International Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0276-6

RESEARCH PAPER

Seismic Response Modification Factor of RC-Frame Structures Based

on Limit State Design
Somayeh Sharifi1 · Hamid Toopchi‑Nezhad2 

Received: 16 June 2017 / Revised: 29 November 2017 / Accepted: 4 December 2017

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Abstract
The main objective of this research study is to evaluate the response modification factor, R, of moment-resisting RC-frame
structures that are designed based on a limit state design methodology. The study is focused on the ordinary and special
RC-frames of 1, 2, and 3 bays at 3, 5, 7, and 9 stories. To evaluate the R-factor of each frame structure, a nonlinear static
pushover analysis is performed and the capacity curve of structure until a maximum lateral displacement that is typically
prescribed by seismic design codes is plotted. Results of this study indicate that the R-factor is significantly influenced by
the number of stories and bays, as well as the maximum lateral displacement that is imposed on structure during pushover
analysis. The pattern of variation in R-factor with an increase in the number of bays or stories is evaluated herein this paper.
The values obtained for R-factor in ordinary and special frame structures are compared with the corresponding values pre-
scribed by current seismic design codes including European Standard EC8, International Building Code (IBC), ASCE 7,
National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), and Iranian Standard 2800-91. Based on the minimum values evaluated in this
study, the design R-factor of ordinary and special RC-frame structures may be rounded to 3 and 7, respectively.

Keywords  Response modification factor · Capacity curve · Moment-resisting frame · Reinforced concrete · Nonlinear
pushover analysis

1 Introduction special moment-resisting RC-frame may be taken as 1.2 and

Response modification factor is a design parameter that
accounts for the nonlinear response of a building structure
when it is designed based on the results of a linear static
analysis. Although this design parameter carries the same
responsibility in different seismic codes, its magnitude for a
given structural system might be significantly different from
one design code to another. For example, in European stand-
ard EC8 [1], this parameter which is referred to as behavior
factor,
( )q, for a highly ductile frame structure is defined as
4.5 𝛼u  , where 𝛼u is the base shear corresponding to a global
𝛼
1
plastic mechanism, and 𝛼1 represents the base shear relevant
to the formation of the first(plastic
) hinge anywhere in the
frame structure. The ratio of 𝛼u in a one-bay and three-bay
𝛼
1
* Hamid Toopchi‑Nezhad
h.toopchinezhad@razi.ac.ir
1 The response modification factor (called R-factor here-
Rural Water and Wastewater Company, Kermanshah, Iran
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Razi University,
Kermanshah 67149‑67346, Iran
1.3, respectively [1]. As such, according to EC8, the
response modification factor of such frame structures will
range between 5.4 to 5.9. The behavior factors defined in
EC8 are based more on an expert elicitation rather than on
a firm scientific basis [2]. The American design codes
including ASCE-7 [3] and IBC [4], prescribe a response
modification factor, R, of 8 for special (i.e., highly ductile)
RC-frame structures. The Iranian Standard 2800-91 [5] man-
dates the use of a response modification factor of 7.5 for
such structures. In the National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC) [6], two force modification factors, namely ductil-
ity-related, Rd, and overstrength-related, Ro, are presented.
For a ductile moment-resisting RC-frame structure these
factors read 4.0 and 1.7, respectively [6]. The product of
these two factors represents the response modification factor
of structure. The code-specified values of response modifica-
tion factor of RC-frame structures of different ductility levels
are listed in Table 1.
after) according to ATC-19 [7] is defined as R = R𝜇 Ωd R𝜉 ,
where R𝜇 represents a ductility index which also include

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Table 1  Code-specified values Code
of response modification (or
behavior) factor for RC-frame
structures
EC8 [1]
ASCE-7 [3]
Standard 2800-91 [5]
NBCC [6]
the effect of inherent damping of structure; Ωd is the over-
strength factor, and R𝜉 accounts for the effects of any sup-
plemental viscous damping in the system. In ATC-34 [8], the
R-factor is defined as R = R𝜇 Ωd RR , where the new param-
eter, namely, RR accounts for the redundancy of structure.
To evaluate the R-factor, the influences of overstrength and
redundancy factors may be embedded into a single param-
eter called overstrength ratio, Ωo . On this basis, the R-factor
can be defined as R = R𝜇 Ωo [3, 9, 10].
Numerous research studies can be found in the literature
that investigates the R-factor of various structural systems.
Miranda [11] suggests that the R-factor is mostly influenced
by displacement ductility, natural period of structure, and
soil conditions. Application of supplemental energy dissipa-
tion devices in a given structure may increase the R-factor
of the resulting structural system [12–17]. Bojórquez et al.
[18] studied the influence of cumulative damages (plastic
deformations) on the ductility and strength reduction factor
of structures. In a separate study based upon the response of
elastic perfectly plastic oscillators, it is concluded that the
current formulas for evaluating the R-factors are inadequate
to capture the effect of cumulative damages. As such, a new
method is developed to estimate the R-factors more effec-
tively [19]. Daza [20] evaluated a relationship between the
R-factor and the minimum strength of a building structure
using a pushover analysis approach. Dang and Francxois
[21] proposed a new ductility factor to address the impact
of corrosion on the ductility of RC-beams. This factor was
defined as the ratio of ultimate deflection of corroded beam
to that of the original non-corroded beam. A research study
conducted by Chen et al. [22] suggests that the overall defor-
mation capacity of RC-frames reinforced with normal and
high strength rebars is comparable. Results of a recent study
indicate that prefabrication can improve the response modi-
fication factor of coupled shear walls [23].
The overstrength ratio, Ωo , represents the ratio of appar-
ent strength to design strength of a structural system [24].
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Structural system Response modi-
fication factor (R
or q)
Medium ductility class (DCM) 3.0αu/α1 ≈ 3.90
High ductility class (DCH) 4.5αu/α1 ≈ 5.85
Ordinary moment-resisting frame 3
Intermediate moment-resisting frame 5
Special moment-resisting frame 8
Ordinary moment-resisting frame 3
Intermediate moment-resisting frame 5
Special moment-resisting frame 7.5
Intermediate moment-resisting frame 3.5
Ductile moment-resisting frame 6.8
This ratio is an index of lateral load-resisting capacity and
collapse prevention of a structure. Jain and Navin [24]
employed a nonlinear pseudo-static analysis approach to
evaluate the overstrength ratio of 4-bay RC-frames at 3,
6 and 9 stories. All of the frame structures were designed
for Seismic Regions I and V in conformance to the Indian
Code [25]. They concluded that the overstrength ratio can be
affected by the seismicity, number of stories, and the mag-
nitude of gravity loads. An increase in the level of seismic
hazard or number of stories was found to adversely affect the
overstrength ratio [24]. A similar study confirms this obser-
vation in irregular RC-frame structures [26]. In a separate
study, the overstrength ratio of a structure was found to be
influenced by the level of ductility of its structural members
[27].
The overstrength ratio of a structure can be obtained from
nonlinear static (conventional pushover or adaptive pushover
analysis methods), pseudo-static, or dynamic analysis meth-
ods [24, 27–29]. Additionally, the magnitude of this ratio
may be influenced by the assumptions made in the design
of structure [28, 30]. These assumptions include neglecting
the difference between nominal and real strength of materi-
als, and utilizing the elastic period, instead of the cracked
period, in the calculation of earthquake design base shear.
Furthermore, the analysis method may also influence the
magnitude of the overstrength ratio. For example, a 2D non-
linear analysis may overestimate the lateral load-resisting
capacity of a frame structure [28]. In a 2D model of struc-
ture, all of the columns are subjected to uniaxial bending
moments, whereas in a 3D response, the columns will expe-
rience biaxial bending moments. Mondal et al. [30] investi-
gated the R-factor of ductile RC-frame structures designed
on the basis of Indian Code [25], and concluded that the R
values specified in the Indian Code for these structures are
overestimated [30].
The literature includes a number of analytical research stud-
ies [e.g., 31–33] conducted on the RC-frame structures whose
International Journal of Civil Engineering

earthquake design loads were determined based on Standard

2800-84 [34] and their structural members were designed
in accordance with the provisions of ACI 318-95 [35]. It is
realized that for any given structural system the magnitude of
R-factor is affected by the philosophy utilized in the design of
structure [10]. The design philosophy employed to evaluate
the R-factors cited in Standard 2800-84 [34] is an Allowable
Stress Design (ASD) philosophy, whereas the code provisions
in ACI 318-95 [35] are based on an Ultimate Strength Design
(USD) philosophy.
The main objective of this research study is to evaluate
the R-factor of RC-frames that their earthquake design loads
are evaluated by Standard 2800-91 [5], and their structural
design is performed on the basis of the provisions of National
Building Code of Iran (NBCI) [36]. The R-factors cited in
Standard 2800-91 [5] are based on a USD-philosophy. This Fig. 1  Bilinear idealization of capacity curve and calculation of
design philosophy is not quite similar to the limit state design R-factor
(LSD) philosophy that is employed by Article 9 of the NBCI
for design of RC-structures [36]. To the best authors’ knowl-
edge, no specific research study can be found in the literature the idealized model is constructed with a straight line pass-
that examines the validity of the R-factors of current Stand- ing the origin and a point corresponding to the strength of
ard-2800 for those RC-structures that are designed on the basis 0.75Vy on the capacity curve [9]. The elastic strength of the
of code provisions of Article 9 of NBCI [36]. To achieve the frame structure (i.e., base shear corresponding to the elastic
research objectives, the R-factor of a set of 1 to 4 bays RC- response of structure), Ve , is obtained at the point where the
frames of 3–9 stories are evaluated with the aid of a pushover elastic line intersects Δmax (see Fig. 1). In this research study,
analysis approach. These dimensions encompass a wide range the maximum lateral displacement Δmax is assumed to be
of medium-size residential and commercial building structures consistent with the maximum permissible values prescribed
built in urban areas. In terms of ductility, the RC-frames of this by Standard 2800-91 [5]. These permissible values in terms
study are categorized in two groups which are ordinary- and of the building height, H, are as follows:
special-RC frames.
Δa = 0.025H for buildings of 5 or less stories, (2)
2 Mathematical Evaluation of R‑Factor Δa = 0.02H for all other buildings. (3)
The maximum permissible lateral displacements given by
To evaluate the R-factor, a nonlinear static analysis (pusho-
Eqs. (2) and (3) are consistent with a life safety performance
ver analysis) is conducted on each frame structure to plot its
objective for an ordinary frame structure according to Standard
capacity curve (i.e., relationship between base shear and roof
2800-91 [5]. Having the elastic strength, Ve , and the apparent
displacement). Figure 1 shows a schematic nonlinear capacity
strength, Vy , evaluated, the displacement ductility ratio, R𝜇 , is
curve (a typical outcome of a pushover analysis) that is ideal-
calculated from Eq. (4)
ized with a bilinear model.
In Fig. 1, Vy represents the apparent strength of the frame Ve
R𝜇 = (4)
structure, which is the base shear corresponding to the maxi- Vy
mum lateral displacement imposed on the frame structure. The
design base shear, Vd , of the frame structure is evaluated using The response modification factor, R, represents the ratio
the equivalent lateral force procedure of a seismic design code of elastic strength, Ve , to the design strength, Vd , of structure.
such as Standard 2800-91 [5]. The overstrength ratio, Ω0 , rep- From Eqs. (1) and (4), R can be evaluated as
resents the ratio of apparent strength to design strength of the Ve
frame structure as given by Eq. (1) R= = R𝜇 Ω0 (5)
Vd
Vy
Ω0 = (1)
Vd

The nonlinear capacity curve can be idealized with a bilin-

ear model as shown in Fig. 1. The linear elastic portion of

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 2  Section properties of beams in the frame structures

Frame Storey Special frame (S) Ordinary frame (O) Frame Storey Special frame (S) Ordinary frame (O)
Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b

1B3S 1 350 × 350 1.7 1.0 300 × 350 0.6 0.4 3B7S 5 350 × 350 3.0 2.0 400 × 400 0.8 0.5
2 350 × 350 2.0 1.0 300 × 350 0.9 0.4 6 350 × 350 2.7 1.2 350 × 350 0.8 0.3
3 250 × 350 1.3 0.6 300 × 300 1.0 0.5 7 300 × 350 1.2 0.8 350 × 300 0.7 0.4
2B3S 1 350 × 350 1.5 0.9 350 × 350 0.1 0.4 3B7S 1 400 × 400 2.3 2.0 400 × 400 0.8 0.5
2 350 × 350 1.8 0.8 350 × 350 0.8 0.3 2 400 × 400 3.2 2.6 400 × 400 0.7 0.7
3 300 × 300 1.2 0.6 250 × 300 1.0 1.0 3 400 × 400 3.2 2.6 400 × 400 0.7 0.7
3B3S 1 350 × 350 1.0 0.9 350 × 350 1.0 0.4 4 400 × 400 3.2 2.6 400 × 400 0.7 0.7
2 350 × 350 2.0 0.7 300 × 350 1.0 0.4 5 350 × 350 3.0 2.0 400 × 400 0.8 0.4
3 300 × 300 1.2 0.7 250 × 300 1.0 0.6 6 350 × 350 2.5 1.2 400 × 400 0.7 0.4
4B3S 1 350 × 350 1.1 0.7 350 × 350 0.9 0.5 7 350 × 300 1.1 0.7 350 × 300 0.7 0.3
2 300 × 350 1.2 0.4 300 × 350 1.0 0.4 1B9S 1 500 × 500 1.0 1.0 500 × 500 0.5 0.3
3 300 × 300 1.2 0.7 250 × 300 1.0 0.6 2 500 × 500 1.2 1.2 500 × 500 0.6 0.5
1B5S 1 400 × 400 2.0 1.2 400 × 400 0.8 0.4 3 500 × 500 2.0 2.0 500 × 500 0.7 0.5
2 400 × 400 2.6 2.0 400 × 400 1.0 0.4 4 500 × 500 2.4 2.0 500 × 500 0.8 0.6
3 350 × 350 2.7 2.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.5 5 500 × 500 1.2 1.1 400 × 400 1.0 0.5
4 350 × 350 2.0 1.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.5 6 500 × 500 1.2 1.1 400 × 400 1.0 0.6
5 300 × 350 1.7 0.8 350 × 300 1.0 0.5 7 500 × 500 1.1 1.2 350 × 350 0.8 0.5
2B5S 1 400 × 400 1.2 1.1 400 × 400 0.7 0.3 8 500 × 500 1.1 0.8 350 × 350 1.0 0.5
2 400 × 400 2.0 1.2 400 × 400 0.9 0.5 9 350 × 350 1.0 1.0 250 × 300 1.0 0.6
3 350 × 350 2.0 2.5 350 × 350 1.0 0.5 1B9S 1 500 × 500 1.0 0.9 500 × 500 0.6 0.5
4 350 × 350 2.0 1.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.4 2 500 × 500 1.2 1.0 500 × 500 0.6 0.5
5 300 × 350 1.0 0.7 350 × 350 0.6 0.3 3 500 × 500 1.2 1.2 500 × 500 0.7 0.5
3B5S 1 400 × 400 2.0 1.5 400 × 400 0.7 0.4 4 500 × 500 2.2 1.2 500 × 500 0.7 0.5
2 400 × 400 2.6 2.0 400 × 400 0.9 0.5 5 500 × 500 1.0 1.1 400 × 400 0.8 0.4
3 350 × 350 2.0 2.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.4 6 500 × 500 1.2 1.1 400 × 400 1.0 0.6
4 350 × 350 2.7 1.1 350 × 350 0.8 0.4 7 350 × 350 2.0 1.2 350 × 350 1.0 0.5
5 300 × 350 1.1 0.7 300 × 350 0.6 0.3 8 350 × 350 2.0 1.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.5
4B5S 1 400 × 400 2.0 1.5 400 × 400 0.7 0.4 9 350 × 350 1.0 0.5 250 × 300 1.0 0.6
2 400 × 400 2.6 2.0 400 × 400 0.8 0.5 3B9S 1 500 × 500 1.0 0.9 500 × 500 0.5 0.3
3 350 × 350 2.0 2.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.4 2 500 × 500 1.2 1.0 500 × 500 0.6 0.5
4 350 × 350 2.7 1.1 350 × 350 0.8 0.4 3 500 × 500 1.2 1.2 500 × 500 0.7 0.5
5 300 × 350 1.1 0.7 300 × 350 0.6 0.3 4 500 × 500 2.2 1.2 500 × 500 0.7 0.5
1B7S 1 400 × 400 2.0 1.2 400 × 400 0.7 0.4 5 500 × 500 1.0 1.1 350 × 350 0.8 0.5
2 400 × 400 2.5 2.0 400 × 400 1.0 0.6 6 500 × 500 1.2 1.1 350 × 350 0.7 0.6
3 400 × 400 3.2 2.9 400 × 400 1.0 0.8 7 350 × 350 2.0 1.2 350 × 350 1.0 0.5
4 350 × 350 3.2 2.9 400 × 400 1.0 0.7 8 350 × 350 2.0 1.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.5
5 350 × 350 3.0 2.7 400 × 400 0.8 0.5 9 350 × 350 1.0 0.8 350 × 300 1.0 0.6
6 350 × 350 2.7 1.2 350 × 350 0.9 0.4 4B9S 1 500 × 500 1.0 0.9 500 × 500 0.5 0.3
7 300 × 350 2.0 1.1 350 × 300 0.7 0.4 2 500 × 500 1.2 1.0 500 × 500 0.7 0.5
2B7S 1 400 × 400 2.0 1.2 400 × 400 0.6 0.5 3 500 × 500 1.2 1.2 500 × 500 0.7 0.4
2 400 × 400 2.0 1.2 400 × 400 0.7 0.7 4 500 × 500 2.2 1.9 500 × 500 0.7 0.5
3 400 × 400 2.0 1.2 400 × 400 0.7 0.7 5 500 × 500 1.0 1.1 400 × 400 1.0 0.6
4 400 × 400 2.0 1.2 400 × 400 0.7 0.7 6 500 × 500 1.2 1.1 400 × 400 1.0 0.6
5 350 × 350 3.0 2.7 400 × 400 0.8 0.5 7 350 × 350 2.0 1.7 400 × 400 1.0 0.5
6 350 × 350 2.7 1.2 400 × 400 0.8 0.5 8 350 × 350 2.0 1.0 350 × 350 1.0 0.5
7 300 × 350 2.0 1.1 350 × 300 0.7 0.4 9 350 × 350 1.0 0.8 350 × 300 1.0 0.5

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Table 2  (continued)
Frame Storey Special frame (S) Ordinary frame (O)
Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b
2B7S 1 400 × 400 2.0 2.0 400 × 400 0.7
2 400 × 400 3.2 2.6 400 × 400 0.7
3 400 × 400 3.2 3.0 400 × 400 0.7
4 400 × 400 2.5 2.0 400 × 400 0.7
3 Frame Structures
A total of 32 ordinary and ductile 2D RC-frame structures
are investigated in this research study. The frame struc-
tures are of 3, 5, and 7 stories at 1–4 bays. The height of
each story is assumed to be 3 m, and a constant span of
4 m is assumed for each bay within the frame structures.
To evaluate the seismic design loads, the RC-frames are
assumed to be located in a region of very high seismic
hazard on a site class III (stiff soil) in conformance with
Standard 2800-91 [5]. The frames are analyzed based on
the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure of the stand-
ard. The cracked section properties of structural members
are taken into account in the linear analysis by multiplying
the gross moment of inertia of beams and columns by 0.35
and 0.7, respectively. Furthermore, the p-delta effects are
accounted for in the analysis of frame structures. Having
the linear analysis completed, the structural members have
been designed in accordance with the provisions of Article
9 of the NBCI [36]. It is worth to note that the intensity of
dead loads at the middle floors and roof of the frame struc-
tures is assumed to be 21.57 and 17.65 kN/m, respectively.
The corresponding design live loads at the middle stories
and roof are taken 7.85 and 5.83 kN/m, respectively.
Tables 2 and 3 include the cross-sectional dimensions
and the reinforcement ratios of beams and columns of the
RC-frame structures of this study, respectively. Each RC-
frame is identified with a specific name in the format of
mBnS, where m and n represent the number of bays (B),
and stories (S), respectively. Additionally, the suffixes (O)
or (S) indicate whether the frame is an ordinary frame or a
special frame in terms of ductility. For example, 1B3S(O)
refers to an ordinary 1-bay RC-frame having 3-stories, and
1B3S(S) is assigned to the same frame of special ductility.
The reinforcement ratio provided at the bottom, 𝜌b , and
top, 𝜌t , of the beam section of each frame structure is listed
in Table 2. Table 3 includes the reinforcement ratio of the
longitudinal steel, 𝜌 , in the interior and exterior columns
of the frame structures.
Frame Storey Special frame (S) Ordinary frame (O)
Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b Dim. (mm) % 𝛒t % 𝛒b
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
4 Numerical Modeling
The nonlinear analysis runs of this research study were
performed by OpenSees [37], an open source object-ori-
ented software. Both beams and columns of the RC-frames
are modeled by fiber-section elements. In this finite ele-
ment modeling technique, the structural element (beam or
column) is discretized into longitudinal steel and concrete
fibers (see Fig. 2). The force–deformation relationship of
the section is evaluated through numerical integration of
the nonlinear uniaxial material constitutive behavior of
the fibers (this integration is performed over the element
cross section.). The force–displacement behavior of the
element is obtained by numerical integration of the sec-
tion force–deformation behavior along the length of the
element [37]. A distributed plasticity model (along the
element and over the element cross section) is utilized
to model the formation of plastic hinges in the beams or
columns of the frame structure. The length of the plastic
hinge varies between 1.2 and 2 h, with h being the depth
of the section [38]. In this study, the plastic hinges shown
in Fig. 2a are allowed to form within the limited length
of 2 h at both ends of beams and columns of the frame
structure. Since the element cross section is discretized
into longitudinal fibers, the uniaxial material constitutive
laws for the fibers can be employed to simulate the non-
linear response behavior of the section. The fiber section
allows the use of different constitutive models for different
parts of the section such as unconfined concrete, confined
concrete and steel reinforcement (see Fig. 2b). Further-
more, the fiber-section model accounts for the interaction
between bending and axial force at the section level. The
interaction with the shear force occurs at the element level
through equilibrium [37].
To simulate the concrete material, a constitutive material
model called concrete02 was utilized. This model accounts
for both compression and tensile strength of the concrete
material. Figure 3 shows the stress–strain relationships for
the unconfined and confined concrete materials that were
employed to model the ordinary (O), and special (S) frame
structures of this research study, respectively.
The steel reinforcement was defined in OpenSees with
a material model denoted as reinforcing steel uniaxial
13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 3  Section properties of Frame Storey Ordinary frame (O) Special frame (S)
columns in the frame structures
Interior columns Exterior columns Interior columns Exterior columns
Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%)

1B3S 1 400 × 400 3.0 400 × 400 1.00 400 × 400 1.0

2 400 × 400 1.1 400 × 400 1.00 400 × 400 1.0
3 400 × 400 1.0 350 × 350 1.20 350 × 350 1.2
2B3S 1 450 × 450 2.4 450 × 450 2.4 400 × 400 1.00 400 × 400 1.0
2 400 × 400 2.2 400 × 400 1.1 400 × 400 1.00 400 × 400 1.0
3 400 × 400 1.0 400 × 400 1.0 350 × 350 1.20 350 × 350 1.2
3B3S 1 450 × 450 2.4 450 × 450 2.4 400 × 400 2.00 400 × 400 2.0
2 400 × 400 2.2 400 × 400 1.2 400 × 400 1.00 400 × 400 1.0
3 400 × 400 1.0 400 × 400 1.0 350 × 350 1.12 350 × 350 1.2
4B3S 1 500 × 500 2.1 500 × 500 2.1 400 × 400 1.00 400 × 400 1.0
2 450 × 450 1.2 450 × 450 1.4 400 × 400 1.00 400 × 400 1.0
3 400 × 400 1.0 400 × 400 1.0 350 × 350 1.12 350 × 350 1.2
1B5S 1 500 × 500 3.0 500 × 500 3.0 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
2 500 × 500 1.9 500 × 500 1.9 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
3 450 × 450 2.1 450 × 450 2.1 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
4 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
5 450 × 450 1.0 450 × 450 1.0 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
2B5S 1 500 × 500 3.7 500 × 500 3.7 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
2 500 × 500 3.2 500 × 500 2.1 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
3 450 × 450 2.1 450 × 450 2.7 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
4 450 × 450 2.7 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
5 450 × 450 1.0 450 × 450 1.0 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
3B5S 1 500 × 500 3.2 500 × 500 3.2 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
2 500 × 500 2.1 500 × 500 1.9 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
3 450 × 450 2.4 450 × 450 1.7 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
4 450 × 450 1.7 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
5 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.0 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
4B5S 1 500 × 500 3.7 500 × 500 3.7 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
2 500 × 500 2.1 500 × 500 1.9 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
3 450 × 450 2.7 450 × 450 2.0 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
4 450 × 450 2.0 450 × 450 1.7 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
5 450 × 450 1.1 450 × 450 1.0 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
1B7S 1 600 × 600 3.9 600 × 600 3.9 600 × 600 1.50 600 × 600 1.5
2 600 × 600 2.4 600 × 600 2.4 600 × 600 1.00 600 × 600 1.0
3 550 × 550 2.1 550 × 550 2.1 550 × 550 1.00 550 × 550 1.0
4 550 × 550 1.2 550 × 550 1.5 550 × 550 1.00 550 × 550 1.0
5 500 × 500 1.1 500 × 500 1.4 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
6 500 × 500 1.1 500 × 500 1.4 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
7 450 × 450 1.1 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
2B7S 1 600 × 600 4.0 600 × 600 4.4 600 × 600 1.50 600 × 600 1.5
2 600 × 600 2.2 600 × 600 2.6 600 × 600 1.00 600 × 600 1.0
3 550 × 550 2.0 550 × 550 2.0 550 × 550 1.00 550 × 550 1.0
4 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.00 550 × 550 1.0
5 500 × 500 1.19 500 × 500 1.4 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
6 500 × 500 1.19 500 × 500 1.4 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
7 450 × 450 1.7 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 3  (continued) Frame Storey Ordinary frame (O) Special frame (S)

Interior columns Exterior columns Interior columns Exterior columns
Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%)

3B7S 1 600 × 600 3.9 600 × 600 4.4 600 × 600 1.50 600 × 600 1.5

2 600 × 600 2.2 600 × 600 2.6 600 × 600 1.00 600 × 600 1.0
3 550 × 550 2.0 550 × 550 2.0 550 × 550 1.00 550 × 550 1.0
4 550 × 550 1.7 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.00 550 × 550 1.0
5 500 × 500 1.9 500 × 500 1.4 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
6 500 × 500 1.9 500 × 500 1.9 500 × 500 1.00 500 × 500 1.0
7 450 × 450 1.7 450 × 450 1.4 450 × 450 1.00 450 × 450 1.0
4B7S 1 600 × 600 4.0 600 × 600 4.4 600 × 600 1.5 600 × 600 1.5
2 600 × 600 2.2 600 × 600 2.6 600 × 600 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
3 550 × 550 2.0 550 × 550 2.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0
4 550 × 550 1.2 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0
5 500 × 500 1.2 500 × 500 1.1 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0
6 500 × 500 1.2 500 × 500 1.1 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0
7 450 × 450 1.2 450 × 450 1.1 450 × 450 1.0 450 × 450 1.0
1B9S 1 700 × 700 2.8 700 × 700 2.8 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0
2 700 × 700 2.0 700 × 700 2.0 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0
3 650 × 650 1.2 650 × 650 1.9 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
4 650 × 650 1.2 650 × 650 1.2 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
5 600 × 600 1.2 600 × 600 1.2 650 × 650 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
6 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
7 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.1 550 × 550 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
8 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0
9 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0
2B9S 1 700 × 700 2.1 700 × 700 3.2 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0
2 700 × 700 1.4 700 × 700 1.8 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0
3 650 × 650 1.8 650 × 650 1.1 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
4 650 × 650 1.4 650 × 650 1.9 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
5 600 × 600 2.2 600 × 600 1.2 650 × 650 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
6 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
7 550 × 550 1.1 550 × 550 1.1 550 × 550 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
8 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0
9 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0
3B9S 1 700 × 700 2.0 700 × 700 3.2 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0
2 700 × 700 1.1 700 × 700 1.2 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0
3 650 × 650 1.1 650 × 650 1.2 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
4 650 × 650 1.1 650 × 650 1.2 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
5 600 × 600 2.2 600 × 600 1.2 650 × 650 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
6 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
7 550 × 550 1.1 600 × 600 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
8 500 × 550 1.1 550 × 550 1.1 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0
9 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 3  (continued) Frame Storey Ordinary frame (O) Special frame (S)

Interior columns Exterior columns Interior columns Exterior columns
Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%) Dim. (mm) ρ (%)

4B9S 1 700 × 700 2.0 700 × 700 3.2 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0

2 700 × 700 1.4 700 × 700 1.8 700 × 700 1.0 700 × 700 1.0
3 650 × 650 1.4 650 × 650 1.6 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
4 650 × 650 1.1 650 × 650 1.1 650 × 650 1.0 650 × 650 1.0
5 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 2.2 650 × 650 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
6 600 × 600 1.2 600 × 600 1.1 600 × 600 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
7 550 × 550 1.2 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 600 × 600 1.0
8 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0 550 × 550 1.0
9 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0 500 × 500 1.0

concrete fibers
cross section of concrete cover (unconfined in ordinary
the structural (unconfined RC-frames, and confined
element concrete fibers) in special RC-frames)

steel
finite length reinforcement
hinge zone

(a) (b)

Fig. 2  Modeling technique utilized in OpenSees; a structural element with distributed plasticity; b fiber-section discretization approach

Fig. 3  Stress–strain relationship assumed for the concrete material; a confined concrete (special frames); b unconfined concrete (ordinary
frames)

material. Figure 4 shows the constitutive material model material model accounts for the strain hardening of steel
used for the steel reinforcement. As seen in this figure, the material at strain values beyond 0.01.

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 4  Stress–strain relationship assumed for the steel reinforcement
5 Model Verification
As stated earlier, a pushover analysis is performed to evalu-
ate the R-factor of each frame structure of this paper. To
perform the pushover analysis, lateral displacements with a
specific profile along the height of structure are imposed to
the frame structure while the structure is subjected to con-
stant gravity loads throughout the analysis. The profile of
lateral displacements should be consistent with the dominant
elastic mode shape of structure. The analysis is carried out
in a displacement control fashion, namely the magnitudes
of lateral displacements are increased at each step of analy-
sis, while the level of gravity loads remain unchanged. The
p-delta effects are also included in the analysis. It is worth to
note that the nature of applied loads in a pushover analysis is
static, and the analysis accounts for any inelastic behavior of
structural members within the frame structure.
It is essential to validate the numerical model of struc-
ture and the results of pushover analysis before these results
can be employed in the evaluation of R-factors. The lateral
load–displacement behavior shown in Fig. 5 is related to a 2
storey, 1 bay RC-frame structure which has been investigated
experimentally and analytically by Vecchio and Emara [39].
To simulate the nonlinear lateral load–displacement of this
frame structure in OpenSees, the beams and columns are
discretized using 300 × 400 and 300 × 400 fiber-section ele-
ments, respectively. The material models used for concrete
and steel reinforcement in the analysis are compatible with
the models described in the previous section. The lateral dis-
placements are imposed with a linear profile along the height
of the frame structure. The lateral load–displacement (also
called capacity curve) of the frame which is an outcome
of the pushover analysis can be seen in Fig. 5. As seen in
this figure, there is a good correlation between the results
of pushover analysis of this paper and the analysis results
obtained by Vecchio and Emara [39]. It should be noted that
in comparison to the experimental results, both analytical
Fig. 5  Verification of pushover analysis model
models shown in Fig. 5 to some extent have overestimated
the lateral loads corresponding to any given level of lateral
displacement.
6 Pushover Analysis Results
The pushover analysis runs of this research study were car-
ried out using a linear pattern for the lateral displacements
imposed along the height of frame structures. This pattern
was found to be consistent with the first elastic mode shapes
of structures. One of the nodes located on the roof of the
frame was selected as a Control Point. Depending on the
number of frame stories, the Control Point was incrementally
and monotonically pushed up to 2 or 2.5% of the total height
of frame structure as the permissible lateral displacements
prescribed by the Standard 2800-91 [5]. For frame structures
of up to 5 stories, the maximum limit of lateral displace-
ment was set to be 2.5% of the total height of structure. For
the other frame structures, the maximum displacement limit
was considered to be 2% of the total height. The occupancy
of structures was assumed to be residential. The total dead
loads together with 20% of live loads were included in the
analysis as the effective weight of structures. Additionally,
the effects of p-delta were included in the analysis.
Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 show the capacity curves (i.e., base
shear vs. roof displacement) of the frame structures studied
in this paper. Figures 6 and 7 show the influence of the num-
ber of stories on the capacity curve of frame structures with
ordinary and special ductility, respectively. The number of
bays in the frame structures varies between 1 and 4. As seen
in these figures, for a given number of bays, an increase in
the number of stories will significantly increase the shear
resistance of structure. This phenomenon is independent of
the level of ductility of the frame structure. It is due to the
fact that with raising the height of frame structure, both the
physical dimensions and the total area of steel reinforcement
13

Fig. 6  Capacity curves of ordinary frame structures of 1 to 4 bays at different stories
of columns increased. A comparison between Figs. 5 and 6
shows that the shear resistance of an ordinary structure is
significantly larger than its counterpart with special ductility.
A close examination of Figs. 5 and 6 indicates that the initial
stiffness of the frame structures remains almost unaffected
by the number of frame stories.
Figures 8 and 9 show the influence of number of bays
on the capacity curve of frame structures. As seen in these
figures, for any given number of stories, an increase in the
number of bays will significantly increase both the stiffness
and shear resistance capacity of frame structure. In the struc-
tures with more bays, the larger number of columns (and
beams) results in an increased lateral stiffness as well as
shear resistance capacity.
The magnitudes of R-factor for the structures of this
research study have been evaluated using the procedure
outlined in Sect. 2. The detailed calculation of R-factor for
frame 4B9S(S), as a sample calculation, is presented in the
following.
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Figure 10 shows the capacity curve of frame 4B9S(S)
which is a RC-frame of special ductility having 4 bays and
9 stories. The maximum lateral displacement, ∆ max, that
was imposed on the structure during pushover analysis was
selected to be 2% of the total height of the structure, namely,
540 mm. This limit displacement is prescribed by Stand-
ard 2800-91 [5]. Based on pushover analysis, the maximum
base shear experienced by the structure is calculated to be
Vy = 886.13 kN . As seen in Fig. 10, the nonlinear capacity
curve can be idealized with a bilinear model. The linear
elastic portion of the idealized bilinear model starts from
the origin and intersects the nonlinear capacity curve at
shear strength of 0.75Vy . From Fig. 10 the linear elastic
base shear corresponding to the maximum lateral displace-
ment reads Ve = 4433.78 kN . The design base shear of the
frame structure on the basis of the equivalent lateral force
procedure given in Standard 2800-91 [5] is calculated to
be Vd = 530.15 kN . Using Eq. (1) the overstrength ratio,
Ω0 , is calculated to be 886.13/530.15  =  1.67. The dis-
placement ductility ratio, R𝜇 , is evaluated from Eq. (4) as
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 7  Capacity curves of special frame structures of 1–4 bays at different stories
4433.78/886.13 = 5. The product of overstrength and ductil-
ity ratios, i.e., (1.67)(5) = 8.36 on the basis of Eq. (5) results
in the R-factor of structure.
Similar calculations have been performed for the rest
of frame structures that were investigated in this research
study. Tables 4 and 5 list the results obtained for ordinary
and special frame structures, respectively. According to
these tables, the overstrength ratio of frame structures stud-
ied in this research locates within the range of 1.2–2.2. It
is worth to note that in ASCE7-10 [3] and Standard 2800-
91 [5], an overstrength ratio of 3 has been prescribed for
moment-resisting RC-frame structures of ordinary, medium,
and special ductility. Even though the values obtained for
overstrength ratio in this paper are significantly smaller
than the code-specified values, they are consistent with the
results obtained by other researchers. Zhu et al. [40] showed
that the overstrength ratio of moment-resisting RC-frame
structures of 4 stories located at different seismic zones of
Canada may vary between 1.2 and 1.7. According to Fisch-
inger et al. [41], the overstrength ratio in a 10 storey building
with the R-factor of 5 is calculated to be 1.4. Furthermore,
the overstrength factor presented in NBCC [6] for ductile
and intermediate moment-resisting frames are 1.7 and 1.4,
respectively. These values have been evaluated based on a
limit state design (LSD) methodology.
According to Table  4, the minimum and maximum
rounded values calculated for the R-factor of ordinary frame
structures are 3.0 and 5.5, respectively. The mean value of
R-factor is calculated to be 4.0, and the 95% confidence
interval of the mean is [3.7, 4.4]. The rounded values of
R-factor in the special frame structures of this study may be
as low as 7.0, and as high as 12.0 (see Table 5), with a mean
value of 9.5, and the 95% confidence interval of the mean
of [8.5, 10.4].
The code-specified design base shear of a building struc-
ture is adversely influenced by the magnitude of R-factor that
is assigned to its lateral load-resisting structural system. To
ensure a safe and reliable design, the base shear may be eval-
uated conservatively based on the minimum R-factor that is
expected from a structural system. As such, the reasonable
13

Fig. 8  Capacity curves of ordinary frame structures of 3–9 stories with different bays
values of R-factor to be employed in seismic design calcu-
lations of ordinary and special RC-frame structures are 3.0
and 7.0, respectively. Based on these values, the R-factor
of a RC-frame with an intermediate level of ductility is
expected to be approximately 5.0. These values are consist-
ent with the R values prescribed by ASCE- 7 [3] and Stand-
ard 2800-91 [5] except for the special RC-frame structures
(see Table 1). The NBCC [6] mandates a more conservative
R-factor as compared to the value of 5.0 estimated in this
paper for intermediate ductile frames. The R-factor for duc-
tile frames in NBCC [6] is 6.8 which is close to the value of
7.0 obtained in this study. The values of R-factor in EC8 [1]
are by far more conservative than the values prescribed by
the other codes in Table 1 or the minimum values obtained
in this research study.
Figure 11a–d shows the influence of the number of bays
on the magnitude of R-factor in the frame structures of 3,
5, 7, and 9 stories, respectively. An inspection of Fig. 11a
indicates that in the 3-storey frame structures of ordinary or
special ductility, the R-factor is decreased with increasing
number of bays. For the other frame structures studied in
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
this paper, either no meaningful trend between the number
of bays and R-factor can be found (see Fig. 11b) or the influ-
ence of number of bays on the R-factor can be neglected
(Fig. 11c, d).
The influence of number of stories on the R-factor of
frame structures studied in this paper can be investigated
with the aid of Fig. 12a–d. Overall, for a given number of
bays a larger R-factor is obtained for the frame structures of
lower number of stories. This observation is consistent with
the results obtained in Ref. [26]. However, there are few
analysis cases of this research study where a reversed trend
can be observed (e.g., the ordinary frame structures shown
in Fig. 12c, d).
7 Summary and Conclusions
The main goal of this research study is to determine the
response modification factor (also called R-factor) of
moment-resisting RC-frame structures of ordinary and
special ductility levels that are designed on the basis of a
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 9  Capacity curves of special frame structures of 3–9 stories with different bays
Fig. 10  Bilinear idealization of the capacity curve of frame 4B9S(S)
as a typical example
limit state design (LSD) method. To achieve the research
objective, a group of 2D-frame structures of 1, 2, 3, and 4
bays at 3, 5, 7, and 9 stories are designed in conformance
with the provisions of Standard 2800-91 [5], and Article 9
of the National Building Code of Iran (NBCI) [36]. To cal-
culate the R-factor, a nonlinear static pushover analysis is
conducted on each frame structure. The influence of grav-
ity loads and p-delta effects are included in the pushover
analysis. Next, the capacity curve of each frame structure
(i.e., the outcome of pushover analysis) until a permissible
lateral displacement prescribed by Standard 2800-91 [5]
is evaluated and then idealized by a bilinear model. The
R-factor together with the overstrength ratio, Ωo , and dis-
placement ductility ratio, R𝜇 , of each frame structure are
calculated using the procedure outlined in the paper. The
followings are the main conclusions of this research study:
1. The 95% confidence intervals for the mean R-factor in
the ordinary and special RC-frame structures of this
13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 4  Response modification factor for ordinary moment-resisting study are found to be [3.7, 4.4] and [8.5, 10.4], respec-
RC-frames tively.
Number of Number of R𝜇 Ω0 R R (rounded) 2. Overall, for the frame structures of lower number of sto-
stories bays ries a larger R-factor is calculated. No meaningful rela-
tionship obtained between the R-factor and the number
3 1 3.10 1.68 5.21 5
of bays within the frame structures.
2 4.55 1.20 5.45 5
3. The magnitude of overstrength ratio for the frame struc-
3 2.17 1.54 3.34 3
tures of this paper is found to be between 1.2 and 2.1 that
4 1.77 1.54 2.72 3
are consistent with the values offered by NBCC [6]. The
5 1 2.48 1.71 4.24 4
values prescribed by ASCE 7 [3] and Standard 2800-91
2 2.91 1.89 5.50 6
[5] are by far greater than the values evaluated in this
3 2.25 1.62 3.64 4
paper.
4 2.46 1.63 4.01 4
4. To achieve a safe and conservative design, the linear
7 1 2.12 1.66 3.50 4
seismic analysis of a building structure must be carried
2 2.18 1.65 3.60 4
out on the basis of the minimum (not average) value of
3 2.18 1.65 3.60 4
the R-factor that can be assigned to the structural system
4 2.18 1.65 3.60 4
of the building. As such, given the results of this study,
9 1 2.27 1.71 3.88 4
the design R-factor of ordinary and special RC-frame
2 4.17 1.26 4.33 4
structures may be rounded to 3 and 7, respectively.
3 3.50 1.23 4.31 4
5. The design R-factor calculated for ordinary RC-frame
4 3.57 1.19 4.24 4
structures of this paper is consistent with the values
given by ASCE 7 [3] and Standard 2800-91 [5]. How-
ever, both of these standards overestimate the R-factor
Table 5  Response modification factor for special moment-resisting of special RC-frame structures as compared to the value
RC-frames of 7 obtained in this research study, or the value of 6.8
Number of Number of R𝜇 Ω0 R R (rounded) given by NBCC [6]. As with the structures of this study,
stories bays R-factors in NBCC are calculated based on a LSD meth-
odology.
3 1 7.70 1.57 12.1 5
2 5.80 2.05 11.8 12
Reinforced concrete structures in Article 9 of NBCI [36]
3 5.49 2.10 11.5 12
are designed based on a LSD method. Nonetheless, the
4 5.00 2.15 10.8 11
design methodology used in the evaluation of R-factors in
5 1 5.80 1.76 10.2 10
Standard 2800-91 is the ultimate strength design (USD). The
2 6.20 1.80 11.2 11
design R-factor of special RC-frame structures of this paper
3 6.60 1.76 11.6 12
that were designed on the basis of Article 9 of NBCI, was
4 7.70 1.33 11.2 11
found to be smaller than the value given by Standard 2800-
7 1 4.05 1.67 6.8 7
91. It is postulated that Standard 2800-91 may underestimate
2 4.37 1.67 7.3 7
the seismic design base shear for the special RC-frame struc-
3 4.37 1.67 7.3 7
tures that are designed in conformance to Article 9 of NBCI.
4 4.37 1.63 7.12 7
Current inconsistency between the design methodology of
9 1 4.69 1.62 7.6 8
Article 9 of NBCI and the design methodology on which the
2 5.00 1.61 8.1 8
R-factors of Standard 2800-91 have been evaluated deserves
3 5.00 1.62 8.1 8
further attention.
4 5.00 1.67 8.4 8

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 11  Variation of R-factor with the number of bays within the frame structure

Fig. 12  Variation of R-factor with the number of stories of the frame structure

13

Acknowledgements  This research was not supported by any funding
agency. As such, no funding information is available.
References
1. Code P (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake
resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
2. Žižmond J, Dolšek M (2016) Evaluation of factors influencing the
earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete frames accord-
ing to Eurocode 8. Struct Infrastruct Eng 12(10):1323–1341
3. ASCE7–10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston
4. IBC (2012) International building code. International Code Coun-
cil, Country Club Hills, ICC, Illinois
5. Standard 2800–91 (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic
resistant design of buildings, standard no. 2800, 4th edn. Road,
Housing and Urban Development Research Center, Tehran
6. NBCC (2010) National building code of Canada. Institute for
Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa,
7. ATC-19 (1995) Structural response modification factors. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood
8. ATC-34 (1995) A critical review of current approaches to earth-
quake-resistant design. Applied Technology Council, Redwood
9. Freeman SA (1990) On the correlation of code forces to earth-
quake demands. In: Proceedings of 4th US–Japan workshop on
improvement of building structural design and construction prac-
tices (ATC-15–3 report). Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City
10. FEMA-451B (2007) NEHRP recommended provisions for new
buildings and other structures: training and instructional materi-
als. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC
11. Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduc-
tion factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthq Spectra
10(2):357–379
12. Mahmoudi M, Abdi MG (2012) Evaluating response modification
factors of TADAS frames. J Constr Steel Res 71:162–170
13. Abdi H, Hejazi F, Jaafar MS, Karim IBA (2018) Response modi-
fication factors for reinforced concrete structures equipped with
viscous damper devices. Period Polytech Civil Eng 62(1):11
14. Aghayari R, Dardaei S (2017) Evaluating the effect of the thick-
ness and yield point of steel on the response modification factor
of RC frames braced with steel plate. KSCE J Civil Eng 1–7.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1220​5-017-1750-z
15. Mahmoudi M, Mirzaei A, Vosough S (2013) Evaluating
equivalent damping and response modification factors of
frames equipped by pall friction dampers. J Rehabil Civil Eng
1(1):78–92
16. Mahmoudi M, Zaree M (2013) Determination the response mod-
ification factors of buckling restrained braced frames. Proced
Eng 54:222–231
17. Moni M, Moradi S, Alam MS (2016) Response modification
factors for steel buckling restrained braced frames designed as
per the 2010 National Building Code of Canada. Can J Civ Eng
43(8):702–715
18. Bojórquez E, Ruiz SE, Reyes-Salazar A, Bojórquez J (2014)
Ductility and strength reduction factors for degrading structures
considering cumulative damage. Sci World J 2014(2014). https​
://doi.org/10.1155/2014/57581​6
19. Hou H, Qu B (2016) Influence of cumulative damage on seismic
response modification factors of elastic perfectly plastic oscil-
lators. Adv Struct Eng 19(3):473–487
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
20. Daza LG (2010) Correlation between minimum building
strength and the response modification factor. Taylor & Francis
Group, London
21. Dang HV, Francxois R (2014) Prediction of ductility factor of
corroded reinforced concrete beams exposed to long term aging
in chloride environment. Cem Concr Compos 53:136–147
22. Chen X, Fu J, Xue F, Wang X (2017) Comparative numerical
research on seismic behavior of RC-frames using normal and high
strength reinforcement. Int J Civil Eng 15(4):531–547
23. Asghari A, Zarnagh BA (2017) A new study of seismic behavior
of perforated coupling shear walls. Int J Civil Eng 15(5):775–789
24. Jain SK, Navin R (1995) Seismic overstrength in reinforced con-
crete frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 121:580–585
25. IS 13920 (1993) Ductile detailing of reinforce concrete structures
subjected to seismic forces, code of practice, Bureau of Indian
Standard, New Delhi
26. Brahmavrathan D, Arunkumar C (2016) Evaluation of response
reduction factor of irregular reinforced concrete framed structures.
Indian J Sci Technol 9(23). https​://doi.org/10.17485​/ijst%2F201​
6%2Fv9i​23%2F959​81
27. Mitchell D, Paultre P (1994) Ductility and overstrength in seis-
mic design of reinforced concrete structures. Can J Civ Eng
21:1049–1060
28. Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2002) Overstrength and force reduction
factors of multi-storey reinforced-concrete buildings. Struct Des
Tall Build 11:329–351
29. Izadinia M, Rahgozar MA, Mohammadrezaei O (2012) Response
modification factor for steel moment-resisting frames by different
pushover analysis methods. J Constr Steel Res 79:83–90
30. Mondal A, Ghosh S, Reddy GR (2013) Performance-based evalu-
ation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. Eng
Struct 56:1808–1819
31. Mahmoudi M (2003) The relationship between overstrength and
members ductility of RC moment resisting frames. In: Proceed-
ings of the 7th pacific conference on earthquake engineering,
Christchurch
32. Massumi A, Tasnimi AA, Saatcioglu M (2004) Prediction of seis-
mic overstrength in concrete moment resisting frames using incre-
mental static and dynamic analyses. In: The 13th world conference
on earthquake engineering, Vancouver
33. Shoshtari A, Ghaznavizade H (2008) A study on the seismic
behavior factor of reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceed-
ings of the 4th national congress on civil engineering, Tehran (in
Persian)
34. Standard 2800–84 (2005) Iranian code of practice for seismic
resistant design of buildings, standard no. 2800, 3rd edn. Hous-
ing and Urban Development Research Center, Tehran
35. ACI 318-95 (1995) Building code requirements for structural
concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute (ACI),
Michigan,
36. National Building Code of Iran (2013) Article 9: design and con-
struction of reinforced concrete buildings, 4th edn. Ministry of
Housing and Urban Development, Tehran
37. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) OpenSees
command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley
38. Paulay T, Priestley MN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced con-
crete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New York
39. Vecchio FJ, &Emara MB (1992) Shear deformations in reinforced
concrete frames. ACI Struct J 89:46–55
40. Zhu TJ, Tso WK, Heidebrecht AC (1992) Seismic performance
of reinforced concrete ductile moment-resisting frame buildings
located in different seismic regions. Can J Civ Eng 19:688–710
41. Fischinger M, Fajfar D (1998) Nonlinear seismic analysis of the
“ELSA” Buildings. In: Proceedings of the 11th European confer-
ence on earthquake engineering, AA Balkema, Rotterdam