength of
members was sufficient to carry the shear forces that developed. Thus, the
behavior was mainly dominated by flexure.
Modified moment of inertia/ Effective stiffness of RCC members.

Effective stiffness of RCC beams and columns members adopted in the
nonlinear static analysis significantly affects the yield displacement of a frame
structure and consequently, the displacement ductility was also greatly
affected. The stiffness of a reinforced concrete section can be determined as a
function of its material properties, reinforcement quantities, and induced
stress and deformation levels. Various other parameters, that affect the force
deformation characteristics of a cracked concrete section, were the
deformation due to shear cracking, partial reinforcement slip from adjacent
joints, effect of aggregate interlock, dowel action of main reinforcement,
tension stiffening, etc. The exact estimation of initial stiffness of each
individual member incorporating all of these effects becomes impractical due
to the complexity involved in modeling and the increased demand on
computation. Considering this, as suggested in both ATC-40 (1996) and
92
FEMA - 356 (2000), the values used as effective stiffness of RCC members
were 0.5EcIg for beams and 0.7EcIg for columns. Ec is the modulus of
elasticity of concrete and Ig is the gross moment of inertia of the section.
6.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY ON RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES

FOR ESTIMATION OF BASE SHEAR AND ROOF
DISPLACEMENT
A three-dimensional model of a structure was created in SAP2000

and beam and column elements were modeled as nonlinear frame elements
with lumped plasticity by defining plastic hinges at both ends of the beams
and columns.
6.3.1 Description of Building used for Pushover Analysis
Six types of RCC framed structures, G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and
G+14 residential building configurations were considered for nonlinear
pushover analysis. These buildings considered were three-dimensional space
frame structures in both orthogonal directions. Each structure was 12m in
length and 12m width having three bays of 4.0m each in both direction. The
building was symmetrical about both axes, and floor to floor heights were
3.0m. The frames were designed according to the Indian seismic code of
practice for seismic zones II and III. The foundation systems considered was
on medium soil. A typical framing plan and elevations, beams and column
sizes used for analysis of G+2 configuration were shown in Figure 6.2.
Slab thicknesses were kept as constant throughout the height of the

structure as 125 mm. Material properties considered were M20, M25, M30,
M35 and M40 grades of concrete and Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of
steel for both longitudinal and lateral reinforcements. The lateral
reinforcement spacing considered were 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm,
175mm and 200mm. All the models were designed as per IS 1893: 2002 code
and ductile detailing provided as per IS 13920.
93
(a) Beam layout (b) Column layout
(c) Frame elevation (d) Schedule of beams
(e) Schedule of columns
Figure 6.2 Details of G+2 framed structural members

94
6.3.2 Procedure Adopted in Displacement - Controlled Pushover

Analysis
A three dimensional model that represents the overall structural

behavior was created in SAP 2000 software. 4.0mx4.0m grid spacing, 3 Nos
grids in X direction , 3 Nos grids in Z direction, floor to floor height was
3.0m, foundation depth was 1.5m below plinth beam level were adopted in
the models.
Material properties of Fe415 steel grade as main and lateral

reinforcement and M25 grade of Concrete were defined in the SAP model.
All relevant properties such as grade, density, , E for concrete material and
grade, density, , E , fy, fu , fye and fue for steel materials were defined in
SAP 2000. (fy- minimum yield stress, fu- minimum tensile stress, fye-
effective yield stress, fue- effective tensile stress).
Definition of frame section properties. Firstly, the model was applied DL

and LL, then performed seismic analysis for Zone II and Zone III loads as per
IS 1893:2000 and beam and column members were designed using STAAD
Pro software. The designed beam and column sectional properties such as
sizes and reinforcement were given as input in the model and pushover
analysis was performed. Top and bottom steel areas for beam sections
obtained from the STAAD Pro design are given as input in the model.
Number of column reinforcement and lateral reinforcement spacing etc were
mentioned in the frame section properties. d type (eg. 12d) rebar was adopted
as such it is similar to Indian standard rebar in column and beams sections.
For Pushover analysis, the structural model was modified to account for the
reduced stiffness of yielded member(s), define the section with response
reduction factor of effective moment of inertia for rectangular beam as 0.5 Ig,
T beam as 0.7 Ig, L beam 0.6 Ig and columns as 0.7.Stiffness of slab thickness
is not considered in the model but all the nodes in a floors were assigned as
95
diaphragm constrains to act monolithically and avoided individual member

bending action at the floor level.
Different loads were applied on the framed structure and various

types of analysis were performed for pushover curve in SAP 2000. Initially,
gravity loads comprises of dead loads and a specified portion of live loads
were applied on the structural model. DL and LL considered for the structure
are:
Dead load. Self weight of the members were considered as dead load
automatically. In addition, 4.0 kN/sqm was consider as dead load of 125mm
thick slab for a residential building of 4m x 4m size area. The floor load shall
be converted as member load (eg. 12m x 12m x 4.0kN/sqm= 576 kN. There
were 12 outer members and 12 inner members. The outer member will have
one side load and inner member will have both side load. Therefore load per
m on outer member = 576/(4x(12+2x12))= 4kN/m and inner members were
double the outer member = 8kN/m. Wall load on each beam (both inner and
outer) for 3m high wall = 3x 0.25x20= 15kN/m. Linear static load was
considered in the analysis.
Live load. 2.0 kN/m2 was consider as live load for a residential building. The
load per m on outer member was 2 kN/m and inner member was 4kN/m.
Linear static load was considered in the analysis. (c) Model load was
considered in the analysis to get mode shapes of the structure. Adopt 1.0DL
and 0.25LL as mass participation factor. First mode shape in X and Y
direction were considered as pattern of horizontal push loading.
The type of analysis were performed for pushover curve in SAP

2000 were:
96
(a) Gravity push non linear static analysis. 1.0DL+0.25LL

considered for calculation of mass at each joint as per IS 1893.
The same mass was used for gravity push non linear static
analysis. A predefined lateral load pattern which was
distributed along the building height was applied. The load
was applied as load zero at bottom and maximum at top as
triangle load. Instead of calculating and applying the load on
each point of a frame in vertical direction, first modal values
and shape calculated from modal analysis was considered as
lateral load pattern, i.e. the value of mode was applied as
horizontal push load in displacement in Z direction (U2) was
considered. Control node is the node used to monitor
displacements of the structure. Its displacement versus the
base-shear forms the capacity (pushover) curve of the
structure. Node on the roof top was considered as control node.
(b) Push X nonlinear static analysis. Non linear static load

continue for gravity push use first mode in X direction ,
Displacement control, conjugate load, Max 4% displacement ,
multiple states of min 10 and max 100 were considered and
results were saved. Modal load 1 shall be considered. Node on
the roof top was considered as control node. Lateral loads
were increased until some member(s) yield under the
combined effects of gravity and lateral loads.
Before performing the Gravity push analysis, select all nodes in a

level and assign constraint as diaphragm. Similarly define diaphragm to all
levels. Before performing the Gravity push analysis, Assign M3 hinges to
both ends of all beams and P-M2-M3 hinges to both ends for all column.
Hinge overwrite command was used for updating hinge parameters. Since,
97
both column and beam members were already designed using STAAD pro/
SAP 2000 and assigned the sizes and reinforcement as required, no need of
designing or checking reinforcement again using SAP 2000. Before run
analysis, display the deformed shape of modal load 1, 2 etc and verify the
mode shape adopted for displacement considered is correct. Hinge results also
to be verified.
Process of pushover analysis. The program records base shear and roof
displacement at first yielding from the analysis. Then the gravity loads were
removed and a new lateral load increment was applied to the modified
structural model such that additional member(s) yield. A separate analysis
with zero initial conditions was performed on modified structural model under
each incremental lateral load. Thus, member forces at the end of an
incremental lateral load analysis were obtained by adding the forces from the
current analysis to the sum of those from the previous increments. In other
words, the results of each incremental lateral load analysis were superimposed.
Similarly, the lateral load increment and the roof displacement increment
were added to the corresponding previous total values to obtain the
accumulated values of the base shear and the roof displacement. The above
steps were repeated until the roof displacement reaches a certain level of
deformation or the structure becomes unstable as the hinge capacity reaches
its collapse state. The roof displacement was plotted with the base shear to get
the global capacity (pushover) curve of the structure
Finally, using display show table command in SAP program, the

designed results were obtained. The design base shear for a building was
derived as, Vd =Z I Sa/(2 R g) * W. The maximum base shear was obtained
corresponding to the max roof displacement from pushover curve.
98
6.4 OUTCOME OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC FRAMED

STRUCTURES
Non linear pushover analysis using SAP 2000 was performed for G,
G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and G+14 framed structures. The parameters
considered were M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of concrete, Fe415,
Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel and lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm,
100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm and 200mm. Typical hinge formation and
lateral load vs base reaction of pushover curve for G+8 structure in Zone III
load for M30 grade of concrete, Fe500 steel and lateral spacing of 150mm is
shown in Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.3(a) Typical hinge formation in for G+8 structure for Zone III
seismic loads
99
The lateral roof level displacement and base reaction values at

ultimate point from pushover curves for various configurations in Zone II and
III loads are given in Table 6.1(a), 6.1(b), 6.1 (c), 6.1 (d) and Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.3(b) Typical pushover curve for G+8 structure for Zone III
seismic loads
Table 6.1(a) The lateral displacement and base reaction values at

ultimate point for G, G+2 and G+5 configuration for Zone
II loads
Displacement Vs Base shear at ultimate point in pushover curve for Zone II loads
Ultimate Point For Single Ultimate Point For G+2 Ultimate Point For G+5
Steel Concrete Floor Floors Floors
Grade Grade Base Shear Displacement Base Shear Displacement Base Shear Displacement
(kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)
FE 415 M20 540.00 72.52 503.00 72.30 787.40 157.80
FE 415 M25 558.60 72.00 536.00 71.70 814.44 162.50
FE 415 M30 588.00 73.50 560.00 71.30 851.25 165.16
FE 415 M35 617.40 72.96 590.00 70.90 874.00 162.97
FE 415 M40 637.00 72.52 610.00 70.50 916.88 171.62
FE 500 M20 617.40 75.46 564.00 75.00 787.30 157.80
FE 500 M25 646.80 75.46 596.00 73.00 946.77 174.41
FE 500 M30 656.60 74.48 625.00 72.40 960.00 157.10
FE 500 M35 686.00 72.96 645.50 71.50 976.67 165.60
FE 500 M40 695.80 72.52 685.00 71.40 993.22 156.41
FE 550 M20 670.00 77.00 608.00 76.00 920.00 146.41
FE 550 M25 700.00 74.88 630.00 75.80 990.00 167.80
FE 550 M30 705.60 74.48 657.00 73.30 1032.88 173.95
FE 550 M35 715.40 74.48 677.00 72.70 1044.06 166.48
FE 550 M40 725.20 74.00 712.50 72.00 1070.16 165.16
100
Table 6.1(b) The lateral displacement and base reaction values at

ultimate point for G+8, G+11 and G+14 configuration for
Zone II loads
Displacement Vs Base shear at ultimate point in pushover curve for Zone II loads
Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For
G+8 Floors G+11 Floors G+14 Floors
Steel Concrete
Grade Grade Base Base Base
Displacement Displacement Displacement
Shear Shear Shear
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(kN) (kN) (kN)
FE 415 M20 1045.00 185.25 1805.00 132.00 1500.00 90.20
FE 415 M25 1146.00 226.50 1910.00 137.60 1583.70 88.80
FE 415 M30 1200.00 251.00 2005.00 145.35 1688.40 90.50
FE 415 M35 1229.00 248.75 2090.00 144.00 1745.00 89.00
FE 415 M40 1251.00 247.00 2189.00 145.00 1793.80 87.50
FE 500 M20 1110.00 171.00 1995.00 135.00 1682.70 96.70
FE 500 M25 1268.00 207.00 2101.00 129.75 1769.40 92.70
FE 500 M30 1351.00 241.30 2208.00 135.00 1854.90 92.00
FE 500 M35 1400.00 238.80 2292.00 136.00 1925.40 91.70
FE 500 M40 1425.00 232.80 2390.00 137.90 1993.20 90.50
FE 550 M20 1104.00 161.50 2095.00 144.00 1800.00 102.60
FE 550 M25 1309.00 193.00 2197.00 135.00 1874.20 96.40
FE 550 M30 1447.50 242.50 2292.00 132.00 1938.90 93.50
FE 550 M35 1500.00 250.00 2388.00 131.25 2000.00 91.70
FE 550 M40 1512.00 234.00 2487.50 133.00 2085.70 92.00
Table 6.1(c) The lateral displacement and base reaction values at

ultimate point for G, G+2 and G+5 configuration for Zone
III loads
Displacement Vs Base shear at ultimate point in pushover curve for Zone III loads
Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For
Single Floors G+2 Floors G+5 Floors
Steel Concrete
Grade Grade Base
Base Displacement Base Displacement Displacement
Shear
Shear (kN) (mm) Shear (kN) (mm) (mm)
(kN)
FE 415 M20 540.00 72.52 920.54 171.60 1445.00 252.00
FE 415 M25 558.60 72.00 970.00 171.00 1520.00 252.20
FE 415 M30 588.00 73.50 1025.40 176.70 1568.00 254.80
FE 415 M35 617.40 72.96 1059.00 174.40 1615.00 257.40
FE 415 M40 637.00 72.52 1122.70 191.20 1649.00 258.10
FE 500 M20 617.40 75.46 1059.00 165.20 1615.00 256.00
FE 500 M25 646.80 75.46 1102.00 179.20 1710.00 264.60
FE 500 M30 656.60 74.48 1051.00 153.00 1833.50 252.20
FE 500 M35 686.00 72.96 1055.00 150.00 1843.00 265.95
FE 500 M40 695.80 72.52 1220.00 188.00 1890.50 262.50
FE 550 M20 670.00 77.00 1066.00 152.10 1746.00 264.00
FE 550 M25 700.00 74.88 1242.00 216.90 1835.00 221.95
FE 550 M30 705.60 74.48 1233.00 172.10 1920.00 278.60
FE 550 M35 715.40 74.48 1266.50 174.40 1990.00 278.60
FE 550 M40 725.20 74.00 1300.00 176.70 2040.00 279.00
101
Table 6.1(d) The lateral displacement and base reaction values at

ultimate point for G+8, G+11 and G+14 configuration for
Zone III loads
Displacement Vs Base shear at ultimate point in pushover curve for Zone III loads
Ultimate Point For G+8 Ultimate Point For Ultimate Point For
Floors G+11 Floors G+14 Floors
Steel Concrete
Base
Grade Grade Base Displacement Base Displacement Displacement
Shear
Shear (kN) (mm) Shear (kN) (mm) (mm)
(kN)
FE 415 M20 2000.00 283.00 2155.20 160.00 2000.00 156.80
FE 415 M25 2132.80 266.50 2284.40 172.30 2057.20 147.50
FE 415 M30 2162.70 269.22 2318.60 157.70 2125.40 141.10
FE 415 M35 2268.80 263.00 2391.80 150.00 2170.10 135.60
FE 415 M40 1842.00 89.06 2457.60 147.50 2214.20 131.50
FE 500 M20 2268.80 285.50 2432.20 161.20 2400.00 191.00
FE 500 M25 2391.30 279.50 2582.30 167.90 2423.70 166.90
FE 500 M30 2483.00 259.50 2690.80 180.80 2457.60 157.70
FE 500 M35 2520.60 260.90 2771.50 177.20 2500.00 150.30
FE 500 M40 2558.20 262.30 2771.50 155.50 2555.90 145.10
FE 550 M20 2387.50 297.00 2538.30 164.28 2582.30 219.50
FE 550 M25 2509.00 279.85 2870.50 209.10 2663.30 187.00
FE 550 M30 2619.00 275.90 2880.30 176.20 2681.60 167.90
FE 550 M35 2686.50 261.90 2800.00 145.10 2724.00 159.40
FE 550 M40 2800.00 238.75 3036.90 181.90 2762.00 153.70
The ultimate lateral displacement and base shear values are

obtained from pushover analysis of RCC framed structures without shear
buildings. Lateral displacement vs base shear values for each grade of
concrete with G, G+2 , G+5, G+8, G+11 and G+14 structures are considered
and graphs are prepared . The comparison for M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40
grades of concrete for various grades of steel such as Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550
for zone II loads are shown in Figure 6.4(a), 6.4(b) and 6.4(c) respectively.
Similarly, the comparison for various grades of concrete and steel for zone III
loads are shown in Figure 6.5(a), 6.5(b) and 6.5(c). It is observed from the
graphs that the lateral displacement and ultimate base shear are increasing
from single storey to G+11 storied building. In the case of G+14 building, the
mode shape of the building affects the ultimate lateral displacement and base
shear value and the capacity of the structure is reduced.
102
(a) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe415 grade of steel for zone II loads
(b) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
Figure 6.4 (Continued)

103
(c) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
Figure 6.4 Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various
parameters with zone II loads
(a) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
with Fe415 grade of steel for zone III loads
Figure 6.5 (Continued)

104
(b) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
(c) Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various parameters
Figure 6.5 Ultimate displacement and base shear values for various
parameters with zone III loads
105
Figure 6.6 Variation of base shear and displacement at ultimate point

from pushover curve for G+5 building
Effect of grades of concrete. Maximum base reaction and displacement

were obtained from pushover analysis for M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40
grades of confined concretes with Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 steel grades and
for earthquake zone II and Zone III loads. The variations of base shear values
for various grades of concrete were compared with M20 grade. From the
results, it was observed that the increase of base reaction due to increase of
grade of concrete from M25 to M40 was about 6% - 26% for Zone II seismic
loads and 4% - 19% for zone III seismic loads. The variation of base shear
due to grade of steel was about 6%- 10% for Fe500 grade and 09%-18% for
Fe550 grade in zone II. Similarly, the variation of base shear was about 4%-
11% for Fe500 grade and 10%-19% for Fe550 grade in zone III.
From the results, it was evident that the yield strength decreases
and the ultimate strength increases with high strength of concrete. The higher
strength concrete members are stiffer than lower strength concrete members,
because the flexural rigidity of concrete increases with strength. Increase in
the characteristic strength of concrete increases the neutral axis depth, hence
increases the moment capacity of the section. It is confirmed that there was
significant change with an increase in the concrete strength.
106
Effect of grades of steel. In pushover analysis, the steel grades of Fe415,

Fe500 and Fe550 and seismic loads corresponding to zone II and Zone III
were considered for studying the effect of steel grade on base reaction and
roof displacement. The variations of base reactions for various grades of steel
were compared with Fe415 grade of steel. From the result, it was observed
that the increase of base reaction was about 9% - 16% for Fe500 grade of
steel and 4% - 8% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone II seismic loads.
Similarly, increase of base reaction was about 9% - 18% for Fe500 grade of
steel and 5% - 12% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone III seismic loads. The
base reaction was increasing with increase of grade of concrete in both zone II
and III. Therefore, base shear increases and ductility decreases with the
increase of steel grade. For higher steel grade, tension force was higher at
ultimate strain and more concrete was active in moment.
Effect of number of stories. In order to study the effect of number of storey

in the base reaction and displacement capacity, six frames of G, G+2, G+5,
G+8, G+11 and G+14 residential building configurations were considered,
their respective pushover curves are being compared. The increase of base
reaction over the height of the structure was 3% - 18% for G, 4% - 21% for
G+2, 3% - 26% for G+5, 9% - 36% for G+8, 5% - 21% for G+11 and 5% -
20% for G+15 in zone II seismic loads. Similarly , increase of base reaction
over the height of the structure was 3% - 18% in G, 4% - 22% for G+2, 5% -
17% for G+5, 5% - 18% for G+8, 6% - 20% for G+11 and 3% - 12% for
G+14 in zone III seismic loads. The result shows that shorter frames display
higher over-strength value compared to taller frames. The performance of the
frames up to G+8 structures were better than taller framed structures in both
zone II and III.
107
Effect of seismic zone. When the structure is designed for various seismic
zone, the member size and reinforcement changes according to the seismic
forces resistance. The changes of member size influence the base shear. A
comparative study on Zone II and Zone III was considered for seismic
variation. The increase of base reaction in zone III over zone II was about
80% - 87% for G+2, 83% - 97% for G+5, 79% - 104% for G+8, 20% - 30%
for G+11 and 24% - 34% for G+ 14 structures. These increases due to larger
size beam and column elements provided to resist high seismic forces
generated in zone III. The results indicate that seismic performance of
medium tall structures are better than very tall structure for both zone II and
III seismic loads.
Effect of lateral reinforcement spacing. The pushover curves for the various
lateral spacing such as 200mm, 175mm, 150mm, 125mm , 100mm and 75mm
for different concrete was compared for six type of RCC framed structures. It
was noticed that differences in base shear between the pushover curves was
very negligible but the change in the displacement capacity was significant.
However, there was a difference in hinge formation in pushover analysis.
Decrease of confinement spacing make the frame more stiffer and delay the
hinge formation for few more steps. But, the variation due to confined spacing
does not give any change in the base shear value at ultimate displacement.
The variations in confined reinforcement spacing was influencing the
individual member behavior but not noticed in frame as a complete structure.
The little effect in RCC frame structure was in the form of delay in hinge
formation during pushover analysis.
Effect of plastic hinge forming mechanism. Plastic hinge patterns for the six
different RCC framed structures are compared at the different levels of roof
displacements to provide information about local and global failure
mechanisms in the structure. The global yielding point corresponds to the
108
displacement on the capacity curve where the system starts to soften. The
ultimate point was considered as displacement at the first 20% decrease in
lateral load capacity. Plastic hinge formation starts with beam ends at lower
stories, then propagates to upper stories, and continues with yielding of base
columns.
6.5 SUMMARY
Non linear pushover analysis using SAP 2000 software was

performed for estimation of ultimate base reaction and roof top displacement
for various RCC framed structures. The pushover analysis was performed for
six RCC framed structures such as G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and G+14 of
residential building configurations considering grades of concrete as M20,
M25, M30, M35 and M40, grade of steel as Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 with
lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm
and 200mm. The realistic performance-based limit states was considered at
structure level and member levels. The modeling was carried out by
considering the inelastic moment - curvature behaviour, P-M interaction and
plastic rotation capacity. The following were observed from the detailed study
of non linear pushover analysis of RCC framed structure:
i. The increase of base reaction for M25 to M40 grade of

concrete over M20 grade of concrete was about 4% - 15%.
ii. The increase of base reaction for Fe500 and Fe550 grade of
steel over Fe415 grade of steel was about 4% - 10% .
iii. The performance of multistoried building in terms of resisting

base reaction was increased when number of stories up to G+8
to the range of 3% - 26% due to increase of grade of concrete
and steel, ie the performance of the framed structures up to
G+8 storey was better than taller frames structures in both
zone II and III loads.
109
iv. The size of beam and column elements were larger to resist
seismic load of zone III than zone II. Thus the base reaction in
zone III framed structures were much higher than the framed
structures in zone II. The increase of base reaction in Zone III
over Zone II for the same configuration was about 80% -
100%. Zone effect on RCC framed structure was very
significant due to high strength RCC members.
v. The variations in confined reinforcement spacing was very

much significant in individual member behavior but not
noticed in framed structural system. The little effect in RCC
framed structure was in the form of delay in hinge formation
during pushover analysis.
Nonlinear static pushover analysis of RCC framed structures

provides an exhaustive analysis of structures due to various grades of concrete,
grades of steel and for number of stories in post elastic deformation stage. The
results from pushover curves are very useful to determine the response of the
building during seismic forces induced during an earthquake.
110
CHAPTER 7
NON LINEAR ANALYSIS OF RCC FRAMED STRUCTURE

WITH SHEAR WALLS FOR ESTIMATION OF BASE
SHEAR AND ROOF DISPLACEMENT
Shear walls in a tall framed structure offers more rigidity to resist

later loads. Pushover curves are generated from Nonlinear Static Pushover
Analysis (NSPA) on RCC framed structure with shear wall using SAP 2000
software in this chapter. Base shear values are obtained for the maximum
permissible roof displacement from the pushover curves for various
parameters considered in this study. The calculation of over strength and
displacement ductility are determined and R factor values are estimated in
Chapter 8. The effects of various parameters on R factor are discussed in
Chapter 9.
7.1 GENERAL
Reinforced cement concrete shear walls are very effective in

resisting lateral loads imposed by wind and seismic forces in medium to high
rise buildings. Shear wall behave as vertical cantilever walls and offers very
good lateral drift control mechanism and provide sufficient ductility to
prevent the brittle failure against the strong earthquake loads. Shear walls are
best suited to resist the gravity load and lateral load simultaneously due to its
high in-plane stiffness and strength capacity. Seismic design procedure will
restrict the maximum drift of the structure and prevent the damages of the
non-seismic structural components during strong earthquake.
Shear walls are efficient in dissipating energy induced by ground

motion through hysteresis behaviour of structural components within the
111
elastic limit. However, the behavior of the wall was different during inelastic
stage due to formation of plastic hinge at the wall base and it allows large
rotations and yielding of reinforcement. The ductility of high rise RCC
buildings can be enhanced by use of high strength concrete, higher grades of
steel, confined lateral reinforcement spacing and its lateral force resisting
performance was improved during an earthquake.
The R values given the IS 1893:2002 are: ordinary shear wall with
OMRF is 3.0, ordinary shear wall with SMRF is 4.0, ductile shear wall with
OMRF is 4.5 and ductile shear wall with SMRF is 5.0. These values are not
supported with detailed explanation and variable parameters were not
considered for arriving the R value. A study was performed using nonlinear
pushover analysis using SAP 2000 to estimate the response deduction factor
(R) for the moment resisting frames with shear walls in high rise building and
roof displacement vs base shear curve was obtained.
R factor in high rise structure with shear walls cannot be estimated

with direct equations. The effect of individual wall element and for a framed
structural system were studied for estimation of R value. Firstly, the
individual shear wall elements were considered and an experimental study
was performed to understand the confinement effect on concrete walls.
Secondly, to study the shear wall effect on R value in a structural system,
pushover analysis using SAP 2000 was performed for a G+19 storied framed
structure with shear walls.
7.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CONFINEMENT EFFECT

OF SHEAR WALL ELEMENT.
Shear wall is a component of high raised RCC framed structures

and provides very high stiffness in its plane of bending. Therefore, testing of
RCC shear wall in 1/4th scale was considered in our experimental study to
112
obtain the contribution of ductility in the structural behaviour. Shear wall

elements considered in this study were detailed as speci ed in the IS code.
The shear walls were placed in the longitudinal direction to observe the wall -
frame behavior and then the load was applied vertically as well as laterally as
in real life situation. The shear wall specimens were firmly fixed on the
foundation framing system.
Description of Shear Wall Model. Shear wall models used for the study of
confinement effect is described in details. M25 grade of concrete and Fe415
grade of steel reinforcement materials were used and 15mm thick concrete
cover was provided in the model. Lateral reinforcement arrangement was
similar to the column ties and it was provided using 8mm ties with 100mm,
150mm and 200mm spacing. Lateral reinforcement could not be scaled as the
smallest available bar size was 8mm. Beam - column joints and end regions of
all elements were con ned using ties with 135 hooks to simulate common
construction practice. Strain and deflection due to vertical and lateral loads
were measured to compare the confinement effect and influence of ductility
parameters. The details of geometrical, material properties and load applied
on RCC shear wall specimen is given in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Details of RCC shear wall used in experimental study

Section Property RCC Shear wall
Wall Size 900mm x 750mm x 100mm
Bottom slab 1200mm x 900mm x 60mm
Top slab 750mm x 900mm x 40mm
Grade of concrete M25
Grade of steel Fe415
Reinforcement ratio 0.005 (Double layer vertical reinforcement using
8# @200mm c/c)
Cover 15 mm
Lateral reinforcement spacing 100mm, 150mm and 200mm
Vertical load 10kN to 300kN in 10kN interval
Lateral load 5kN to 60kN in 5kN interval
Measurement Strain on wall surface and deflection at top
113
The size and reinforcement of shear wall model was chosen based
on the availability of testing facility and the model was scaled as a single
storey shear wall supported with roof slab. Except wall thickness, one fourth
scale to actual shear wall was considered in this experimental study. 100mm
thickness of shear wall was considered to accommodate two layers of
reinforcement with 15mm cover, which will have 54mm concrete core to
study the confinement behaviour of the concrete. The geometry of shear wall
model used in this experiment is given in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1(a) Elevation Figure 7.1(b) Side View
Figure 7.1(c) Plan Figure 7.1(d) Isometric View
Figure 7.1 Geometry of shear wall model used in experiment
Experimental Setup. The shear wall model was prepared with reinforcement
as shown in Figure 7.1(a). The base was fixed on the floor using base plate
and bolt & net arrangement as shown in Figure 7.1(b). More over the
combination of vertical and lateral load application on the specimen is
prevented from lifting or rotating. Loading frame of 2000 kN capacity,
hydraulic jack of 400 kN vertical load capacity and 100 kN lateral load
114
capacity wee used for testing the shear wall model. Different combinations of
vertical and lateral loads were applied simultaneously as shown in Figure
7.2(c). 50mm length strain gauges (10 Nos) were used to measure the surface
strain in the wall part and 0.01mm least count dial gauges (03 Nos) were used
to measure the deflections due to lateral load as shown in Figure 7.2(d). The
vertical load relates to the gravity load (Dead load and Live load) and lateral
loads relate to earthquake force. Lateral load up to 60 kN in 5 kN intervals
along with vertical load of 380 kN in 10 kN interval were applied. The lateral
load value was restricted to lower or equal than applied vertical loads to avoid
toppling and shearing effect in the shear wall model. The strain at various
location of the shear wall and deflection at top level were measured.
(a) Reinforcement for wall model (b) Fixing of shear wall shear
using base plate and bolt & nut
Strain Gauge
Location
(c) Loading arrangement (d) Strain and deflections measurement

for shear wall
Figure 7.2 Experimental set up to measure compressive strain and

deflections in a shear wall element
115
Experimental results and discussion. The variation of strain and deflection

due to the same material and loads but varying the confinement spacing of
lateral reinforcement in shear wall was measured. The comparison of load vs
compressive strain and load vs deflection for three different confinement
spacing of lateral reinforcement were studied. Figure 7.3(a) shows the relation
between lateral load vs compressive strain for constant vertical loads of 35 kN,
40 kN, 45 kN, 50 kN, 55 kN and 60 kN. For lateral load varying from 5 kN
to 60 kN, three different graphs obtained with 100mm, 150mm and 200mm
lateral reinforcement spacing, the variations were compared. Compressive
strain observed in 200mm spacing of lateral reinforcement was more than the
strain in 100mm spacing of lateral reinforcement. i.e. strain get reduced when
lateral spacing is reduced.
When the lateral load was below 15 kN with constant vertical load
of 35 kN, the strain reduction between 100mm and 200mm spacing of lateral
reinforcement was about 60%. However, when the lateral load was increased
to 35 kN with same vertical load of 35 kN, the difference in compressive
strain between 100mm and 200 mm spacing of lateral reinforcement was
reduced to 10%. This phenomena was observed for vertical load up to 50 kN.
When the lateral load was below 15 kN with constant vertical load
of 55 kN, strain reduction between 100mm and 200mm spacing of lateral
reinforcement was 50%. However, when the lateral load has been increased to
55 kN with same vertical load of 55 kN, the difference in compressive strain
between 100mm and 200 mm spacing of lateral reinforcement was reduced to
5%. This phenomena was observed for vertical load of 60 kN. It was evident
from the results that the strain reduction was more when vertical load was
more compared to lateral load. In short buildings, the lateral force induced
due to earthquake may be lesser than the gravity load acting on the structure.
116
Figure 7.3(a) Lateral load vs compressive strain in a shear wall element
Figure 7.3(b) shows the relation between lateral load vs deflection

for constant vertical loads of 35 kN, 40 kN, 45 kN, 50 kN, 55 kN and 60 kN
with 100mm, 150mm and 200mm spacing of lateral reinforcement. At the
initial stage, when lateral load was below 25 kN with constant vertical load up
to 45 kN, the difference of deflection between 100mm and 200mm tie spacing
was about 10%. However, when the lateral load was increased, the differences
in deflection had increased to 25% up to a lateral load of 45 kN. When the
lateral load was above 50 kN with constant vertical load was above 50 kN,
117
difference of deflection between 100mm and 200mm spacing of lateral

reinforcement remain 10%. However, difference of deflection had increased
up to 38% when the lateral load was 60 kN. It is observed that when vertical
load and lateral load are high, then deflection is effectively controlled in the
confined RCC shear wall.
Figure 7.3(b) Lateral load vs deflection in a shear wall element
Figure 7.4(a) shows relation between vertical load vs compressive

strain for load varying from 10 kN - 360 kN without lateral load. The
118
difference of strain between 200mm and 100mm spacing of lateral

reinforcement at vertical load of 100 kN was 65 %. The difference of strain at
vertical load of 180 kN was 50 % and at vertical load of 360 kN was 42%.
Though more strain reduction was observed at the initial load, for increased
vertical load, the strain reduction was reduced and about 40% - 50%.
Figure 7.4(a) Vertical load vs Figure 7.4(b) Vertical load vs

Compressive strain Deflection in a
in a shear wall shear wall
Figure 7.4(b) shows relation between vertical load vs deflection for

vertical load varying from 10 kN - 360 kN. The difference of deflection
between 200mm and 100mm lateral reinforcement spacing at vertical load of
100 kN was 55 %, at the vertical load of 180 kN was 65 % and at the vertical
load of 360 kN was 60%. Deflection control to the tune of 60% was observed
due to vertical load in confined RCC shear wall with 100mm lateral
reinforcement spacing.
7.3 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF G+19 STORIED RCC FRAMED

STRUCTURES WITH SHEAR WALLS
Pushover analysis is a useful tool to study post-yield behavior of a

structure and performed on a G+ 19 storied RCC building with shear wall
lateral system having unique design features. Lateral displacement vs base
shear (pushover curve) was obtained from the analysis, response reduction
119
factor for the building with shear wall was estimated and the same was
compared with R values given in IS 1893: 2002.
Building description for pushover analysis. RCC framed structure with

shear wall of G+19 storied building of 60m height and an area of 11,500m2
was considered for nonlinear pushover analysis. As the structure is slender in
Y direction, it offers great challenges to seismic design. Typically, 3.0m floor
to floor height and total 60m tall concrete building in seismic zone III was
considered for pushover analysis. The lateral system in the tall building
combines the shear walls and moment resisting frames as shown in a typical
floor plan in Figure 7.5. The wall thickness considered for the shear walls was
450mm over full height. Typical floor plan of the structure was of rectangular
shape and measures approximately 48m x 12m.
Material properties considered were M20, M25, M30, M35 and

M40 grades of concrete and Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel for both
longitudinal and lateral reinforcements. The lateral reinforcement spacing
considered were 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm and 200mm.
Initially, gravity load alone was considered for the analysis.
Nonlinear pushover analysis against the lateral load was performed

by considering the effect of gravity load acting with the lateral load. Gravity
load includes self weight, superimposed dead load and live load acting on the
framed structure were applied in pushover analysis. Density of concrete was
taken as 25 kN/m3 for calculation of dead load and 2.0 kN/m2 live load was
considered in the analysis. Dead load and 25% of the design live load were
considered as mass of the structure in the analysis. Subsequently, lateral load
was considered for the pushover analysis. First mode shape of the structure
was considered as load pattern for the nonlinear static analysis of the shear
wall.
120
Figure 7.5 Typical floor plan of G+19 storied framed structure

with shear wall arrangements
7.4 MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF FRAMED STRUCTURE

USING PUSHOVER METHOD
Modeling approach. The three - dimensions building models were

considered for non linear pushover analysis using SAP2000 Version 14. The
column elements were modeled as frame elements and the shear walls were
modeled as wide column. The shear wall elements were attached with
columns and the columns were considered to be inside the shear wall cross
section.
The shear wall and the columns on both ends were modeled as a
single frame element. In all the models, the bottom ends of the columns and
the shear walls were modeled as xed based. The column elements were
modeled with default plastic hinges so that lumped plasticity behavior was
observed on their ends. The load and displacement values assigned to these
points were used to determine the nonlinear behaviour by varying the quality
of the material used in the cross section, the reinforcement details and the
axial load on the element. The pushover analysis using SAP 2000 had
considered the Mander (1988) stress– strain curve for the con ned concrete
with strain hardening of steels.
121
The RCC framed structure with shear walls of G+19 is a slender

building and it was designed as per IS 1983: 2000 and ductile detailing as per
IS 13920. Since slender shear walls were provided in the framed structure
with wall height-to-length ratio above 3, flexure action was dominated in the
wall due to seismic response. Shear walls were modeled as equivalent frame
elements and rigid links were considered at floor level for providing
connection between walls. It was assumed that the concrete section will crack
during non linear stage and the effective stiffness considered for beam as 50%
of gross section, column as 70% of gross section and for the wall as 70% of
its gross section.
7.5 RESULTS FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF FRAMED

STRUCTURE WITH SHEAR WALLS.
Results are obtained from non linear pushover analysis using SAP
2000 software for G+19 storied residential building with shear wall. The
parameters considered are M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of
concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel with lateral reinforcement
spacing of 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm and 200mm.
It was observed that the tall and slender RCC buildings design per
IS 1893 may have more possibilities of failing in flexure rather than shear.
This because of slender shear walls are force- controlled with limited ductility
behavior may be restricting to achieving the design requirements. However,
code based design for flexural strength was adequate to resist inelastic
deformations within the permissible limits. The lateral displacement and
base reaction values at ultimate point is given in Table 7.2 and results are
discussed below:
122
Table 7.2 Displacement vs base shear at ultimate point from

pushover curve for G+19 storied with shear wall in Zone III
Ultimate Point
Steel Concrete Time
Base Shear Displacement
Grade Grade Period
(kN) (mm)
FE 415 M20 3.79500 2600.00 196.00
FE 415 M25 3.59682 2674.36 184.38
FE 415 M30 3.43656 2763.02 176.38
FE 415 M35 3.30663 2821.13 169.50
FE 415 M40 3.19807 2878.46 164.38
FE 500 M20 3.80317 3120.00 238.75
FE 500 M25 3.59682 3150.81 208.63
FE 500 M30 3.43656 3194.88 197.13
FE 500 M35 3.30663 3250.00 187.88
FE 500 M40 3.19807 3322.67 181.38
FE 550 M20 3.80317 3356.99 274.38
FE 550 M25 3.59682 3462.29 233.75
FE 550 M30 3.43656 3486.08 209.88
FE 550 M35 3.30663 3541.20 199.25
FE 550 M40 3.19807 3590.60 192.13
Effect on grade of concrete. From the results, it was observed that the
increase of base reaction due to increase of grade of concrete for M25 to M40
grades were about 3% - 10% over M20 grade for Zone III seismic loads.
Effect of on grade of steel. From the result, it was observed that the increase
of base reaction was about 10% - 19% for Fe500 grade of steel and 16% -
28% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone III seismic loads.
123
Effect on lateral reinforcement spacing. The pushover curves for the

various confinement spacing was performed and observed that difference in
base shear of the pushover curves were very negligible.
Effect of base shear on shear wall as long column. The G+19 storied
farmed structure with shear wall building was modeled as long column
elements instead of shell element in nonlinear pushover analysis. It was
observed that the increase of R value due to long column effect was about 5%
- 7% for various grades of concrete.
7.6 SUMMARY
A detailed study was performed by non linear pushover analysis

using SAP 2000 software for estimation of ultimate base reaction and
displacement for RCC framed structures with shear wall . The work presented
had considered G+19 storied residential building with shear wall considering
M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550
grade of steel and lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm, 100mm, 125mm,
150mm, 175mm and 200mm. The focus was in the consideration of realistic
performance - based limit states at both member level and structural system
level, detailed modeling of the inelastic moment - curvature behaviour, P-M
interaction, plastic rotation capacity and consideration of realistic design
practices.
It is observed from the study that provision of shear wall in

multistoried building will limit the lateral deflection of the structure and
increase the ductility property and R value. The results obtained from detailed
study by non linear pushover analysis of RCC framed structure with shear
wall is highlighted below:
124

concrete over M20 grade of concrete was about 3% - 10%
for Zone III seismic loads.
ii. The increase of base reaction was about 10% - 19% for Fe500
grade of steel and 16% - 28% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone
III seismic loads.
ii. The variations in confined reinforcement spacing was not

significant in framed structure with shear wall but there was
delay in the forming of plastic hinge during pushover
analysis.
From the experimental study on confinement effect in shear wall

element reveals that:
i. The strain reduction was more when vertical load was more
compared to lateral load acting on the structure.
ii. When vertical load and lateral load are high, then deflection
was effectively controlled in the confined RCC shear wall.
From the experimental study and pushover analysis of RCC framed

structure with shear wall, it is observed that provision of shear wall
effectively controls the roof displacement and increases the base shear
capacity. Also, provision of shear walls in framed structures increases the
rigidity and ductility of the structure which are very useful in resisting seismic
force induced during an earthquake.
125
CHAPTER 8
EVALUATION OF OVERSTRENGTH, DUCTILTITY AND

R FACTORS FOR RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES
The calculation of over strength and displacement ductility are

determined for various parameters in this chapter. Based on the results, R
factor values for many parameters are also estimated in this chapter. The
effects of grades of concrete, grade of steel, percentage of main reinforcement
and different lateral tie spacing on R factor are discussed in Chapter 9.
8.1 GENERAL
Non linear response of a structure is taken care in seismic design

codes of many countries through a response reduction factor (R) and allow the
designer to account for nonlinear behaviour and deformation limits. R value
is complex in nature and can not be determined by simple equations for many
conditions. There were many interconnected parameters which are to be
studied independently for its influencing variables. This research attempts to
evaluate the R factor from over strength Rs and ductility factor Rµ by keeping
redundancy RR and damping factors R€ as constant value of 1.0. The work
was focused on determination of the R factor component -wise and for a
RCC framed structural system by considering the performance limits of
members and whole structure.
126
8.2 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR
As the structure yields, there is more energy dissipation in the

structure due to hysteresis and the structure becomes softer and its natural
period increases, which usually implies that the structure has to resist a lower
seismic force. When the ductility is more, the structure can withstand stronger
shaking without collapse. The response reduction factor R is an essential
seismic design tools which reflects the capacity of structure to dissipate
energy through inelastic behavior and used to describe the expected
inelasticity due to lateral loads. It is observed that well ductile detailed
seismic framing systems can sustain large inelastic deformations without
collapse and have excess of lateral strength against design strength.
The response of structure to ground vibrations is a function of the

nature of foundation soil, material strength, shape, size and type of
construction of structures, duration, intensity and characteristics of ground
motion. Actual forces that appear on structures during an earthquake are much
greater than the design force specified. However, ductility arising from
inelastic material behavior and overstrength arising from the additional
reserve strength in structures over and above the design strength are
contributing for the additional lateral load carrying capacity over the actual
design loads.
The seismic response reduction factor of RCC framed structure is

the only factor which relates the type of structure, grade of materials used,
configuration of the building and factor of safety to resist seismic. R factor is
introduced in an earthquake resistant design by considering the inelasticity
behavior of the structure and it is designed for much lower force than the
forces induced during an earthquake.
127
Introducing more number of response reduction factors for various

RCC members in framed structures are essential in seismic design to resist
force induced during an earthquake. The response reduction factor depends
on many parameters, Applied Technology Council (ATC) -19 describes the
R factor as
R = Rs * R * RR , (8.1)
Where Rs is the period dependent strength factor,
is the period dependent ductility factor and
RR is the redundancy factor.
Conception of response reduction factor is shown in Figure 8.1.
Currently, there is no elaborate procedure available in IS 1893:2002

code to define R factor by considering different parameter of RCC framed
structures. Table 7 of IS 1893:2002 specifies few R values for all type of
buildings without considering the effect of parameters influencing R factor. It
would be better if the code specifies the R values by integrating the
appropriate performance limit state of the structure. The value of R specified
in IS code may not produce the desired results for some of the buildings in
the earthquake design and it will not reflect the expected inelastic behavior of
buildings having the same lateral load resisting system.
Figure 8.1 Conception of response reduction factor

128
Also, the IS 1893:2000 does not specify any reduction in the R

factor on account of different type of buildings such as framing type,
building height, plan geometry and framing layout, any irregularity (vertical
or plan-irregularity) in the framing system, etc. It is essential to introduce a
mathematical calculations for estimating R factor by considering various
types of buildings with different grades of concrete, different grades of steel,
different confinement spacing and number of floors etc. Various R values
can be introduced based on fundamental period of the structure and the type
of soil to ensure the consistent level of damage. Also, different R value for
each seismic zone may be suggested in the code.
Overstrength Factor (RS) - Overstrength is developed because the maximum

lateral strength of a structure always exceeds its design strength and it
accounts the yielding of structure at load higher than the design load. The
strength factor is a measure of the built-in overstrength in the structural
system and is obtained by dividing the ultimate base shear (Vu) by the design
base shear (Vd). Over strength factor accounts the loads due to various
partial safety factors considered in the materials and load combinations,
strain hardening, oversized members, confinement of concrete. Non-
structural elements in a framed structure and excess steel provided in the
members more than required quantity also contribute to the over strength.
The value of overstrength factor varies in the range of 2-3 as reported in many
experimental studies.
Redundancy Factor (RR) - Redundancy factor is defined as ratio of

maximum base shear (Vm) to yield base shear (Vy). As stated in ATC-19
(1995), the redundancy factor depends on the number of vertical framing
participated in seismic resistance. Redundant structural systems are RCC
structural systems with multiple lines of lateral load resisting frames which
are designed and detailed to transfer the earthquake induced inertia forces to
129
the foundation. In these systems, the lateral load is shared by different frames
depending on the relative (lateral) stiffness and strength characteristics of
each frame. A system may have a lower redundancy factor or a higher
redundancy factor but the value is not larger than one. ATC - 19 (1995)
proposed values of the redundancy factor on the effects of the structure is in
Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Redundancy factors from ATC - 19: 1995
Lines of vertical framing Redundancy factor

2 0.71
3 0.86
4 1.00
Damping factor (R€). When a structure is provided with additional viscous

damping system or supplemental energy dissipating devices, the damping
factor (R€) will account for the damping effect in the structures. Value of
1.0 is assigned to the damping factor when the structure is not provided with
damping devices.
Ductility factor (R ) As the structure yields, there is more energy dissipation

in the structure due to hysteresis and the structure becomes softer and its
natural period increases, which usually implies that the structure has to resist
a lower seismic force. Higher ductility indicates that the structure can
withstand stronger shaking without collapse. Hassaballa et al.(2014) have
stated that the key components of ductility can be worked out on the basis of
pushover curve as shown in Figure 1. Ductility is obtained from nonlinear
static pushover analysis that has been suggested in FEMA -365 and ATC- 40.
The guidelines by ATC and FEMA mentioned include modeling procedures,
acceptance criteria and analysis procedures for pushover analysis. These
130
documents define force–deformation criteria for potential locations of lumped

inelastic behavior, designated as plastic hinges used in pushover analysis.
Ductility factor (R ) is a ratio of ultimate displacement or

code specified permissible displacement to the yield displacement, ie the
ratio of elastic response (Ve) to the ultimate base shear considering an
inelastic response (Vu). The ductility factor is a measure of roof displacement
at code specified yielding limit and it is a measure of the global nonlinear
response of a structural system.
Practically a structure may experience sudden forces, reversal of

loads and foundation settlement etc during an earthquake. However, these
forces are not considered in the analysis and design of framed structures. The
assumption made in limit state design is that all the critical sections in the
building will attain its ultimate capacity at design load. To satisfy this
condition, beam - column joints should be able to resist the withstand forces
and deformations corresponding to yielding of the reinforcement. Ductile
detailing is done in structure to increase the ductility behavior and to reduce
the damages due to seismic forces. Highly ductile RCC frames will attract
more damage compared to structure designed for lower ductility, due to large
yield of structure. The design seismic forces are reduced drastically by using
higher values of R and incorporating higher ductility. When a structure is
overloaded and is to collapse, provision of ductile structure will give
sufficient warning to the occupants to leave the premises and save their life.
8.3 ESTIMATION OF STRENGTH, DUCTILITY AND R

FACTORS FOR RCC FRAMED STRUCTURES
Response reduction factor is influenced by a number of factors

related to the structure and the input excitation. In order to explore the effects
of variation in structural geometrical and material properties on the R factor, a
131
parametric study on RCC framed structure was carried out and the results
obtained were discussed in Chapter 6 and 7.
Methodology for estimation of R factor - Estimation of strength and

ductility factor for RCC building follows a force-displacement relationship
with gravity and seismic loads. Static nonlinear pushover analysis was used
for calculation of the maximum roof displacement. This roof displacement
estimate ignores both the likelihood of shear failure in the non-ductile
columns and the limited deformation capacity of the interior frame column-
slab connections. The multistoried building considered in this study was
designed for seismic zone III and detailed in accordance with the codal
provisions of IS:1893 : 2002 and IS: 13920 : 1993. The structural framing
system was modeled in SAP 2000 for performing static pushover analysis.
The earthquake forces are estimated as per IS:1893: 2002 (part- 1).
After assigning default hinge properties to the structure, the static

pushover cases were defined. Typically, the gravity loads were applied first
and then subsequent lateral static pushover load cases were specified to start
from the final conditions of the gravity pushover. In the gravity case, the
structure was loaded with the dead load and 25% of the live load. The
application of gravity loads was force-controlled whereas the application of
lateral loads was displacement-controlled. The first mode response of the
structure was assigned as the load pattern for the lateral push applied to the
structure.
The procedure involves applying horizontal loads, in a prescribed

pattern, to a computer model of the structure, incrementally; i.e., “pushing”
the structure and plotting the total applied shear force and associated lateral
displacement at each increment. From the analysis, the base shear (V) versus
roof displacement ( roof) curve of the structure, usually called static pushover
curve, was obtained. The nonlinear static procedure requires prior estimation
132
of target displacement. The target displacement serves as an estimate of the

maximum displacement at the roof top of the selected point (node) in the
subject structure during the design earthquake. The maximum limit for the
roof displacement is specified as 0.004H, where H is the height of the
structure. The base shear and roof displacement is recorded at every step. The
final output is the static pushover curve.
Estimation of strength factor - Pushover analysis was performed to get the

force-displacement relationship of the RCC framed structures. The base
reaction force (V0) at a roof displacement was obtained from the pushover
curve. The design base shear for the structure at the strength level (Vd) was
obtained from STAAD Pro analysis of framed structure for earthquake load.
1.0DL +0.25LL as joint weight and seismic factors for zone II and III were
assigned with other parameters. The horizontal force acting on all joints at
roof top level is summed up and Vd was arrived. The maximum base reaction
V0 was obtained from pushover curve. Using these data and the equation for
strength factor, given in ATC - 19, the strength factor is calculated as Rs =
V0/Vd
Estimation of redundancy factor - The Table 2 of ATC - 19 describes the

redundancy factor. For 4 lines of vertical seismic framing, the re redundancy
factor RR = 1.00
Estimation of ductility factor - A bilinear approximation to the calculated

force-displacement relationship was based on the equal-energy method and
assumes that the yield force (Vy) is equal to V0. The maximum displacement
m) (0.004 H) and the yield displacement ( y) from pushover curve were
obtained. Displacement ductility ratio was estimated using equation, given in
ATC - 19, = m / y. The ductility factor for various soil strata was
calculated using equation given by Miranda and Bertero (1995),
133
R = {( - 1 / ) + 1} (8.2)
where,
for rock soil = 1+{1/(10T- T)}- {1/2T exp(-1.5(ln(T)-0.6)^2)}
for alluvium soil =1+{1 /(12T - T)}–{(2 / 5T)*e -2(ln(T) – 0.2)^2}
for soft soil = 1+{(T1/3T)}-{3T1/4Texp(-3 (ln(T/T1)-0.25)^2)}
where, T1 is the predominant period of the ground motion.
Estimation of response reduction factor R - The response reduction factor
(R) was calculated as the product of the strength-ductility, and redundancy
factors,
The estimation of R values for the G+8 configurations with

different parameters for Zone III loads are given in the Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Estimation of R values for the G+8 configurations with

different parameters for Zone III loads
Ultimate Point
Permissible Curvature Ductility Factor Response Reduction
Over
Steel Concrete Base Displace- Base Displace- Ductility Factor (R) Value
Strength
Grade Grade Shear ment Shear ment in
Ratio
(kN) (mm) mm Rock Alluvial Soft Rock Alluvial Soft
Ratio
Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil
FE 415 M20 2000.00 283.00 998.30 2.00 114.00 2.48 2.64 2.95 2.38 5.28 5.91 4.76
FE 415 M25 2132.80 266.50 998.30 2.14 114.00 2.34 2.44 2.73 2.24 5.21 5.82 4.79
FE 415 M30 2162.70 269.22 998.30 2.17 114.00 2.36 2.43 2.72 2.26 5.26 5.89 4.89
FE 415 M35 2268.80 263.00 998.30 2.27 114.00 2.31 2.34 2.62 2.21 5.33 5.94 5.02
FE 415 M40 1842.00 89.06 998.30 1.85 114.00 0.78 0.77 0.73 0.80 1.42 1.34 1.47
FE 500 M20 2268.80 285.50 998.30 2.27 114.00 2.50 2.66 2.98 2.40 6.04 6.77 5.45
FE 500 M25 2391.30 279.50 998.30 2.40 114.00 2.45 2.56 2.87 2.35 6.12 6.87 5.62
FE 500 M30 2483.00 259.50 998.30 2.49 114.00 2.28 2.34 2.61 2.18 5.82 6.50 5.42
FE 500 M35 2520.60 260.90 998.30 2.52 114.00 2.29 2.33 2.59 2.19 5.87 6.55 5.53
FE 500 M40 2558.20 262.30 998.30 2.56 114.00 2.30 2.31 2.58 2.20 5.93 6.60 5.64
FE 550 M20 2387.50 297.00 998.30 2.39 114.00 2.61 2.77 3.11 2.49 6.61 7.44 5.96
FE 550 M25 2509.00 279.85 998.30 2.51 114.00 2.45 2.56 2.87 2.35 6.43 7.22 5.90
FE 550 M30 2619.00 275.90 998.30 2.62 114.00 2.42 2.49 2.79 2.31 6.52 7.32 6.07
FE 550 M35 2686.50 261.90 998.30 2.69 114.00 2.30 2.33 2.60 2.20 6.28 7.01 5.92
FE 550 M40 2800.00 238.75 998.30 2.80 114.00 2.09 2.11 2.33 2.01 5.92 6.54 5.64
134
8.4 ESTIMATION OF R FACTOR FROM PUSHOVER

ANALYSIS
R factor was estimated from the non linear static pushover analysis
by using an inverted triangular load pattern. The analysis determine the
maximum roof displacement and the corresponding base reaction developed
in the structures and plot the pushover curve. Various parameters used for non
linear static pushover analysis and the results obtained were already discussed
in chapter 7. The pushover analysis considered 4 percent target drift ratio and
assumed that the structure to reach its ultimate capacity in this range. The R
factor estimated for various configuration such as G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11
and G+14 residential buildings with M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades
of concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of steel are given in Table 8.3 (a),
(b), (c) and (d).
Table 8.3(a) Estimation of R factor for G, G+2 and G+5 configuration

for Zone II loads
Response Reduction Factor for Various Parameters in Zone II

R Value R Value R Value
Steel Concrete for Single Floor for G+2 Floor for G+5 Floor
Grade Grade Soft Soft Soft
Rock Alluvial Rock Alluvial Rock Alluvial
Soil Soil Soil
FE 415 M20 94.68 104.18 110.21 6.89 7.18 7.25 4.03 4.45 3.80
FE 415 M25 95.75 104.65 114.92 7.23 7.50 7.73 4.36 4.83 4.05
FE 415 M30 101.08 110.17 125.40 7.47 7.73 8.09 4.70 5.20 4.30
FE 415 M35 104.36 113.31 132.72 7.79 8.04 8.55 4.81 5.31 4.36
FE 415 M40 106.16 114.94 138.15 7.98 8.23 8.86 5.37 5.93 4.82
FE 500 M20 111.74 123.35 131.06 7.98 8.34 8.42 4.03 4.45 3.80
FE 500 M25 115.05 126.22 139.43 8.16 8.48 8.74 5.45 6.07 5.04
FE 500 M30 114.04 124.44 141.90 8.44 8.75 9.17 5.03 5.55 4.62
FE 500 M35 115.95 125.90 147.46 8.58 8.87 9.44 5.46 6.04 4.95
FE 500 M40 115.96 125.55 150.90 9.06 9.34 10.08 5.28 5.79 4.77
FE 550 M20 123.21 136.24 145.10 8.70 9.11 9.20 4.37 4.79 4.13
FE 550 M25 123.76 135.70 149.75 8.92 9.29 9.59 5.48 6.08 5.07
FE 550 M30 122.55 133.72 152.49 8.97 9.30 9.76 6.01 6.68 5.49
FE 550 M35 122.87 133.64 157.01 9.13 9.44 10.06 5.87 6.49 5.32
FE 550 M40 122.76 133.12 160.52 9.49 9.79 10.58 6.03 6.64 5.42
135
Table 8.3(b) Estimation of R factor for G+8, G+11 and G+14

configuration for Zone II loads
Response Reduction Factor for Various Parameters in Zone II

Steel Concrete for G+8 Floor for G+11 Floor for G+14 Floor
Soil Soil Soil
FE 415 M20 2.82 2.68 2.59 1.78 1.75 1.87 0.67 0.72 0.72
FE 415 M25 3.90 3.64 3.46 2.00 1.97 2.05 0.68 0.74 0.75
FE 415 M30 4.60 4.27 4.01 2.25 2.24 2.27 0.74 0.80 0.82
FE 415 M35 4.70 4.37 4.07 2.32 2.30 2.34 0.74 0.81 0.83
FE 415 M40 4.77 4.45 4.11 2.45 2.43 2.47 0.73 0.82 0.84
FE 500 M20 2.74 2.62 2.55 2.03 2.00 2.11 0.81 0.86 0.86
FE 500 M25 3.91 3.67 3.51 2.04 1.99 2.14 0.80 0.86 0.87
FE 500 M30 4.96 4.62 4.34 2.26 2.22 2.33 0.82 0.90 0.91
FE 500 M35 5.11 4.77 4.45 2.37 2.33 2.44 0.84 0.93 0.94
FE 500 M40 5.09 4.76 4.42 2.52 2.48 2.57 0.85 0.94 0.96
FE 550 M20 2.56 2.46 2.40 2.32 2.31 2.35 0.93 0.97 0.98
FE 550 M25 3.73 3.52 3.38 2.24 2.20 2.32 0.89 0.95 0.96
FE 550 M30 5.34 4.97 4.67 2.28 2.23 2.37 0.88 0.95 0.97
FE 550 M35 5.76 5.36 4.99 2.37 2.30 2.46 0.87 0.96 0.98
FE 550 M40 5.43 5.08 4.71 2.51 2.45 2.59 0.91 1.00 1.03
Table 8.3(c) Estimation of R factor for G, G+2 and G+5 configuration

for Zone III loads
Response Reduction Factor for Various Parameters in Zone III

Steel Concrete for Single Floor for G+2 Floor for G+5 Floor
Soil Soil Soil
FE 415 M20 59.74 65.73 69.53 23.80 24.18 19.40 8.14 7.47 6.95
FE 415 M25 60.41 66.02 72.51 24.76 25.76 20.33 8.67 7.97 7.31
FE 415 M30 63.77 69.51 79.12 26.74 28.41 22.16 9.11 8.41 7.60
FE 415 M35 65.84 71.49 83.73 27.00 29.13 22.56 9.54 8.85 7.90
FE 415 M40 66.98 72.52 87.16 30.85 33.93 26.15 9.82 9.16 8.08
FE 500 M20 70.50 77.82 82.69 26.39 26.77 21.50 9.25 8.48 7.89
FE 500 M25 72.59 79.64 87.97 29.41 30.67 24.19 10.25 9.41 8.62
FE 500 M30 71.95 78.51 89.53 23.86 25.17 19.71 10.55 9.73 8.80
FE 500 M35 73.16 79.43 93.04 23.27 24.91 19.38 11.26 10.44 9.32
FE 500 M40 73.16 79.21 95.21 33.02 36.27 27.95 11.45 10.68 9.42
FE 550 M20 77.73 85.96 91.55 24.49 24.78 19.95 10.32 9.45 8.79
FE 550 M25 78.09 85.61 94.48 39.37 41.61 32.93 9.17 8.45 7.77
FE 550 M30 77.32 84.37 96.21 31.36 33.27 25.97 12.22 11.27 10.17
FE 550 M35 77.52 84.31 99.06 32.30 34.84 26.98 12.75 11.82 10.53
FE 550 M40 77.45 83.99 101.27 33.23 36.35 28.02 13.14 12.26 10.80
136
Table 8.3(d) Estimation of R factor for G+8, G+11 and G+14

configuration for Zone III loads
Response Reduction Factor for Various Parameters in Zone III

Steel Concrete for G+8 Floor for G+11 Floor for G+14 Floor
Soil Soil Soil
FE 415 M20 5.28 5.91 4.76 1.73 1.75 1.70 0.67 0.72 0.72
FE 415 M25 5.21 5.82 4.79 2.00 2.04 1.93 0.68 0.74 0.75
FE 415 M30 5.26 5.89 4.89 1.82 1.84 1.80 0.74 0.80 0.82
FE 415 M35 5.33 5.94 5.02 1.77 1.77 1.77 0.74 0.81 0.83
FE 415 M40 1.42 1.34 1.47 1.79 1.78 1.79 0.73 0.82 0.84
FE 500 M20 6.04 6.77 5.45 1.97 1.99 1.93 0.81 0.86 0.86
FE 500 M25 6.12 6.87 5.62 2.19 2.23 2.13 0.80 0.86 0.87
FE 500 M30 5.82 6.50 5.42 2.48 2.56 2.38 0.82 0.90 0.91
FE 500 M35 5.87 6.55 5.53 2.49 2.56 2.40 0.84 0.93 0.94
FE 500 M40 5.93 6.60 5.64 2.14 2.16 2.13 0.85 0.94 0.96
FE 550 M20 6.61 7.44 5.96 2.10 2.13 2.05 0.93 0.97 0.98
FE 550 M25 6.43 7.22 5.90 3.14 3.28 2.91 0.89 0.95 0.96
FE 550 M30 6.52 7.32 6.07 2.58 2.65 2.48 0.88 0.95 0.97
FE 550 M35 6.28 7.01 5.92 2.00 1.98 2.01 0.87 0.96 0.98
FE 550 M40 5.92 6.54 5.64 2.80 2.90 2.70 0.91 1.00 1.03
Figure 8.2 Variation of R factor for G+5 structure located in Zone III
rock and soft soil
137
Figure 8.3 Variation of R factor for G+5 structure located in Zone II

rock and soft soil
Effect of R factor on grade of concrete. R factors for rock, alluvial and soft
site conditions were estimated from pushover analysis with various
parameters such as M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40 grades of confined
concretes, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 steel grades and for earthquake zone II
and Zone III loads. The variations were compared with M20 grade of concrete.
From the results, it was observed that the increase of R factor for M25 to M40
grades of concrete was about 6% - 26% for zone II seismic loads and 4% -
19% for zone III seismic loads. The increase of R factor due to grade of steel
was about 6% - 10% for Fe500 grade and 09% - 18% for Fe550 grade in zone
II loads. Similarly, The increase of R factor due to grade of steel was about
4% - 11% for Fe500 and 10% - 19% for Fe550 steel in zone III loads. From
the results, it was observed that the over strength and ductility factors were
increased when the compressive strength of the concrete was increased , with
the result R factor was also increased .
Effect of R factor on grade of steel. Pushover analysis using Fe415, Fe500

and Fe550 steel grades for earthquake zone II and Zone III loads were
considered for studying the effect of steel grade. The variations were
compared with Fe415 steel grade. From the result, it was observed that the
increase of R factor was about 9% - 16% for Fe500 steel and 4% - 8% for
138
Fe550 steel in zone II loads. Similarly, the increase of R factor was about 9%
- 18% for Fe500 and 5% - 12% for Fe550 steel in zone III loads. In higher
steel grade, tension force was higher at ultimate strain and more concrete was
active in resisting moment. Therefore, the base reaction increases with
increase of grade of steel in both zone II and III.
Effect of R factor on storey height. The behaviour of the RCC framed

structures were evaluated from the pushover curve and a storey wise
comparison was carried out. The increase of R factor for zone II loads over
the height of the structure was about 3% - 18% in G, 4% - 21% for G+2, 3% -
G+14 structure. Similarly for zone III loads, the increase of R factor over the
height of the structure was about 3% - 18% in G, 4% - 22% for G+2, 5% -
G+14 structures. The result indicates that the shorter frame has higher
overstrength value compared to taller frame. The R values for the frames up
to G+8 was higher than taller frames for zone II and III loads.
Effect of R factor on seismic zone. When the structure was designed for
various seismic zone, the member size and reinforcement changes according
to the seismic forces resistance. The changes of member size influence the
base shear. A comparative study on Zone II and Zone III was considered for
seismic variation. The increase of R values for zone III loads over zone II
loads to the range of 80% - 87% for G+2, 83% - 97% for G+5, 79% - 104%
for G+8, 20% - 30% for G+11 and 24% - 34% for G+ 14. These increase
due to larger size beam and column elements contribute in resisting more
seismic load of zone III load. The results conclude that seismic response of
medium height structure was better than tall structure in both zone II and III
loads.
139
Effect of R factor on lateral reinforcement spacing . The pushover curves

for the various confined lateral reinforcement spacing such as 200mm,
175mm, 150mm, 125mm , 100mm and 75mm of different concrete were
compared for six type of RCC framed structures. It was noticed that the
difference in strength between the pushover curves were negligible but the
change in the displacement capacity was significant. The little effect in RCC
framed structure was in the form of delay in hinge formation during pushover
analysis. No variation was observed in the estimation of R value using
pushover analysis.
Effect of R factory by overstrength factor. The overstrength factor has

significant contribution in estimation of R values. The overstrength factor was
found varying with seismic zones, number of stories, and design gravity loads.
However, the dependency on seismic zones was the strongest. The average
overstrength was estimated for these buildings located in Zones III and II and
found to be 2.61 and 6.94, respectively. It was observed that the overstrength
increased as the number of stories decreased. Average overstrength of a four-
storey building was observed higher than nine storey building by 36% in Zone
III, and 39% in Zone II. Furthermore, buildings of the three heights had an
average overstrength 165.9% higher in Zone II than in Zone III.
Effect of R factor on types of soil. Ductility factor was arrived based on soil
types such as rock, alluvium and soft site. Miranda & Bertero (1994)
relationship Rµ - µ - T was adopted for rock, alluvium, and soft soil sites as
Rµ= µ-1+ 1 and R values were estimated. The range of R values of G+5, for
zone III seismic design building for rock site was between 8 - 13, alluvium
site was between 7 - 12 and soft site was between 7 - 11. Similarly, the range
of R values of G+8, zone III seismic design building for rock site was
between 5 - 7, alluvium site was between 6 - 8 and soft site was between 5 - 6.
There was a marginal variation in R value due to different type of site soil.
140
8.5 DISCUSSIONS ON R VALUES
In the present study, the response reduction factor for RCC framed
structures with different configurations were analytically estimated and the
results were compared with Indian seismic code IS 1893 and with R values
specified in other countries seismic code. From the study, it was observed that
R factor is sensitive to both geometric configuration and material properties.
Confinement effect in concrete enhances the ductility and R value
significantly. Adopting higher value of R for high strength concrete and high
yield strength of steel with lateral confinement, significant percentage of
seismic forces can be reduced and achieve very good saving in structural
members.
Few R values given in IS 1893:2000 code may be un-conservative

to the range of 10% - 20%. Therefore, introducing more number of R values
by considering various parameters of RCC members in framed structures are
essential to perform economical seismic design of structures to resist the
force generated during an earthquake. To achieve the scope of study, six
types of RCC framed structure and a G+19 storied structure with shear walls
for various parameters were considered in nonlinear pushover analysis. This
study was useful in assessing the fluctuating R values due to many
influencing parameters of a framed structures.
Parametric study performed in this work reveals that R values has

an increasing tendency due to increase of compressive strength of concrete,
increase of yield strength of steel and reduction of confined spacing of lateral
reinforcement. It was also observed that R value was higher in shorter
buildings than in taller buildings. It was noticed that R values were higher for
stiffer frames due to increased strength of materials and geometrical
properties. Stiff framed structures can take more load before reaching the
141
ultimate displacement which was useful to resist sudden force induced during
an earthquake.
8.6 SUMMARY
A detailed study was conducted to check the validity of the non

linear pushover analysis using SAP 2000 software for estimation of ultimate
base reaction and displacement for various RCC framed structures. The
present work had considered six RCC framed structure such as G, G+2, G+5,
G+8, G+11 and G+14 residential building configurations with M20, M25,
M30, M35 and M40 grades of concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of
steel and lateral reinforcement spacing of 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm,
175mm and 200mm. R factor was sensitive to both geometric configuration
and material strength; however, variation in geometric parameters tends to
display more significant impact on the R factor value. Increasing the stiffness
of the frame in general, whether due to changes in material or geometric
properties, leads to an increase in the R factor value.
The following were observed from the estimation of R value of

RCC framed structure:
i. The increase of R factor for M25 to M40 grades of concrete was

about 6% - 26% for zone II seismic loads and 4% - 19% for
zone III seismic loads.
ii. The increase of R factor was about 9% - 16% for Fe500 steel
and 4% - 8% for Fe550 steel in zone II loads. Similarly, the
increase of R factor was about 9% - 18% for Fe500 and 5% -
12% for Fe550 steel for zone III loads.
142
iii. The increase of R factor over the height of the structure was
about 3% - 18% in G, 4% - 22% for G+2, 3% - 26% for G+5,
9% - 28% for G+8, 5% - 21% for G+11 and 5% - 20% for
G+14 for zone II and III loads.
iv. The size beam and column elements were larger to resist
seismic load of zone III than zone II. Thus the base reaction in
zone III frames were much more than the frames designed for
zone II, in the range of 80% - 100%. Zone effect on RCC
framed structure was very significant due to high strength RCC
members.
v. The variations in confined reinforcement spacing has little

effect on R value of RCC framed structure. But it generally
increase the ductility of framed structure and delays the hinge
vi. The overstrength factor has significant contribution in

estimation of R values. The overstrength factor had variation
due to seismic zones, number of stories and gravity loads.
vii. There was marginal variations in R value due to different type

of soil condition. The rock soil has 8% - 12% higher R values
than soft soil condition.
143
CHAPTER 9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESEARCH

STUDY
Parametric study on confinement effect, moment - curvature

relationship, ductility of RCC member, non linear static pushover analysis of
framed structures and estimation of R factor were performed in this thesis
work. The results obtained from the study are discussed in this chapter.
9.1 GENERAL
Based on the objective, the parameters contributing response

reduction factor for various RCC members such as beams, columns were
studied. Subsequently, non linear pushover analysis of RCC framed structure
with and without shear wall was performed and R values were estimated. The
study was performed in the following areas:
i. Study on stress - strain behaviour of RCC rectangular column

member with unconfined and confined concrete using Mander
model for various parameters were performed and the influence
of confinement effect was quantified.
ii. Moment - curvature relation of RCC beam and column

members were estimated using Kansas State University -
Reinforced Concrete (KSU-RC) software. The parameters
influencing the moment - curvature relationship of beam and
column members were discussed.
144
iii. The ductility properties of the unconfined and confined concrete

beam and column members for different grades of concrete and
steel, with varying percentage of main steel and for different
lateral reinforcement spacing were estimated and effect of all
these parameters were discussed.
iv. Pushover analysis for six different configuration of RCC framed

structures were performed for various grades of concrete and steel,
for different lateral reinforcement spacing and for various of floor
heights. The maximum roof displacement corresponding base
reaction (pushover curve) for all these parameters were obtained.
v. R values were estimated from the nonlinear pushover curve by

calculating strength factor and ductility factor by keeping
redundancy and damping factor as constant value of 1.0. R
values were estimated by with wide ranges of parameters. The
parameters considered were G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and
G+14 storied framed structures with M20, M25, M30, M35 and
M40 grades of concrete, Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550 grades of
steel, 75mm, 100mm, 125mm, 150mm, 175mm and 200mm of
lateral reinforcement spacing, rock, alluvium & soft site
conditions and seismic zone II and III loads.
9.2 RESULTS FROM VARIOUS PARAMETRIC STUDY
Variations in grade of concrete - M20, M25, M30, M35 and M40.
i. Effect of confined concrete. The increase of ultimate confined

concrete strength due to confined lateral reinforcement was
about 80% in M20 and M25 grades of concrete and was about
30% M30, M35 and M40 grades of concrete.
145
ii. Effect of moment curvature relations. The decrease of

curvature at ultimate confined concrete strength in concrete
beam was about 10% - 75% and increase of moment was about
1% - 11%. Similarly, the decrease of curvature in concrete
column was about 10% - 60% and increase of moment was
about 10% - 35% in all grades of steel.
iii. Effect of ductility factor. When the grade of concrete increased

from M25 to M40, the curvature ductility factor also increased
about 5% - 34% over M20 grade of concrete in 1.3% main steel
and 7% - 37% % in 0.8% main steel.
iv. Effect of base reaction in framed structures. The base

reaction was increased when the grade of concrete had increased
from M25 to M40 to the range of 4% - 15% over M20 grade of
concrete.
v. Effect of base reaction in shear wall structures. The base

reaction has increased when the grade of concrete was increased
from M25 to M40 to the range of 4% - 15% over M20 grade of
concrete.
vi. Effect of R value in framed structures. The R value was

increased when the grade of concrete had increased from M25
to M40 to the range of 4% - 15% over M20 grade of concrete.
Variations in grades of steel - Fe415, Fe500 and Fe550
i. Effect of confined concrete. The increase of ultimate

confined concrete strength due to increase of grade of steel
from Fe415 was about 7% - 30% in Fe500 and 9% to 40% in
Fe550.
146
ii. Effect of moment curvature relations. The curvature at

ultimate strength decreases and moment increases when the
yield strength of steel increases. The decrease of curvature at
ultimate strength in Fe500 and Fe550 was about 50%- 80% ,
Similarly the variation of moment in Fe500 and Fe550 was
about 50%- 80%.
iii. Curvature ductility factor. When the grade of steel has

increased to Fe500 and Fe550, the curvature ductility factor
increases over Fe415 was about 12% - 25% in 1.3% main
steel and 14% - 27% was in 0.8% main steel.
iv. Effect of base reaction in framed structures. The structure

capacity in the form of base reaction has increased when the
steel grade was increased for Fe 500 and Fe550 in the range of
4% - 10% over Fe415 steel grade.
v. Effect of base reaction in shear wall structures.. The

structure capacity in the form of base reaction has increased
when the steel grade was increased for Fe500 and Fe550 in the
range of 4% - 10% over Fe415 steel grade.
vi Effect of R values in framed structures. The R value had

increased when the steel grade was increased for Fe500 and
Fe550 in the range of 4% - 10% over Fe415 steel grade.
Variations in main steel - 1.0% and 1.8% in beams and 0.8% and 1.3%
in columns

confined concrete strength due to increase of main steel from
0.8% to 1.3% was about 10% to 30%.
147
ii. Effect of moment curvature relations. The confined

concrete strength of concrete had increased about 10% - 30%
due to increase of main steel from 0.8% - 1.3%.
iii. Effect of ductility factor. The variation of ductility factor

reduction of 1.8% over 1.0% main steel content with 50% of
compression steel was about 48% - 46% in Fe415 steel, 51% -
55% in Fe500 steel and 54% - 59% in Fe550 steel.
Variations in lateral reinforcement spacing -175mm, 100mm, 125mm,

150mm, 175mm and 200mm

confined concrete strength over lateral reinforcement spacing
of 200 mm was about 100% to 145% for lateral reinforcement
spacing of 100mm and 75mm and about 40% to 50% for
lateral reinforcement spacing of 150mm and 175mm for all
grades of concrete and steel.
ii. Effect of moment curvature relations. The decrease of

curvature in beam due to lateral reinforcement spacing was
about 10% -65% and in column was about 8% -86% .
Similarly, increase of moment capacity in beam was in the
range of 2% -11% and in column in the range of 5% -51%.
iii. Effect of ductility factor. The increase of curvature ductility

in column for the lateral reinforcement spacing of 175mm to
75mm was about 15% - 166% for 1.3% main steel and 13% -
158% for 0.8% main steel.
iv. Effect of base reaction in framed structures. The variations

due to lateral reinforcement spacing in confined concrete was
observed in the individual member behavior but variation was
148
not noticed in the framed structural system. The little effect in

RCC framed structure was in the form of delay in hinge
Variations in axial load – 300kN, 450kN and 600kN.
i. Effect of moment curvature relations. The decrease of

curvature due to increase of axial load from 300 kN was about
10% - 25% for 450 kN axial load and was about 20% - 40%
for 600 kN axial load. Similarly, the increase of moment
capacity due to increase of axial load from 300 kN was about
20% - 40% for 450 kN axial load and was about 8% - 41%
for 600 kN axial load.
ii. Effect of ductility factor. The decrease of curvature ductility

due to increase of axial load was about 06% - 09% in 450kN
axial load and 05% - 12% in 600kN axial load.
Variations over number of floors - G, G+2, G+5, G+8, G+11 and G+14
i. Effect of base reaction in framed structures. The

performance of multistoried building in terms of resisting base
reaction had increased up to G+8 to the range of 3% - 26%
due to increase of grade of concrete and steel.
ii. Effect of R values in framed structures. The R value had

increased when number of stories up to G+8 to the range of
3% - 16% due to increase of grade of concrete and steel.
149
Variations in G+19 storied framed structures with shear walls

concrete over M20 grade of concrete was about 3% - 10%
for Zone III seismic loads.
ii. The increase of base reaction was about 10% - 19% for Fe500
grade of steel and 16% - 28% for Fe550 grade of steel in zone
III seismic loads.
iii. The variations due to lateral reinforcement spacing was not

significant in framed structure with shear wall but delay in the
hinge formation is noticed during pushover analysis
Variations in zone effect – Zone II and III
i. Effect of base reaction in framed structures. The increase

of base reaction in zone III framed structures were in the range
of 80% to 100% than the framed structures designed for zone
II loads. Zone effect on RCC framed structure was very
significant due to high strength RCC members.
ii. Effect of R values in framed structures. The sizes of beam

and column for zone III loads were larger than zone II loads
to resist seismic forces. Therefore, the increase of base
reaction in zone III over zone II framed structures were in the
range of 75% to 95%. Zone effect on RCC framed structures
were significant due to high strength RCC members.
150
Variations in overstrength factor
The overstrength factor had significant contribution in estimation of

R values. The over-strength factor was found to vary with seismic zones,
number of stories, and design gravity loads. The overstrength factor in low
rise structure of G+2 structure was about 4 -5 when compared to high rise
structure of G+8 which was about 2-3. The maximum lateral displacement in
high rise structure was restricted due to diaphragm behaviour of floor slabs.
Variations in soil type – rock, alluvium and soft soil
There was marginal variations in R value due to different types of

site soil. The increase of R values in rock soil was about 8% - 12% than soft
soil.
9.3 COMPARISON OF THE ESTIMATED R VALUES WITH

OTHER COUNTRIES R VALUES SPECIFIED IN THEIR
SEISMIC CODES
The use of response reduction factors was not limited to the seismic
design of buildings in India alone but are used in a number of countries for
seismic design. Introduction of response reduction factor will reduce the
seismic design forces in all seismic design codes and account the effect of
inelastic energy dissipation of the structure. The different values of R factor
were considered based on the ductility classes of various buildings. The
numerical values of response reduction factors R used in USA, Europe, New
Zealand, Japan and Mexico codes were compared with Indian code. The
investigation shows that larger value of R was considered in the Unites States
than in Europe and Mexico. As the seismic performance objectives were
similar in all cases, the conclusion drawn from the study was that the values
of R in the United States seismic codes may not be conservative. Comparison
151
of R factors in other countries seismic code given by Yogendra Singh & Vijay
Namdev Khose (2012) are reproduced in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Comparison of Response Reduction Factor Values with other

Countries Seismic Code
Category NZS 1170.5 Japan Mexico

ASCE 7 Euro code 8 IS 1893
(Long Period) (BSL) (MCB)
I – Low dissipative OMRF DCL NDS LDMF LDMF OMRF
structures (3) (1.5) (1.35) (1.8) (1.5) (3)
II – Medium IMRF DCM SLD MDMF MDMF SMRF
dissipative structures (5) (3.9) (4.29) (3.3) (2.5) (5)
III – High dissipative SMRF DCH DS SDMF SDMF
structures (8) (5.85) (8.57) (4) (4)
9.4 CONCLUSION
R value is complex in nature and needs to be determined by

mathematical equations for various types of buildings by considering
different material and geometrical properties. R values given in IS 1893:
2002 code needs to be varied for types of buildings, building height, plan
geometry and framing layout, geometry of the structural system, material
properties, confinement effect, ductility factor and sub soil strata of the
structure to ensure the desired performance during seismic resistance design
of structures. Different R value for each seismic zone and soil type also to be
introduced.
Results from various parametric study such as concrete

compressive strength, yield strength of steel, percentage of longitudinal
reinforcement, spacing of lateral reinforcement, quantum of axial load on
columns, frames vertical geometry variation and seismic zones have been
152
summarized and concluded in this chapter. From the limited study carried out,
the following conclusions are made:
i. The estimation of R value depend on many interconnected

parameters such as grade of concrete, grade of steel,
percentage of main reinforcement and different lateral tie
spacing.
ii. The R value will vary depending on structural configuration

of a building.
iii. The R value will depend on both the fundamental period of

the building and the soil type.
iv. The R value estimated based on various parameters will vary

for different seismic zones.
v. It is inferred from the study that seismic design for framed

structure up to G+2 and less height are not necessary.
The systematic approach for estimation of R value by considering

the various parameters is the original contribution of this study.
9.5 FUTURE SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study was limited to rectangular beam size of 230mmx300mm

and column size of 230mmx400mm for confinement effect, M-ø relationship
and curvature ductility. The same methodology can be extended to circular
column and for different sizes of beam and column members. Regular 3x3
grid RCC framed structure was considered in non linear pushover analysis for
estimation of R factor. Irregular frames with more number of grids can be
considered for non linear pushover analysis and R factor can be estimated.
Only G+19 storied framed structure with shear wall was considered for
153
pushover analysis. More number of frames with shear walls can be considered
for non linear pushover analysis and R factor can be estimated.
Further detailed study on various contributing factor to response

reduction factor R to provide more input for inclusion in IS code will help
the design engineer to perform the economical design as required to resist
high seismic force during inelastic behavior of the structure. R values
assigned in Indian seismic codes have ample scope for further improvement.
It is important to establish appropriate values for R through rigorous research
and study so that the intended performance of the building can be realized
with more degree of reliability.
154
REFERENCES
1. Abhijeet A Maske, Nikhil A Maske & Preeti P Shiras 2014, ‘Pushover

Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures: A Case Study’,
International Journal of Advanced Technology in Engineering and
Science’, vol. 2, no. 10.
2. Abhijit Ghadi, p, Barbude, PR & Boob, TN 2015, ‘Evaluation of

response reduction factor for reinforced concrete frame’, International
journal of pure and applied research in engineering and technology
(IJPRET), vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 98-108.
3. ACI Committee 318, 2005, ‘Building code requirements for structural

concrete (318-05) and commentary-(318R-05)’, ACI, Farmington
Hills, Michigan.
4. Ahmad, SM & Shah, SP 1982, ‘Stress – strain curves of concrete

confined by spiral reinforcement’, Am. Concr. Inst. J., vol. 79, no. 6,
pp. 484-490.
5. Ami Shah, A & Shah, BA 2014, ‘Seismic evolution of RC space frame

with rectangular and equivalent square column by pushover analysis’,
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
(IJRET), vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 265-272.
6. Anam, I & Shoma, ZN 2002, ‘Nonlinear Properties of Reinforced

Concrete Structures’, 2nd Canadian Conference on Nonlinear Solid
Mechanics, Vancouver, Canada, vol. 2, pp. 657-66.
7. Anderson, JC & Townsend, WH 1977, ‘Models for RC Frames with

Degrading Stiffness’, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
vol. 103, no. ST12.
8. Andrew Whittker, Gary hart & Christopher Rojahn 1999, ‘Seismic

Response Modification Factors’, Journal of Structural Engineering,
vol. 125.
9. Applied Technology Council -40 (ATC-40) 1996, ‘Seismic evaluation

and retrofit of concrete building’, Redwood City, Calif.
10. Applied Technology Council -19 (ATC-19) 1995, ‘Structural Response

Modification Factors’, Redwood City, California.
155
11. Applied Technology Council -3(ATC-3) 1978, ‘Tentative Provisions

for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings’, Redwood
City, California.
12. Apurba Mondal, Siddhartha Ghosh & Reddy, GR 2013, ‘Performance-

based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC
frames’, Engineering Structures, vol. 56, pp. 1808-1819.
13. Arslan, MH, Yuksel, I & Kaltakci, MY 2010, ‘An investigation on

global ductility of strengthened RC frames’, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, vol. 163,
no. SB3, pp. 177–194.
14. ASCE 7, 2005, ‘Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures’, American Society of Civil Engineers. USA.
15. Au FTK, Bzz Ba & Kawan, AKH 2005, ‘Complete moment- curvature
relationship of reinforced normal – and high strength concrete beams
experiencing complex load history’, Computers and concrete, vol. 2,
no. 4, 309-324.
16. Baker, ALL & Amarakone, AMN 1964, ‘Inelastic Hyper Static Frames
Analysis’, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Flexural
Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Miami, Florida, ASCE 1965-50,
ACI SP-12, pp. 85-142.
17. Banon, H, Biggs, JM & Irvine, MH 1981, ‘Seismic Damage in

Reinforced Concrete Frames’, Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, vol. 107, no. ST9.
18. Bansal, R 2011, ‘Pushover analysis of reinforced concrete frame’,

M.Tech project report. Department of Civil engineering, Thapar
University.
19. Bertero, VV & Popov, EP 1975, ‘Hysteretic Behavior of Ductile

Moment Resisting Reinforced Concrete Frame Components’,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 75-16,
University of California, Berkeley.
20. Bhavin Patel & Dhara Shah 2010, ‘Formulation of Response

Reduction Factor for RCC Framed Staging of Elevated Water Tank
using Static Pushover Analysis’, Proceedings of the World Congress
on Engineering, WCE, London, U.K, vol. 3, June 30 - July 2, London,
U.K.
156
21. Blume, JA, Newmark, NM & Corning, LH 1961, ‘Design of

multistoried concrete buildings for the earthquake motions’, Portland
Cement Association, Chicago, pp. 318.
22. Branci Taïeb & Bourada Sofiane 2014, ‘Accounting for ductility and
over strength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures’,
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural
Dynamics, EURODYN , Porto, Portugal, 30 June - 2 July.
23. Chan, HC & Cheung, YK 1973, ‘Analysis of Shear Walls Using

Higher Order Elements, Building and Environment’, vol. 14, no. 3.
24. Chintanapakdee, C & Chopra, AK 2003, ‘Evaluation of Modal

Pushover Analysis Using Generic Frames’ Earthquake Engng Struct.
Dyn., vol. 32, pp. 417– 442.
25. Chopra, AK & Goel, RK 1992, ‘Capacity – Demand Diagram Methods

for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic Structures: SDOF
Systems’, PEER Report1999/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
26. Chopra, AK & Goel, RK 2000, ‘Evaluation of NSP to Estimate

Seismic Deformation: SDOF Systems’, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, vol. 126, no. 4.
27. Chopra, AK & Goel, RK 2001, ‘A Modal Pushover Analysis

Procedure to Estimating Seismic Demands for Buildings: Theory and
Preliminary Evaluation’, PERR Report 2001/03, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
28. Chopra, AK & Kan, C 1973, ‘Effect of Stiffness Degradation on

Earthquake Ductility Requirement of Multistory Buildings,’ International
Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 1.
29. Chopra, AK 1995, ‘Dynamics of Structures- Theory and Application to

Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall’, New Jersey.
30. Clough, RW & Penzien, J 1993, ‘Dynamics of Structures, McGraw

Hill Book Co, New York Second Edition.
31. Clough, RW, King, IP & Wilson, EL 1964, ‘Structural Analysis of

Multistory Buildings’, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 90,
no. 19.
32. Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI), 1995, ETABS: Three

Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems, Berkeley, California.
157
33. Computers and Structures Inc. 2009, SAP2000 (computer program).

Version 14.1.0., Berkeley, California.
34. Dasgupta, P 2000, ‘Effect of confinement on strength and ductility of

large RC Hollow Sections’, M. Tech. Thesis, I.I.T. – Kanpur.
35. Desayi, P, Iyengar, KTSA & Reddy, TS 1978, ‘Equation for stress-
strain curve of concrete confined in circular steel spiral’, Materials and
Structures, vol. 11, no. 65, pp. 339-345.
36. Devi, S, Nandini Devi, G 2015, ‘Seismic Demand Study on RC

Structural Systems using Pushover Analysis - An Overview’,
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering
and Technology, vol. 4, no. 10.
37. Durga, MP & Seshu, RD 2013, ‘Effect of Confinement on Load –

Moment Interaction Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Column’,
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering (ISSN 2250-2459).
38. Elnashai, AS & Mwafy, AM 2002, ‘Over strength and Force Reduction
Factors of Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Buildings’, The Structural
Design of Tall Buildings Struct. Design Tall Build, vol. 11,
pp. 329–351.
39. Emori, K & Schnobrich, WC 1981 ‘Inelastic Behavior of Concrete

Frame-Wall Structures’, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
vol. 107, no. ST1.
40. Fahjan, YM, Kubin, J & Tan, MT 2010, ‘Nonlinear Analysis Methods
for Reinforced Concrete Buildings with shear walls’, ECEE 14,
Turkey.
41. Fajfar, P & Krawinkler H 1992, ‘Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and

Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings’, Eliver applied science,
London and New York.
42. Federal Emergency Management Agency - 356 (FEMA-356) 2000,

‘Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings’, Washington, DC.
43. Federal Emergency Management Agency -273 (FEMA -273) 1997:

‘NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings’,
Washington, DC.
158
44. Federal Emergency Management Agency -302 (FEMA-302) 1997,

‘NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings 1997 Edition’, Washington, DC.
45. Federal Emergency Management Agency-440 (FEMA-440) 2005,

‘Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures,
Washington, DC.
46. Gerin, M & Adebar, P 2004, ‘Accounting for Shear in Seismic

Analysis of Concrete Structures’, 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, pp. 1747.
47. Gill, WD, Park, R & Priestley MJN 1979, ‘Ductility of Rectangular
Reinforced Concrete Columns with Axial Loads’, Research Report
79-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New
Zealand.
48. Girija Vallabhan, CV 1969, ‘Analysis of Shear Walls with Openings’,

Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 95, no. 10.
49. Gupta, B 1999, ‘Enhanced Pushover Procedure and Inelastic Demand

Estimation for Performance-Based Seismic Evaluation of Buildings’,
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
50. Habibullah, A & Pyle, S 1998, ‘Practical Three Dimensional Nonlinear

Static Pushover Analysis’, Published in Structure Magazine, winter.
51. Hakan Arsan, M 2011, ‘Estimation of Curvature and Displacement

Ductility in Reinforced Concrete Buildings’, KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 759-770.
52. Hakan Arslan, M, Yuksel I & Kaltakci MY 2010, ‘An investigation on

global ductility of strengthened RC frames’, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and Buildings, vol. 163,
no. SB3.
53. Han, SW & Jee, NY 2005, ‘Seismic behaviors of columns in ordinary

and intermediate moment resisting concrete frames’, Engineering
Structures, vol. 27, pp. 951– 962.
54. Hardik Bhensdadia, Siddharth Shah 2015, ‘Pushover Analysis of RCC

Frame Structure With Floating Column and Soft Storey in Different
Earthquake Zones’, IJRET: International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, vol. 04, no. 04.
159
55. Hasan Kaplan, Salih Yilmaz, Nihat Cetinkaya & Ergin Atimtay 2011,
‘Seismic strengthening of RC structures with exterior shear walls’,
Indian Academy of Sciences, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 17–34.
56. Hassaballa, AE, Ismaeil, MA, Alzead, AN & Fathelrahman M Adam

2014, ‘Pushover Analysis of Existing 4 Storey RC Flat Slab Building’,
International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research
(IJSBAR), vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 242-257.
57. Hidalogo, PA, Jordan, RM & Martinez, MP 2002, ‘An Analytical

Model to Predict the Inelastic seismic Behavior of Shear-Wall,
Reinforced Concrete Structures’, Engineering Structures, vol. 24,
pp. 85-98.
58. Hognestad, E 1951, ‘A study on combined bending and axial load in

reinforced concrete members’, Univ. of Illinois Engineering
Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL,
pp. 43-46.
59. Humar, J 1981, ‘Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames’,

Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 107, no. ST7.
60. Indian Standard Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced

Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, vol. 132, IS 13920, 1993.
61. IS 1893 2002, ‘Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant

Design of Structures Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings’, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
62. IS 456 2000, ‘Indian Standard for Plain and Reinforced Concrete -
Code of Practice’, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
63. Jain, AK, Goel, SC & Hanson, RD 1978, ‘Inelastic Response of

Restrained Steel Tubes’, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE,
vol. 104, no 6.
64. Jain, SK & Uma, SR 2006, ‘Seismic design of beam-column joints in

RC moment resisting frames’, Structural Engineering and Mechanics
vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 579-597.
65. Julian Carrillo, Giovanni Gonzalez & Astrid Rubiano 2014,

‘Displacement Ductility for Seismic Design of RC Walla for Low-rise
Housing’, Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 11,
pp. 725-737.
160
66. Kaba, SA & Mahin, SA 1984, ‘Refined Modeling of Reinforced

Concrete Columns for Seismic Analysis’, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Report No. EERC 84-03, University of California,
Berkeley.
67. Kadid, A & Boumrkik, A 2008, ‘Pushover Analysis Of Reinforced

Concrete Frame Structures’, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
(Building And Housing), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 75-83.
68. Kappos, AJ 1999, ‘Evaluation of Behavior Factors on the Basis of

Ductility and Overstrength Studies’, Engineering Structures, vol. 21,
pp. 823–835.
69. Kent, DC & Park, R 1971, ‘Flexural members with confined

concrete’,Journal of the Structural Division, Proc. of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 97, no. ST7, pp. 1969-1990.
70. Khatavkar, AS, Ghadi, AP, Barbude, PR 2015, ‘Comparative Study of

Response Reduction Factor for Reinforced Concrete and Steel Frame,
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887),
International Conference on Quality Up-gradation in Engineering,
Science and Technology (ICQUEST2015).
71. Kim, J & Choi, H 2005, ‘Response Modification Factors of Chevron-

Braced Frames’, Engineering Structures, vol. 27.
72. Kim, S& D’Amore, E 1999, ‘Pushover Analysis Procedure in

Earthquake Engineering’ Earthquake Spectra, vol. 15, no. 3.
73. Krawinkler, H & Seneviratna, GDPK 1998, ‘Pros and cons of a push-
over analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering
Structures’, vol. 20, no. 4-6, pp. 452– 464.
74. Kwan, AKH, Ho, JCM, Pam HJ 2002, ‘Flexural strength and ductility
of reinforced concrete beams, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers: Structures and Buildings, vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 361-369.
75. Li, B, Park, R & Tanaka, H 2001, ‘Stress-strain behavior of high-

strength concrete confined by ultra-high and normal-strength
transverse reinforcements’ ACI Structural Journal, vol. 98, no. 3,
pp. 395-406.
76. MacLeod, IA & Hosny, HM 1977, ‘Frame Analysis of Shear Wall

Cores’, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 103, no. 10.
77. MacLeod, IA 1969, ‘New Rectangular Finite Element for Shear Wall
Analysis”, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 95, no. 3.
161
78. Mandal, P 1993, ‘Curvature ductility of reinforced concrete sections

with and without confinement’, Master Thesis Department of Civil
Engineering, Kanpur: Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.
79. Mander, JB, Priestley, MJ & Park, R 1988, ‘Observed stress-strain
behavior of confined concrete’, J. Struct. Eng., vol. 114, no. 8,
pp. 1827-1849.
80. Mander, JB, Priestley, MJN & Park, R 1988, ‘Theoretical stress-strain
model of confined concrete’, J. Struct. Eng., vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 1804-
1826.
81. Mehmet Inel & Hayri Baytan Ozmen 2006, ‘Effects of plastic hinge
properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings’,
Engineering Structures, vol. 28, pp. 1494–1502.
82. Miranda, E & Bertero, VV 1995, ‘Evaluation of Strength Reduction
Factors for Earthquake-Resistant Design’, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 10,
no. 2.
83. Miranda, E & Ruiz-García, J 2002, ‘Evaluation of Approximate
Methods to Estimate Maximum Inelastic Displacement Demands’,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 31, pp. 539-560.
84. Miranda, E 1993, ‘Site-Dependent Strength Reduction Factors’ Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 119, no. 12.
85. Miranda, E 2000, ‘Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Structures on
Firm Sites, Journal of Structural Engineering’, vol. 126, pp. 1150-1159.
86. Mohamed S Issa & Heba M Issa 2015, ‘Application of Pushover
Analysis for the calculation of Behavior Factor for Reinforced
Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames’, International Journal of Civil
and Structural Engineering, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 216-226.
87. Mohammad Parsaei Maram & Rama Mohana Rao K 2013 , ‘Effect of
Location of lateral force resisting system on seismic behaviour of RC
building’, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology
(IJETT) – vol. 4, no. 10.
88. Mohammed Irfan, Sunandan Reddy & Mythili, K 2014, ‘Evaluation of
Seismic Response of symmetric and Asymmetric Multistoried
Buildings’, International Journal of Science Engineering and Advance
Technology IJSEAT, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 505-509.
89. Mondal, A, Ghosh, S, Reddy & GR 2013, ‘Performance-based

evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames’,
Engineering Structures, vol. 56, pp. 1808–1819.
162
90. Monita Olivia & Pathasarathi Mandal 2005, ‘Curvature Ductility of

Reinforced Concrete Beam’, Journal of Civil Engineering, Indonesia,
vol. 6, no. 1.
91. Munshi, JA & Ghosh, SK 1998, ‘Analysis of seismic performance of a

code designed reinforced concrete building’, Engineering Structures,
vol. 20, pp. 608–616.
92. Murty, CVR 2005, ‘Earthquake Tips Building Material and

Technology Promotion Council’, Ministry of Urban Development &
Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, New Delhi.
93. Nassar AA & Krawinkler H 1991, ‘Seismic Demands for SDOF and
MDOF Systems’, Report No.95, John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stanford University.
94. Oh, YH, Han, YH & Lee LH 1998, ‘Evaluation of strength reduction
factor in earthquake resistant Design’, 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3.
95. Osteraas, JD & Krawinkler, H 1990, ‘Strength and Ductility

Considerations in Seismic Design’, Rep.No. 90, John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering. Center, Stanford University, California.
96. Park, R & Paulay, T 1975, ‘Reinforced concrete structures’, Published

by John Wiley and Sons, INC, UK.
97. Park, R & Paulay, T 1984, ‘Joints in Reinforced Concrete Frames

Designed for Earthquake Resistance’, Research Report 84-9, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
98. Park, R, Kent, DC & Sampson, RA 1972, ‘Reinforced Concrete

Members with Cyclic Loading’, Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, vol. 98, no. ST7.
99. Park, R, Priestley MJN & Gill WD 1982, ‘Ductility of square-

confined concrete columns’, J. Struct. Engrg. Div., ASCE, vol. 108,
no. 4, pp. 929- 950.
100. Park, YJ & Ang, AHS 1985, ‘Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for
Reinforced Concrete’, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
vol. 111, no. 4.
101. Paulay, T & Priestley, MJN 1992, ‘Seismic design of reinforced

concrete and masonry buildings’, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, NY.
163
102. Paulay, T 1977, ‘Capacity Design of Reinforced Concrete Ductile

Frames’, Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake-Resistant
Reinforced Concrete Building Construction, University of California,
Berkeley, vol. 3, pp. 1043-1075.
103. Popovics, S 1973, ‘A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain

curves of concrete’, Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 3, no. 5,
pp. 583-599.
104. Priestley, M 1997, ‘Displacement-based seismic assessment of

reinforced concrete buildings’, Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
vol. 1, pp. 157-92.
105. Priestley, MJN 1999, ‘Performance Based Seismic Design’, University

of California, San Diego.
106. Rahul Rana, Limin Jin & Atila Zekioglu 2004, ‘Pushover Analysis of
A 19 Storey Concrete Shear Wall building, 13th World Conference On
Earthquake Engineering’, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 133.
107. Ravi Kumar, CM, Sreenivasa, MB, Anil Kumar, Vijay Sekhar Reddy,
M 2013, ‘Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Of RC Buildings With
Shear Wall’ - International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA), vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 646-652.
108. Ravi Kumar, CM, Vimal Choudhary, Babu, KS & NarayanVenkat

Reddy, D 2014, ‘Moment Curvature Characteristics for Structural
Elements of RC Building’, Published in Journal on Today’s Ideas –
Tomorrow’s Technologies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-17.
109. Reddiar, MKM 2009, ‘Stress-Strain Model of Unconfined and

Confined Concrete and Stress-Block Parameters’, Ph. D. thesis’, Texas
A&M University, Master of Science.
110. Riddell, R, Hidalgo, P & Cruz, E 1989, ‘Response Modification

Factors for Earthquake Resistant Design of Short Period Structures’,
Earthquake Spectra, vol. 5, no. 3.
111. Riva, P & Cohn, MZ 1990, ‘Engineering Approaches to Nonlinear

Analysis of Concrete Structures’, ASCE J. Struct. Engng. Div.,
vol. 116, no. 8, pp. 2162-2186.
112. Riza Ainul Hakim, Mohammed Sohaib Alama & Samir A Ashour
2014, ‘Application of pushover analysis for evaluating seismic
performance of RC building’, International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 3, no. 1.
164
113. Saatcioglu, M & Razvi, S 1992, ‘Strength and ductility of confined

concrete’. Journal of Structural Engineering. ASCE, vol. 118, no. 6, pp.
1590–607.
114. Sadjadi, R, Kianoush, MR & Talebi, S 2007, ‘Seismic performance of

reinforced concrete moment resisting frames’, Engineering Structures,
vol. 29, pp. 2365–2380.
115. Sanmi Deshpande, Barbude, PR, Muley, PV 2015, ‘Formulation of the

seismic response reduction factor for earthquake resistant design’,
International Journal of Engineering Research, vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 250-254.
116. Scott, BD, Park, R & Priestley, MJN 1982, ‘Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates’, J.
American Concrete Institute, vol. 79, pp. 13-27.
117. Sharma, A, Reddy, G, Vaze, K, Ghosh, A & Kushwaha, H 2009,

‘Experimental investigations and evaluation of strength and deflections
of reinforced concrete beam column joints using nonlinear static
analysis’, Technical report. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre; Mumbai,
India.
118. Sheikh, A & Yeh, CC 1986, ‘Flexural behaviour of confined concrete

columns’, ACI Journal, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 389-404.
119. Sheikh, M Neaz, Tsang, H & Lam, N 2008, ‘Estimation of yield

curvature for direct displacement-based seismic design of RC columns,
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Conference, AEES, pp. 11.
120. Sheikh, SA & Yeh, CC 1992, ‘Analytical moment-curvature relations

for tied concrete columns’, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 529–544.
121. Si Youcef, Y & Chemrouk, M 2012, ‘Curvature Ductility Factor of

Rectangular Sections Reinforced Concrete Beams’, World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology Published in International
Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and
Architectural Engineering vol. 6, no. 11.
122. Sifat Sharmeen Muin 2011, ‘A parametric study of RC moment

resisting frames at joint level by investigating Moment -Curvature
relations’, International journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, vol.
2, no 1.
165
123. Smith, B & Coull A 1991, ‘Tall Building Structures: Analysis and
Design, John Wiley and Sons.
124. Smith, BS & Girgis, A 1984, ‘Simple Analogous Frames for Shear
Wall Analysis’, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 110, no. 11.
125. Srikanth, M, Rajesh Kumar, G & Giri, S 2007, ‘Moment Curvature of

Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Various Confinement Models and
Experimental Validation’, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
(Building and Housing), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 247-265
126. Srinivasan Chandrasekaran, Luciano Nunziante, Giorgio Serino, and

Federico Carannante 2011, Curvature Ductility of RC Sections Based
on Eurocode: Analytical Procedure, KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 131-144.
127. STAAD- Structural Analysis and Design Software’ 2009, Research

Engineer International, California, USA.
128. Swajit Singh Goud & Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla 2014,

‘Rationalizing Response Reduction Factor R for better Performance of
Reinforced Concrete Framed Building’, Two Day National Conference
on recent research advances in civil engineering, Report No:
IIIT/TR/2014/-1.
129. Swajit Singh Goud & Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar 2014, ‘Seismic
Design Provisions for Ductile Detailed Reinforced Concrete
Structures’, 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.
130. Takayanagi, T & Schnobrich, WC 1979, ‘Non-Linear Analysis of

Coupled Wall Systems’, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, vol. 7, pp. 1-22.
131. Tande SN & Ambekar RV 2013, ‘An Investigation of Seismic

Response Reduction Factor for Earthquake Resistant Design’,
International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology
(IJLTET), vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 391-396.
132. Taranath, BS 1988, ‘Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings’,

McGraw-Hill Company.
166
133. Uma, SR & Meher Prasad, A 2006, ‘Seismic behaviour of beam

column joints in moment resisting reinforced concrete frame
structures’, Indian Concrete Journal, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 33-42.
134. Umesh R Biradar & ShivarajMangalgi 2014, ‘Seismic Response of

Reinforced Concrete Structure by using different Bracing system’,
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
IJRET, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 422-426.
135. Varghese, V & Borkar, YR 2013, ‘Comparative Study of SMRF

Building over OMRF Building with Seismic and Wind Effect.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, vol. 3,
no. 3, pp. 1501-1503.
136. Yannick Boivin & Patrick Paultre 2010, ‘Seismic performance of a

12-storey ductile concrete shear wall system designed according to the
2005 National building code of Canada and the 2004 Canadian
Standard Association standard A23.3’, Can. J. Civ. Eng., vol. 37,
pp. 1–16.
137. Yogendra Singh & Vijay Namdev Khose 2012, ‘A Comparative

Study of Code Provisions for Ductile RC Frame Buildings’, 15th World
Congress on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa.
167
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
International Journal
1. Nallathambi, P & Devadas Manoharan, P 2015, ‘Confinement effect

due to transverse reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Shear wall’,
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Published by
Cafet- Innova Technical Society, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2084-2092, ISSN -
0974-5904, Annexure II – Sl. No. 8776
National Seminars
1. Nallathambi, P & Devadas Manoharan, P 2015, An overview of Fast

Track Construction, One day National Seminar on Emerging Fast
Track Techniques in Building and Infrastructure projects, Organised by
Indian Concrete Institute, Puducherry center on 28 June 2015,
pp. 03- 08.
2. Nallathambi, P & Devadas Manoharan, P 2014, An overview of

Precast Building Construction, All India Seminar on Construcytion
Aspects in Civil Engineering – A Practical Approach, Organised by
The Institute of Engineers (India), Tamilnadu State center on 5-6,
Serial No 19.

Estimation of R Factor For RCC Framed Structures - Nallathambi

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Estimation of R Factor For RCC Framed Structures - Nallathambi

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ESTIMATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION

FACTOR FOR REINFORCED CEMENT

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Seismic resistant structures are designed to withstand large base

The R values specified in Indian Standard IS 1893:2002 Part I for

R value is complex in nature and can not be determined by simple

The process of estimation of response reduction factor involves the

Different grades of concrete such as M20, M25, M30, M35, M40

The M- relationship of RCC beams and columns were estimated

Parameters influencing ductility factors such as tension steel ratio,

Nonlinear pushover analysis using SAP 2000 was performed and

The results obtained from estimation of R values for various RCC

CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

2.3 MOMENT - CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP

3 CONFINEMENT EFFECT IN REINFORCED

4 MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP

5 DUCTILITY EFFECT IN RCC BEAM

6 NON LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC

7 NON LINEAR PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RCC

7.5 RESULTS FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE

9.4 CONCLUSION 151

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 167

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

3.1 Details of RCC column for estimation of 40

4.5 Variation of ultimate curvature and moment 62

5.10 The ductility variation for compression steel 84

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

2.1 Stress-strain model proposed for 13

5.2 Average variation of curvature ductility 80

7.3(b) Lateral load vs deflection in a shear wall 117

ACI - American Concrete Institute

INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

This chapter briefly describes about the significance of response

Seismic resistant structures are designed to withstand large base

Response reduction factor value (R) is used to describe the level

1.2 LATERAL FORCES INDUCED IN THE BUILDING DUE TO

During the earthquake, the building is subjected to random ground

where, Ah = Design horizontal seismic coefficient for a structure

W = Seismic weight of building

IS 1893: 2002 Part 1 recommends to determine the design

Z = Zone factor for various zones in India (zone II to Zone V)

I = Importance factor for the building use (1.0 or 1.5)

Sa/g = Average response acceleration coefficient for various

R = Response reduction factor.

1.3 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

The design philosophy of earthquake resistance structures

The R factor of RCC framed structure is the only factor which

The R factor is based on the observations that well detailed

incorporated in design by using appropriate response reduction factor and the

The response reduction factor depends on many parameters and

Rs is the period dependent strength factor,

is the period dependent ductility factor and

RR is the redundancy factor.

1.4 R VALUES SPECIFIED IN IS 1893: 2000- PART 1

R factors in various international standards are based on the type of

Few values of R for various types of buildings, irrespective of

standards varies depending on the geometry of the structural system, material

R value is complex in nature and can not be determined by simple

1.5 PRESENT STUDY ON ESTIMATION OF R FACTOR FOR

Previous research study have formulated the R factor for Single-

In the present study, attempt is made to evaluate the response