CD02-021

EVALUATION OF REDUCTION FACTOR FOR REINFORCED

CONCRETE BUILDINGS RETROFITTED WITH CFRP JACKETS
G.R. Ghodrati Amiri1, B. Radman2 and R. Mirza Hessabi3
1
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
M.Sc., School of Civil Engineering, Shomal University, Amol, Iran
3
M.Sc., School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT
Reduction factor shows the efficiency of lateral load resistance systems in
dissipation of seismic energy through inelastic behavior. This parameter is broadly
used in guidelines to determine elastic resistance of the structure. Since these
seismic guidelines mainly put their emphasis on common lateral load resistance
systems, it may not be appropriate to use the published reduction factor values in
designing composite or strengthened lateral load resistant systems. The main
objective of this research is to examine the quantitative impacts of confined
concrete columns with CFRP jackets on reduction factor. Therefore, three models
of 4, 7 and 10-story buildings, in a veryhigh seismic zone were selected. Pushover
analyses were performed by means of the software SAP 2000 for three-
dimensional models. Finally, the reduction factor of reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings that were retrofitted with CFRP jackets was found to be 9.9. This result
indicates an enhancement in the seismic resistance and specially, in ductility of the
buildings.

Keywords: concrete buildings, reduction factor, confinement, carbon fiber

reinforced polymer (cfrp) jackets, pushover analysis

1. INTRODUCTION
Reduction factor shows the efficiency of lateral load resistance system in
dissipation of seismic energy through inelastic behavior. This parameter is broadly
used in guidelines to determine elastic resistance of the structure. By taking many
parameters and effects into consideration, depending on type of the lateral load
resistant system, different seismic design guidelines reduce the calculated values
for earthquake loads. These parameters and effects are namely structural system
ductility, structural indeterminacy degree, structural overstrength and dissipation of
seismic energy. For the first time, in the first decade of the twentieth century,
following obtained experiences and study results from real earthquakes, researchers
proposed the vertical seismic shear force to be a ratio of total weight of the
building. In the following years, it was found that for higher buildings, the stiffness
reduces and the period of vibration increases as the height increases. As a result,
earthquake imposes lower accelerations to higher buildings. With finding out this
 430 / Evaluation of Reduction Factor for Reinforced…. –––––––––––––––––––
phenomenon, further development of structural dynamics knowledge and better
understanding of structures behavior, it was understood that reduction factor is
related to the number of building stories.
Accurate determination of the reduction factor of a building would improve
exactness of the calculation of its seismic resistance, evidently. This factor depends
on various parameters such as type of the lateral load resistant system, fundamental
vibration period of the building, force-deformation model for materials, ductility
capacity, overstrength factor and design safety factors.
In the present study, firstly, different definitions were explained and then possible
effects of abovementioned parameters on reduction factor were investigated. Since
seismic retrofitting of buildings is a new concept in Iran, quantitative effects of
confinement of RC sections with CFRP jackets on reduction factor of RC buildings
were subsequently studied, Three models of 4, 7 and 10-story buildings, in a very
high seismic zone were selected. Pushover analyses were performed by means of
the software SAP 2000 for three-dimensional models.

2. MODELING APPROACH
Some of the most important force-deformation models are bilinear, trilinear and
those with reduction of stiffness and resistance in each cycle. The force-
deformation relationship should be based on experimental documents or those,
which are stated in [1-3]. For a pushover analysis, it is possible to utilize the
general force-deformation relationship that is illustrated in Figure 1 or any other
proper curves, which describe the performance under constant increase of
displacement. For nonlinear dynamic methods, force-deformation relationships
should describe the performance under both constant increases of displacement or
under numbers of displacement cycles.

Figure 1. Force-deformation relationship for concrete elements [3]

3. DUCTILITY FACTOR
The most significant parameter in determining reduction factor of a structure is the
ductility factor. Ductility factor is shown with (μ) and is calculated from below
equation:
Δ
μ= u (1)
Δy
 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 431

where, μ is the ductility factor defined as the ratio between the maximum
displacement (Δu) and the yield displacement (Δy). Higher values of ductility
factors would mean higher ductility capacities and therefore, higher reduction
factors.
Several studies have been conducted for determination of reduction factors. Most
of these studies propose that for a specified earthquake record, the reduction factor
depends on ductility and fundamental period of vibration of the building [4-6].
Consequently, with a high precision, reduction factor could be expressed in terms
of ductility as stated in Eq. (2):

Rμ = Rμ (T , μ ) (2)

An excellent overview has been presented by Miranda and Bertero (1994). In this
paper, a bilinear spectrum was used for the reduction factor Rμ [6]:

T
Rμ = ( μ − 1) +1 , T < TC (3)
TC

Rμ = μ , T ≥ TC (4)

where, μ is the ductility factor as defined above, cT is characteristic period of the

ground motion and T is the fundamental period of structures.
Fundamental period of structures (T) is a major factor in calculation of reduction
factor and could be assessed using various experimental methods or by means of
computers. Increase of this parameter would increase reduction factor. The
fundamental period of a non-retrofitted reinforced concrete building without shear
walls could be computed from the below experimental relationship [7]:
3 3
T = 0.8 × 0.07 H 4
= 0.056 H 4 (5)

where, H is the building height in meters.

4. OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR
In most of design guidelines, structures are designed so that none of their elements
exceed the elastic state. However, since some plastic hinges form after exceeding
this limitation, it does not always result in the collapse of the structure. By forming
plastic hinges, general stiffness of the structure would decrease but still, it can
resist higher loads. This procedure will continue until the formation of plastic
hinges cause an instability mechanism and stiffness of the structure become zero.
In the case that structure loses its ductility capacity simultaneously, it would
collapse. As a result, in mentioned guidelines, the extra resistance of elements after
the formation of plastic hinges is neglected. This resistance capacity is defined as
the overstrength factor (RS) and is calculated as ratio of the yield base shear to the
 432 / Evaluation of Reduction Factor for Reinforced…. –––––––––––––––––––
design base shear by:
Vy
RS = (6)
Vw

where Vy is the yield base shear, Vw is the design base shear.

5. DESIGN SAFETY FACTOR

There are many reasons for considering a safety margin in designing a structure
and this margin is usually applied through safety factors (Y). However, these
factors do not enter directly in seismic design procedures and it is not common to
employ safety factors in seismic design guidelines. Nevertheless, in seismic
guidelines this safety factor is implied through the reduction factors.
ACI-318 proposes to increase earthquake loads by multiplying them in 1.87. This
design code also allows designers to multiply 0.75 in any load combinations, which
include seismic loads [8]. Hence, the safety factor of moment resistant concrete
frames is given by:

Y = 0.75 × 1.87 = 1.403 (7)

6. CALCULATION OF REDUCTION FACTOR

By considering important parameters, reduction factor of a structure, could be
determined by [9]:

Rw = Y × Rμ × RS (8)

where, Rμ is the period-dependent ductility factor, RS is the period-dependent over

strength factor and Y is the safety factor.

7. MODELING AND ANALYSIS

SAP2000 Nonlinear Version 8 has been utilized for analysis and design procedures
[10]. This program is capable of performing static and dynamic analyses of
structures in three dimensions. This program is compatible with most of the design
guidelines.
A Three-dimensional model of each structure was created in SAP2000 to carry out
nonlinear static analysis. In addition, a P-Δ analysis has been performed for every
model. The ACI 318-99 guideline was employed for design purposes, since this
guideline is supported by the SAP2000 program.

8. INTRODUCING MODELS
Three symmetrical moment resistance RC frame buildings are considered in this
study. Three structures of 4, 7 and 10-story buildings are modeled in three
dimensions with height to width ratio of about 1 to 2. These structures are
considered according to Iranian Seismic Design Code (Standard 2800-05) [7] as
residential buildings with a medium importance factor (I=1.0). Based on this code,
 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 433

structures are assumed located in a very high seismic zone with a design ground
acceleration of 0.35g and the soil type is assumed class II. For all of the three
models, span lengths equal to 4 m in both directions. The 4-story model consists of
a three- bay frame, 7-story consists of four bays and the 10-story consists of five
bays (Figure 2). Typical floor-to-floor height is 3.2 m.

Figure 2. Plan view of 4, 7 and 10 story buildings

Figure 3. Frame properties of 4, 7 and 10-story models

Beam and column dimensions and the amount of longitudinal reinforcement were
specified as could be seen in Figure 3. Table 1 presents the final FRP jacket
thicknesses for all columns.
Concrete properties are assumed to be 210 kg/cm2 for the compressive strength,
218800 kg/cm2 for modulus of elasticity and 0.2 for Poisson ratio. The strength of
both longitudinal and transverse reinforcements is chosen to be 3000 kg/cm2 with
 434 / Evaluation of Reduction Factor for Reinforced…. –––––––––––––––––––
modulus of elasticity of 2.1×106 kg/cm2. The CFRP tensile strength and modulus of
elasticity (Efrp) are 42400 kg/cm2 and 2.32×106 kg/cm2, respectively. The rupture
strain of employed CFRP fibers is 0.18 and their thickness is 0.1375 mm/layer.

Table 1: Initial and final thicknesses of the FRP jackets for all columns.
Member Member sizes (mm) Longitudinal FRP thickness (mm)
group Width Depth reinforcement Initial Final
C1 30 30 13.5 0.000 0.412
C2 30 30 18.0 0.000 0.678
C3 40 40 16.0 0.000 0.678
C4 40 40 24.0 0.000 0.963
C5 40 40 32.0 0.000 0.963
C6 50 50 25.0 0.000 1.513
C7 50 50 37.5 0.000 1.788
C8 50 50 50.0 0.000 1.788
C9 60 60 54.0 0.000 1.513
C10 60 60 72.0 0.000 1.788

The dead and participating live loads on the stories are 650 kg/m2 and 200 kg/m2,
respectively. Dead loads, which are exerted by internal partitioning walls, are also
participated in abovementioned value of dead loads. Loads that are related to
peripheral walls and parapets are assumed to be 700 kg/m and 250 kg/m. Lateral
loads were determined by means of an equivalent static method and are applied in
directions as stated in Iranian Seismic Design Code (Standard 2800-05) [7].

9. APPLIED MODEL FOR FRP CONFINED CONCRETE

In the last few years, many studies have been conducted on the stress–strain
behavior of FRP-confined concrete and various models have been proposed [11].
However, the stress–strain model for FRP confined rectangular sections, that has
been proposed by Teng and Lam appears to be a suitable model for our study as it
is simple and it captures the main characteristics of the stress–strain behavior of
FRP-confined concrete [12].
Based on this model, the compressive strength and axial rupture strain of FRP-
confined concrete in rectangular sections are calculated as described by the
following equations [13]:

f ' cc f
= 1+ 3.3k S 1 1 (9)
f ' co f ' co

⎛ f ⎞⎛ ε h ,rup
0.45
ε cc ⎞
= 1.75 + 12k S 2 ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
(10)
ε co ⎝ f ' co ⎠⎝ ε co ⎠

where, f1 is the equivalent confining pressure, defined as follows:

 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 435

2 E frp ε h , rup t
f1 = (11)
D2 + B2

where Efrp is the elastic modulus of the FRP, B and D are dimensions of the
rectangular cross-section (D≥B), εh,rup is the FRP hoop rupture strain and t is the
thickness of FRP fibers.

Figure 4. Confinement action in rectangular columns [13]

According to Figure 4, Teng and Lam proposed the following model for
determination of the total area of concrete enclosed by the FRP jacket:

⎡⎛ B 2 ⎞⎤
⎢⎜ D (D − 2 RC ) + B (B − 2 RC ) ⎟⎥
2 D
1 − ⎢⎜ ⎟⎥ − ρ SC
⎢⎜⎜ 3 Ag ⎟⎥
⎟
Ae ⎢⎣⎝ ⎠⎥⎦ (12)
=
AC 1 − ρ SC

where, ρSC is the cross-sectional area ratio of longitudinal steel and RC is radius of
the rounded corners. These researchers suggested Equations (13) and (14) for the
shape factor for strength (kS1) and the shape factor for strain (kS2):
2
⎛B⎞ A (13)
k S1 = ⎜ ⎟ e
⎝ D ⎠ AC

0.5
⎛D⎞ Ae (14)
kS 2 = ⎜ ⎟
⎝B⎠ AC

where most of the parameters are the same as previous equations and Ae is the area
of the effectively confined concrete and AC is the total area of concrete enclosed by
the FRP jacket.
 436 / Evaluation of Reduction Factor for Reinforced…. –––––––––––––––––––
10. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
As mentioned before, the models were analyzed using SAP2000 [10], which is a
general-purpose structural analysis program for static and dynamic analyses of
structures. For nonlinear analysis of initial models, axial force–moment hinges and
pure moment hinges are assigned to the ends of beams and columns, respectively.
Rupture strains and rotations of plastic hinges could be evaluated using the stated
nonlinear static criteria in [1-3].
The moment-rotation relationships of plastic hinges are similar to the moment-
rotation relationship of moment hinges except that they are compatible with the
moment-axial load interaction curves. The moment-axial load interaction curves of
columns Figures could be determined using principal theories. Effect of FRP
confinement on increase of strength and ductility of the columns could be
concerned in interaction curves. Figure 6 shows an example of the moment-axial
load interaction curves for a rectangular column with dimensions of 40×40 cm.
For performing a pushover analysis, two kinds of load distributions are
utilized in this study:
a) Distribution type I; distribution is proportional to the lateral loads that have
been calculated from a linear spectral dynamic analysis.
b) Distribution type II; distribution is uniform where the lateral loads are
proportional to the weight of each story.
For better clarifying the results, which are presented in Table 2, Figure 7 shows the
base shear-top displacement relationship for the non-retrofitted frame (labeled as
‘‘initial’’) and the retrofitted frame (labeled as ‘‘final’’). It is evident from Figures
and tables that confinement of reinforced concrete columns with FRP fibers would
increase their strength and ductility by 19 and 38 percents respectively. Therefore,
this method could be considered as a major way for enhancing seismic
performance of concrete structures.

8000 8000

6000 6000

Original Original
4000
Pro (kN)

4000
Pro (kN)

3-Layer 3 Layer

7-Laye 7- Layer
2000 2000
11-Laye 11-Layer

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 500

-2000 -2000

Mro (kN-m) Mro (kN-m)

(a) (b)
Figure 6. The moment-axial load interaction curves for a rectangular FRP-confined
columns with dimensions of 40×40 cm for (a) ρl=1% and (b) ρl=2%

In Table (2) effective parameters such as ductility factor (Rμ), overstrength factor
(RS) and safety factor (Y) were obtained for evaluating the reduction factor. Using
these values and by means of Eq. (8) the reduction factor of RC buildings could be
 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 437

calculated.

Table 2: Different parameters of reduction factor for models

Desig
Yield Ultimate
n
Model μ Rμ Rs Y Rw
Vw, Vy, Δy Vu, Δu,
ton ton ,cm ton cm
4S-O-1* 66.7 198.9 7.9 217.4 13.2 1.7 1.7 3.0 1.4 7.0
4S-R-1 66.7 214.4 8.4 247.2 19.2 2.3 2.3 3.2 1.4 10.3
4S-O-2 66.7 212.3 6.7 235.9 10.4 1.6 1.6 3.2 1.4 7.0
4S-R-2 66.7 233.3 7.3 271.1 15.7 2.2 2.2 3.5 1.4 10.6
7S-O-1 168.7 480.2 19.0 529.0 28.8 1.5 1.5 2.8 1.4 6.1
7S-R-1 168.7 533.7 18.3 629.9 42.7 2.3 2.3 3.2 1.4 10.3
7S-O-2 168.7 582.3 14.0 640.9 19.1 1.4 1.4 3.5 1.4 6.6
7S-R-2 168.7 728.1 17.5 842.5 32.9 1.9 1.9 4.3 1.4 11.4
1080. 1173.
10S-O-1 334.1 30.0 43.3 1.4 1.4 3.2 1.4 6.5
0 2
1161. 1334.
10S-R-1 334.1 32.0 67.0 2.1 2.1 3.5 1.4 10.2
1 3
1217. 1301.
10S-O-2 334.1 24.0 32.5 1.4 1.4 3.6 1.4 6.9
1 1
1318. 1549.
10S-R-2 334.1 26.0 43.1 1.7 1.7 3.9 1.4 9.2
8 8
*Note: Model identification is "number of story – non retrofit (O) / retrofit (R) – lateral load type.”

0.6 0.6
Base Shear / Seisemic Weight
Base Shear / Seisemic Weight

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1
4S-O2 0.1
4S-O1
4S-R2 4S-R1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
Roof Displacement (cm) Roof Displacement (cm)

0.5 0.5
Base Shear / Seisemic Weight

Base Shear / Seisemic Weight

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1
7S-O2 0.1
7S-O1
7S-R2 7S-R1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Roof Displacement (cm) Roof Displacement (cm)
 438 / Evaluation of Reduction Factor for Reinforced…. –––––––––––––––––––

0.5 0.4

Base Shear / Seisemic Weight

Base Shear / Seisemic Weight

0.4
0.3

0.3
0.2
0.2

0.1
10S-O2 0.1 10S-O1
10S-R2 10S-R1
0 0
0 20 40 0 20 40 60
Roof Displacement (cm) Roof Displacement (cm)

Figure 7. Comparison of capacity curves of a 4-story frame, 7-story frame

and 10-story buildings

In Table 3, reduction factor values for each of the models under both lateral load
distributions are represented. As it is apparent, average of reduction factor value for
non-retrofitted reinforced concrete buildings is 6.7 and is 9.9 for retrofitted RC
buildings.

Table 3: The reduction factor for non-retrofitted and retrofitted models

Non-retrofitted Retrofitted
Story Lateral Load Lateral Load Lateral Load Lateral Load
Type I Type II Type I Type II
4 7.1 7.0 10.3 10.6
7 6.1 6.5 10.1 9.7
10 6.5 6.9 9.3 9.2
Average 6.7 9.9

11. CONCLUSIONS
The results derived from the nonlinear static analyses of initial models, which were
desi In Table 3, reduction factor values for each of the models under both lateral
load distributions are represented. As it is apparent, average of reduction factor
value for non-retrofitted reinforced concrete buildings is 6.7 and is 9.9 for
retrofitted RC buildings.
based on [7], are stated as below:
1. Confinement of reinforced concrete columns would increase their strength and
ductility by 19 and 38 percents, respectively.
2. Reduction factor of a non-retrofitted reinforced concrete building without
shear walls is evaluated to be 6.7 but with confinement of columns with CFRP
jacket, this factor would increase to 9.9.
3. Application of CFRP fibers for confinement of reinforced concrete columns
would increase their resistance, ductility and capacity of seismic energy
dissipation. Moreover, it would move the failure point from columns to beams.
 ––––––––––––––––––––––– 3rd International Conference on Concrete & Development / 439

REFERENCES
1. IIEES, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering & Seismology,
(2002), “Guideline for seismic retrofitting current buildings” (In Persian).
2. ATC-40, (1996), "Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings",
Applied Technology Council.
3. FEMA-356, (2000), "Prestandard and commentary for the Seismic
rehabilitation of buildings", Federal Emergency Management Agency.
4. Nassar, A., Osteraas, J. and Krawinkler, H. (1992), "Seismic design based on
strength and ductility demands", Proceding of the Earthquake Engineering
Tenth World Confrence, Balkema, Roterdam, pp.5861-5866.
5. Miranda, E. and Bertero, V.V., (1994), "Evaluation of strength reduction
factors for earthquake resistant design", Earthquake Spectra, Vol.10, 357-379.
6. Fajfer, P., Eeri, M., (2000), "A Nonlinear Analysis Metod for Performance
Based Seismic Design", Erthquake Spectra, Vol.16, No.3, pp.573-592.
7. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings [2005],
Standard No. 2800, Third Revision, Building & Housing Research Center, Iran
(In Persian).
8. ACI-318, (1999), "Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. American Concrete Institute", Fifth Printing, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, USA.
9. Uang, C. and Maarouf, A., (1994), "Deflection amplification factor for seismic
design provision", Journal Structural Engineering, pp. 2423-2436.
10. Computer & Structures Inc., (2005), "SAP 2000, analysis program", Berkeley,
California.
11. Berthet, J.F., Ferrier, E. and Hamelin, P., (2005) "Compressive behavior of
concrete externally confined by composite jackets", Construction and Building
Materials.
12. Lam, L. and Teng, J.G., (2003), "Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP
confined concrete in rectangular columns", J Reinf Plast Compos.
13. Zou, X.K., Teng, J.G., De Lorenzis, L. and Xia, S.H., (2007), "Optimal
performance based design of FRP jackets for seismic retrofit of reinforced
concrete frames", Composites, Part B.