International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology - IRJIET International Open Access, Monthly, Peer Reviewed, Reputed Journal ISSN (online): 2581-3048

Impact Factor (2025): 6.9

DOI Prefix: 10.47001/IRJIET

Response Reduction Factor for Structures Irregularities in Plan and Elevation Taking into Account Soil-Structure Interaction

Shorouk.M.ElsadanyTeaching Assistant of Structural Engineering, 6 October University, Cairo, EgyptM.N.FayedProfessor, Structural Engineering Department, Ain Sham University, EgyptTamer.M.SorourAssociate Professor, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, EgyptA.M.AnwarAssociate Professor, Head of Hydraulic Structures Department, National Water Research Center, EgyptNasr.E.NasrAssociate Professor, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Egypt

Vol 8 No 7 (2024): Volume 8, Issue 7, July 2024 | Pages: 16-34

International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology

OPEN ACCESS | Research Article | Published Date: 09-07-2024

doi Logo doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2024.807002

pdf iconFull Text PDF
Abstract

The structure's ability to release energy through inelastic behaviour is reflected in the response reduction factor (R). It results from a combination of redundancy, ductility, and over strength. Thus, determining R with accurate values plays a critical function in the process of seismic design. This study aims to determine the response factor of structures of reinforced concrete (RC). With different structural irregularities, additionally, determine the impact of the interaction between soil and structure (SSI) using non-linear static pushover analysis was adopted in numerical simulation by using SAP2000. The selected irregularities included elevational and in-plan changes It was determined that, in comparison to regular buildings, buildings with irregular vertical geometries had poorer inelastic seismic capacities. Therefore, R is less than that which is stated in the ECP 2020, so it ought to be reduced by 15–40% before the design stage. The outcomes demonstrated that It isn't concluded that irregularity has a considerable effect on weak soil (C). The reduction in R, considering (SSI), reached 20.3% and 13.1% for fixed and isolated supports, respectively, in case of loose soil. Moreover, it became obvious that for the same structure the stiffer the base soil the greater the R's value.

Keywords

Irregular RC Buildings, Elevation Irregularity, Plan Irregularity, Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis, Response Reduction Factor, Soil Structure Interaction


Citation of this Article

Shorouk.M.Elsadany, M.N.Fayed, Tamer.M.Sorour, A.M.Anwar, & Nasr.E.Nasr. (2024). Response Reduction Factor for Structures Irregularities in Plan and Elevation Taking into Account Soil-Structure Interaction. International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology - IRJIET, 8(7), 16-34, Article DOI https://doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2024.807002

Licence Copyright (c) 2026 International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology creative common licence This work is licensed under Creative common Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 Internation Licence
References
  1. Hussein, M. M., Gamal, M., & Attia, W. A. (2021). Seismic response modification factor for RC-frames with non-uniform dimensions. Cogent Engineering, 8(1), 1923363.
  2. Brahmavrathan, D., & Arunkumar, C. (2016). Evaluation of response reduction factor of irregular reinforced concrete framed structures. Indian J Sci Technol, 9(23), 1-8.
  3. Fayed, M. N., Aboul Nour, L. A., & El-Masry, S. S. Evaluation of Seismic Response Modification Factor of Multistory Buildings Designed According to Egyptian Code.‏
  4. Barakat, S. A., Husein Malkawi, A. I., & Al-Shatnawi, A. S. (1997). A step towards evaluation of the seismic response reduction factor in multistorey reinforced concrete frames. Natural Hazards, 16, 65-80.
  5. FEMA 356, F. E. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA.
  6. Council, A. T. (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings; Report No. SSC 96-01: ATC-40, 1.
  7. Fajfar, P., & Fischinger, M. (1988, August). N2-A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings. In Proceedings of the ninth world conference in earthquake engineering (Vol. 5, pp. 111-116).
  8. Palanci, M., Demir, A., & Kayhan, A. H. (2021). The investigation of displacement demands of single degree of freedom models using real earthquake records compatible with TBEC-2018. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(3), 251-263.
  9. Ashwini, K. C., & Manjunath, Y. M. (2017). Comparative study of pushover analysis on RCC structures. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. (IJERT), 6(7), 71-79.
  10. Elnashai, A. S., & Mwafy, A. M. (2002). Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistorey reinforced‐concrete buildings. The structural design of tall buildings, 11(5), 329-351.
  11. Anagnwstopoulou, V., Zeris, C., & Karayannis, C. (2012). Evaluation of the q factor of irregular RC buildings designed according to EC8. In 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
  12. Van Thuat, D., Viet Chuong, H., & Duong, B. (2020). Relationship of strength reduction factor and maximum ductility factor for seismic design of one-storey industrial steel frames. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 21(5), 841-856.
  13. El-Mahdy, O. O., Hamdy, G. A., & YASSIN, A. S. (2023). Performance Based Seismic Design of Two RC High-Rise Buildings. Engineering Research Journal-Faculty of Engineering (Shoubra), 52(2), 101-113.
  14. Ahmed, M. M. M., Abdo, M. A. B., & Mohamed, W. A. E. W. (2023). Response modification factor evaluation for vertically irregular MRF buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings, 1-15.
  15. Ali, T., Eldin, M. N.,  Haider, W. (2023). The Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic Response of Structures Using Machine Learning, Finite Element Modeling and ASCE 7-16 Methods. Sensors, 23(4), 2047.
  16. Maharjan, S., & Thapa, K. B. (2021). Study of Soil-Structure Interaction Effects on Seismic Analysis.
  17. Abdelrhman, S. A., Nasr.E.Nasr., Sorour, T. M.,Fayed, M. N. (2022).The Effect of Soil Structural Interaction on Evaluation of Seismic Response Reduction Factor of Multi-Story Concrete Buildings.
  18. Bapir, B., Abrahamczyk, L., Wichtmann, T., & Prada-Sarmiento, L. F. (2023). Soil-structure interaction: A state-of-the-art review of modeling techniques and studies on seismic response of building structures. Frontiers in Built Environment, 9, 1120351.
  19. Abdel Raheem, S. E., Ahmed, M. M., Ahmed, M. M., Abdel-shafy, A. G. (2018). Evaluation of plan configuration irregularity effects on seismic response demands of L-shaped MRF buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 3845-3869.
  20. Requena-Garcia-Cruz, M. V., Bento, R., Durand-Neyra, P., Morales-Esteban, A. (2022, April). Analysis of the soil structure-interaction effects on the seismic vulnerability of mid-rise RC buildings in Lisbon. In Structures (Vol. 38, pp. 599-617). Elsevier.
  21. Krishna, G., & Hemchandra, C. (2021). Common irregularities and its effects on reinforced concrete building response. Строительная механика инженерных конструкций и сооружений, 17(1), 63-73.
  22. Tomer, S., & Bhandari, M. (2023, February). Evaluation of Seismic Response of Irregular Buildings: A Review. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1110, No. 1, p. 012012). IOP Publishing.
  23. Allena, P., & Chowdary, T. B. (2020, December). Effect of Irregularities on Seismic Performance of High Rise Structures. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 998, No. 1, p. 012064). IOP Publishing.
  24. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2013, October). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers.
  25. Code, P. (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
  26. Maharjan, S., & Thapa, K. B. (2021). Study of Soil-Structure Interaction Effects on Seismic Analysis.
  27. Joseph, P., & Kuruvilla, R. Effects of Irregularities on the Seismic Response of a High-Rise Structure in ETABS.
  28. Freeman, S. A. (1990, August). On the correlation of code forces to earthquake demands. In Proceedings of 4th US–Japan workshop on improvement of building structural design and construction practices, ATC-15-3 report. Redwood City, California.
  29. El Janous, S. O. U. M. A. Y. A., & El Ghoulbzouri, A. (2024). Seismic Vulnerability of Irregular Reinforced Concrete Buildings Considering the Soil-structure Interaction. International Journal of Engineering, 37(1), 104-114.
  30. Hussain, N., Alam, S., & Mwafy, A. (2024). Developments in Quantifying the Response Factors Required for Linear Analytical and Seismic Design Procedures. Buildings, 14(1), 247.
  31. Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Spacone, E., Guragain, R., Mallik, R., & Varum, H. (2014). Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley. Earthquake engineering and engineering vibration, 13, 455-470.
  32. Maheri, M. R., & Akbari, R. (2003). Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel X-braced and knee-braced RC buildings. Engineering structures, 25(12), 1505-1513.
  33. Newmark, N. M., & Hall, W. J. (1969, January). Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. In Proceedings of the 4th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile (Vol. 2, pp. 37-50).
  34. Uang, C. M. (1991). Establishing R (or R w) and C d factors for building seismic provisions. Journal of structural Engineering, 117(1), 19-28.
  35. Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley Interscience, NewYork, USA.
  36. Miranda, E., & Bertero, V. V. (1994). Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake spectra, 10(2), 357-379.
  37. Kappos, A. J. (1997). Seismic damage indices for RC buildings: evaluation of concepts and procedures. Progress in Structural Engineering and materials, 1(1), 78-87.
  38. Priestley, M. J. N. (2000). Performance based seismic design. Bulletin of the New Zealand society for earthquake engineering, 33(3), 325-346.
  39. Mondal, A., Ghosh, S., & Reddy, G. R. (2013). Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. Engineering structures, 56, 1808-1819.
  40. Mahesh, U., Pandit, P., & Scholar, P. G. (2020). A review on pushover analysis for irregular structures. International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing IJESC, 10(7), 26835.
  41. Lee, D. G., Cho, S. H., & Ko, H. (2005). Response Modification Factors for Seismic Design of Building Structures in Low Sesimicity Regions. Korea Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
  42. Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., Arêde, A., & Costa, A. (2012). Comparative efficiency analysis of different nonlinear modelling strategies to simulate the biaxial response of RC columns. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 11(4), 553-566.
  43. Varum, H. S. A. (2003). Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Aveiro (Portugal)).
  44. CSI, S. V. (2000). 8.: Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual; Berkeley (CA, USA). Computers and structures INC.
  45. Uang, C. M. (1991). Establishing R (or R w) and C d factors for building seismic provisions. Journal of structural Engineering, 117(1), 19-28.
  46. Miranda, E., & Bertero, V. V. (1994). Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake spectra, 10(2), 357-379.
  47. Kappos, A. J. (1997). Seismic damage indices for RC buildings: evaluation of concepts and procedures. Progress in Structural Engineering and materials, 1(1), 78-87.
  48. Mondal, A., Ghosh, S., & Reddy, G. R. (2013). Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. Engineering structures, 56, 1808-1819.
  49. Freeman, S. A. (1990, August). On the correlation of code forces to earthquake demands. In Proceedings of 4th US–Japan workshop on improvement of building structural design and construction practices, ATC-15-3 report. Redwood City, California.
  50. Winkler, E. (1867). Die Lehre von Elastizitat und Festigkeit (The theory of elasticity and stiffness). H. Domenicus. Prague.
  51. Liang, Z., Lee, G., Dargush, G., & Song, J. (2012). Structural damping: Applications in seismic response modification (F. Cheng, Ed.).
  52. Eser, M., Aydemir, C., & Ekiz, I. (2011). Effects of soil structure interaction on strength reduction factors. Procedia Engineering, 14, 1696-1704.
  53. Titiksh, A. (2017). Effects of irregularities on the seismic response of a medium rise structure. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), 18(8), 1307-1314.
  54. SAP2000 V-18.2 (2016), Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures Basic Analysis, Reference Manual, Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers and Structures Inc.
  55. IBC, I. International building code, International Code Council, Inc. (formerly BOCA, ICBO and SBCCI), 2009.
  56. Code, E. (2007). Egyptian Code of Practice for Concrete Structures, HBRC. In Arabic, Cairo, Egypt.

Copyright @ 2026 IRJIET. All Right Reserved.

Licensed underCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.