Accounting for Resilience in the Selection of R Factors for a RC Unsymmetrical Building
Source abstract
Abstract
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.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Prayagraj 211004, India
Department of Civil Engineering, GLA University, Mathura 281406, India
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Napoli Federico II, 80134 Napoli, Italy
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, 00184 Rome, Italy
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. (2005). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (Standard No. ASCE/SEI 7-22).
2. (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance (Standard No. EN 1998-1).
3. (2016). Part-1. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistance Design of Structures (Standard No. IS: 1893).
4. Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.038 ↗
5. Earthquake recurrence effect on the response reduction factor of steel moment frame10.1007/s42107-018-0079-3 ↗
6. Evaluating the Behaviour Factor of Medium Ductile SMRF Structures
7. Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor and Ductility Factor of RC Braced Frame
8. Assessment of seismic response reduction factor for moment resisting RC frames10.1088/1757-899X/263/3/032034 ↗
9. Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley10.1007/s11803-014-0255-8 ↗
10. Evaluation of seismic reliability and multilevel response reduction factor (R factor) for eccentric braced frames with vertical links
11. Performance-based assessment of response reduction factor of RC-elevated water tank considering soil flexibility: A case study10.1007/s40091-018-0194-0 ↗
12. Effect of the Importance Factor on the Seismic Performance of Health Facilities in Medium Seismicity Regions10.1080/13632469.2019.1691680 ↗
13. Seismic response modification factor for RC-frames with non-uniform dimensions10.1080/23311916.2021.1923363 ↗
14. Boundary condition effect on response modification factor of X-braced steel frames10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.03.002 ↗
15. Evaluating response modification factor (R) of reinforced concrete frames with chevron brace equipped with steel slit damper10.1007/s12205-016-1055-7 ↗
16. Evaluation of behaviour factors on the basis of ductility and overstrength studies10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00050-9 ↗
17. Patel, B., and Shah, D. (July, January 30). Formulation of Response Reduction Factor for RCC Framed Staging of Elevated Water tank using static pushover analysis. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, London, UK. ISSN 2078-0966.
18. Uncertainly Analysis of Flexural Over strength for Capacity Design of RC Beams10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001024 ↗
19. Response modification factor for steel structure equipped with viscous damper device10.1007/s13296-015-9008-4 ↗
20. Effect of variation in design acceleration spectrum on the seismic resilience of a building10.1007/s42107-020-00316-1 ↗
21. Effect of cracked section properties on the resilience based seismic performance evaluation of a building10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.035 ↗
22. Integrated platform to assess seismic resilience at the community level10.1016/j.scs.2020.102506 ↗
23. Linking seismic resilience into sustainability assessment of limited-ductility R.C. buildings10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.03.021 ↗
24. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008 ↗
25. Seismic resilience of a hospital system10.1080/15732470802663847 ↗
26. Engineering resilient infrastructure
27. Planning under new extremes: Resilience and the most vulnerable
28. High-performance resilient earthquake-resisting moment frames10.1680/jstbu.19.00109 ↗
29. Padgett and Reginald DesRoches. Development of a bridge-specific fragility methodology to improve the seismic resilience of bridges
30. Haselton, C.B., and Deierlein, G.G. (2008). PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California.
31. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment frames10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000318 ↗
32. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: Comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000275 ↗
33. Effect of bidirectional interaction on seismic demand of structures10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.04.008 ↗
34. Hachem, M.M., Moehle, J.P., and Mahin, S.A. (2003). PEER Report 2003/06, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California.
35. Opabola, E., and Elwood, K.J. (2019, January 4–6). Accounting for the influence of bidirectional loading on deformation capacity of reinforced concrete columns. Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
36. Influence of Biaxial Lateral Loading on Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Columns
37. Influence of bidirectional near-fault excitations on RC bridge piers10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000836 ↗
38. Performance of reinforced concrete columns under biaxial lateral force/displacement and axial load10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.04.042 ↗
39. Effect of bidirectional excitation on seismic performance of regular RC frame buildings designed for modern codes10.1177/87552930211047879 ↗
40. Inelastic seismic behavior of asymmetric structures under bidirectional ground motion: An effort to incorporate the effect of bidirectional interaction in load resisting elements10.1016/j.istruc.2020.03.014 ↗
41. Puppio, M.L., Pellegrino, M., Giresini, L., and Sassu, M. (2017). Effect of Material Variability and Mechanical Eccentricity on the Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Buildings, 7.10.3390/buildings7030066 ↗
42. Structural irregularity: The analysis of two reinforced concrete (r.c.) buildings10.5267/j.esm.2018.12.002 ↗
43. Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: Critical review and state of the art10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.305 ↗
44. Bidirectional Pushover Analysis of Irregular Structures10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001032 ↗
45. Reduced-order models for the seismic assessment of plan-irregular low-rise frame buildings10.1002/eqe.3725 ↗
46. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (2021, May 17). PEER Strong Motion Database. Available online: https://peer.berkeley.edu/peer-strong-ground-motion-databases.
47. (2000). Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design (Standard No. SAP V22).
48. (2005). Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (Standard No. FEMA-440).
49. Effect of various aspects on the seismic performance of a curved bridge with HDR bearings
50. Effect of Bidirectional excitation on a curved bridge with lead rubber bearing10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.362 ↗
51. Parametric study of effects of vertical ground motions on base isolated structures10.1080/13632469.2018.1520758 ↗
52. Gupta, P.K., Ghosh, G., Kumar, V., Paramasivam, P., and Dhanasekaran, S. (2022). Effectiveness of LRB in Curved Bridge Isolation: A Numerical Study. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app122111289 ↗
53. (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Standard No. ATC-40).
54. (2017). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (Standard No. ASCE/SEI 41-17).
55. (2003). Multihazard Loss Estimation Methodology (Standard No. HAZUS-MR4 Technical Manual).
56. Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: Application to Barcelona10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.006 ↗
57. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities10.1193/1.1623497 ↗
58. A review on the mechanical properties of polymer composites reinforced by carbon nanotubes and graphene10.1007/s42823-020-00161-x ↗