Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 48 51

Malaysian Technical Universities Conference on Engineering & Technology 2012, MUCET 2012 Part 3- Civil and Chemical Engineering

An Evaluation of Overstrength Factor Of Seismic Designed Low Rise RC Buildings

Mohd Zulham Affandi Mohd Zahida,*, Debbie Roberta, Fatehah Shahrina
a

School of Environmental Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, 02600 Arau, Perlis, Malaysia

Abstract This study investigates the overstrength factor of reinforced concrete frame designed according to EC2 and EC8. There are two families of building considered in this study, i.e: regular and irregular in elevation with setback. Each family are designed to gravity load only and designed to resist seismic load with medium ductility and high ductility class. Therefore, in total, there are 6 frame models are considered in this study. The nonlinear static analysis or push over analysis is used to evaluate the overstrength factor of the frame models. It is found that, the geometry and ductility supply of the frames effect the overstrength f factor.

2013 2013The The Authors. Published by Elsevier Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Research Management & Innovation Centre, Universiti Malaysia Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Research Management & Innovation Centre, Universiti Malaysia Perlis Perlis.
Keywords: overstrength; RC building; push over analysis.

1. Introduction Experimental and numerical research on the performance of the buildings during severe earthquakes have indicated that structural overstrength plays a very important role in protecting buildings from collapse [1]. The structural overstrength results from many factors and the most common sources of overstrength are material strength, confinement effect, member geometry and so on [2]. The previous study on the influence of overstrength factors on the seismic performance RC and steel buildings were carried out by by Elnashai and Mwafy [1] and Di Sarno [3], respectively. They considered 8 storey regular frame-wall system and irregular frame with secondary beams and 12 storey regular frames. The computed values show that for the sample structures, the strength at first indication of member yielding Vfy is notably higher than the design strength levels. The average Vfy/Vd ratio for irregular frames, regular frames and frame-walls system is 1.33, 1.46 and 1.57, respectively. Overstrength is a parameter used to quantify the difference between the required and the actual strength of material, a component or a structural system. For building structures, a measure relating the actual Vy to the elastic strength level Ve of lateral resisting systems has been suggested by Elnashai and Mwafy [1] alongside the observed overstrength. The proposed measure is given as:

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: mohdzulham@unimap.edu.my

1877-7058 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Research Management & Innovation Centre, Universiti Malaysia Perlis doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.008

Mohd Zulham Affandi Mohd Zahid et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 48 51

49

ed measure of response reflects the reserve strength and the anticipated behaviour of the structure under the design earthquake. This study attempts to investigate the effect of building geometry and ductility supply of the reinforced concrete frame on the overstrength factor. 2. Material and Method This study utilizes two families of 3-storey RC frame models, i.e: regular frame and irregular in elevation with setback. Each family are designed to gravity load only and designed to resist seismic load with medium ductility. Therefore, in total, there are 5 frame models are considered in this study. The gravity load designed frames are designed according to Eurocode 2 [4] for office use and seismic resistant frame are designed based on Eurocode 8 [5]. The gravity load designed frames are considered as low ductility class (DCL) structure and the seismic resistant frame are designed for medium ductility class (DCM). Testing method and testing program

Fig. 1. Gravity load designed frame

Fig. 2. Seismic resistant frame

Fig. 3. Cross section for gravity load designed frame

Fig. 4. Cross section for seismic resistant frame

50

Mohd Zulham Affandi Mohd Zahid et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 48 51

For seismic designed frame, the behaviour factors, q are computed from table 5.1 in Eurocode 8 and the resultant q value is 3.9 for DCM. The elastic response spectrum as shown in Figure 5 utilized in designing the seismic resistant frame model is derived from equation 3.2 until equation 3.5 in eurocode 8 and assumed to be built on very dense soil. The response spectrum type 1 is used to design DCM model because it is assumed located in low seismic region and the ground acceleration of 0.18 g is employed which is recommended for Upper Padas Hydroelectric Dam in Sabah [6].
4.0

3.5
3.0 2.5

Se/ag

2.0
1.5 1.0

q=1.0
q=3.9

0.5
0.0

2 Period, T

Fig. 5. Elastic response spectrum

The nonlinear static analysis or also known as pushover analysis (POA) is used to determine the performance of the buildings. The distribution of horizontal force along the height of the building are determined based on triangular shape with 100kN is applied at the top node. The hinge properties for each member is based on section moment-curvature which is computed using Cumbia [8] program according to method proposed by Priestly, Sieble and Calvi [9]. 3. Result and Discussion The dynamic properties of the designed model were carried out using modal analysis. The results of fundamental period are tabulated in Table 1. It was found that the fundamental period of regular frames have higher fundamental period than its counterpart. It shows that the regular frames are stiffer than irregular frame. Furthermore, it is worth to mention that the gravity load designed frame is stiffer than seismic designed frame even though the structural member size of gravity load designed frame is bigger than seismic designed frame as shown in Figure 1 until Figure 4.
Table 1. Fundamental period of the model

REC2 0.479s

Family A REC8 0.361s

IEC2 0.388s

Family B IEC8 0.290s

The relationship between base shear and displacement at the top of the frame are presented in Figure 6, in x direction. As the quantity of the reinforcement was increased in the case of REC8z frame compared to the REC2, its top displacement increased, whereas its global ductility was increased compared to the REC2. A large difference can be observed in Figure 6 between the stiffness of the gravity load design buildings and seismic resistant buildings. The latter buildings also have much greater load-carrying capacity and greater top displacement. The frame REC8 and IEC8 has a 16% and 14% greater ductility than the REC2 frame and the IEC2 frame, respectively. Furthermore, the comparison of the ductility between regular and irregular frames showed that the regular gravity load designed frame and regular seismic designed frame has 56% and 394% higher ductility compared to irregular frames with setback.

Mohd Zulham Affandi Mohd Zahid et al. / Procedia Engineering 53 (2013) 48 51

300
250
Base Shear, kN

51

200
150

REC2 REC8

REC8z IEC2 IEC8

100
50 0

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Displacement, m

Fig. 6. Capacity curve

This study considered inherent overstrength, i which was computed form capacity curve in Figure 6 and tabulated in Table 2. It clearly shows that the inherent overstrength factor of the gravity load designed buildings is lower than seismic design frame, indicates that the seismic resistant building has more reserved strength and also reflects the conservatism of the code.
Table 2. Observed and Inherent overstrength factor and ductility factor

Frame REC2 REC8 REC8z IEC2 IEC8

0.07 0.18 0.04 0.08

5 6 6 3 4

Moreover, this study also assesses the relationship between the overstrength factor and performance of the building. The ductility factor increases as the inherent overstrength factor increases. The inherent overstrength factor of regular gravity load designed and seismic designed building frames are 75% and 125%, respectively, higher than irregular frames with setback. This finding is similar with result obtained by Elnashai and Mwafy [1] for 8-storey irregular frame with transfer beam. 4. Conclusion

This paper investigates the performance of the low rise regular and irregular frame and provides comparison of the overstrength factor of the investigated model. The results of this study leads to the following conclusion: a) The seismic designed building has greater load carrying-capacity, top diaplacement capacity and ductility supply compared to the gravity load designed buildings. b) The overstrength factor increases as the ductility supply of the building increases. Reference
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Elnashai A.S. and Mwafy A.M. (2002) Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistory reinforced concrete buildings. The structural design of tall buildings, 11(5). 329-351. Elnashai A.S. and Di Sarno L. (2008) Fundamental of earthquake engineering. West Sussex: John Willey & Sons Ltd. Di Sarno (2003) Eurocode 2: Design of Structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels, 2004 Eurocode 8: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1: General rules seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels, 2003 Ahmad F, Majid, T.A. Ade Faisal and Sari S.M. (2009). Report on: Seismic Risk Study of Upper Padas Hydroelectric Dam. Salomos, G., Pinto, A., Dimova, S. (2008). A review of the seismic zonation in national building codes in the context of Eurocode 8. EUR23563 EN2008. Joint Research Centre, Ispra. Montejo and Kowalsky (2007) Set of Codes for Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Member (Cumbia). North Carolina State University. Priestly, Sieble and Calvi (1996) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridge Structures. John Willey and Sons, New York.