Responce Reduction Factor 1

COMPUTATION OF ‘R’ FACTOR FOR SMRF
AND OMRF FRAME USING NONLINEAR

TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
Submitted By
AKASHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI PATEL

(Enrollment No: 200180720002)
Under the guidance of
Dr. K. B. PARIKH,
Associate Professor and Head, Applied Mechanics Department,
Government Engineering College, Dahod
A Thesis Submitted to
Gujarat Technological University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Master of Engineering in Structural Engineering
May, 2022.
Government Engineering College - Dahod,

Applied Mechanics Department,
Jhalod road, Dahod - 389151,
Gujarat (India)
ii
i
ii
THESIS APPROVAL CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that research work embodied in this dissertation titled

“COMPUTATION OF ‘R’ FACTOR FOR SMRF AND OMRF FRAME USING
NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS” was carried out by Akash M Patel
(200180720002) at Government Engineering College; Dahod (018) is approved for the
degree of Master of Engineering with Structure Engineering by Gujarat Technological
University.
Date:
Place: Government Engineering College, Dahod
Examiner Signature and Name
________________________________ ________________________________
iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis has been in the making for a year and many have contributed to it in different
ways. I express my gratitude to all, and wish to acknowledge here names that readily come
to my mind.
First and foremost express my indebtedness to my guide Dr. K. B. Parikh, Associate

professor and Head of Applied Mechanics Department for the motivation, guidance,
tutelage and patience throughout the research work. I appreciate his broad range of
expertise and attention to detail, as well as the constant encouragement he has given me.
There is no need to mention that a big part of this thesis is the result of joint work with
him, without which the completion of the work would have been impossible.
My sincere thanks to Prof. A. R. Darji, Prof. S. P. Chandresha, Prof. N. B. Umravia, Prof.

Y. K. Tandel and Prof. R. A. Jhummarwala for their valuable support and encouragement.
I would like to thank my colleagues Sajit, Amit, Harsh, Rahul, Kajal and Keny for their
indebtedness help.
I am very much grateful to Zunoor and Ravi who stood always besides me in every
situation and inspired me to perform this research work with enthusiasm.
Finally I wish to thank my father, mother and my sister for their patience, forbearance and
tremendous support, without which this research work would not have been possible.
Thanking you!
AKASH M PATEL
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................I
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE ................................................................. II
THESIS APPROVAL CERTIFICATE ......................................................III
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ....................................................... IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................. V
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................. VI
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... IX
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ XI
LIST OF SYMBOLS..................................................................................XIII
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ XIV
OUTLINE OF THESIS .............................................................................. XV
CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
1.1 General ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Recent Earthquake in India ...................................................................... 3
1.3 Seismic Zone of India .............................................................................. 4
1.4 Sceanrio of Earthquake in India ............................................................... 5
1.5 Moment Resisting Frame ......................................................................... 6
1.6 Loads ........................................................................................................ 7
1.6.1 Dead Load....................................................................................... 7
1.6.2 Live Load ........................................................................................ 8
1.6.3 Sesimic Load .................................................................................. 8
1.6.4 Response Spectrum Method ........................................................... 9
1.6.5 Provision of Seismic load as per IS1893:2016 ............................... 9
1.7 Evaluation of Seismic Performance ....................................................... 12
1.7.1 Nonlinear Static Analysis ............................................................. 13
vi
1.7.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis........................................................ 14
1.7.3 Nonlinear Time Historey Analysis ............................................... 15
1.7.4 Incremental Dynamic Analysis .................................................... 15
1.8 Response Reduction Factor .................................................................... 16
1.8.1 Basic Cocept of Seismic Design................................................... 16
1.8.2 Defination of ‘R’ Factor ............................................................... 17
1.8.3 Formulation of ‘R’ Factor............................................................. 18
1.8.4 Overstrength Factor ...................................................................... 18
1.8.5 Ductility Factor ............................................................................. 19
1.8.6 Redundancy Factor ....................................................................... 19
1.8.7 Damping Factor ............................................................................ 20
1.8.8 ‘R’ Factor in Seismic code for various countries ......................... 20
CHAPTER-2 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................... 22
2.1 General ................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Literature Review ................................................................................... 22
2.3 Critical Remarks from Literature Review .............................................. 27
2.4 Research Gap.......................................................................................... 28
2.5 Timeline of the Work ............................................................................. 29
CHAPTER-3 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE OF WORK .................................. 30
3.1 Objective ................................................................................................ 30
3.2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................ 30
CHAPTER-4 VALIDATION PROCEDURE ............................................ 34
4.1 Introduction to SAP2000........................................................................ 34
4.2 Primary Components of SAP2000 ......................................................... 35
4.3 Application of SAP2000 ........................................................................ 35
4.4 Validation Procedure .............................................................................. 36
4.1.1 Reference Paper for Validation .................................................... 37
4.2.2 Model Description ........................................................................ 38
4.3.3 Modeling in SAP2000 .................................................................. 39
4.4.4 Comparison of Result with References ........................................ 41
vii
CHAPTER-5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 42
5.1 General ................................................................................................... 42
5.2 Detail of Building Models ...................................................................... 42
5.2.1 Building Properties and Modeling................................................ 45
5.3 Steps for Modeling Building in SAP2000 ............................................. 47
CHAPTER-6 ANALYSIS OF MODELS.................................................... 48
6.1 General ................................................................................................... 48
6.2 Nonlinear Time historey Analysis.......................................................... 48
6.2.1 Need of Nonlinear Time history Analysis .................................... 48
6.2.2 Details of Hinges .......................................................................... 49
6.2.3 Steps for Nonlinear Time historey Analysis ................................ 49
CHAPTER-7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 50
7.1 Result from Analysis of Models............................................................. 50
7.2 Base Reactions ....................................................................................... 50
7.3 Response Reduction Factor .................................................................... 53
7.3.1 ‘R’ Factor for Berlongfer time historey OMRF building ............. 53
7.3.2 ‘R’ Factor for Berlongfer time history SMRF building .............. 56
7.3.3 ‘R’ Factor for Diphu time history OMRF building ...................... 59
7.3.4 ‘R’ Factor for Diphu time history SMRF building ....................... 62
7.3.5 ‘R’ Factor for Silchar time history OMRF building ..................... 65
7.3.6 ‘R’ Factor for Silchar time history SMRF building ..................... 68
CHAPTER-8 CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 71
8.1 Future Scope of Work ............................................................................ 72
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 73
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................ 76
APPENDIX B................................................................................................. 79
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Effect of Earthquake ....................................................................................... 1

Figure 1.2 Effects of Nonlinear time history ................................................................... 2
Figure 1.3 Seismic Zoning map of India .......................................................................... 4
Figure 1.4 Progressive Collapse of Building affected during Tsunami ........................... 5
Figure 1.5 Spectra for Response Spectrum Method....................................................... 12
Figure 1.6 Flow Chart .................................................................................................... 13
Figure 1.7 Typical Pushover Curve ............................................................................... 14
Figure 1.8 Incremental Dynamic Analysis Plot for Single record ................................. 16
Figure 1.9 Force Displacement Response System ......................................................... 17
Figure 1.10 Relation between different factor ............................................................... 18
Figure 3.1 4 storey C shape building ............................................................................. 31
Figure 3.2 12 storey C shape building ........................................................................... 31
Figure 3.3 4 storey L shape building.............................................................................. 32
Figure 3.4 12 storey L shape building............................................................................ 32
Figure 3.5 4 storey REC shape building ........................................................................ 33
Figure 3.6 12 storey REC shape building ...................................................................... 33
Figure 4.1 SAP2000 software ........................................................................................ 34
Figure 4.2 3D View ........................................................................................................ 38
Figure 4.3 Plan View...................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.4 Plastic Hinges ............................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.5 Time Historey Data....................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.6 Force Diagram ............................................................................................. 40
Figure 4.7 Moment Diagram .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.8 Displacement Diagram ................................................................................. 41
Figure 5.1 Plan of C shape Building .............................................................................. 43
Figure 5.2 Plan of L shape Building .............................................................................. 44
Figure 5.3 Plan of REC shape Building ......................................................................... 45
Figure 7.1 Base Reaction of 4storey zone 2 ................................................................... 51
Figure 7.2 Base Reaction of 4storey zone 5 ................................................................... 51
Figure 7.3 Base Reaction of 12storey zone 2 ................................................................. 52
ix
Figure 7.4 Base Reaction of 12storey zone 5 ................................................................. 53
Figure 7.5 Comparison of R factor of 4 storey building with different zone................. 54
Figure 7.6 Comparison of R factor of 12 storey building with different zone............... 55
Figure 7.7 Comparison of R factor of zone 2 building with different height ................ 55
Figure 7.8 Comparison of R factor of zone 5 building with different height ................ 56
Figure 7.9 Comparison of R factor of 4 storey building with different zone................. 57
Figure 7.10 Comparison of R factor of 12 storey building with different zone............. 57
Figure 7.11 Comparison of R factor of zone 2 building with different height .............. 58
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Summary of recent earthquake ........................................................................ 3

Table 1.2 Comparison of Moment Resisting Frame ........................................................ 7
Table 1.3 Sesmic Zone Factor(Z)................................................................................... 10
Table 1.4 Importance Factor(I) ...................................................................................... 10
Table 1.5 Response Modification Factor (R) ................................................................. 11
Table 1.6 Reduadancy factor taken from ATC .............................................................. 20
Table 1.7 R factor for as per IS1893:2016 ..................................................................... 21
Table 1.8 R factor in Egyptian code............................................................................... 21
Table 1.9 R factor according to IBC 2003 ..................................................................... 21
Table 2.1 Timeline of the Work ..................................................................................... 29
Table 4.1 Configuration of above structure ................................................................... 37
Table 4.2 Comparison of Base shear.............................................................................. 41
Table 4.3 Comparison of Displacement ......................................................................... 41
Table 5.1 Geometric & Section Properties of Building element ................................... 46
Table 5.2 Building load & Material Properties .............................................................. 46
Table 5.3 Seismic Design Data ...................................................................................... 47
Table 7.1 Base Reaction of C,L,REC 4storey Zone2 Building with OMRF and
SMRF ............................................................................................................................. 50
SMRF ............................................................................................................................. 51
SMRF ............................................................................................................................. 52
SMRF ............................................................................................................................. 52
Table 7.5 Response Reduction Factor of OMRF Building with Berlongfer time
history ............................................................................................................................. 53
Table 7.6 Response Reduction Factor of SMRF Building with Berlongfer time
history ............................................................................................................................. 56
Table 7.7 Response Reduction Factor of OMRF Building with Diphu time
history ............................................................................................................................. 59
Table 7.8 Response Reduction Factor of SMRF Building with Diphu time
history ............................................................................................................................. 62
Table 7.9 Response Reduction Factor of OMRF Building with Silchar time
history ............................................................................................................................. 65
xi
Table 7.10 Response Reduction Factor of SMRF Building with Silchar time
history ............................................................................................................................. 68
xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Description
NLTH Nonlinear time history analysis
PGA Peak ground acceleration
SMRF Special Moment resisting frame
OMRF Ordinary moment resisting frame
Z Zone factor
R Response reduction factor
I Importance factor
T Time period sec
Sa/g Average response acceleration coefficient
xiii
ABSTRACT
The building vulnerability to seismic hazards is higher in developing nations with high
seismicity than in developed countries. This is primarily due to a scarcity of seismic design
concepts that are suited for the kind of structural systems and procedures used in such
areas. Many developing countries use the well-developed seismic design codes used in the
United States (US) or Europe as R factors. These R factors are unjust because they give a
skewed picture of the structural techniques applied in developing countries. As a result,
true R factors for the diverse structural systems employed by these countries are urgently
required. The R factor of reinforced concrete (RC) moment resistant frames (MRFs) in
India was determined using nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA). To investigate the
effect of these parameters on R factor, a parametric study involving RC SMRF and OMRF
frames with varying zone and dimensional properties was done. Parameters such as tale
drift, displacement, and base shear will be derived from OMRF and SMRF frame studies,
and the computed response reduction factor will be compared to IS1893
From the analysis results it was found out that Overstrength and Response modification
factor is decreasing up to 25% as increasing the height of the building and is also
decreasing up to 30% from Seismic Zone II to Zone V.
xiv
OUTLINE OF THESIS
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter presents the study with the styles and components of the structure, various
design defects and specific structural analysis methods.
Chapter 2 Literature Review
The study on the Computation of ‘R’ Factor for SMRF and OMRF Frame Using Nonlinear
Time History Analysis is shown in this chapter. Several research papers and conferences
from national and international renowned journals, as well as experimental studies, have
been reviewed.
Chapter 3 Objective and Scope of Work
This chapter presents the objective and scope of the work determined after thorough study
of literature review.
Chapter 4 Validation procedure
This chapter deals with the basic learning of software and checking the proficiency of user
by comparing the results with some standard journal research paper.
Chapter-5 Methodology
This chapter consists of configuration data, various zone and different time history used for
the analysis of the structures.
Chapter 6 Analysis of models
This chapter explains various methods of reduction factor, frame property and software
processes of the structural analysis.
Chapter-7 Analysis and Result
This chapter deals with the analysis of structure and their results with their critical
comments.
Chapter 8 Conclusion
This chapter includes the conclusion for this study performed.
References
xv
CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Any form of seismic event that generates seismic waves, whether natural or created by
humans, is referred to as an earthquake. Geological fault rupture is the most common cause
of earthquakes, but they can also be caused by volcanic activity, mine bursts, landslides,
and nuclear tests. An earthquake happens when energy is released suddenly in the Earth's
crust, causing seismic waves. Tremors, quakes, and temblors are all terms for the same
thing. The seismic events of a region is determined by the intensity, nature, and size of
disasters that happen throughout time (seismic activity). A seismometer's measurements
are used to calculate the magnitude of an earthquake. A moment magnitude scale is used to
measure earthquakes with a size greater than 5. Smaller earthquakes, which are more
common, are generally measured on the local scale based, often known as the Richter
magnitude, which is kept by national seismological institutes. Many structures have
primary structural systems that do not fulfil contemporary seismic regulations and are
severely damaged after an earthquake. According to the IS-1893-2002 Seismic Zoning
Map, the region is least likely to have earthquakes. Methods for analyzing seismically
deficient or seismically structures are still being developed.
Figure 1.1 Effect of Earthquake
1
In India, the majority of constructions are low-rise (up to four storeys). A careful
examination of the IS 1893 :2002 reaction spectrum indicates that short period structures
(those with less height) are susceptible to a significant amount of earthquake force. Despite
this, most design engineers neglect the severity of the problem, putting the passengers at
greater risk during earthquakes.
If a violent earth motion shakes a building which does not meet seismic design
requirements, it may experience significant damage or collapse. The seismic assessment
indicates the seismic capacity of earthquake-prone structures for future use.
The Non-Linear Time History Analysis (NLTHA) is a dynamic analytical method for
seismic analysis and design verification of building structures that has been found to be the
most accurate. It accurately forecasts inelastic demands in superstructure members
subjected to various types of earthquakes.
The majority of constructions are low-rise. A careful examination of the IS 1893

:2002 reaction spectrum indicates that short period structures (those with less height) are
susceptible to a significant amount of earthquake force. Despite this, most design engineers
neglect the severity of the problem, putting the passengers at greater risk during
earthquakes.
Figure 1.2 Effects of Nonlinear time history
2
Many developing nations' R factors are based on well-developed seismic design rules used
in the United States and Europe. These developing countries face more severe seismic risk
than developed nations, but they lack the technology to build structures in accordance with
seismic norms. India is an example of a developing nation that confronts a significant
seismic risk because to its proximity to a major fault zone. India will be used as an
example of other emerging countries with similar seismic susceptibility in this research.
India has adopted earthquake resistant provisions based on the United States' code of
practice. Because of the various levels of seismic danger and building inventory in India,
structures are vulnerable in different ways than those in the United States. As a result, it is
acceptable to conclude that structures in India are more vulnerable to earthquakes than
those in affluent countries. This is due to a lack of earthquake design principles appropriate
for the types of buildings and construction processes employed in India. As a result, using
R factors estimated for the United States provides an inaccurate representation of the
structural techniques used in India, and is therefore considered unrealistic. R factors
recommended by US seismic design provisions are unreliable and can result in
overestimation of R factor values.
1.2 Recent Earthquake in India
Table 1.1 Summary of recent earthquake
3
1.3 Seismic Zoning of India
various regions of the country varies as well. To locate these areas, an earthquake zone
map is required. The 1970 edition of the zone map divides India into 5 zones based on the
magnitudes of previous devastating earthquakes: I, II, III, IV, and V. In such zones,
maximum Modified Mercalli (MMI) earthquake shaking intensity was projected to be V or
less, VI, VII, VIII, and IX and higher, respectively. Zone V includes places of the
Himalaya frontier in the north and northeast, as well as the Kutch region in the west.
The earthquake zone maps are updated as new information about the country's geology
seismotectonic, and seismic activity becomes available. In 1962, the Indian Standards
published the first earthquake zone map, which was amended in 1967 and 1970. The map
was updated in 2002, and it now only has 4 seismic zones: II, III, IV, and V.
1) Zone 2 : This is said to be the least active seismic zone
2) Zone 3: It falls into the moderate seismic region.
3) Zone 4: this is considered to be the high seismic zone
4) Zone 5: it is the highest seismic zone
Figure 1.3 Seismic Zoning map of India
4
1.4 Scenario of Earthquake Engineering in India
Few destructive earthquakes have occurred in the recent decade, indicating a gap in our
risk mitigation programmes. In order to be effective, a strategy must involve suitable
building codes as well as public awareness. At the research and policy levels, a number of
projects are currently underway. This project provides an update on these projects as well
as steps to increase catastrophe mitigation programmes
Earthquakes in several places of the world revealed the devastation and susceptibility of
insufficient constructions. Several reinforced concrete (RC) framed constructions in high
earthquake zones in India are built without taking earthquake design codes measures into
account. The fragility of poorly built structures puts people at risk of earthquakes.
IS-1893 was first developed in the 1962 as ''Recommendations for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structure'' and was later amended in 1966. The standard was amended in 1970,
1975, and 1984 as a result of further seismic data acquired in India and new information
and experience gained. Because of the tremendous loss of lives and properties caused by
the Bhuj earthquake, it was rewritten again and released in 2002. In 2016, it was also
reviewed
the structures are not only designed for vertical dead and live load but they are also
designed for the lateral load such as wind and earthquake load. Since column, beam and
their joints of framed structure designed for lateral loads would have a larger load bearing
capacity. These members would have higher capacity to resist the damage due to loss of
vertical load bearing element and will help to prevent the progressive collapse.
Figure 1.4 Progressive Collapse of Building affected during Tsunami
5
1.5 Moment Resisting Frame
It is a structure wherein the components and connections may withstand stresses primarily
by flexure.
IS 1893 (Part 1) first established in 2002. Certain criteria must be met by structures
constructed to resist earthquakes. initial section RC frame buildings are split into 2 groups
by the BIS: OMRF and SMRF, with response modification factors of 3 and 5 respectively.
The American Concrete Institute issued ACI 318: Building code standards for reinforced
concrete and discussion. OMRF, IMRF, and SMRF are the three ductility classes assigned
by ASCE 7, with reduction factors of 3, 5, and 8 correspondingly.
The Euro-code 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: Basic rules,
earthquake actions, and guidelines for structures, published by the European Council for
Normalization of Structure
According to IS code moment resisting frames are classified as
1) Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame(OMRF)
2) Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF)
Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame (OMRF): It's a moment-resisting frame that doesn't

match the ductile behavior's particular detailed requirements
Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF): This is a moment-resisting frame that has

been carefully designed to ensure ductile behavior while meeting the standards of IS
4326:2016, IS 13920:2016
6
Table 1.2 Comparison of Moment Resisting Frame
1.6 Loads
Buildings in badly affected seismic areas are subjected to sophisticated base isolation
measures. As a consequence, the forces act on these systems will be the structure's own
weight., i.e. gravity load, living load, and seismic load. This part briefly explains all of
these loads
1.6.1 Dead Load
In a tall building, The gravity loads borne by the beams and slabs are the same as in a low-
rise structure. Dead loading is computed using the intended member sizes and predicted
material densities, just like in a low-rise construction. Small discrepancies, such as
disparities between real and intended dimensions and true and expected densities, are
possible, as per IS 875:1987 Part 1.
7
1.6.2 Live Load
According to the occupancy or use of the space, live loading is defined as the intensity of a
uniformly distributed floor load. In specific instances, the floors should be examined for
the alternative worst-case scenario of specified concentrated load, such as parking lots,
offices, and plant rooms, pursuant to IS 875:1987 Part 2.
1.6.3 Seismic Load
The Earth's crust is partitioned into several plates, each of which floats on lava in the
Earth's mantle and has a different origin. When these plates collide, slide, or subduct
against one another, stresses are formed. Earthquakes are triggered as the pressures are
released. An earthquake's impact can be measured using a variety of metrics, including
acceleration, velocity, displacement, duration, and magnitude
The ground moves back and forth during an earthquake, forcing the bottom of a building to
shift as well. The building's top, on the other hand, will not react at the same time. Instead,
due to the building's inertial stiffness, there will be a little delay in the movement of the
top.
Buildings are subjected to inertial forces when an earthquake occurs. The mass of the
building multiplied by the acceleration determines the magnitude of these inertial forces.
This means that as mass increases, inertial forces rise as well. As a result, by constructing
lightweight structures, at least one risk of damage can be reduced.
Severe earthquakes are rare, moderate earthquakes are more common, and mild
earthquakes are reasonably common depending on where they occur. Although a building
may be designed to withstand the most severe earthquake without considerable damage,
the unlikely necessity for such strength during the lifetime of the project would not justify
the high extra cost.
According to IS 1893 (Part 1), there are three methods for seismic calculation:
2016.
1) Response Spectrum
2) Time history
3) Seismic coefficient
8
1.6.4 Response Spectrum Method
According to IS 1893 (Part 1), there are three methods for seismic calculation: 2016. They
are as follows:
The Response Spectrum Method, as defined by IS 1893(Part 1): 2016, is used to

calculate
design lateral forces.
Step 1: Determine the modal mass (Mk) of mode k as follows:
Where
g denotes gravity acceleration
ik denotes the mode shape coefficient at floor I in mode k
Wi denotes the seismic weight of floor i.
Step 2: Determine the modal participation factor (Pk) for mode k, which is defined
as
Step 3: Calculate Lateral Force for Each Floor and Mode:
Step 4: Shear Forces in Each Mode of the Story:
Step 5: Shear Forces in the Story Due to All Modes:
Froof = Vroof, and Fi = Vi – Vi+1
1.6.5 Provision for Seismic loads according to IS1893(P-1):2016
9
Shear at the base,
Where,
ah = horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient of design,
W is the building's seismic weight.
Ah =
Where,
Seismic Zone Factor (Z),
= Rock/Soil Design/Response Acceleration Coefficient,

I = Importance factor
R = Response Modification Factor
Table 1.3 Sesmic Zone Factor(Z)
Zone II III IV V
Factor 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36
Table 1.4 Importance Factor(I)
Structure Importance Factor
Important services and community buildings, such as

hospitals, Schools; emergency buildings like
Telephone Exchange, television station, railway 1.5
station, large community halls like cinemas, subway
station, power stations etc.
Residential or commercial buildings (other than listed
1.2
above) with occupancy more than 200 persons
All other buildings 1.0
10
Table 1.5 Response Modification Factor (R)
RC buildings with ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) 3.0
RC buildings with special moment resisting frame (SMRF) 5.0
Ordinary shear wall with OMRF 3.0
Ordinary shear wall with SMRF 4.0
Ductile shear wall with OMRF 4.0
Ductile shear wall with SMRF 5.0
Coefficient of design/response acceleration for rock/soil (Sa/g):
For rocky, or hard soil sites,
1+ 15 T; 0.00 T 0.10
2.5 0.10 T 0.40
1.00/T 0.40 T 4.00
0.25 T 4.00
For medium soil sites,

1+ 15 T; 0.00 T 0.10
2.5 0.10 T 0.55
1.36/T 0.55 T 4.00
0.34 T 4.00
For soft soil sites,

1+ 15 T; 0.00 T 0.10
2.5 0.10 T 0.67
1.67/T 0.67 T 4.00
0.42 T 4.00
11
Where,
= Fundamental natural time period in sec
, for moment resisting frame without brick infill panels, (RC Buildings).
, for moment resisting frame without brick infill, (Steel Buildings).
, moment resisting frame with brick infill
Figure 1.5 Spectra for Response Spectrum Method
and ductile detailing of structure will provide a certain level of continuity, ductility and
redundancy. A member possessing higher ductility improves the response of the structure
during the sudden removal of vertical load bearing member. The ductile member will have
higher capacity and will undergo inelastic behavior during the event and will prevent the
structure from collapse.
1.7 Evaluation of Seismic Performance

The performance review technique is used to measure the structure's response during a
specific seismic event. It's being used to verify new construction designs, assess existing
systems to establish degradation states, and correlate degradation states of structures to
different seismic activity signal. The method adopted the building's capacity to the
building's demands.
12
Figure 1.6 Flow Chart
The following are some of the performance assessment methods for analysing seismic
demand and capability of structures:
• Static Non-linear (Static Pushover and Adaptive Pushover Analysis)
• Dynamic Nonlinear (Nonlinear Time History and Incremental Dynamic

Analysis)
These two methods give non-linear evaluation that takes into account both material and
geometrical non-linearity. Non-linear static analysis gives an approximate but quick
evaluation with a simplified approach, whereas Non-Linear Dynamic analysis provides an
exact but time-consuming evaluation with complicated methods.
1.7.1 Nonlinear Static Analysis
Nonlinear static analysis is superior to linear static analysis. It is a viable method for
estimating deformation and damage patterns in structures by analyzing them under
13
constant vertical loads with gradually rising lateral forces.
The behavior of the structure is represented by a capacity curve that reflects the
relationship between the base shear force and the displacement of the roof in nonlinear
static analysis.
Figure 1.7 Typical Pushover Curve
Due to the difficulties and time-consumption issues encountered in Non-Linear Dynamics

Analysis, Non-Linear Static Analysis evolved. Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis produces the
most precise answers, but it is complex and time-consuming. Non-Linear Static Analysis
provides approximate but somewhat accurate answers in a shorter amount of time and with
fewer complications.
1.7.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analysis approaches, as compared to nonlinear static analysis, offer

more accurate estimates of structural behavior to severe ground shaking and hence provide
a more accurate assessment of earthquake performance. The ability of nonlinear static
analysis to represent characterize rapid dynamic characteristics with cyclic loading and
14
deterioration and degradation is restricted Each story's displacement and acceleration
demand.
1.7.3 Nonlinear Time History Analysis(NLTHA)
Nonlinear time history analysis is the most efficient solution for forecasting seismic
behavior of structures due to ground movement. During the last decade, the development
of computer software has caused this method to be used in new building design and
analyzing building performance. Direct time integration and modal superposition (Fast
Non-Linear Analysis) are 2 methods for obtaining dynamic responses of a structural
model.
The following is the equation of motion for a structural system represented by the MDOF
model.
[m] + [c] + FS ( ) =
This method is not a precise procedure because it involves constant time stepping. There
are two types of techniques: explicit and implicit. The -integration algorithm was chosen in
SAP 2000 software for this investigation, and it was designed by Hilber et al (1977). This
technique depends on the Newmark technique (it employs the same finite difference
expression and parameters), but with the adding of the number to incorporate mathematical
damping and improve 2nd order precision. The three parameters' values must be chosen in
order to achieve high accuracy, numerical damping, and analytical stability. The optimal
value for (α) is between [-1/3, 0] (in this thesis, 0), while the other two parameters can be
calculated using the equations below: Hilber et al. (Hilber et al., 1977)
Fast Nonlinear Analysis is a modal analysis technique for evaluating linear and nonlinear
building elements in both transient and steady state modes. significantly to the efficiency
of FNA formulation, which may be represented as:
m + c +K + RNL =R
1.7.4 Incremental Dynamic Analysis(IDA)
The FEMA accepted this method of analysis, which is regarded the state-of-the-art method
15
for estimating structure reactions under quake loadings.
Figure 1.8 Incremental Dynamic Analysis Plot for Single record
load bearing member. The ductile member will have higher capacity and will undergo
inelastic behavior during the event and will prevent the structure from collapse
1.8 Response Modification Factor
1.8.1 Basic Concept of Seismic Design
Designing for wind loads is a primary requirement due to the frequency of loading
scenarios. Structures in high-seismic locations, on the other hand, are constructed to bear
lateral forces as well. Because seismic design deals with occurrences with a lower
probability of occurring, It may be too expensive to set up structures to survive disasters
with the same quality standards as wind develop. If the same elastic design principles that
are used for primary loads are applied to seismic loads, the result will be enormously heavy
and costly structures. As a result, seis design incorporates the notions of controlled damage
and collapse avoidance.
The goal of earthquake engineering is to have control over the type, location, and extent of
damage, as well as the detailing process. The elastic and inelastic responses are depicted in
and the concept of equal energy (discussed further in the following sections) is used to
reduce the design force from Ve to Vd (denoting elastic and design force levels).
16
Figure 1.9 Force Displacement Response System
1.8.2 Definition of ‘R’ Factor
Response reduction is a technique for reducing the structure's elastic response . In the event
of significant shaking, the structure is allowed to be damaged. As a result, the structure is
intended to withstand far less seismic force than would be predicted if the structure were
linearly elastic. It simply indicates the ratio of the greatest lateral force, Ve, that would
emerge in a structure that was totally linear elastic under the stated ground motion to the
lateral force, Vd, that the structure was designed to tolerate. The response modification
factor R is denoted by the symbol R.
R = Ve/ Vd
At lateral forces large enough yet to reach early yield and reach the structure system's
maximum load deformation, the factor R is an empirical response reduction factor intended
to account for damping, overstrength, and ductility inherent in the structural system. The
idea behind a response reduction factor was that well-designed seismic framing systems
might withstand substantial inelastic deformations without collapsing (ductile behaviour)
17
and build lateral strength above their design strength (often termed reserve strength). The R
factor was initially used in 1978 to lower the elastic shear force (Ve) produced by elastic
analysis utilizing a 5% damped acceleration response spectrum in order to calculate a
design base shear force (Vd). Equivalent Lateral Force Method and Response Spectrum
Method are two major static analysis algorithms; in both, R factors are used to compute the
design base shear.
Figure 1.10 Relation between different factor
1.8.3 Formulation of ‘R’ Factor
The response modification factor is the factor that should be used to lower the actual base
shear force in order to acquire the design lateral force during DBE shaking.
R = Rs Rμ RR Rξ
The response modification factor (R) is primarily determined by the following factors:
1.8.4 Overstrength Factor
The significance of structural overstrength in preventing building collapse is critical. The

overstrength factor (Rs) is the ratio of actual lateral strength to planned lateral strength.
18
Over strength factor(Rs) = Vy / Vd
Where
Vy is the code-prescribed unfactored design base shear coefficient,
Vd is the design base shear coefficient
It depend on many factor such as
(1) the load factor implemented to the code-prescribed design earthquake

force
(2) the lesser gravity load applied at the time of the seismic activity than the
factored gravity loads used in design
(3) the strength reduction factors on material characteristics used in design
(4) larger member sizes than required by strength concerns
(5) more reinforcement than required by strength considerations
(6) specific ductility requirements, such as the provision of a strong column

and a weak beam
1.8.5 Ductility Factor
The ductility reduction factor (Rμ) is a factor that decreases the elastic force demand to the
level of the structure's idealised yield strength, and it can be written as the following
equation.
Rμ = Ve / Vy
If the structure stays elastic, Ve is the maximum base shear coefficient. The Rμ factor takes
advantage of the energy dissipation ability of well planned and well-detailed structures
and, as a result, is principally determined by the structure's global ductility requirement (is
the ratio between maximum roof displacement and yield roof displacement).
1.8.6 Redundancy factor
Structures with a large number of vertical components are classified as redundant structural
19
systems. ASCE 7:2005 carefully indicated a R R of 1. The redundancy factor is assumed to
be 1 in this study (as per ATC-19, Table 4.3)
RR = Vu/ Vy
If the structure stays elastic, Ve is the maximum base shear coefficient. Redundant is
typically characterized as going beyond what is required or being naturally excessive. For
lateral load resistance, a building should have a high degree of redundancy. Increased
energy dissipation and overstrength are the results of higher redundancy in the structure. In
a nonredundant system, a single member's failure is equivalent to the entire structure
failing; however, in a redundant system, failure will occur if more than one member fails.
As a result, a system's reliability is a function of its redundancy, i.e., whether the system is
redundant or nonredundant determines its dependability.
Table 1.6 Redundancy factor taken from ATC
Lines of vertical seismic framing Drift redundancy factor
2 0.71
3 0.86
4 1
1.8.7 Damping factor
For buildings with additional energy dissipation (viscous damping) devices, the damping
factor R is utilised. For structures without such devices, the damping factor is assumed to
be one. The damping factor is assumed to be 1 in this investigation.
Overstrength, redundancy, and ductility all contribute to the fact that an earthquake-
resistant structure can be built to withstand far less force than the intense shaking suggests.
1.8.8 R factor in Seismic code for Various Countries
20
In many places of the world, the usage of a response modification factor or its equivalent
has been incorporated into seismic codes. The inclusion of the R factor in seismic design
codes in earthquake-prone countries emphasizes its significance. The following paragraphs
provide a quick review of the response modification factor in seismic codes from Europe,
Japan, Mexico, and Egypt.
Table 1.7 R factor for as per IS1893:2016
RC buildings with ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) 3.0
RC buildings with special moment resisting frame (SMRF) 5.0
Ordinary shear wall with OMRF 3.0

Ordinary shear wall with SMRF 4.0
Ductile shear wall with OMRF 4.0
Ductile shear wall with SMRF 5.0
Table 1.8 R factor in Egyptian code
R factor in Egyptian code
Structural System Ductility R
RC Moment resisting Sufficient 7

frame
Not Sufficient 5
Table 1.9 R factor according to IBC 2003
Structural type R
Special Rc frames 8.0
Intermediate Rc frames 5.0
Ordinary Rc frames 3.0
21
CHAPTER-2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
A literature review is conducted to investigate the Computation of ‘R’ Factor for OMRF
and SMRF using Nonlinear time History Analysis. Various academic papers containing
and experimental studies from reputable national/international journals and conferences
have been reviewed
2.2 Literature Review
Mussa Mahmoudi and Mohammad Ghasem Abdi, [1] studied Evaluating response
modification factors of TADAS frames. This work compares the R factor for SMRF with
and without T-SMRF. They conduct pushover analysis. They use TADAS devices to test
Rs, R, and response modification factors in specific moment resisting frames. They came
to the conclusion that T-SMRF response modification factors were higher than SMRF
response modification factors. It was also discovered that the number of stories a building
has on the response modification elements has a bigger impact
Gomatesh S. Patil and Vishal D. Sakhare, [2] this research shows the actual value of
response reduction factor (R) for light weight infill. Static nonlinear (pushover) analysis is
used in this analysis, which is carried out by ETABS. The Applied Technology Council
(ATC)-19 approach is used to calculate the Response reduction factor (R). The R factor
falls when clay burned bricks are utilised and raises when light weight infill material is
employed.
P. Pravin Venkat Rao and L. M. Gupta, [3] the Indian code does not provide any
deterministic values of ductility reduction factor and overstrength factor to be employed in
the design. Using nonlinear static (pushover) analysis, a total of 12 steel moment resistant
frames with various seismic zones and stories were investigated and developed in this
work. They found that three buildings of various heights had a 63 percent higher average
22
overstrength in Zone-II than in Zone-V.
Somayeh Sharifi, Hamid Toopchi Nezhad, [4] in this paper the R-factor values obtained in
ordinary and special frame structures are compared to the corresponding values prescribed
by current seismic design codes such as European Standard EC8, International Building
Code (IBC), ASCE 7, National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), and Iranian Standard
2800-91 in this paper. Pushover analysis was utilised to determine the ductility decrease
factor and overstrength factor. According to the findings, frame structures with fewer
stories have a higher R-factor. The size of the overstrength ratio for frame constructions is
in line with the NBCC values.
H. Abdi and F. Hejazi, [5] Using nonlinear static analysis, the current study investigates the
effect of response modification variables for steel structures incorporating viscous damper
devices. The response modification factors for steel structures with damper devices are
larger than for steel buildings without damper devices, they conclude. According to
different damper types and percentages of bays with dampers, the R value in structures
with damper devices is 36.1 percent to 104.3 percent higher than in structures with a bare
frame. As a result, a formula for calculating the R factor for structures using viscous
dampers was devised based on the damping coefficient used.
Fatemeh Aliakbari and Hashem Shariatmadar, [6] The overstrength, ductility, and
response modification variables of a moment resistant frame (MRF) with a steel vertical
slit panel (SSP-MRF) are investigated in this study. The response modification factors of
moment resisting frames with steel slit panels (SSP-MRF) developed in accordance with
the Iranian Earthquake Resistant Design Code and the Iranian National Building Code for
Structural Steel Design are presented in this study. They conclude that the response
modification factor obtained from pushover analysis in India was slightly lower than that
obtained from incremental dynamic analyses. This paper compares and contrasts FBD and
DDBD approaches. They Drifts, displacements, and other critical metrics obtained by
DDBD and FBD are compared.
Kashyap N. Patel and Jignesh A. Amin, [7] The purpose of this research is to assess the
"R" factors of four contemporary RC staging elevated water tanks that are designed
according to draught Indian guidelines for seismic design of liquid and RC designs and
include ductile detailing that takes into account the impacts of soil flexibility. The base
shear capacity and ductility of elevated RC water tanks are evaluated using displacement
controlled non-linear static pushover analysis, which takes soil flexibility into account. At
23
two performance levels, the 'R' factor is calculated for four practical designs of elevated
RC water tanks with varied capacity. The calculated values of the 'R' factor are compared
to the design code's proposed values. The study's findings demonstrate that the flexibility
of the supporting soil has a significant impact on the response reduction factor, period, and
overall performance of the water tank, implying that idealization of fixity at the base could
be misinterpreted as soft soils. All of the water tanks under investigation were built with a
higher safety margin than that required by Indian Standards.
Samir K. Prajapati and Jignesh A. Amin, [8] The current study examines the seismic
responses of RC frame buildings that have been analyzed and developed utilizing the force
base design concept. The effective/cracked section property of RC frame beams and
columns is taken into account according to the IS 1893 (Part-I) 2016 regulations. Nonlinear
static pushover analysis and nonlinear time history analysis are used to assess the seismic
performance of the RC frames. The modified cracked section property of RC members is
also used to build the RC frames, which meet the stress and drift standards of Indian
seismic codes.
Mohssen Izadinia a, Mohammad Ali Rahgozar b, Omid Mohammadrezaei, [9] The

purpose of this study is to derive and compare some seismic demand characteristics, such
as the ductility-based reduction factor, R, the overstrength factor, and, in particular, the
response modification factor, R, from capacity curves produced using various APA and
CPA methods. The analysis is done on three steel moment-resisting frames of 3, 9, and 20
stories that were taken from the SAC steel project. Eight alternative constant and adaptive
lateral load patterns are used in pushover evaluations for each frame. The largest relative
difference for response modification variables found by the methodologies of conventional
and adaptive pushover analyses was around 16 percent, according to one of the primary
conclusions reached.
H. Chaulagain a, H. Rodrigues a, J. Jara b, E. Spacone c, H. Varum, [10] A comparison

of various design/construction methods. The current research focuses on the performance
of existing structures in Nepal. The seismic behavior of four different 3-story RC
residential building structures was investigated in order to attain this goal. A non-linear
dynamic time history analysis and an adaptive pushover analysis were also performed and
compared. The capacity curve was obtained for each model and loading direction, and a set
of data, including maximum base shear, lateral displacement, and inter-story drift, were
studied.
24
Swajit Singh Goud and R Pradeep Kumar, [11] the response reduction factor is computed
for a G+4 storey building constructed for all seismic zones and compared to the anticipated
values of R supplied in the seismic code. To understand the effect of each parameter, such
as stiffness, over Rs, and Rμ, R is computed component by component. R is calculated
using the pushover curve.
Amar Louzai and Ahmed Abed, [12] The seismic behaviour factor R (noted q in the
European seismic design code, Eurocode 8) of reinforced concrete frame structures is
assessed in this research based on a comparison of two non-linear inelastic methods: static
pushover and incremental dynamic assessments. The load–displacement relationship and
behaviour factors such as ductility, overstrength, and seismic behaviour parameters were
determined using a non-linear static pushover analysis using a triangle loading pattern.
With respect to the failure criteria evaluated at both the member and structural levels,
incremental dynamic analysis employing a set of seven time-history earthquake records
was also done to determine the behavioural factors, which were compared with the values
obtained by pushover analysis. The R factor values obtained using the two methods were
compared to the R factor used in Algeria's seismic design code RPA 2003/Version 2003.
The value of the seismic behaviour factor used by the seismic design algorithm
RPA99/Version 2003 is found to be overstated, particularly in low-rise frame structures.
M Nishanth, J Visuvasam, J Simon and J S Packiaraj, [13] A comprehensive nonlinear

static pushover study of 2D framed structures of both ductile and ordinary moment
resisting frames is used to estimate this factor. Variation in structure height, the zone
factor, and the effect of geometric non-linearity of the structure in the analysis are some of
the parameters investigated in the study. They conclude that the seismic zones and time
period of the structure have a significant impact on the values of over-strength, ductility,
and response reduction parameters.
A.K. Mapari and Y.M. Ghugal, [14] a comparative assessment of seismic performance of
SMRFs and OMRFs in terms of base shear and ductility demand is reported, taking into
account the influence of bare frame and masonry infilled wall frames. Response reduction
factors are also reviewed for each building under consideration, and response reduction
factors are calculated using the FEMA P695 technique. They find that the R factors
obtained for SMRF bare frame buildings are substantially greater than the IS 1893: 2002.
However, these parameters are slightly greater in the case of OMRF bare frame buildings
than those specified by IS 1893: 200214, which is 3.
25
Tia Toby and Ajesh K. Kottuppillil, [15] The response reduction factor is calculated using
nonlinear static analysis on regular and irregular RC frames using OMRF and SMRF, and
the codal provisions for the same are critically examined. They come to the conclusion that
the confinement in concrete has a significant impact on the strength and ductility of RC
components. The greatest R value in the SMRF frames is 4.96, which is almost identical to
the IS 1893(2002) proposed value of 5, whereas the OMRF frames have a value of 2.882,
which is almost identical to 3.
Prashant R. Barbude, Amol S. Jadhav, Dr.T.N.Boob, [16] These studies focused on

estimating the seismic response reduction factor for a dual system of reinforced concrete
SMRF and shear walls using non-linear static pushover analysis. The frames are designed
utilising Indian seismic and RC design requirements and are subjected to two separate
lateral load patterns. The exact values of the Response reduction factor have been
calculated using the push over curve obtained between base shear and roof displacement.
Following the investigation, it was discovered that the response reduction factor is
influenced by four primary factors: strength, ductility, redundancy, and damping
Sampada Mahadev Gangavali , Dr. M.D Vijayananda , Er. Rajesh Harugoppa, [17] The
current study used pushover analysis to estimate the realistic 'R' factors for the actual
structural forms chosen for the investigation. In SAP2000, the OMRF and SMRF
computation models with vertical discontinuity in the load path are modelled for different
positions at the ground level. To understand the influence of discontinuity in lateral load
resisting structures, the stiffness and ductility of the structure is investigated for the same
frames. The response reduction factor for a floating column building is defined in this
study for all zone conditions, various soil conditions, as well as default and user selected
hinge lengths. They infer that as the vertical discontinuity in the building rises, the base
shear diminishes. The response reduction factor increases as the stiffness value increases
Kruti Tamboli, J. A. Amin, [18] Using nonlinear static pushover analysis, the response
reduction factor and ductility of an RC braced frame are evaluated in this study. The study
looked at RC frames with X bracing at the centre bay, RC frames with X bracing at
alternate bays, and shear walls at the canter and alternate bays. They conclude that the
types and patterns of bracing systems have a significant impact on the response reduction
factor of an RC frame. When compared to the RC frame with bracing/shear wall in the
centre bay and the bare RC frame, providing bracing/shear wall in alternate bays enhances
the values of responses reduction factor by almost 1.88 to 2.2 and 3.75 to 3.9 times,
26
respectively.
Udaysingh Patil, Nakul Kabra, Dr. Prashant Dnyaneshwar Hiwase, Dr. Sharda
Phusnath Siddh, [19] The goal of this study is to determine the actual value of the response
reduction factor (R) by using SAP 2000 to perform push over analysis on an RCC-framed
building and comparing the results to the value recommended by Indian standard code.
They infer that as the number of bays in a frame increases, the response reduction factor
(R) decreases. In comparison to shorter RCC frames, longer RCC frames have a lower
response reduction factor value. As a result, the R values specified in the IS code are not
realistic, despite the fact that they are dependent on ductility, plan configuration, material
strength, structure storey height, and other factors.
Saudamini Jambhulkar, Prof L G Kalurkar, [20] The structures in this study are designed
in two ways: SMRF and OMRF, and their performance is compared. The buildings are
modelled for this, and SAP2000 is used to do the pushover study. They conclude that in the
case of bare frames, i.e. fixed and hinged support, the performance measured in terms of
base shear capacity (curve) for OMRF is significantly better than for SMRF. The SMRF is
moving faster, indicating that it is more adaptable. In comparison to low infill or bare
frames, strong infill greatly strengthens the frame.
Mussa Mahmoudi, Mahdi Zaree, [21] The goal of this study is to assess the response
modification factors of both traditional concentric braced frames (CBFs) and buckling
restrained braced frames (BRBFs). Because the response modulation factor is influenced
by ductility and overstrength, a static nonlinear analysis was carried out on building
models with single and double bracing bays, many floors, and various brace configurations
(chevron V, invert V and X bracing). All of the buildings' CBFs and BRBFs have been
evaluated for aspects such as ductility, overstrength, force reduction owing to ductility, and
response modification. The response modification factors for BRBFs were larger than
those for CBFs, according to the findings. The number of bracing bays and the height of
structures were found to have a bigger impact.
2.3 Critical Remarks from Literature Review
 The Low-rise structures have a higher response reduction factor than high-rise
structure. The clay burnt bricks as infill in a frame structure has given lower value of
27
response reduction factor when compared with light weight infill material.
 From seismic Zone II to Zone V, the value of Overstrength and Ductility factor
decreases.
 The use of various lateral load resisting systems resulted in increasing the value of
response reduction factor.
 DDBD structure show good performance as compared to FBD structure.
 Overstrength and Ductility factor decrease as the number of stories increases.
 The Rs as well as Rμ reduce with the increase of the size of the studied water tanks.
 Knee bracing provides higher ductility and R value when compared with X bracing.
 R factor improves when a structure has a damper device because a structure with a
damper device can carry larger loads at approximately the same displacements as a
structure without one.
 Nonlinear Dynamic analysis give more accurate result as compare to nonlinear static
analysis.
 Response reduction factor of SMRF frame always higher than OMRF frame.
 Response reduction factor increase building provide with shear wall.
2.4 Research Gap
From Literature , it is found that researches have been done in following areas
 Evaluating response modification factors of TADAS and Bracing frames using non
linear static analysis.
 Seismic response modification factor for steel slit panel-frames.
 R factor for steel moment-resisting frames calculated using various pushover analysis
methods.
 R Factor for Steel Structure Equipped with Viscous Damper Device.
 Currently, the Indian code does not provide any deterministic response reduction factor
values. From the research it was found out the Rs, RR, Rd and Rμ factor can be used to
find response reduction factor.
28
 It is found that work needs to be done on Computation of ‘R’ Factor for SMRF and
OMRF Frame Using Nonlinear Time History Analysis
2.5 Timeline of the Work
Table 2.1 Timeline of the Work
Sr. No. Activity Time Period

1 Problem Definition July 2021
2 Identification of Aim, Objective and Scope August 2021
3 Learning of Software August 2021
4 Literature Review and Methodology September – October 2021
5 Modal Validation November 2021
6 Preparation of Various Models December – January 2022-22
7 Data Analysis and Results February – March 2022
8 Final conclusion April 2022
29
CHAPTER-3 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 Objective
 Parameter under study are : Varying height, zone factor and plan irregularity
 The time history under study are : Berlongfer Station , Diphu Station and Silchar
Station
 Output parameter under study are : storey displacement , base shear, storey drift
 Calculation of Rs , Rμ and RR by using FEMA695 and ATC19
 Computation of “R” factor and compare with IS1893:2016
3.2 Scope of Work
 To study SAP2000 software and perform validation procedure.
 To analyze these models by dynamic analysis such as time history analysis.
 Total 3 Nonlinear time history analysis shall to be conducted considering different

earthquake ground motion.
 Parameter such as varying height, zone factor, plan irregularity will be carried used for
nonlinear analysis.
 Shape of Building
1) C shape
2) L shape
3) Rectangular shape
 Storey of Building
1) 4 storey
2) 12 storey
 Seismic Zone
30
1) Zone II
2) Zone V
 To use of nonlinear time history result to evaluate ‘R’ value
 Learning of SAP2000 software
 To validate the model with reference
Figure 3.1 4 storey C shape building
Figure 3.2 12 storey C shape building
31
Figure 3.3 4 storey L shape building
Figure 3.4 12 storey L shape building
32
Figure 3.5 4 storey REC shape building
Figure 3.6 12 storey REC shape building
33
CHAPTER-4 VALIDATION PROCEDURE
4.1 Introduction to SAP2000
Since its inception over 30 years ago, the SAP name has been synonymous with cutting-
edge analytical methods. SAP2000 continues the tradition of providing engineers
employed on transportation, industrial, public works, sports, and other facilities with a
sophisticated, intuitive, and flexible user interface powered by an unrivalled analysis
engine and design tools.
SAP2000 has established to be the most comprehensive, productive, and flexible general-
purpose structural software available today. from its 3D object based graphical modelling
environment to the wide variety of research and design choices fully integrated into one
powerful user interface. This user-friendly interface enables you to build structural models
quickly and intuitively without having to go through a long learning curve. You can now
use SAP2000 to complete all of your research and design activities, including small day-to-
day issues.
Figure 4.1 SAP2000 software
34
4.2 Primary components of SAP2000
1. Units
2. Objects
3. Groups
4. Coordinate’s system and grids
5. Properties
6. Load cases functions
7. Analysis case
8. Combinations
9. Design settings
10. Output and display Results
4.3 Application of SAP2000
1. Complex shear walls and cores with arbitrary openings
2. Performance based design utilizing nonlinear dynamic analyses
3. Buildings supported multiple rectangular and/or cylindrical grid systems
4. Flat and waffle slab concrete buildings

5. Structures that are exposed to a variety of vertical and lateral load scenarios and
combinations, including automatic wind and seismic loads.
6. Multiple response spectrum load cases, with built-in input curves
7. Automated transfer of vertical loads on floors to beams and walls
8. Capacity check of beam-to-column and beam-to-beam steel connections
9. P-Delta analysis with static or dynamic analysis
10. Explicit panel-zone deformations
11. Punching shear checks for concrete slabs
12. Construction sequence loading analysis
13. In either direction, several linear and nonlinear time history load cases
14. Foundation/support settlement
35
15. Large displacement analyses
16. Nonlinear static pushover
17. Buildings with base isolators and dampers
18. Design optimization for steel and concrete frames
19. Multi-story commercial, government and health care facilities
20. Parking garages with circular and linear ramps
21. Buildings with curved beams, walls and floor edges
22. Buildings with steel, concrete, composite or joist floor framing
23. Projects with multiple towers
4.4 Validation model
4.4.1 Reference Paper for Validation
Title : Characteristics of FBD and DDBD techniques for SMRF buildings designed
for seismic zone-V in India
Authors : Arjun Sil,Gourab Das and Ritam Hait
Published in : Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation (Springer),(2019)
 In this paper presents comparison between FBD and DDBD techniques
 They have been studied and analyzed by Non linear Time history records with SAP
2000 software
 They Compare important parameters such as: drifts, displacements obtained from
DDBD and FBD
 The study conclude that the overall DDBD structure shows good performance over
the structural parameters and achieved design exhibits better and safe compared to
FBD structures
36
4.4.2 Model Description
Table 4.1 Configuration of above structure
Number of Storey 4
Number of bay in x-direction 2
Number of bay in y-direction 3
Floor height (m) 3.2
length of bay in x-direction (m) 5
length of bay in y-direction (m) 5
Beam section (mm × mm) 400×500
Column section (mm × mm) 500×500
Characteristic Compressive 25
strength of concrete(Mpa)
Yield strength of steel rebar(Mpa) 415
Type of Support Fixed support
Dead load at floor finish 3 kN/m2
Live load at floor level 3 kN/m2
Live load at roof 1.5 kN/m2
Time History Berlongfer station
Seismic Zones V
Soil Type Medium soil
Importance factor (I) 1.5
Response reduction factor (R) 5
37
4.4.3 Modeling in SAP2000
Figure 4.2 3D View
Figure 4.3 Plan View
38
Figure 4.4 Plastic Hinges
Figure 4.5 Time Historey Data
39
Figure 4.6 Force Diagram
Figure 4.7 Moment Diagram
40
Figure 4.8 Displacement Diagram
4.4.4 Comparison of result with reference

Table 4.2 Comparison of Base shear
Type Validation model Reference model Difference (%)
Base Shear(KN) X-direction X-direction X-direction
Maximum 430.973 424 1.644
Table 4.3 Comparison of Displacement
Type Validation model Reference model Difference (%)
Displacement(m) X-direction X-direction X-direction
4 storey 2 bay 0.009444 0.009 4.93
41
CHAPTER-5 METHODOLOGY
5.1 General
Structural irregularity has significant impact on seismic response of the building. Many
codes haven't considered the aspect of structural irregularity in seismic design
methodology. It has been noticed that irregular buildings, even those constructed to meet
seismic design rules, have performed poorly in past disasters. The IS code's seismic design
approach is based on elastic analysis and a single degree of freedom, which is unrealistic.
To avoid irregularities in structures might not be possible in every situation. Thus,
structural irregularity must be incorporated in formulation of seismic design
methodologies. Buildings may show very poor performance during seismic excitation if
these buildings possess irregularity. Thus, it must be studied on performance of such
buildings which possess irregularities during earthquake excitation in order that suitable
mitigation. During this chapter, buildings with plan irregularity as per IS 1893:2016 (Part-
I) are described. Shape, size and dimensions and other building properties have also been
described.
The study's second goal is to assess the R factors for structures planned and built according
to the IS standard. The elastic forces are decreased by a R factor to calculate the seismic
design base shear. If the R factor is expected to be 5, the building should be described as
SMRF. It is necessary to guarantee that the designed building exhibits the appropriate
behaviour characteristics or R factors after the design is completed. A Nonlinear time
history analysis, which models the nonlinearity in the materials, can be used to derive the
real R factors. Nonlinear modelling, static push over analysis of designed RC frames
(SMRF and OMRF), and response reduction estimation are covered in this chapter
5.2 Detail of Building Models
Models have been made such a way that possess plan irregularities as per IS 1893:2016
(Part-I). Three different shape of plan irregular buildings have been chosen in this study.
42
Thus, these buildings have plan irregularity specifically due to re-entrant corners. C, L and
REC shape plan irregular building models with OMRF and SMRF frame have been made
which are having a different height on different location.
In plan irregular building, C, L and REC shape buildings with bay length of 4m in both the
directions are shown in Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
Plan irregularities as per IS: 1893-2016 (Part-I) exist in models

1. C shape building
A = 8m, L = 24m
A/L = 8/24 = 0.33 > 0.15
Re-entrant corners. Hence, Plan irregularity Exist.
OR
A = 12m, L = 20m
A/L = 12/20 = 0.60 > 0.15
Re-entrant corners. Hence, Plan irregularity Exist
Figure 5.1 Plan of C shape Building
43
2. L shape building
A = 16m, L = 24m
A/L = 16/24 = 0.67 > 0.15
Re-entrant corners. Hence, Plan irregularity Exist.
OR
A = 24m, L = 32m
A/L = 24/32 = 0.75 > 0.15
Re-entrant corners. Hence, Plan irregularity Exist
Figure 5.2 Plan of L shape Building
44
3. REC shape building
No Re-entrant corners. Hence, Plan irregularity not Exist
Figure 5.3 Plan of REC shape Building

5.2.1 Building Properties and Modeling
Plan irregular C, L and REC shape 4 and 12 storey buildings with OMRF and SMRF frame
are modelled in SAP2000. C, L and T shape buildings are modelled as shown in Fig. 5.1,
5.2 and 5.3. Building model details such as material properties, section properties of
various building elements and geometric properties are described in following table given
below
45
Table 5.1 Geometric & Section Properties of Building element
Details of Building and structure elements
Building type Residential
Number of Storey 4
12
Shape of Building C-shape
L-shape
Rectangle shape
length of bay in x-direction (m) 4
length of bay in y-direction (m) 4

Floor height (m) 3
Beam section (mm × mm) 500 X 500
Column section (mm × mm) 700 X 700
Slab thickness(mm) 200

Base Connectivity Fixed
Table 5.2 Building load & Material Properties
Building load and Material Property

2
Live load 3 kN/m
2
Floor finish 1.5 kN/m
Load combination As per IS:1893-2002
Grade of Concrete M30
Grade of Steel Fe 415
3
Unit wt. of concrete 25 kN/m
3
Unit wt. of Masonary 20 kN/m
46
Table 5.3 Seismic Design Data
Seismic Design Data
Zone(z) II(0.10)
V(0.36)
Soil type II (Medium soil)
Importance factor (I) 1
Response reduction factor (R) 3 (OMRF)
5 (SMRF)
Damping 0.05
Time history data Berlongfer station
Silchar station
Diphu station
5.3 Step for modelling Building in SAP2000
1. Set units and standard as per Indian standard codes.
2. Define grid data, height and diameter as per Table 5.1.
3. Define material property as mentioned in Table 5.1.
4. Define section properties of beam, column as described in Table 5.1
5. Model all the elements using draw tab.
6. Assign support condition as fixed.
7. Define dead load, Live load, blast load and earthquake load.
8. Define plastic hinges.
9. Define rigid diaphragm D and assign it by selecting whole model
47
CHAPTER-6 ANALYSIS OF MODELS
6.1 General
The assessment of the effects of loads on physical structures and their components is
known as structural analysis. All structures that must withstand loads, such as houses,
bridges, aircraft, and ships, are subject to this type of study. To compute a structure's
deformations, internal forces, stresses, support reactions, accelerations, and stability,
structural analysis uses applied mechanics, materials science, and applied mathematics.
The results of the study are often used to check a structure's suitability for use, obviating
the need for physical testing. As a result, structural analysis is an essential part of the
engineering design of structures.
6.2 Nonlinear Time history Analysis
The forces acting and lateral displacement have a nonlinear connection in a nonlinear
analysis. Nonlinear effects can be caused by geometrical nonlinearities (large
deformations), material nonlinearities (elasto-plastic materials), and interactions. These
effects end in a stiffness matrix which isn't constant during the load application. This is
often against the linear static analysis, where the stiffness matrix remained constant. As a
result, a special solving strategy is required for the nonlinear analysis and thus a special
solver. Modern analysis software makes it possible to get solutions to nonlinear problems.
Understanding the situation, the role played by such variables, and using a methodical and
logical approach will go a long way toward ensuring a good outcome.
6.2.1 Need of Nonlinear Time history Analysis
loading in SAP2000 considered as triangular load as a time history function. linear time
history analysis of all six models are done by using SAP2000 v22 software. Various
parameters required for time history analysis as per IS 4991:1968 are tabulated in Table
48
5.2. loading condition for blast loading is required and other parameters are considered as
per code. Manual calculation done as per IS code and Positive front pressure is considered
6.2.2 Details of Hinges
In nonlinear time history analysis, nonlinearity is incorporated by assigning nonlinear

hinges, hinges are provided with Default or Auto as well as User defined options in
SAP2000. In this study, Default hinges as per ASCE 41-13 have been used. For reinforced
concrete columns P- M2M3 hinges as per Table 10-8 and for beam M3 hinges as per Table
10-7 of ASCE 41-13 are assigned at relative distance of 0 and 1.
6.2.3 Steps for nonlinear time history analysis
1. Go to Define/Functions/Time history function/from file/select file/Give name: “TH”
2. Go to Define/Load cases/Add new load case/name it nlth/select load

case type time history/analysis type: nonlinear/select load type:
acceleration/load name: U1/ Function: TH/scale factor as 1/Modal case:
direct integation/Modal damping: constant to 0.05.
3. Apply nonlinear hinges: select member/Assign/section properities/hinges

/select auto hinges as per ASCE41-13
4. Go to analyze/Check model/Set load case to run/Run analysis
5. Go to Display/Show tables for analysis resultsGo to Define/Functions/Time
history function/triangular/Give name: “TH”
49
CHAPTER-7 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this study C, L and REC shape plan irregular buildings with different hight of OMRF
and SMRF frame on different location resting on plain ground were analyzed by nonlinear
time history. Total seventy two number of models are analyzed and studied various
parameters like Base reaction, joint displacement. Results of response reduction factor for
OMRF and SMRF are compared with IS1893:2016 by table form and also graphical
representation.
7.1 Result from Analysis of Models
In the chapter different model analysis parameters such as Base shear, joint displacement
an are recorded and evaluate response reduction factor
7.2 Base Reaction
It is an estimation of maximum force at the base of the structure. From analysis we get
base reaction . By comparison of these results, we can reach to the conclusion
Base reaction of C, L, REC shape with OMRF and SMRF

Table 7.1 Base Reaction of C,L,REC 4storey Zone2 Building with OMRF and SMRF
Model Base Shear (KN)
OMRF SMRF
C shape 1180.675 708.405
L shape 1180.675 708.405
REC shape 1107.447 664.468
50
Figure 7.1 Base Reaction of 4storey zone 2
Table 7.2 Base Reaction of C,L,REC 4storey Zone5 Building with OMRF and SMRF
Model Base Shear(KN)
OMRF SMRF
C shape 4250.429 2550.257
L shape 4250.429 2550.257
REC shape 3986.808 2392.085
51
Table 7.3 Base Reaction of C,L, REC 12storey Zone2 Building with OMRF and
SMRF
OMRF SMRF
C shape 2317.43 1390.458
Lshape 2159.158 1295.495
REC shape 2133.433 1280.06
SMRF
OMRF SMRF
C shape 8342.75 5005.65
Lshape 7772.968 4663.781
REC shape 7680.36 4608.216
52
It has been discovered that SMRF C, L, and REC shape structures attract 40% to 43% less
base shear than OMRF structures in plain areas.
7.3 Response Reduction Factor
7.3.1 ‘R’ factor for Berlongfer time history OMRF building
Table 7.5 Response Reduction Factor of OMRF Building with Berlongfer time history
Model Response Response reduction

reduction factor as per
factor IS1893:2016
calculated
4S-ZON 2-C SHAPE 3.53 3
53
4S-ZON 2-L SHAPE 3.14 3
4S-ZON 2-REC SHAPE 3.92 3
Figure 7.5 Comparison of R factor of 4 storey building with different zone
54
Figure 7.7 Comparison of R factor of zone 2 building with different height
55
7.3.2 ‘R’ factor for Berlongfer time history SMRF building

Table 7.6 Response Reduction Factor of SMRF Building with Berlongfer time history

factor IS1893:2016
calculated
56
57
58
7.3.3 ‘R’ factor for Diphu time history OMRF building
Table 7.7 Response Reduction Factor of OMRF Building with Diphu time history

factor IS1893:2016
calculated
12S-ZON 5-REC SHAPE 4 3
59
60
61
7.3.4 ‘R’ factor for Diphu time history SMRF building
Table 7.8 Response Reduction Factor of SMRF Building with Diphu time history

factor IS1893:2016
calculated
62
63
64
7.3.5 ‘R’ factor for Silchar time history OMRF building
Table 7.9 Response Reduction Factor of OMRF Building with Silchar time history

factor IS1893:2016
calculated
65
66
67
7.3.6 ‘R’ factor for Silchar time history SMRF building
Table 7.10 Response Reduction Factor of SMRF Building with Silchar time history

factor IS1893:2016
calculated
12S-ZON 5-C SHAPE 3 5
12S-ZON 5-L SHAPE 3 5
68
69

In nonlinear time historey analysis, it has been that, response reduction factor has been
decreased by 5-25% with increase number storey and it decrees 5-30% with increase zone
70
CHAPTER-8 CONCLUSION
In the present study, results for behavior of OMRF and SMRF building with different
shape and different height are presented. Nonlinear time history analysis performed for
different zone.
Following Conclusion can be made
 SMRF buildings have been found to attract 39 percent to 40 percent less base shear
than OMRF buildings
 The over-strength factor varies depending on seismic zones and the natural time period
of the building frames
 The structures modelled and analysed for low seismic zones provide high over-strength
factor as compare to higher seismic zone
 The over strength factor is decrease as the number of stories increase
 For short time period buildings in all seismic zones, the Ductility factor is constant
 As the seismic zone increases from Zone 2 to Zone 5, the overall seismic response
reduction factor, which is dependent on over-strength and ductility factors, reduces
rapidly
 The height of the building has a significant impact on the response reduction factor. It
decreases as the height of the building rises
 The SMRF frame has a higher over strength and ductility factor than the OMRF frame
 The response reduction factors determined for SMRF frame buildings are found to be
lower than IS 1893: 2002 which is 5. These parameters, however, are slightly greater
in the case of OMRF frame buildings than those specified by IS 1893: 200214, which
is 3
71
8.1 Future Scope of work
 Determine Response reduction factor using Non-linear analysis of the building

considering the effect of infill wall
 Effect of Tsunami on Response reduction factor
 In this study building situated on plain ground, so in future same models were
analysing to kept the building on sloping ground
 In this work plan irregularity was considered only may also incorporating another types
of irregularity
72
REFERENCES
 Mussa Mahmoudi and Mohammad Ghasem Abdi “Evaluating response modification

factors of TADAS frames” Journal of Constructional steel Research 2011
 Gomatesh S. Patil and Vishal D. Sakhare ‘Effect of Response Reduction Factor on

R.CBuilding with Different Infill Material” International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology Vol.06 2019
 P. Pravin Venkat Rao and L. M. Gupta “ Effect of Seismic Zone and Story Height on
Response Reduction Factor for SMRF Designed According to IS 1893(Part-1):2002”
J.Inst.Eng.India.Ser.A 2016
 Somayeh Sharifi, Hamid Toopchi Nezhad “ Seismic Response Modification Factor of

RC-Frame Structures Based on Limit State Design” International Journal of Civil
Engineering 2017
 H. Abdi and F. Hejazi “ Response Modification Factor for Steel Structure Equipped
with Viscous Damper Device” International Journal of Steel Structures 2015
 Fatemeh Aliakbari and Hashem Shariatmadar “ Seismic response modification factor

for steel slit panel-frames” Engineering Structures 2018
 Arjun Sil,Gourab Das and Ritam Hait “Characteristics of FBD and DDBD technique
for SMRF buildings designed for seismic zone V in India” Journal of Building
Pathology and Rehabitation 2019
 Kashyap N. Patel and Jignesh A. Amin “Performance‑based assessment of response

reduction factor of RC‑elevated water tank considering soil flexibility: a case study”
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering 2018
 Jinkoo Kim and Hyunhoon Choi “Response modification factors of chevron-braced

frames” Engineering Structures 2004
 Samir K. Prajapati and Jignesh A. Amin “Seismic assessment of RC frame building

designed using gross and cracked section as per Indian standards” Asian Journal of
Civil Engineering 2019
73
 Mohssen Izadinia a, Mohammad Ali Rahgozar b, Omid Mohammadrezaei “Response
modification factor for steel moment-resisting frames by different pushover analysis
methods” Journal of Constructional steel Research 2013
 H Chaulagain a, H. Rodrigues a, J. Jara b, E. Spacone c, H. Varum “Seismic response

of current RC buildings in Nepal” Engineering Structures 2012
 Swajit Singh Goud and R Pradeep Kumar “ Rationalizing Response Reduction Factor
(R) for better Performance of Reinforced Concrete Framed Buildings” Research
Advances In Civil Engineering 2015
 Divya Brahmavrathan and C. Arunkumar “the Evaluation of Response Reduction

Factor of Irregular Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures” Indian Journal of Science
and Technology Vol 9 2016
 Kruti Tamboli, J. A. Amin” Evaluation of Response Reduction Factor and Ductility

Factor of RC Braced Frame” spriger 2019
 FEMA, “Quantification of building seismic performance factors”, FEMA P695,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., FEMA P695:2009
 “Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers. USA”ASCE 7 (2005)
 “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete

Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi USA”
IS 13920 :1993
 “Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Bureau of

Indian Standards”. New Delhi. IS 1893 Part 1 (2002)
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building
 https://www.cotterillcivils.co.uk/blog/tanks-and-lagoons/importance-of-water-tanks/
 https://www.slideshare.net/abhishek334/intze-tank-design-7204381
 Indian standard, “Code used for design of blast resisting structure”, IS 4991: 1963,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
 Indian Standard, “Code of Practice Concrete structures for the storage of liquids Part 2
Reinforced concrete”, IS 3370: part-2, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
 Tande,S. and Ambekar,R.V. (2013), ‘An investigation of seismic response reduction

factor for earthquake resistant design’, International Journal of Latest Trends in
74
Engineering and Technology, Vol.2, Issue 4 July 2013
 Louzai A, Abed A. Evaluation of seismic behaviour factor of reinforced concrete frame

structures based on comparative analysis between non-linear static pushover and
incre¬mental dynamic analyses. Bull Earthquake Eng. 2014 Oct; 1773–93
 Indian standard, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice”, IS 456: 2000,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
 Indian standard, “criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”, IS 1893

:2016, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
75
APPENDIX A : REVIEW CARDS
Internal Review Card-I
76
Dissertation Review Card-I
77
Internal Review Card-II
78
APPENDIX B : ANTI-PLAGLARISM CHECK
79
80

Responce Reduction Factor 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Responce Reduction Factor 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Responce Reduction Factor 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPUTATION OF ‘R’ FACTOR FOR SMRF

AND OMRF FRAME USING NONLINEAR

AKASHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI PATEL

Under the guidance of

Government Engineering College - Dahod,

This is to certify that research work embodied in this dissertation titled

Place: Government Engineering College, Dahod

Examiner Signature and Name

First and foremost express my indebtedness to my guide Dr. K. B. Parikh, Associate

My sincere thanks to Prof. A. R. Darji, Prof. S. P. Chandresha, Prof. N. B. Umravia, Prof.

Figure 1.1 Effect of Earthquake ....................................................................................... 1

Table 1.1 Summary of recent earthquake ........................................................................ 3

NLTH Nonlinear time history analysis

PGA Peak ground acceleration

SMRF Special Moment resisting frame

OMRF Ordinary moment resisting frame

R Response reduction factor

T Time period sec

Sa/g Average response acceleration coefficient

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Chapter 3 Objective and Scope of Work

Chapter 4 Validation procedure

Chapter 6 Analysis of models

Chapter-7 Analysis and Result

This chapter includes the conclusion for this study performed.

Figure 1.1 Effect of Earthquake

The majority of constructions are low-rise. A careful examination of the IS 1893

Figure 1.2 Effects of Nonlinear time history

1.2 Recent Earthquake in India

Table 1.1 Summary of recent earthquake

1) Zone 2 : This is said to be the least active seismic zone

2) Zone 3: It falls into the moderate seismic region.

3) Zone 4: this is considered to be the high seismic zone

4) Zone 5: it is the highest seismic zone

Figure 1.3 Seismic Zoning map of India

Figure 1.4 Progressive Collapse of Building affected during Tsunami

According to IS code moment resisting frames are classified as

1) Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame(OMRF)

2) Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF)

Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame (OMRF): It's a moment-resisting frame that doesn't

Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF): This is a moment-resisting frame that has

1.6.1 Dead Load

1.6.3 Seismic Load

The Response Spectrum Method, as defined by IS 1893(Part 1): 2016, is used to

Step 3: Calculate Lateral Force for Each Floor and Mode:

Step 4: Shear Forces in Each Mode of the Story:

Step 5: Shear Forces in the Story Due to All Modes:

Froof = Vroof, and Fi = Vi – Vi+1

1.6.5 Provision for Seismic loads according to IS1893(P-1):2016

= Rock/Soil Design/Response Acceleration Coefficient,

Table 1.3 Sesmic Zone Factor(Z)

Factor 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36

Table 1.4 Importance Factor(I)

Structure Importance Factor

Important services and community buildings, such as

RC buildings with ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) 3.0

RC buildings with special moment resisting frame (SMRF) 5.0

Ordinary shear wall with OMRF 3.0