R (2)

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR FOR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING HAVING STEEL TRUSSES ON RC

COLUMNS

PREPARED BY:Avi A. Patel (MS007)

GUIDED BY:PROF. D.G. Panchal

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERINGDHARMSINH DESAI UNIVERSITY

NADIAD – 387001APRIL - 2016

2CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AIM AND SCOPE OF WORK LITERATURE REVIEW EVALUATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR SAMPLE PROBLEM COMPARATIVE STUDY AND RESULTS CONCLUSION FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK REFERENCES

3INTRODUCTION

In the past, the structure were designed just for gravity loads only, seismic analysis is a recent development.

Seismic analysis is a subset of structural analysis and is the calculation of the response of a structure to earthquakes.

It is part of the process of structural design, earthquake engineering and retrofit in regions where earthquakes are prevalent.

There are different method of seismic analysis.

4Seismic analysis

Linear analysis Non linear analysis

static dynamic static dynamic

Seismic coefficient

Response spectrum,Time history

Pushover analysis

IDA,Nonlinear

time history

Vb = Ah x w Ah =

Seismic coefficient

5RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

As per the IS 1893 definition, R factor which is used to reduce actual base shear forces to design lateral forces, because at design basis earthquake shaking (DBE) structure should remain in elastic response.

The response of the structure will be linear until yielding takes place, but as soon as yielding occurs at any section the behavior of structure is inelastic.

It would be too costly to design a structure based on the elastic spectrum. To reduce the seismic loads, IS 1893 introduced RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR. This reduction can be made, only if adequate ductility is developed through proper

design and proper detailing on the elements.

6 R factor reflects the capability of the structure to dissipate energy through inelastic

behavior. It is used to reduced the design forces in earthquake resisting design and account for

over strength and ductility of the structure. Over strength is develop because the maximum lateral strength of the structure is

always exceed its design strength. Once it enters the inelastic phase, it is capable of resisting and absorbing the large

amount of seismic energy. Hence, seismic codes introduce a reduction in design loads, taking benefit of fact

that structure posses over strength and ductility.

7

Horizontal Load

Δ

Δmax

Fu

Fy

Fdes

ΔyΔw

Fel

Due to Over strength

Due to Redundancy

Due to Ductility

0

Design force

Maximum Load Capacity

Non linear Response

First significant yield

Linear Elastic Response

Load at First Yield

Maximum force if structure remains elastic

Tota

l Hor

izon

tal L

oad

Roof Displacement (Δ)

8BACKGROUND OF DISSERTATION

Composite industrial building (steel truss on RC columns) are commonly used in

urban areas as the dominant mode of industrial construction, as RC columns costs

much less then the steel columns.

Indian standard doesn’t give any guideline regarding to response reduction factor’s

value of composite industrial building, and that motivates us to find the response

reduction factor for this kind of structure.

9AIM AND SCOPE OF WORK

This dissertation aims to evaluate response reduction factor of composite industrial building having RC column with steel trusses for single bay and multi bay.

Building will be situated in zone-5, located in Bhuj, terrain is open with well scattered obstruction having height generally between 1.5m to 10m.

Roofing material are selected as corrugated A.C. sheets. For the comparative study single bay truss system are selected with 15,18 and 21m

of span , and 24,30,36 and 42m of length. For multi bay truss system, span will be twice of the single bay and rest dimensions

are same.

DELL

10

Nonlinear analysis of each model is carried out, so that nonlinear behavior of the

industrial building is observed due to changes in the geometry.

Performance based evaluation is carried out using non linear static (pushover)

analysis.

Nonlinear models are prepared and pushover analysis is performed in SAP-2000.

Value of response reduction factor is calculated for each model.

11LITERATURE REVIEW

Background of R factor Response modification factor were first proposed by the applied technology council

in 1978. The base shear vs roof displacement relationship were established of concentrically

braced frame by uang and bertero in 1986 and eccentrically braced frame by whittaker in 1987.

Using this data Berkeley researchers proposed splitting R into three factor, they account for contribution from reserved strength, ductility and viscous damping as follows,

R = Rs x Rμ x Rξ

12 Much research by (ATC,1982; freeman,1990;ATC,1995) has been completed since

first formulation for R is proposed, and give new formulation of R as follows,

R = Rs x Rμ x RR

Here, RR is the redundancy factor. This formulation with the exception of the redundancy factor is similar to those

proposed by the Berkley researchers. A fourth factor, the viscous damping factor was included in the new formulation

primarily to account for response reduction provided by supplemental viscous damping devices.

13 Minnu M M (MAY-2014) (NIT-ROURKELA) The frames with number of story 2,4,8 and 12 with four bay is designed and details

as SMRF and OMRF as per IS:1893 (2000) The response reduction factors obtained shows that both the SMRF and OMRF

frames failed to achieve the respected target value of response reduction factor recommended by IS:1893 (2000) marginally.

It was also found that shorter frames exhibit higher R factor and as the height of the frame increase R factor is decreases.

For both SMRF and OMRF frames it is found that the over strength factors exhibits a decreasing trend as the number of story increases.

It is found that the ductility factor do not shows any trend with variation in number of stories for both SMRF and OMRF.

14IS: 875-1987(part-3)

The code is based on Design Loads For Buildings And Structures (other than

earthquake). The code provide the clauses for

Design Wind Speed (Cl-5.3)

Design Wind Pressure (Cl-5.4)

External Pressure Coefficients for walls of rectangular clad building (Table-4)

External Pressure Coefficients for pitched roof of rectangular clad building

(Table-5)

15Sr.no. LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEM (R)

BUILDING FRAME SYSTEMS

1 Ordinary RC moment resisting frame 32 Special RC moment resisting frame 53 Steel frame with

concentric braces 4 eccentric braces 5

4 Steel moment resisting frame as design as per sp6 5BUILDING WITH SHEAR WALLS

5 Load bearing masonry wall buildings

(a) unreinforced 1.5(b)Reinforced with horizontal RC bands 2.5(c)Reinforced with horizontal RC bands and vertical bars at corner of rooms and jambs of opening

3

IS: 1893-PART1(2000)

16EVALUATION OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

Evaluation of response reduction factor is carried out by force-displacement behavior of building.

This relationship describe the response of the building frame subjected to monotonically increasing displacements.

To achieve yield forces and yield displacement this non linear relation is often approximated by an idealized bilinear relationship.

Two bilinear approximation methods are widely used, both the methods will generally produce similar results.

17(1) Pauley and priestley

• Elastic stiffness is based on the secant stiffness of the

frame, calculated from the force displacement curve at

the force corresponding to 0.75 Vy.

(2) Equal energy concept

• This method is assumes that the area enclosed by the

curve above the bilinear approximation is equal to the

area enclosed by the curve below the bilinear

approximation.

18

Pushover analysis is a static nonlinear procedure to analyze the seismic performance of a building.

In this method, analysis is carried out under permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing lateral loads to estimate deformation and damage pattern of structure.

(I) Force Controlled

(II) Displacement Controlled

To obtain the exact response of the building or force-displacement behavior of building, it is recommended to perform nonlinear analysis.

Pushover analysis

19 Apply gravity loads and conduct static analysis:

DL+(0.25 OR 0.3)LL

Base

She

ar , V

Roof Displacement, d

Apply lateral loads to the structure in proportion to the selected load pattern:

Base

She

ar , V


dV

Moment

Curvature

Calculate member forces under the applied lateral load and gravity load combination – check for yielding in the members:

Base

She

ar , V


dV

Moment

Curvature

Record the base shear V and roof displacement d:

Base

She

ar , V


dV

Moment

Curvature

Repeat Steps to for increments of lateral load:

Base

She

ar , V


d

Moment

Curvature

⑥ Repeat Steps to for increments of lateral load:

Base

She

ar , V


d

Moment

Curvature

⑦ Repeat Steps to for increments of lateral load:

Base

She

ar , V


d

Moment

Curvature

⑧ Repeat Steps to for increments of lateral load:

Base

She

ar , V


d

Moment

Curvature

20PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Structural performance level

Immediate Occupancy Nonstructural components with minor crack

Life Safety Significant Damage to the non structural member and crack will be generated in structural member.

Collapse prevention Structural components are significantly damaged

Collapse Structure losses stability

Force-deformation Relationship as per FEMA-356

21KEY COMPONENTS OF ‘R’

Rs is a reserved strength of the building to resist lateral forces within the elastic range upto the yield takes place.

Using nonlinear static analysis, construct the base shear vs roof displacement relationship of the structure, calculate maximum capacity of the structure (Vo).

The reserve strength of the building is equal to the ratio of Vo to Vd.

Rs

Over Strength Factor :-

Over strength factor, ductility factor and redundancy factor are key components of response reduction factor.

R = Rs x Rμ x RR

22 The ability of the building frame to be displaced beyond the elastic limit, while

resisting significant load and absorbing energy by inelastic behavior is termed as ductility.

Displacement ductility is defined as the ratio of ∆m to ∆y.

Newmark and hall (1982) The relationship derived for Rμ as a function of μ, for short, intermediate and long

period structures is presented below:

Ductility Factor :-

23 Miranda and bertero (1994) Miranda and Bertero (1994) summarized and reworked the Rμ - μ - T relationships

developed by a number of researchers including Newmark and Hall (1982), Riddell and Newmark (1979), and Krawinkler and Nassar (1992), in addition to developing general Rμ - μ - T equations for rock, alluvium, and soft soil sites.

The equation was obtained from a study of 124 ground motions recorded on a wide range of soil conditions.

The expressions for the period-dependent force reduction factors Rμ are given by:

24 Where Φ is calculated from different equations for rock, alluvium and soft sites as

shown below:

where, Tg is the predominant time period of the ground motion.

25 The function of this factor is to quantify the improve reliability of seismic framing

system that use multiple lines of vertical seismic framing in each principle direction of building.

The value of redundancy factor is given in ATC-19 (table 4.3)

Redundancy Factor :-

Lines of vertical seismic framing Draft redundancy factor 2 0.71 3 0.86 4 1

26SAMPLE PROBLEMBUILDING PLAN DIMENSION (15X24)m

EAVES HEIGHT 6m

RIDGE HEIGHT 9m

SPACING OF TRUSS 6m

LOCATION OF BUILDING BHUJ

EXPECTED LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE 50 year

TERREIN TYPE Open with well scattered obstructions having height generally between 1.5 to 10 m

TOPOGRAPHY FACTOR (K3) 1

SECTIONS TO BE USE FOR TRUSS AND PURLINS

INDIAN STANDARD CHANNEL SECTIONS

TYPE OF ROOFING A.C. sheets

PERMIABILITY Low

15m

6m

12m

12m

12m

12m

3m

27

PLAN ELEVATION

3 m

6 m

15 m

6 m

24 m

28 Desiding geometry of truss: (Howe Pitched Truss)

Height of truss 3mTruss angle 21.80˚ Property of A.C. sheetthickness 6 mmweight 0.130 KN/m2width 1.4 m

29LOAD CALCULATIONS DEAD LOAD CALCULATION

Considering weight of roofing material=0.130kN/m2 spacing of purlin =1.4 m Spacing of truss =6 m A.C. sheet roofing load = 0.13 kN/m2

= 0.13 kN/m2 X 1.4 m X 6 m

= 1.092 kN Weight of purlin = 0.162 kN/m

= 0.162kN/m2 X 6 m

= 0.972 kN Self weight of the truss = {(span/3)+5} kg/m2

= {(15/3)+5} X(10/1000) kN/m2

= 0.1 kN/m2

= 0.1 kN/m2 X 1.299 m X 6 m

= 0.7794 kN

30 Additional weight = 0.012 kN/m2 X 1.299 m X 6 m

= 0.0935 kN DL on typical purlin = 1.092 + 0.972 + 0.779 + 0.0935

= 2.936 kN DL on purlin at eaves level = (2.936/2) kN

= 1.46 kN

same as, DL on purlin at ridge level = 1.48 kN DL on purlin at before ridge level = 2.758 kN

For Middle frame of structure

For outer frame of structure

31 LIVE LOAD CALCULATIONS

Live load on purlin = 750-20(Φ-10)

= 750-20(21.80-10)

= 0.514 kN/m2

So, take live load on roof truss = (2/3) X 0.514

= 0.343 kN/m2 Live load on typical purlin = 0.343 kN/m2 X 1.4 m X 6m

= 2.88 kN

same as, Live load on purlin at eaves level = 1.44 kN Live load on purlin at ridge level = 1.21 kN Live load on purlin at before ridge level = 2.55 kN

For middle frame of structure

For outer frame of structure

32

Vb (basic wind speed) 50m/s[for bhuj, Appendix A, Cl.-5.2 ,IS:875(part:3)-1983]

K1 (risk coefficient factor) 1[for all general buildings and structure,table-1, IS:875(part:3)-1983]

K2 (terrain height and structure size factor)

0.98[for class B , terrain category 2, table – 2, IS:875 (part:3)-1983]

K3 (topography factor) 1[for wind slope less than 3˚ , cl. 5.3.3.1, IS:875 (part:3)-1983]

WIND LOAD CALCULATION

Design wind speed (Vz) = Vb X K1 X K2 X K3

= 50 X 1 X 0.98 X 1

= 49

Design wind pressure (Pz) = 0.6 X (Vz)^2

= 1440.6 N/m2

= 1.44 KN/m2

33 External Pressure Coefficient for Pitched Roof of Rectangular Clad Building

ROOF ANGLE WIND ANGLE θ WIND ANGLE θ

0˚ 90˚θ EF GH EG EH

20˚ -0.4 -0.4 -0.7 -0.621.80˚ -0.328 -0.4 -0.7 -0.6

30˚ 0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.6

Force at each nodal point is given By: F = (Cpe ± Cpi) x A x Pz Here Cpi = internal pressure coefficient = ± 0.2 (for low permeability)

34Wind ward side coefficient Cpe+Cpi

lee ward side coefficient Cpe+Cpi

A X Pz Force at wind ward coefficient

Force at lee ward coefficient

Typical purlin -0.528 -0.6 8.4 X 1.44 -6.39 -7.26At eves level -0.528 -0.6 4.2 X 1.44 -3.19 -3.63At ridge level -0.528 -0.6 6.46 X 1.44 -2.46 -2.79At before ridge level -0.528 -0.6 7.43 X 1.44 -5.65 -6.42

Wind ward side coefficient Cpe+Cpi




Typical purlin 0.128 -0.2 8.4 X 1.44 -1.54 -2.42At eves level 0.128 -0.2 4.2 X 1.44 -0.77 -1.20At ridge level 0.128 -0.2 6.46 X 1.44 -0.59 -0.93At before ridge level 0.128 -0.2 7.43 X 1.44 -1.36 -2.14

Case 1 for Cpi = +0.2 at θ = 0˚

Case 2 for Cpi = -0.2 at θ = 0˚

35













36 External Pressure Coefficient (Cpe) for Walls of Rectangular Clad Building

Wind Angle A B C D0˚ +0.7 -0.25 -0.6 -0.690˚ -0.5 -0.5 +0.7 -0.1

A

C

D

B

Wind force at last columns Wind force at intermediate columns

A 0.5 x 3 x 1.44 = 2.16 0.5 x 6 x 1.44 = 4.32

B -0.45 x 3 x 1.44 = -1.94 -0.45 x 6 x 1.44 = -3.89

C -0.8 x 3 x 1.44 = -3.46 -------------------------

D -0.8 x 3 x 1.44 = -3.46 -------------------------

Case 1 for Cpi = +0.2 at θ = 0˚ Case 2 for Cpi = -0.2 at θ = 0˚


A 0.9 x 3 x 1.44 = 3.89 0.9 x 6 x 1.44 = 7.78

B -0.05 x 3 x 1.44 = -0.22 -0.05 x 6 x 1.44 = -0.43

C -0.4 x 3 x 1.44 = -1.73 -------------------------

D -0.4 x 3 x 1.44 = -1.73 -------------------------



A -0.7 x 3 x 1.44 = -3.02 -0.7 x 6 x 1.44 = -6.48

B -0.7 x 3 x 1.44 = -3.02 -0.7 x 6 x 1.44 = -6.48

C 0.5 x 3 x 1.44 = 2.16 -------------------------

D -0.3 x 3 x -1.44 = 1.29 -------------------------


A -0.3 x 3 x 1.44 = -1.29 -0.3 x 6 x 1.44 = -2.59

B -0.3 x 3 x 1.44 = -1.29 -0.3 x 6 x 1.44 = -2.59

C 0.9 x 3 x 1.44 = 3.89 -------------------------

D 0.1 x 3 x 1.44 = 0.43 -------------------------


37Section properties

Sr.No. member Section

1 Top chord 2 ISA 85x85x12

2 Bottom chord 2 ISA 55x55x8

3 Vertical member ISA 75x75x6

4 Diagonal ember ISA 100x100x8

5 Bottom runner 2 ISA 110x110x10

6 Bracing 2 ISA 110x110x10

7 Purlin ISMC 150

8 column 375x375

38Base shear Calculation Vb = Ah x W

Design horizontal acceleration spectrum calculation (Ah)

Ah= x x

here,

Ah = x x 2.5

= 0.09 Vb = 0.09 x 525.4

Vb = 47.28

Z = 0.36I = 1R = 5Sa/g = 2.5

39Capacity curve by pushover analysis

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.350

50

100

150

200

250

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR 4.9

40

SPAN LENGTH

15 24

18 30

21 36

42

COMPARATIVE STUDY AND RESULTS

SPAN LENGTH

2x(15) 24

2x(18) 30

2x(21) 36

42

41

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.350

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(15 X 30) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.350

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(15 X 24) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

(15 X 36) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(15 X 42) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.160

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(18 X 24) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

(18 X 30) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

(18 X 36) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(18 X 42) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(21 X 24) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(21 X 30) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(21 X 36) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.400

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

(21 X 42) m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(15) X 24] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(15) X 30] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(15)X 36] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

[2(15) X 42] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(18) X 24] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(18) X 30] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(18) X 36] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(18) X 42] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(21) X 24]m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(21) X 30]m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.350

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(21) X 36] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)

BASE

SH

EAR

(kN

)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.40

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

[2(21) X 42] m

DISPLACEMENT (m)BA

SE S

HEA

R (k

N)

42

20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.935.23 5.15 5.09

15 m span

R factorLinear ( R factor)

LENGTH OF BUILDING (m)

RESP

ON

SE R

EDU

CTIO

N F

ACTO

R

20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.01

4 3.94 3.9

18 m span



RESP

ON

SE R

EDU

CTIO

N F

ACTO

R

20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.08

4.34 4.29 4.25

21 m span



RESP

ON

SE R

EDU

CTIO

N F

ACTO

R

20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.57 4.47 4.44.25

2(15) m span



RESP

ON

SE R

EDU

CTIO

N F

ACTO

R

20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.03

4.3 4.2

4.68

2(18) m span



RESP

ON

SE R

EDU

CTIO

N F

ACTO

R

20 25 30 35 40 450

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.282.97 2.96 2.98

2(21) m span



RESP

ON

SE R

EDU

CTIO

N F

ACTO

R

43CONCLUSION

A study of the variation of Response Reduction Factor with different span sizes and number of bays in length for both single bay and multi bay is conducted.

In both single bay truss system and multi bay truss system it is observed that as the number of bays increases the R factor tends to decrease.

Lateral dimension of building normal to the applied lateral forces influences the Response Reduction Factor.

Multibay frames exhibit lower response reduction factor as compare to singlebay frames.

The shorter frames exhibits higher R values compared to longer frame. The R factor for single bay truss system is varies from 3.9 to 5.23 and for multi bay

truss system it is varies from 2.96 to 5.03.

44FUTURE SCOPE OF STUDY

Performance Evaluation of the structure can be done by dynamic nonlinear method. The present study has not considered the effect of soil structure interaction. In the elements of structure, hinge modeling can be done as fiber modeling. The present study can be extended to frame with different height of building.

45REFERENCES

N. SUBRAMANIAN, Design of Steel Structure, Oxford University Publication. H.J.Shah (2009), Design of Reinforced Concrete Structure Vol.1, Charotar Publication. IS 456 (2000) Indian Standard for Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice, Bureau

of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 2000. IS: 800-2007, “Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel”. IS: 875-1987(part-3),Code of Practice for Design Wind Loads For Buildings And Structures. Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS 456-1978, Bureau of Indian Standards, New

Delhi. 2000. 1988 NEHRP

46

ATC 40 (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings: Vol. 1.Applied Technology Council. USA.

ATC 19 (1995) structural standards modification factor by applied technology of council, (redwood city california)

Krawinkler, H. and Nassar, A. (1992) Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and capacities. In: Nonlinear seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, New York, USA. p. 27–47.

Park, R. 1988. Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan Vol.VIII, pp.605-616.

Minnu M M (MAY-2014), Evaluation of Response Reduction Factors for Moment Resisting RC Frames , M.Tech Thesis, NIT Rourkela.

Adeel Zafar (2009) Response Modification Factor Of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames In Developing Countries, Master of Science in Civil Engineering Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

IS 1893 Part 1 (2002) Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi. 2002.

47

THANK YOU

Date post:	15-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	avi-patel
View:	33 times
Download:	0 times

R (2)

Documents