Assessment of seismic response reduction factor for moment resisting RC frames

Nishanth, M.; Visuvasam, J.; Simon, Jaan‐Willem; Packiaraj, J S

doi:10.1088/1757-899x/263/3/032034

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bazan and Fernandez-Davila (2020) concluded that the ductility was significantly influenced by concrete strength and steel reinforcement radio. Also, Nishanth et al (2017) stated that the ductility value of SMRF changes significantly with the fundamental period and zone factor. The presence of shear wall of the models will have a significant effect on Rμ value and plays a big role in lateral load resistance as Foroughi et al (2020) concluded that the axial load on the shear wall is an important parameter and that the transverse reinforcement diameter directly proportional to the optimum moment bearing capacity and the Rμ value of the cross-section.…”

Section: Fig 1 Base Shear Vs Roof Displacement Pushover Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the effect of shear wall with and without opening on the ductility of RC structure

Sarhan¹

2021

IJAESA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ductility of a structure is an important factor that should be taken under consideration in the design against lateral loads like an earthquake. This paper presents the effect of the shear wall on the ductility of the structure and the effects of the presence of opining in it on the ductility. Eighteen 2D moment-resisting frames (MRFs), with the shear wall (SW) and SW with opening structural models, were created and designed. The pushover analyses using ETABS 19 software were performed on the designed models to calculate the ductility of the structural models. The obtained results show that the shear wall in the models increases the ductility of the structures significantly, while the presence of an opening decreases it slightly. Besides, the increase in the number of storeys increases the ductility of MRF models but decreases the ones with SW. Oppositely; the increase in span length reduced the ductility of MRF models and increases the docility of the models with SW

show abstract

Section: Fig 1 Base Shear Vs Roof Displacement Pushover Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the effect of shear wall with and without opening on the ductility of RC structure

Sarhan¹

2021

IJAESA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tamboli and Amin [7] performed a non-linear pushover analysis to determine how the bracing system configuration may affect the R factor, finding that the latter increased by placing bracing/shear walls in different bays. Nishanth et al [8] focused on analysing the actual R values using pushover analysis and taking into account the influence of geometrical non-linearity, storey height, etc. ; they found that the R value suggested by the Indian code (IS: 1893-2016) was on the higher side.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for Resilience in the Selection of R Factors for a RC Unsymmetrical Building

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several design codes consider the non-linear response of a building by using one of the most important seismic parameters, called the response reduction factor (R). The lack of a detailed description of the R factor selection creates the need for a deeper study. This paper emphasises a methodology for the selection of a proper R factor based on resilience aspects. Unsymmetrical/irregular buildings have become the most common in recent times due to aesthetic purposes. However, because of the complexity due to the torsional effect, the selection of the R factor is even more difficult for this type of building. Therefore, a high-rise G+10-storey L-shaped building is herein considered. The building has re-entrant corners based on the structural/plan arrangement. Different R factors were used in the building design, considering buildings subjected to both unidirectional and bidirectional seismic loading scenarios. The building response with respect to various R factors (R equal to 3, 4, 5 and 6) in terms of its performance level, functionality, damage ratio and resilience was assessed at two design levels, i.e., design basic earthquake (DBE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE). The study concludes that, considering the above criteria along with the resilience aspect, a maximum R factor up to 4 can be recommended for unidirectional loading, whereas for bidirectional loading, the maximum recommended R factor is 3.

show abstract

“…They found that the placement of bracing/shear walls in alternate bays increases the R factor. The R value proposed by the country codes is on the upper level, according to research by Nishanth, M. et al [8] that aims to analyse the appropriate R value using non-linear pushover analysis with consideration of non-linearity in terms of geometrical orientation, storey height, etc. To determine the building's seismic reaction, a non-linear pushover analysis was used where the results demonstrate that the response reduction factor "R" is influenced by the load path, ductility factor, and beam column strength ratio [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of Response Reduction Factor Considering Resilience Aspect

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The selection of an adequate response reduction factor (R) in the seismic design of a reinforced concrete building is critical to the building’s seismic response. To construct a robust structure, the R factor should be chosen based on the building’s resilience performance. Since no background was provided for the selection of R factors, the study focuses on the right selection of R factors in relation to the building’s functionality, performance level, and resilience. In this study, a high-rise building with multiple R factors (R = 3, 4, 5, and 6) is developed. Five potential recovery paths (RP-1 to RP-5) that matched the realistic scenario were used to estimate the building’s functionality. The building was subjected to uni and bi-directional loadings, and two design levels, Design Basic Earthquake (DBE) and Maximum Considered Earthquake were used to monitor the building’s response. According to the findings, a decrease in the lateral design force with the highest R results in a high ductility requirement and a substantial loss of resilience. The maximum R factor can be recommended under uni-directional loading up to 6, in which the building’s resilience is almost 50%, whereas under bi-directional loading and taking the recommended R factor decreased from 6 to 4.

show abstract

Assessment of seismic response reduction factor for moment resisting RC frames

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Evaluation of the effect of shear wall with and without opening on the ductility of RC structure

Evaluation of the effect of shear wall with and without opening on the ductility of RC structure

Accounting for Resilience in the Selection of R Factors for a RC Unsymmetrical Building

Selection of Response Reduction Factor Considering Resilience Aspect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About