Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the seismic behavior factor of reinforced concrete frame structures based on comparative analysis between non-linear static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The seismic behavior factor R (noted q in the european seismic design code, the Eurocode 8) of reinforced concrete frame structures is evaluated based on comparative analysis between non-linear static pushover and non-linear incremental dynamic analyses. For this purpose, three-, six-, and nine-storey reinforced concrete frame structures, considered as low-, medium-, and high-rise frame, respectively, were designed according to reinforced concrete code BAEL 91 and Algerian seismic code RPA 99/Version 2003. Non-linear static pushover analysis using inverted triangular loading pattern and incremental dynamic analysis using a set of seven time-history earthquake records were carried out to compute the R factor components, such as ductility and overstrength factors, with the consideration of failure criteria at both member and structural levels. The results obtained by non-linear static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses are compared. According to the analysis results, it is observed that in the case of non-linear static pushover analysis, the value of the seismic behavior factor decreases as the number of stories increases, whereas in the case of non-linear incremental dynamic analysis, the trend observed is not the same: the value of the seismic behavior factor increases as the number of stories increases. This result shows that the value of the seismic behavior factor depends, among others parameters, on the height of a structure, which parameter is not taken into account by the seismic design codes. In the light of the information obtained from incremental dynamic analyses, it is observed that the value of the seismic behavior factor adopted by the seismic design code RPA 99/Version 2003 is overestimated, especially for low-rise frame structure. This paper also provides conclusions and the limitations of this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

References

  • Algerian seismic design code (RPA99/Version 2003) (2003) National Center of Applicated Research in Earthquake Engineering, Algeria

  • Annan CD, Youssef MA, EL Naggar MH (2009) Seismic overstrength in braced frames of modular steel buildings. J Earthq Eng 13:1–21. doi:10.1080/13632460802212576

    Google Scholar 

  • Applied Technology Council, ATC-19 (1995) Structural response modification factors, Redwood City, California

  • Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, vol 1. Redwood City, California

  • Applied Technology Council, ATC-72-1 (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Redwood City

  • BAEL 91 (1992) Règles Techniques de Conception et de Calcul des Ouvrages et Constructions en Béton Armé suivant la Méthode des Etats Limites. Edition Eyrolles

  • Bruneau M, Uang CM, Whittaker A (1998) Ductile design of steel structures. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciutina Liviu Adrian (2003) Assemblage et Comportement Sismique de Portiques en Acier et Mixtes Acier-Béton : Expérimentation et Simulation Numérique. PhD Thesis, National institute of application sciences, Rennes, France

  • Eurocode 8 (2004) Design for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European standard EN 1998-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels

  • Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16:573–592. doi:10.1193/1.1586128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA 273 (1997) NEHRP provisions for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC

  • Krawinkler H, Nassar AA (1992) Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demand and capacities. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds) Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings. Elsevier Apllied Science, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam N, Wilson J, Hutchison G (1998) The ductility reduction factor in the seismic design of buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27:749–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheri MR, Akbari R (2003) Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-braced RC buildings. Eng Struct 25:1505–1513. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00117-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mander JB, Priestley MJN (1988) Observed stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 114(8):1827–1849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massumi A, Tasnimi AA, Saatcioglu M (2004) Prediction of seismic overstrength in concrete moment resisting frames using incremental static and dynamic analysis. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, paper No. 2826

  • Mitchell D, Paultre P (1994) Ductility and overstrength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. Can J Civ Eng 21:1049–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D, Tremblay R, Karacabeyli E, Paultre P, Saatcioglu M, Anderson DL (2003) Seismic force modification factors for the proposed 2005 Edition of the National Building Code of Canada. Can J Civ Eng 30:308–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monavari B, Massumi A (2012) Estimating displacement demand in reinforced concrete frames using some failure criteria. Int J Adv Struct Eng. doi:10.1186/2008-6695-4-4

  • Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC building. Eng Struct 23:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2002) Calibration of force reduction factors of RC buildings. J Earthq Eng 6(2):239–273. doi:10.1080/13632460209350416

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmark NM, Hall WJ (1982) Earthquake spectra and design. EERI Monograph Series, EERI, Okland, CA, USA

  • Park R, Paulay T (1975) Reinforced concrete structures. Wiley, canada

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Penelis GE, Kappos AJ (1997) Earthquake-resistant concrete structures. E & FN SPON Editions

  • Plasticier L, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2008) Non-linear seismic analysis and vulnerability evaluation of a masonry building by means of the SAP2000 V. 10 code. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:467–485. doi:10.1002/eqe.770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahgozar MA, Humar JL (1998) Accounting for overstrength in seismic design of steel structures. Can J Civ Eng 25:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saiidi M, Sozen MA (1981) Simple nonlinear seismic response of R/C structures. J Struct Div ASCE 107:937–952

  • SAP2000 (2009) Three dimensional static and dynamic finite element analysis and design of structures V14. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, California

  • Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulate earthquakes. J Struct Div ASCE 96(ST12):2557–2573

    Google Scholar 

  • Uang CM (1991) Establishing R (or \(\text{ R }_{\rm w})\) and \(\text{ C }_{\rm d}\) factors for building seismic provisions. J Struct Eng ASCE 117(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UBC 97 (1997) International conference of building officials. Whittier, California

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Construction Engineering, University of Tizi-Ouzou, BP 17, 15000, Tizi-Ouzou, Algeria

    Amar Louzai & Ahmed Abed

Authors
  1. Amar Louzai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed Abed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amar Louzai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Louzai, A., Abed, A. Evaluation of the seismic behavior factor of reinforced concrete frame structures based on comparative analysis between non-linear static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses. Bull Earthquake Eng 13, 1773–1793 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9689-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9689-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation