Scribd
Upload
85 views6 pages

Response Reduction Factor

Regarding evaluation of R factor of SIM and URM infill RC framed structure.

Uploaded by

nirmal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
85 views6 pages

Response Reduction Factor

Regarding evaluation of R factor of SIM and URM infill RC framed structure.

Uploaded by

nirmal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6
Influence of opening in infill on R factor of RC infilled frame structures Abstract This paper is concerned with study of effect of openingiin infills on RC framed structures. Reinforced concrete buildings with masonry infill walls have been widely constructed for commercial, industrial, buildings. In this, paper presents the results of analytical program showing behavior of frames with different masonry infill |.e sem interlocked masonry & Unreinforced masonry.The effect of infill opening on seismic response of frame buildings. were evaluated. A nonlinear static analysis has been carried out on different model frames by using finite element analysis software, seismostruct, The results obtained show that calculation of response reduction factor of RCinfiled frames with &withoutopeningin infil. Introduction Masonry is one of the most popular and economical building material in construction system, Reinforced conerete frame buildings with masonry infill walls have been widely constructed for commercial, industrial and multistory residentialuses in seismic regions all over the World.The masonry panels are generally not considered in analysis and design process and it is treated as architectural component. Nevertheless the presence of masonry infill walls has a significant impact on the seismic response of a reinforced concrete frame building, increasing structural strength and stiffness. The design of masonry with improved earthquake resistance presents @ challenge for structural engineers. Semi-interlocked masonry is a new type of framed masonry built of dry stack semiinterlocking brick units (Totoev 2015).This, SIM units are capable of relative sliding in plane and locked relative movement out of plane, Most of the countries have been started the utilization of interlocked brick infills especially in seismically active regions. Interlocking brick system is a fast & cost effective construction system which offers good solution in Keywords : Nonlinear static pushover analysis, Response reduction factor, Semtinterlocked masonry, Un-reinforced masonry infill openingetc. Mangesh Shendkar and R. Pradeep Kumar construction.Hence there is a need to determine the effectiveness of interlocking brick in construction system, 4) semiinterloeked masonry, bj Unreivoreed masonry Fig 1: Types of masonry infill 4) semi-interlocked masonry, b) Unreinforced masonry 2 Response Reduction factor Response reduction factor is a force reduction factor, used to reduce linear elastic response spectrato inelastic, response spectra.in other words response reduction factor is the ratio of elastic to inelastic design strength. Response reduction factor is also named as response modification factor & behavior factor. The value of R factor varies from 3 to S in |S-1893 depending on the type of resisting frame (OMRF & SMRF),From the review of existing literature it can be seen that response reduction factor depends upon three parameters; ductility, overstrength, &redundancy. R=Rux Where, R is Response reduction factor, Ru is ductility reduction factor and 0s overstrength factor. ‘ ¢ moe Fig 2 neKaWonSNip DEWNeEN Response FeGUEUON FAGIOF, structural overstrength ({2) and ductiliy reduction factor (Ru) [Tarek MAlguhane"} TOI Journal | October-December 2008 4 2.1 Duetility Reduction Factor (Ru) In the event of an earthquake, ductile structures have been found to perform better than brittle structures. Ductilty reduction factor Is a measure of the global nonlinear response of structure. It is a function of both, ductility and fundamental time period of structure.The global ductility y or displacement ductility is represent as Amax Ay Hs Where, Amax maximum displacement and Ay is yield displacement. Yield displacement is calculated by reducedsstiffness method LoaD DISPLACEMENT Fig 3 Reduced stiffness method (By park) Different formulations have been proposed by researchers for the determination of ductility factor The Ras relationships developed by newmark & hall have been used in this study to calculate Ruas follows; Short period T<0.2Seconds Rel Intermediate period 0.20.5Seconds 2.2 Overstrength Factor The overstrength factor is a measure of additional strength a structure has beyond its design strength It maybe expressed as a-& Where,Vis the ideal yield base shear &¥,is the design base shear The main sources of overstrength factor are: 1. The difference between actual and design material strength 2. Load factors & multiple load cases 3. Participation of nonstructuralelement 4, Redundancy 2.3 Redundancy factor Redundancy is usually defined as exceeding what is necessary or naturally excessive i.e., the gap between local yield point to global yield point of structure. Building, should have high degree of redundancy for lateral resistance. In this study redundancy factor is incorporated into overstrength factor 3.Model Description Forthis study, 4 storey with 4 bays two dimensional frame (Each bay span 4m) & floor heights 3m, regular in plan is considered. This building is considered to be situated in seismic zone v & designed in compliance to Indian code of practice for earthquake resistant design of structures. The building is modeled using selsmostruct software. Models are studied for comparingthe response reduction factor of RC frame structure with SIM & URM infill by considering with & without openingas follows: 1) Bareframe 2) URM (open ground RCframe} 3) URM (only side bay inflled at ground of RC frame) 4) URM (Fullinfilled RC frame) 5) SIM(Fullinfilled RCframe) 6) _SIM(open ground RC frame) 7)_ SIM (onlyside bay infilled at ground of RC frame) Inelastic infil Panel Element (infil) Each infil panel element represented by four axial struts and two shear springs, as shown in Figure3.1.This element is able to define with three groups of parameters. First group is about physical characteristics of infill panel, second group is about compression/tension struts defined by strut curve parameters, and third group is about shear spring that defined by shear curve parameters.Four node panel masonry element developed by the researcher crisafulli (1997).1t accounts separately compressive and shear behavior of masonry.It shows the adequate representation of hysteretic responselt shows the accuracy of the model to evaluate the nonlinear response of structure Another name of this model is “Double strut, nonlinear eycliemodel. Presence of opening in infil panel will affect the stiffness and strength of frame, the effect can be incorporated by reducing the width of the diagonal strut. The stiffness 2 [Cl Journal joetober- December 2028 reduction factor to consider opening effect in infill in numerical modeling[11}is given by Ws (1-254) Wa Where Ar is the opening area ratio, which is the ratio of face area of opening to the face area of infil. The above relation is valid for opening in wall greater than 5% and lesser than 40%. In this paper opening in infil considered as 1.2 X1.2 1.4m’ Data Compilation and Calculation Lumped mass is calculated and applied for each node which is due to the dead weight of the floor slab and the Infll walls, Reinforcement in beam and column sections for the structure are calculated according to analytical results of frame from SAP-2000 using gravity load & seismic load condition with M30 conerete and Fed15 steel reinforcement, These sections are assigned to the simulation of the structure made in Seismostruct and lumped masses are also assigned o each node. Thus the structure is simulated in Selsmostruct with 4stories- 4bays two dimensional frames with different infill Table 1: Structural Details of RC frame structure ype orstueture ‘rairany omen roSTg amos Setamie zone v Number of stores [G73 joor eight cn Bay lenath a Tn wall URW walrLiaram SIM wall 110mm “ype ctsol Soft soi ‘ize of eolurin ‘300mm REOOM ‘Size of beam -250%450mm Depth of lab omm ive oad ZS ENTE Wateral M30 grade & Fe ATS raiforoervent Damping mstucture | 5% Tporanoe aster [25 Table 2: Beam dimensions and detaling Longtudinal shes Beanftengn|wia eign] Reivorcemert | 5 Se ee | Botor « cap | 20088 | 2bars@ | 8mm tor® 100 31 | £000} 250 | 450 been aa. | x6mmca) mney Table 3: column dimensions and detailing cowme|t) szsimm) Main enforcement | shear 3000 300x600] and énos of 16mm @ | 8mm tor @ mii ofeachface | 00 mm efe if e = performance curves in respective axis, mm | Table 4. Seismie Weight Calculations | ben aoa Sean WegS TAN 1 Ground floor 519.73 9 ° ‘Second floor 519.73 Fig 3.1: Inelastic Infill Panel Element Third floor 382.43, On the basis ofthis seismic weight calculation, Design Baseshear=A,X W =0.225x 1941.64 36.86 KN This base shears shared amongst each floor as: 1.16.95 KN{floor4) 2.67.80 KN{floor2) 3,152.55 KN floor 3) 4,199.55 KN floor 4) Pushover Analy: In this study;nonlinear static pushover analysis of different RC inflled frame models are carried out using, finite element software seismostruct to estimate their ductility & overstrength factors which are required for computing R factor for each model, The pushover analysis of a structure is a static non-linear analysis under permanent vertical loads and gradually increasing, lateral loads. A plot of total base shear versus top displacement in a structure is obtained by this analysis that would indicate a premature failure or weakness. All the beams and columns which reach yield or have experienced crushing and even fracture are identified. The analysis is performed based on displacement controlled procedure. In this study R factor is obtained with & without opening in infil by using ductility & overstrength factor from pushover curve by its bilinear idealization as perreduced stiffness criteria {CI Journal | Oxtober- December 208% 5. Results & Discussion 1. Pushovercurves nope 1 yt Displacement Fig 5.1 Comparison of Pushover Curves of 4storey -Abay frame with opening in infill Displacement in mm Fig 5.2 Comparison of Pushover Curves of 4storey -Abay frame without opening in infill 2. Baseshear a Fig 5.4 Comparison of Base Shear for 4Storey -Abay frame without opening in infill Base shear is minimum for bare frame as compared toall other frames. Nearly 24.44% increases for SIM full in- filled frame as compared to URM full infiled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of, 2.59%, And for SIM side bay infilled frame has maximum base shear by 18.77% as compared to URM side bay inflled frame. 3.Ductilty ‘ase shearin kw Fig 5.3 Comparison of Base Shear for 4Storey -Abay frame with opening in infil Base shear is minimum for bare frame as compared to ll other frames. Neatly 38.92% increases for SIM full in- filled frame as compared to URM full inflled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of 4.76%, And for SIM side bay inflled frame has maximum base shear by 30.28% as compared to URM side bay infllled frame. Fig 5.5 Comparison of Dustilty for Astorey -Abay frame with opening in infill Ductlity is maximum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Nearly 22.22% increases for SIM full in- filled frame as compared to URM full inflled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of, 12.5%, And for SIM side bay infilled frame has maximum ductility by 12.41% as compared to URM side bay infiled frame. Fig 5.6 Comparison of Ductiity for astorey -Abay frame without opening in infil 4 Ic1 Journal joeteber- December 2028 Ductilty is maximum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Neatly 54.76% increases for SIM full in- filled frame as compared to URM full inflled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of, 24.76%, And for SIM side bay infilled frame has maximum ductility by 18.58% as compared to URM side bay infiled frame 4. Ductility reduction factor Fig 5.7 Comparison of Ductilty Reduction factor for ‘Storey -Abay frame with opening In infill Duetility reduction factor fs maximum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Nearly 14.17% increases. for SIM full in-filled frame as compared to URM full infiled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of 7.14%. And for SIM side bay infiled frame has, maximum ductility reduction factor by 10.94% as compared to URMside bay nfilled frame evan Unde USM Ste Stopn Fig §.8 Comparison of Dustility Reduction factor for AStorey-Abay frame without opening in infill Ductility reduction factor is maximum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Nearly 35% Increases for SIM full infilled frame as compared to URM full infilled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of 15.44%, And for SIM side bay infilled frame has maximum ductility reduction factor by 11.26% as compared to URMside bay infilled frame 5. Overstrength Factor Fig 5.9 Comparison of Over-strength factor for “AStorey-Abay frame with opening in infill Over-strength factor is minimum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Nearly 38.07% increases {or SIM ful in-lled frame as compared to URM fullinfilled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of 5.29%. And for SIM side bay infilled frame has, maximum over strength factor by 30.16% as compared to URM side bay infiled frame. Fig 5.10 Comparison of Over-strength factor for AStorey-Abay frame without opening in infil Over-strength factor Is minimum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Nearly 24.46% increases for SIM full in-illed frame as compared to URM fullinfilled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of 2.27% And for SIM side bay infilled frame has, ‘maximum over strength factor by 18.81% as compared to URM side bay infiled frame 6. Response reduction factor Fig 5.11 Comparison of Response Reduction Factor for AStorey-Abay frame with opening in infill TCI Journal | Oxtober- December 2038 6 R factor is minimum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Nearly 57.55% increases for SIM full in- filled frame as compared to URM full inflled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of 11.66%. And for SIM side bay infiled frame has maximum R factor by 44.27% as compared to URM side bay infilled tae : i E I il li E R factor is minimum for bare frame as compared to all other frames. Neatly 68.07% increases for SIM full in- filled frame as compared to URM full inflled frame. In case of open ground storey frames, there is a variation of 17.49%. And for SIM side bay infiled frame has maximum R factor by 32.10% as compared to URM side bay infilled frame 6.Conclusions This study shows that a decrease in stiffness and maximum lateral resisting strength is evident when a window opening is included in the infill There seems to, be opening area in infill increases the reduction in strength increases. Following observations are made on the basis of results: 1, Response reduction factor decreases effectively byconsideringopeningin infill 2. The base shear value is maximum for SIM infilled frame as compared to URM infilled frame. 3. Duetilty and Ductility Reduction factor are reduces when frame isinfilled with SIM and URM panel. 4, Overstrength factor increases when frame infilled with SIMand URM panel 5. Response Reduction Factor of SIM infiled frame ishigherthan URMinfilled frame 6. R factor is very sensitive to both material and geometric configuration, 7. The presence of infill should be considered in the design of the frame structures in order to profit from its positive contribution to the stiffness, strength and R factor of the structure and toavoid the possible harmfuleffects. References [1] Crisafull FJ. (1997) “Seismic behaviour of reinforced conerete structures with masonry infil". Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zesland [2], E.Smyrou,,¢. Blandon ,S. Antoniou ,R.Pinho ,F Crisaful [2011}"Implementation and verfieation of a masonty panel ‘model for nonlinear dynamicanalysisof riled RC frames" {3} Francisco J. Crisafull and Athol J. Carr [2007}"Proposed ‘Macro-Model For The Analysis Of Infiled Frame Structures" ‘The New Zealand Society For Earthquake Engineering, Vo. 40. [4) Ibrahim Serkan Misir[2014] Potential Use of Locked Brick Infill Walls to DecreaseSoftStory Formation in. Frame Buildings” American Society of GivilEngineers [5] Koray Kadas [2006] “Influence of Idealized pushover curves onseismieresponse” [6]_ Lint M Thomas, Kavitha Pe, [2016] “fect of Locked Brick Inf Walls on the Seismic Performance of Mutistoried Building IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (losRaMe: [7)_ Tarek M. Alguhane, Ayman H. Khalll, M.N Fayed, Ayman M. Ismail[2015)(Seismie assessment of old existing RC buildings with masonry infil in madinan as per ASCE" International Journal Of Civil, Environmental, Structural Construction And Architectural Engineering Vel:9, No:1. [8]. _Zhiyu Wang, Yuri Totoev Adrian Page, Willy Sher and Kun Lin [2015] “Numerical simulation of earthquake response of ‘multi-storey ste! frame with SIM infil panels” Advances in structural engineeringand mechanies(ASEM) [9]. Z. Wang , ¥. Totoev & k.Lin [2016] “Noninear static analysis of multi-storey steel frame with seminterlocking ‘masonry infil panels” Brick and Block Masonty - Trends, Innovations and Challenges ~ Modena, da Porto & Valluzzi (Eds)® 2026 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1- 138.02999-6 [10} Patnals V § Neelime, Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar, SeismicBehaviour of RC Frame with URM Inf: A Case Study;ntemational Journal of Education and Applied Research(UJEAR), Vol 4, Issue Sp-2, Jan-June 2024. [11] Mondal G (2003): Lateral stiffness of Unreinforced Brick Infiled RC Frame with Central Opening, Master of ‘Technology Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India [12]18 456, “Plain and Reinforced Concrete-code of Practice" Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1993 [13}1S 1893, “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design ofStructures-Partl": General Provisions and. Buildings (FiftnRevision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi 2002 [14] Mangesh shendkar, R Pradeep kumar(2018) “Response Reduction Factor of RC framed structures with Semi interlocked masonry and unreinforced masonry infil” IC] Journal, Jan-March 2018 Mangesh Shendkar Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, UT Hyderabad Email: mangesh:shendkar94@gmail.com R. Pradeep Kumar Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, IT Hyderabad Email: ramancharla@iit.ac.in © IC1 Journal joeteber- December 2028

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy