A Step Towards Evaluation of the Seismic Response Reduction Factor in Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Frames

A seismic nonlinear time-history analysis was made for four-, six-, and eight-storey reinforced concrete buildings. These buildings were made as three-dimensional space frame structures with shear walls in both orthogonal directions. They have five bays with 4.8 m spacing each in the horizontal direction, and three bays with 4.2 m spacing each in the transversal direction. The frames were designed according to the Jordanian Seismic Code of practice for Seismic Zones 4, 3, 2, and 1 as proposed for Jordan by several authors. Time-history analysis was made using the El Centro (N-S) earthquake record of May 1940 as an actual earthquake excitation. The response reduction factor (R) that primarily consists of two factors that are the ductility reduction (Rµ) and the overstrength (Ω), is obtained. It has been seen that the seismic zoning has a slight effect on the ductility reduction factor for different buildings, since it ranges from Zone 4 to Zone 1 as 2.37 to 2.52, 1.72 to 1.78, and 1.14 to 1.18 for four-, six-, and eight-storey buildings, respectively. Moreover, it is observed that, for different buildings and different seismic zones, the ductility reduction factor (Rµ) is slightly different from the system ductility factor (µ) especially for higher values of µ (i.e., Rµ ≅ µ). The response reduction factor, called overstrength (Ω), was evaluated. The overstrength factor was found to vary with seismic zones (Z) , number of stories, and design gravity loads. However, the dependency on seismic zones was the strongest. The average overstrength of these buildings in Zones 4 and 1 was 2.61 and 6.94, respectively. The overstrength increased as the number of storeys decreased: overstrength of a four-storey building was higher than an eight-storey building by 36% in Zone 4, and 39% in Zone 1. Furthermore, buildings of the three heights had an average overstrength 165.9% higher in Zone 1 than in Zone 4. These observations have a significant implications for the seismic design codes which currently do not take into account the variation of the response reduction factor, R (i.e., ductility reduction factor times overstrength). Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997