Example 13

Use of the
Redundancy
Factor

Section 12.3.4 describes the methodology for determination of the

redundancy factor, ρ, which is used in many of the seismic load com-
binations that are specified in Section 12.4. This example demonstrates
how the redundancy factor is determined for several structural systems.
The use of the redundancy factor in the context of the load combina-
tions is demonstrated in Example 18 of this guide.

The redundancy factor, ρ, is used in association with the seismic load com-
binations that are specified in Section 12.4. In particular, in accordance with
Eq. (12.4-3):

Eh = ρQE (Eq. 12.4-3)

where Eh is the effect of horizontal seismic forces, and QE is a component

or connection force that results from application of horizontal loads. When
used in conjunction with Eq. (12.4-3), the value of the redundancy factor is
either 1.0 or 1.3, depending on the Seismic Design Category (SDC) and the
structural configuration. The factor can be different in the two horizontal
directions. Where the redundancy factor is determined to be 1.3 in one
direction, it applies to all connections and components in the structure
that are designed to resist seismic loads in that direction. Section 12.3.4.1
lists existing exceptions. For example, ρ can be taken as 1.0 in the design
of nonstructural components. The factor ρ can also be taken as 1.0 in drift
and P-delta calculations. Note, however, that the allowable story drifts must
be divided by ρ for moment frames in SDC D, E, and F (see Section
12.12.1.1).
 For structures in SDCs B and C, ρ is taken as 1.0 in each direction. For
structures in SDCs D, E, and F, the redundancy factor is 1.3, but may be
reduced to 1.0 if it “passes” either a configuration test or a calculation test.
These tests are stipulated in Section 12.3.4.2.
The configuration test is described in subparagraph (b) of Section
12.3.4.2, which states that ρ may be taken as 1.0 where the structure has
no horizontal structural irregularities and where at least two bays of perim-
eter seismic force–resisting elements exist on each side of the building for
each story of the building resisting more than 35% of the seismic base shear.
The number of bays for a shear wall shall be considered as the total length
of the wall (in one plane) divided by the story height, or two times the total
length of the wall divided by the story height for light-frame construction.
Subparagraph (a) of Section 12.3.4.2, in association with Table 12.3-3,
describes the calculation test. In this test, a lateral load–resisting element (or
connection) is removed from the structure to determine if removal of the
element or connection causes an extreme torsional irregularity (where one
was not present before), or if the lateral strength of the structure is reduced
by more than 33%. If the extreme torsional irregularity or excessive strength
loss does not occur, the redundancy factor may be taken as 1.0. Note that
the torsional irregularity test fails (ρ must be taken as 1.3) if the structure
has an extreme torsional irregularity before the component or connection is
removed.
As stated earlier, ρ = 1.0 may be used in SDC D, E, and F structures if
either condition (a) or (b) applies. The condition (a) test is much more dif-
ficult to apply, so test (b) should be applied first. It is also noted that the
loss-of-strength test under condition (a) rarely occurs and that providing a
logical argument (performing the “calculation” by inspection) that a 33%
strength loss is impossible for the given configuration is generally acceptable.
The torsion test is more problematic, particularly when the structure has a
torsional irregularity before the component or connection is removed.
Fig. G13-1 illustrates several cases for which condition (b) may be
evaluated. The floor plans in the figure are applicable at levels for which the

Fig. G13-1
Evaluation of the * * * *
redundancy factor for
various buildings * *

(A) (B) (C)

Y

* *

* *
(D) (E) (F)

84 Seismic Loads: Guide to the Seismic Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10

seismic base shear is greater than 35% of the base shear. Only building A
satisfies the condition (b) test. The building has no horizontal structural
irregularities, the walls on each side of building are long enough to provide
two equivalent bays on each side, and the walls are located on the perimeter.
Building B violates the criteria because the two walls marked with asterisks
are not on the perimeter. Building C, which is assumed to have no irregulari-
ties, does not satisfy the criteria in the Y direction because the plan length
of the walls marked with asterisks is insufficient to provide two equivalent
bays on each side of the building. Buildings D, E, and F cannot automati-
cally be classified with ρ = 1.0 because each has a horizontal structural
irregularity. In building F, the irregularity occurs because of an out-of-plane
offset of the shear walls marked with asterisks. The walls at the upper level
are on the interior of the building and transfer to the exterior at the lower
levels.
The fact that condition (b) has not been satisfied for a given building
does not mean that the redundancy factor is 1.3. This situation would be the
case only if condition (a) in Section 12.3.4.2 is also not met. Consider again
building B of Fig. G13-1. In this shear wall system, each wall has a plan length
greater than the height of the wall. Thus, the height-to-width ratio of the walls
is less than 1.0, and the system defaults to “other” lateral force–resisting ele-
ments in Table 12.3-3. Presumably, therefore, this system can be assigned a
redundancy factor of 1.0 in each direction because no requirements dictate
otherwise. The same situation appears to occur even if the walls marked by
asterisks in building B of Fig. G13-1 were removed entirely. In the opinion of
the author, this situation violates the spirit of the redundancy factor concept,
and a factor of 1.3 should be assigned in this case.
In building C of Fig. G13-1, each wall marked with an asterisk has a
length less than the story height. Removal of one of these walls does not
cause an extreme torsional irregularity. At first glance the removal of one
wall appears to reduce the strength of the system by only 25% in the Y
direction. However, this situation does not consider the effect of torsion.
The reduction in strength must be based on the questions, “How much
lateral load can be applied in the Y direction for the system with one wall
missing, and how does that compare with the strength of the system with
the wall in place?”
Two interpretations exist for evaluation of the strength of the system
with elements removed. The first is based on elastic analysis, and the second
is based on inelastic analysis. An important consideration of the use of an
inelastic analysis is that the system must be sufficiently ductile to handle the
continued application of loads after the lateral load–resisting elements begin
to yield.
Consider, for example, the system shown in Fig. G13-2. This
system has eight identical walls, marked A through H, each with a force–
deformation relationship as shown in Fig. G13-3. The lateral load–carrying
capacity of each wall is 100 kip.
The system is evaluated on the basis of the following situations:
1. Elastic behavior with all walls in place,
2. Elastic behavior with one wall removed,
Seismic Loads: Guide to the Seismic Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10 85
Fig. G13-2 δ1 δ2
System with one wall
(C) removed E F
20’
A C

35’

B V D
20’ G H
Y
25’ 20’ 35’ 20’ 25’
X

Fig. G13-3 120

Force-deformation
100
relationship for shear
wall 80
Resistance (kip)

60

40

20

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Deformaon (in.)

3. Inelastic behavior analysis with all walls in place, and

4. Inelastic behavior with one wall removed.
For each situation, the lateral force V is applied in the y direction at an
eccentricity of 5% of the width (eccentricity = 0.05 × 125 ft = 6.25 ft) of the
building in the x direction. The eccentricity of 5% of the plan width is con-
sistent with the accidental torsion requirements of Section 12.8.4.2.
The analysis was performed for this example using a computer program
that can model inelastic structures. This analysis provided the curves shown
in Fig. G13-4. The upper curve represents the behavior of the system with
all four walls in place, and the lower curve is for the system with wall C
removed. The elastic analysis for each system is represented by the response
up to first yield (the first change in slope of the curves), and the inelastic
response is represented by the full curve.
From the perspective of the elastic analysis, the structure with all walls
in place can resist a lateral load V of 370 kip. At this load, walls C and D
on the right side of the building carry 100 kip, and walls A and B carry
85 kip. The ratio of the displacement δ2 relative to the displacement at point
δ1 is 1.14, so according to Table 12.3-1, the structure does not have a tor-
sional irregularity.
When the inelastic response is considered, the structure can carry addi-
tional lateral load because walls A and B can each resist an additional 15 kip
before they reach their 100-kip capacity. With four walls resisting 100 kip
86 Seismic Loads: Guide to the Seismic Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10
Fig. G13-4 450
Force-deformation 400
plot for structure with 350

Applied Load (kip)

three or four walls 300
using inelastic analysis 250
200
150
100 4 Walls
50 3 Walls
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Corner Displacement δ2 (in.)

each, the total lateral capacity of the system is 400 kip. Recall that the force-
displacement plot for this four-wall system is shown by the upper curve in
Fig. G13-4. The displacement shown in the figure is the y direction displace-
ment δ2. The first change of slope in the curve occurs when walls C and D
yield, and the second change occurs when walls A and B yield.
When wall C is removed, the center of rigidity moves 9.375 ft to the
left. When an elastic analysis is performed, the system can resist a lateral
load of only 230 kip because wall D reaches its 100-kip capacity. At this
point, walls A and B resist 65 kip each. Additionally, the ratio of the displace-
ment at point δ2 with respect to the displacement at point δ1 is 1.35. Hence,
a torsional irregularity, but not an extreme irregularity, exists. The ratio of
the resisting force of the three-wall system to that of the four-wall system is
230/370 or 0.621. On this basis, the system must be designed with ρ = 1.3
because it loses more than 33% of its strength.
From the perspective of an inelastic analysis, the three-wall system can
resist a total of 300 kip. This is shown by the force-displacement diagram
(the lower curve) in Fig. G13-4. The ratio of the inelastic resisting force of
the three-wall system to that of the four-wall system is 300/400 = 0.75. In
this case, the system could theoretically be designed with ρ = 1.0 because it
passes both the strength and the nonextreme torsion irregularity tests.
Two final points are made regarding the use of the redundancy factor:
1. When it is determined that ρ = 1.3 in a given direction, the factor
of 1.3 applies only to load combinations where seismic forces are
applied in that direction. Also, the load combination with ρ = 1.3
is used for all components and connections developing seismic
forces when the load is applied in that direction. This includes
elements and component from the bottom to the top of the struc-
ture and is not limited to those elements and components in levels
resisting more than 35% of the seismic base shear.
2. The condition (a) test of Section 12.3.4.2 applies for buildings with
different types of lateral load–resisting elements in a given direc-
tion. For example, for a dual moment-frame shear wall system, the
test would be performed with a single wall removed and then with
a single beam removed from the moment frame.
Seismic Loads: Guide to the Seismic Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10 87
This page intentionally left blank