Effect of Moment Capacity Ratio on RC Framed Structure

  • Ram Arjun SargarEmail author
  • Jyoti Pushan Bhusari
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 757)


In RC framed structure, the beam column joint design is crucial. The behaviour of beam column joint is governed by the moment capacity ratio which is generally greater than one. There is a large variation in this value among various codes. The IS: 13920 clearly mentions that the moment capacity ratio at joint to be taken 1.4. Pushover analysis is performed on a frame whose moment capacity ratio (MCR) is increased increased with an increase in column dimensions as well as reinforcements to ensure strong column–weak beam. Its effect on the lateral displacement, base shear, storey drift, ductility and formation of hinges are studied and optimum value of moment capacity ratio is calculated. It is concluded that for better ductility and attaining plastic hinges at end of beams rather than in column, the MCR should not be less than 1.4. To achieve this, increasing the reinforcement in column proves to be more effective rather than increasing column dimensions.


Beam column joint Ductility Moment capacity ratio Strong column–weak beam 


  1. 1.
    ACI 318-02: Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318 M-02) and commentary. American Concrete Institute (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EN 1998-1-3: Design provisions for earthquake resistant structures-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for building. Brussels (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goswami, R., Murthy, C.V.R., Vijayanarayanan, A.R., Mehta, V.V.: Some Concepts in Earthquake Behavior of Buildings. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, Government of Gujarat (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IS 13920 Draft: Indian Standard code of practice for ductile detailing of concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. BIS, New Delhi (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IS: 13920: Indian Standard code of practice for ductile detailing of concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. BIS, New Delhi (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NZS 3101: Part 1: Concrete structures standard, part 1: the design of concrete structures. New Zealand Standard, New Zealand (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parasa P.K.: In a Rectangular RC framed building moment capacity ratio at beam column joints. Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng. (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shivakumara Swamy, B., Prasad, S.K., Sunil, N.: Influence of strong column and weak beam concept, soil type and seismic zone on seismic performance of RC frames from pushover analysis. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subramanian, N., Prakash Rao, D.S.: Design of joints in RC structures with particular reference to seismic conditions. The Indian Concr. J. (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sudarsana, I.K., Budiwati, A.M., Aditya P.W.: Effect of column to beam strength ratio on performance of reinforced concrete frames. ICETIA (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uma, S.R., Jain, S.K.: Seismic design of beam-column joints in RC moment resisting frames—review of codes. Struct. Eng. Mech. 23(5) (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vijayanarayanan, A.R., Goswami, R., Murty, C.V.R.: Simple linear elastic static analysis procedure to attain desired collapse mechanism for moment resisting frames. In: 16th World Conference on Earthquake, Santiago Chile (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sinhgad College of EngineeringPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations