Abstract
Response reduction factor (RRF) was first introduced in 1978 NEHRP provisions. These factors split the earthquake-resistant design process into two independent segments—first, quantification of the actual seismic demand assuming that structure remains elastic during the expected level of excitation and second, prediction of reserved capacity of a structural system. The RRF values were largely assigned with the intent to avoid significant deviation in the prevalent design base shear due to modifications in the code. For regions of moderate seismicity, selection from the alternatives of constructing a limited-ductile building or a fully ductile building is governed by the cost of material and execution. Ideally, the two available choices for the structural systems should result in similar building performance levels. Extending this requirement in a probabilistic seismic risk framework, the paper presents the quantification of RRF values for both alternative structural systems. The results obtained from sample midrise reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame (RCMRF) building located in Mumbai and designed as per Indian standards have been presented. It is found that both variants exceed their respective RRF values assumed by the code. It is also found that the fully ductile building offers better performance level than the limited-ductile building. The results have implications for the specification of RRF in the current Indian standards.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Applied Technology Council (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Report no. ATC-3-06. Redwood City, California
IS 1893 (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
ASCE SEI/ASCE 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia
Eurocode 8 (2004) Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels (Belgium)
Applied Technology Council (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete building, vol. 1. Report no. ATC-40. Redwood City, California
FEMA (1994) NEHRP provisions for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA-273), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA-356). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
IS 456 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete—code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
IS 13920 (1993) Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
FEMA (2004) NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other Structures, (FEMA-450-2). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1995) Structural response modification factors. Report no. ATC-19, Redwood City, California
Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C (1999) Seismic response modification factors. J Struct Eng 125(4):438–444
Krawinkler H, Nassar AA (1992) Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and capacities. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds) Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings. Elsevier Applied Science, New York
FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors (FEMA-P695). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Shiradhonkar S, Sinha R (2016) Seismic damage categorization and damage index for RC buildings. IIT Bombay, Mumbai
Haselton CB (2006) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings, Stanford University
Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 34(12):1489–1511
Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2006) Simplified performance-based earthquake engineering, Stanford University
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. Struct J 98(2):135–148
Applied Technology Council, PEER (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings, vol. 1. Report no. PEER/ATC-72–1. Redwood City, California
Mitra N, Lowes LN (2007) Evaluation, calibration, and verification of a reinforced concrete beam–column joint model. J Struct Eng 133(1):105–120
Meinheit DF, Jirsa JO (1981) Shear strength of R/Cs beam-column connections. J Struct Div 107(11):2227–2244
Moehle J, Lehman D, Lowes L (2006) Beam-column connections. New information on the seismic performance of existing buildings, EERI Technical Seminar
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Badal, P.S., Sinha, R. (2019). Assessment of Response Reduction Factor for Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings in a Probabilistic Seismic Risk Framework. In: Rao, A., Ramanjaneyulu, K. (eds) Recent Advances in Structural Engineering, Volume 2. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering , vol 12. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0365-4_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0365-4_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0364-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0365-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)