IRJET- Response Reduction Factor and Push Over Analysis of Existing High Rise Building

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 08 | Aug 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 650
RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR AND PUSH OVER ANALYSIS OF
EXISTING HIGH RISE BUILDING
Abhijeet Chavan1, Prof. P. R. Barbude2
1Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, DMCE, Maharashtra, India
2Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, DMCE, Maharashtra, India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract -The basic concept of performance based
seismic design is to provide engineers with the capability
to design buildings that have a predictable and reliable
performance in earthquakes. The performance based
seismic design is a process that permits design of new
buildings or upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic
understanding of risk of life, occupancy and economic
loss that may occur as a result of future earthquake.
Pushover analysis is a simplest method for performance
based seismic analysis. This paper represents, the
performance point of the RCC structure, a non linear
static pushover analysis has been conducted by using
SAP2000v 19. To achieve this objective two existing
high-rise buildings of 21, 30 storey existing buildings are
analyzed with zone factor of 0.16 i.e. zone III as per IS
1893-2002 and also found the Capacity curve and
Response reduction factor.
Key Words: Pushover analysis; Non linear static
analysis; Performance point; Response reduction factor;
SAP2000 v19.
1 INTRODUCTION
Earthquake in the simplest terms can be defined as
Shaking and vibration at the surface of the earth
resulting from underground movement along a fault
plane. The vibrations produced by the earthquakes are
due to seismic waves. Of all the factors accounted for, in
any building design, seismic waves are the most
disastrous one. Conventional seismic design in codes of
practice is entirely force-based, with a final check on
structural displacements. Seismic design follows the
same procedure, except for the fact that inelastic
deformations may be utilized to absorb certain levels of
energy leading to reduction in the forces for which
structures are designed. This leads to the creation of the
Response Reduction Factor (R factor); the important
parameter that accounts for over-strength, energy
absorption and dissipation as well as structural capacity
to redistribute forces from inelastic highly stressed
regions to other less stressed locations in the structure.
1.1 NEED FOR STUDY
IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 gives the value of Response
Reduction Factor (R), for lateral load resisting system. IS
13920-1993 gives the ductility requirement for
earthquake resistant design. For special moment
resisting RC frame structures (SMRF) R value is given as
5. While designing the RC structure R value is taken as 5
in all situations and with expectation of very high
ductility. Code does not explain all necessary
circumstances of SMRF. Thus it is essential to study the
real behaviors of RC buildings in through non-linear
analysis and suggest the circumstance which affects the
response of the structure.
This factor is unique and different for different type of
structures and materials used. Hence classification of
Response modification factor for various structural
systems is extremely important in order to do evaluation
based on demand (earthquake ground motion) and
capacity of the structure.
1.2 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR:
Response reduction is used to scale down the elastic
response of the structure. This factor is unique and
different for different type of structures and materials
used. The structure is allowed to be damaged in case of
severe shaking. Hence, structure is designed for seismic
force much less than what is expected under strong
shaking if the structure were to remain linearly elastic.
As stated earlier, Response reduction factor is the most
important factor for seismic design of structure.
Response reduction factor takes into account the
nonlinearity of structure and reduces the elastic
response of structure. As per global standard codes such
as ATC-40, FEMA 273 this factor has been defined as
function of ductility factor, Strength factor, redundancy
factor and damping factor.
R = Rs * Rμ * Rξ * RR ………….. (1.1)
Where,
Rs is strength factor,
R μ is ductility factor,
Rξ is damping factor and
RR is Redundancy Factor.

1.2.1 STRENGTH FACTOR (RS):
The maximum lateral strength of building (Vu) will
generally exceed the design lateral strength (Vd) of
building because the members or elements are designed
with capacities substantially greater than design actions
and material strength also exceed specified nominal
strengths. Thus the strength factor or over-strength
factor is defined as ratio of ultimate base shear to design
base shear.
Rs = ……………………(1.2)
1.2.2 DUCTILITY FACTOR (Rμ):
The ductility factor is a measure of global Nonlinear
(whole structure) response of framing system and not
the component of that system. It is measured as ratio of
ultimate or maximum base shear to base shear
corresponding to yield (Ve). Ductility factor shows
response of structure in terms of its plastic deformation
capacity. It depends upon ductility level (μ) and time
period of system. In this study, the formulation proposed
by T. Paulay and M. J. N. Priestley is used that divides the
time period of the structure for calculating ductility
reduction factor.
Rμ = 1.0 for zero-period structures
Rμ = 2μ – 1 for short-period structure (1.3)
Rμ = μ for long period structure
Rμ = 1+ (μ-1) T/0.70 (0.70 s < T < 0.3)
Where, ‘μ’ is given by μ = Δu / Δy, where Δu is
ultimate deformation and Δy is yield deformation.
1.2.3 DAMPING FACTOR (Rξ):
The damping factor (Rξ) accounts for the effect of ‘added’
viscous damping and is primarily applicable for
structures provided with supplemental energy
dissipating devices. Without such devices, the damping
factor is generally assigned a value equal to 1.0 and is
excluded from the explicit components of response
reduction factor used in force-based design procedures.
1.2.4 REDUNDANCY FACTOR (RR):
The redundancy factor RR is measure of redundancy in a
lateral load resisting system. In RC structures, the
moment resisting frames, shear walls or their
combinations are the most preferred lateral load
resisting systems. Sometimes, the central frames are
only designed for gravity loads and the perimeter frames
are designed as the lateral load resisting systems. Thus
the redundancy in lateral load resisting systems depends
on the structural system adopted. It is obvious that a less
redundant structural system is to be designed for a
higher seismic force demand. ASCE 7 recommends a
redundancy factor RR= 1.0 for systems with parallel
frames and the same is adopted for this work as the case
study structures fall in this category.
Fig -1: Concept of Response Reduction Factor
1.2.5 RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR ACCORDING TO
DIFFERENT SEISMIC CODE:
Table -1: Values of R for RC framed structures as per IS
1893 part 2002
Structural systems R
Ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) 3.0
Special moment resisting frames ( SMRF) 5.0
Ductility shear wall with SMRF 5.0
Table -2: Values of R for RC framed structures, as per
ASCE7 (2005)
Structural
systems
Response
modification
coefficient, (R)
System over
strength
factor (0 )
Ordinary moment
resisting frame
3.0 3.0
Intermediate
moment frame
5.0 3.0
Special moment
frame
8.0 3.0

Table -3: Values of behaviour factor for RC framed
structures as per EC 8 (1998)
Structural systems Behaviour factor (Q)
Medium ductile class( DCM) 3.90
High ductile class (DCH) 5.85
Table -4: Values of RC framed structures, as per Japan
(2001) and Mexico code (2003)
Response Modification Factor Comparison
Structural system Period Japan Mexico
RC moment resisting
frame
T = 0.1 sec 3.3 2.5
T = 1.0
sec
4 4
Australian and Newzealand code (2007)
Structural system R
Ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) 2.6
Intermediate moment resisting frames (IMRF) 4.5
Special moment resisting frame (SMRF) 6.0
Korean code (2009)
Structural system Response
modification
coefficient, (R)
System
over-
strength
factor (0 )
Special reinforced
concrete moment
frame
8.0 3.0
Intermediate
reinforced
concrete moment
frame
5.0 3.0
Ordinary
reinforced
concrete moment
frame
3.0 3.0
Egypt code (1988)
R factor in Egypt code
Structural system Ductility R
RC moment resisting frame Sufficient 7
Not sufficient 5
1.3 PUSH OVER ANALYSIS:
A Pushover analysis is non-linear static analysis
procedure in which a lateral load profile is applied to
structure and then incrementally increased by scaling
factor until the displacement at the same point on
structure reaches a specified target displacement.
Pushover analysis monitors the progressive stiffness
degradation of structure as it is loaded into post elastic
range of behavior.
Pushover analysis can be performed as either force-
controlled or displacement controlled depending on the
physical nature of the load and the behavior expected
from the structure. Force-controlled option is useful
when the load is known (such as gravity loading) and the
structure is expected to be able to support the load.
Displacement controlled procedure should be used when
specified drifts are sought, where the magnitude of the
applied load is not known in advance, or where the
structure can be expected to lose strength or become
unstable.
2. PROBLEM DEFINATION:
In the present study, seismic performance of (G+21) and
(G+30) storeys existing high rise buildings designed with
different plan as shown in figures are considered. Details
of building geometry, material properties and load
configurations are shown. Salient features of buildings
considered for paper work given in table below.
Table -8: Loads applied on buildings
Description
Salient features
Building no
1
Building no
2
Floor G+21 G+30
Typical floor 21 30
Dead load(KN/M2)
Self Weight
Floor finish 1.5 1.5

Internal wall 150mm
thick
3 3
External wall 230mm
thick
4 4
Live load(KN/M2)
Residential floor 3 3
Seismic load data
Seismic Zone III III
Zone factor (Z) 0.16 0.16
From the above details SAP 2000 auto calculated
earthquake load and assign in to the model.
Fig -2: G+21 storey building
Fig -3: G+30 storey building
2.1 REINFORCEMENT DETAILS OF EACH BUILDING
GIVEN BELOW:
Table -9: Salient features of buildings
(G+21) BUILDING
MATERIALS SECTION
TOP
RNFT
BOTTOM
RNFT
Concrete grade
M30 $ Fe500
Beam
300x500
3-12Ф 3-12Ф
Beam
300x500
2-Ф+1-
10Ф
2-12Ф+1-
10Ф
Column
350x450
4-16Ф+6-12Ф
Column
350x400
4-16Ф+6-12Ф
Column
350x400
4-16Ф+6-10Ф
(G+30) BUILDING
Concrete grade
M30 $ Fe500
Beam
550x650
5-16Ф 5-16Ф
Beam
500x600
5-16Ф 5-16Ф
Beam
400x550
4-12Ф 4-16Ф
Column
550x750
18-16Ф
Column
50x650
16-16Ф
3. RESULT & DISCUSSION:
3.1 G+21 BUILDING:
G+21 storey building is modeled in SAP 2000v19 and
above mentioned loads applied. After performing non-
linear pushover analysis, results obtained are given
below

3.1.1 DRIFT:
Chart -1: Storey drift
Above graph shows the comparison for the variation of
interstorey drift for G+21 floor building with respect to
storey number for earthquake case in X and Y direction
respectively. In both direction interstorey drift is less
than 0.4% of building height.
3.1.2 CAPACITY CURVE:
Chart -2: Capacity Curve in X direction
Chart -3: Capacity Curve in Y direction
Above graph shows the capacity curve or pushover curve
i.e. variation of displacement of building with respect to
base shear. Result shows four stages of performance i.e.
Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and
Collapse Stage.
3.1.3 PERFORMANECE POINT:
Chart -4: Performance Point in X direction
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Storey
Drift
G+21
Drift in X
Drift in Y
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
BaseShear
Displacement
Performance Level in X
A to B
B TO IO
IO to LS
C
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4BaseShear
Displacement
Performance Level in Y
A TO B
B to IO
IO to LS
C
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Spectralacceleration
Spectral displacement
ATC 40 ( X- direction)
Demand
Capacity

Chart -5: Performance Point in Y direction
Above graph shows the variation of spectral
displacement with respect to spectral acceleration, also
showing the performance point i.e. intersection of
demand curve and capacity curve. Performance point is
(0.125, 0.236) in X-direction and (0.0883, 0.219) in Y-
direction.
3.2 G+30 BUILDING:
G+30 storey building is modeled in SAP 2000v19 and
above mentioned loads applied. After performing non-
linear pushover analysis, results obtained are given
below.
3.2.1 DRIFT:
Chart -6: Storey drift
Above graph shows the comparison for the variation of
interstorey drift for G+30 floor building with respect to
storey number for earthquake case in X and Y direction
respectively. In both direction interstorey drift is less
than 0.4% of building height.
3.2.2 CAPACITY CURVE:
Chart -7: Capacity Curve in X direction
Chart -8: Capacity Curve in Y direction
Above graph shows the capacity curve or pushover curve
i.e. variation of displacement of building with respect to
base shear. Result shows four stages of performance i.e.
Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and
Collapse Stage.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
ATC 40 ( Y- direction)
Demand
Capacity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Storey
Drift
G+30
Drift in X
Drift in y
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
BaseShear
Displacement
Performance Level in X
A to B
B to IO
IO to LS
C
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
BaseShear
Displacement
Performance Level in Y
A to B
B to IO
IO to LS
C

3.2.3 PERFORMANECE POINT:
Chart -9: Performance Point in X direction
Chart -10: Performance Point in Y direction
Above graph shows the variation of spectral
displacement with respect to spectral acceleration, also
showing the performance point i.e. intersection of
demand curve and capacity curve. Performance point is
(0.0963, 0.215) in X-direction and (0.0949, 0.283).
3.3 COMPARISION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION
FACTOR & ITS COMPONENTS:
Floors G + 21 G + 30
Time period (T) sec 1.182 1.5588
Sa/g 1.1505 0.8725
Rs 1.655412 1.266612
R 3.298429 5.96.265
RR 1 1
R 1 1
R 5.460259 7.549341
4. CONCLUSIONS:
Followings are the conclusion made in this study of TWO
existing high-rise buildings
 First two modes are not in z-direction; i.e. first two
modes are not in torsion in respect of the four existing
high-rise buildings.
 Modal mass participation factor in X direction and in Y
direction is greater than 90% in all four existing building,
hence IS1893 part 1- 2002 clause no.7.8.4.2 is satisfied in
respect of all four existing high-rise buildings.
 There are different methods to perform non linear
analysis, but pushover analysis is a simple way to
explore the non linear behavior of building.
 After performing the analysis the base shear at
performance point is found to be greater than design
base shear in respect of all four existing high-rise
buildings. Since at the performance point base shear is
greater than the design base shear hence the building
structure is safe under the earthquake loading.
 After performing the pushover analysis, performance
stages are obtained in all four existing high-rise
buildings. i.e. immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS),
collapse (C) performance stages are obtained.
 If performance of building is not safe under
earthquake loading then retrofitting to the beam and
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ATC 40 ( X- direction)
Demand
Capacity
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ATC 40 ( Y- direction)
Demand
Capacity

column is necessary between life safety and collapse
stages of performance.
 Performance of the building decreases when the
sectional sizes of the beams and columns are reduced
while keeping same reinforcement.
 After performing pushover analysis if performance
point is not obtained then there are three way to get that
 Increase strength or stiffness of the structure or
combination theory.
 Increase ductility of the structure.
 Reduce seismic demand by using damping or isolation.
 There is no mathematical basis for the response
reduction factor tabulated in Indian standard design
code.
 The values for the roof displacement and base shear
capacity of the structure at the yield and ultimate levels
are obtained and the various components of the ‘R’ factor
calculated.
 The response reduction factor is different for all this
four existing high-rise buildings because of variation in
geometry of the plan and elevation of buildings, different
material properties, variation in strength and ductility of
the building etc.
REFERENCES:
[1] Sergio Lagomarsino, Andrea Penna, Alessandro
Galasco, Serena Cattari (Aug 2013): “TREMURI
program: An equivalent frame model for the
nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings.”
[2] Barbara Borz, Rui Pinho, Helen Crowley (July2007):
“Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis
for large-scale assessment of RC buildings.”
[3] Anand Raj.1, Mr. Saravanan M.E.(2016)”Non-Linear
Analysis Of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structure
Using SAP”
[4] Ashish R. Akhare, Abhijeet A. Maske (2015)
“Performance Based Seismic Design Of R.C.C.
Buildings With Plan Irregularity”
[5] Ana Simões, Rita Bento, Serena Cattari, Sergio
Lagomarsino (Sept 2014): “Seismic performance-
based assessment of ‘‘Gaioleiro’’ buildings.”
[6] B.G.NareshKumar, vinashGornale ,Abdullah
Mubashir(2012)-“ Seismic Performance Evaluation
Of R C-Framed Buildings - An Approach To
Torsionally Asymmetric Buildings”
[7] Bholebhavi Rahul D.1, Inamdar V.M (2016)-An
Evaluation Of Seismic Response Reductionfactor For
Irregular Structures Using Non Linear Static Analysis
[8] Dr.Rehan A. Khan (2014) “Performance Based
Seismic Design Of Reinforced Concrete Building”
[9] Dr. S. N. Tande ,R. V. Ambekar(2013) “An
Investigation Of Seismic Response Reduction Factor
For Earthquake Resistant Design”
[10] Dr. S.K. Dubey , P.D. Sangamnerkar (2011) –“ Seismic
Behaviour Of Asymetric RC Buildings”
[11] FayaiqueBaig, Syed Ahamed Raza(2016)- “Structural
Performance Of Rigid And Semi Rigid Rc And
Lightweight Floor System For Multi-Storeyed
Buildings”
[12] KrutiTamboli, J. A. Amin(2015)- “ Evaluation Of
Response Reduction Factor And Ductility Factor Of
Rc Braced Frame”
[13] M J N Priestley(2000) “Performance Based Seismic
Design”
[14] M.K. Rahman, M. Ajmal& M. H. Baluch, Z. Celep
(2012)-“ Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Of An
Eight Story Rc Frame-Shear Wall Building In Saudi
Arabia”
[15] Milind V. Mohod (2015) “Effect Of Shape And Plan
Configuration On Seismic Response Of Structure”
[16] Mohamed S. Issa, Heba M. Issa (2015)-“ Application
Of Pushover Analysis For The Calculation Of
Behavior Factor For Reinforced Concrete Moment-
Resisting Frames”
[17] Neha P. Modakwar, Sangita S. Meshram, Dinesh W.
Gawatre (2014)-“ Seismic Analysis Of Structures
With Irregularities”
[18] P.B.Prajapati, Mayur G. Vanza(2014)- “Influence Of
Plan Iregularity On Sesimic Response Of Buildings”
[19] R.K.L. Su, N.T.K. Lam, H.H. Tsang(2008)- “Seismic
Drift Demand And Capacity Of Non-Seismically
Designed Concrete Buildings In Hong Kong”
[20] Rahul Rana, LiminJin, AtilaZekioglu (2004)
“Pushover Analysis Of A 19 Story Concrete Shear
Wall Building”
[21] Rakesh Sakale, R K Arora, JitendraChouhan(2016)-
“Seismic Behavior Of Buildings Having Horizontal
Irregularities”

IRJET- Response Reduction Factor and Push Over Analysis of Existing High Rise Building

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- Response Reduction Factor and Push Over Analysis of Existing High Rise Building (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Response Reduction Factor and Push Over Analysis of Existing High Rise Building