7.

Response Modification Factors for Earthquake

Resistant Design of Short Period Buildings

Rafael Riddell, M. EERI, Pedro Hidalgo, M. EERI, and E. Cruz, M. EERI

Most recent seismic codes include response modification factors in the

definition of the equivalent lateral forces that are used for the design of
earthquake resistant buildings. The response modification factors (R) are used to
reduce the linear elastic design spectrum to account for the energy dissipation
capacity of the structure. The evaluation of these response modification factors
for various sets of earthquake records and ductility factors is presented herein.
Special attention is given to the short period range where the reduction of linear
elastic response spectra is smaller than the values for intermediate and long
period structures. An idealized and simple variation of the response
modification factor as a function of the period of vibration, suitable for seismic
codes formulation, is also presented.

INTRODUCTION
The usual procedure followed by seismic building codes to specify the minimum
design strength to resist earthquake ground motions is to prescribe a design spectrum. The
spectrum is either used to derive equivalent lateral static forces, or to perform a dynamic
analysis based on modal superposition of spectral values. Seismic codes generally follow
one of the two following approaches to define the design spectrum. One of them is to
prescribe a spectrum based on the linear elastic response of the structure to a design ground
motion, combined with response modification factors to reduce the spectral values to
account for the capacity of the structural system to dissipate energy when strained beyond its
elastic limit [1, 17]. The other approach, followed by most of the older codes [5, 6, 16], is
to prescribe a design spectrum without explicit reference to the response level or structural
quality; such spectrum is implicitly associated to elastic response for a moderate earthquake
and to inelastic response for a severe ground motion. In the latter case, judgement must be
exercised to increase the design values if the structure under consideration does not have the
energy dissipation capacity implied in the design spectrum; the provisions of the New
Zealand Code [16] constitute a good example of the way to proceed in such a case.
From a general point of view, either of the above mentioned approaches does not
consider the influence of the natural period of vibration in the reduction of the linear elastic
spectral values allowed by the ductile inelastic behavior of the structure. This is explicitly
recognized in the ATC-3 [1] and the SEAOC [17] documents, where a constant response
modification factor (R) or structural quality factor (Rw) are respectively used to reduce the
elastic spectral ordinates regardless of the period of the structure. In turn, it is implicit in

571
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1989
 TABLE 1. EARTHQUAKE, SITE, AND RECORD DATA FOR GROUND MOTIONS USED IN STUDY A. (Ref. 12)
572
Earthquake Date Epicenter Focal Depth Magnitude Station Station Site Epicentral Component Peak Ground Peak Ground Peak Ground
and Time Coordinates Coordinates Geology Distance Acceleration Velocity Displacement
Day-Montb-Year (fan) Mi (fan) (8) (in/sec) (in)

18-5-1940 3244W N El Centro, Imperial 324T43" N

20:37 PST 16 63 Valley Irrigation 30m stiff clay 10 E-W 0314 143 7.9
11527W W District, California nsowsrw over 900 shale

13-4-1949 4706tXr N Olimpia. Washington 4702TXr N

11:56 PST 7.1 Hwy. Test Lab. 48 N86E 0380 6.7 3.7
122942OT W 12254TXrW

22-3-57 3740XXr N Golden Gate Park, 3746'12 N Siliceous

1:44 PST 9 53 San Fco.. California Sandstone 8 S80E 0.105 1.8 0.46
12229WW 1222842" W

27-6-1966 3554W N Cholame, Shandon 354200 N

20:26 PST 5-10 5.6 Station 5, California Alluvium.330m 53 N85E 0.434 10.0 2.7
12054XXTW 12CPl9'4r W

Castaic, Old 342006" N Sandstone 29 N21E 0316 6.8 2.0

Ridge Route. Calif. liss'w
09-2-1971 3424TXr N 13 6.6
6:00 PST 11823'42" W to surface Pacoima Dam, 3420W N Highly jointed
California 1182348W dionte gneiss 8 S16E 1.171 44.6 163
R.
31-5-1970 912-0<r S Lima. Peru 1204T2" S
15:23 local

08-7-1971
7848W

3230W N
W
56 7.75 Institute Geofisico

Santiago. Chile
7702-24 W

3328T2" S
Alluvium, 100
200m
372 N82W 0.107 1.9 1.4

Rid el,
P.
23:03 local 58 73 U. of Chile Alluvium, 250 m 120 N10W 0.159 93 5.1

Hidalgo,
7112T)0" W 7040T2 W

23-12-1972 1209*00" N Managua. Nicaragua 1208*42 N

12:29 local 5 63 Esso Refinery Alluvium, about 6 E-W 0383 15.9 83
861536" W 8619'18 W 1000m
and
E.
23-11-1977 3118tXT S San Juan. Argentina 3131*34- S
6:26 local 30-40 7.4 INPRES Alluvium. 250m 80 E-W 0.193 8.1

Cruz
23
6742W W 6g03379- w
* Not available
Response Modification Factors of Short Period Buildings 573

other seismic codes [5, 6, 16] where the design spectrum has the same shape as the linear
elastic spectrum. As it will be discussed later in this paper, the reduction of the elastic
spectrum is a function of the period of the structure, of the ductility factor, of the shape of
the load-deformation relationship, and of the degree of damping [8, 11, 12]. The
dependence on the period is important for the design of rigid structures having fundamental
periods of vibration of 0.5 seconds or less, namely, most of the low and medium rise
structures, especially of the shear-wall type, as well as for the consideration of the higher
modes of more flexible structures. One of the few codes that recognizes this fact is the
Mexican Code [9], which specifies a reduction factor that decreases linearly with the period
of the structure in the short period range.
As far as the reduction of the linear elastic spectral values for the intermediate and
long period range structures is concerned, there is agreement to divide those values by p. for
structures with relatively long period, where p is the displacement ductility factor of the
single degree of freedom system. The proposition to reduce the elastic spectral values by
dividing them by a constant factor of V2p-1 in the intermediate and short period ranges has
been widely used, in spite of the fact that the relation between the elastic and inelastic
spectra is not constant [8, 11, 12], The use of a constant reduction factor in this range has
been criticized and thoroughly discussed by Bertero [2, 3].
In this study, the response spectra for four sets of earthquake records are
considered. The spectra were obtained for elastic and inelastic systems for various ductility
factors. Average spectral values for each set of records are presented; the ratios between the
average elastic response values and the corresponding inelastic response values, for each
ductility factor, have been computed and plotted. These results constitute the basis to derive
a simple model for the response modification factor. The conservatism or non-conservatism
of code-type inelastic design spectra derived from elastic design spectra is also discussed.

EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY

Part of the data and the results obtained in four previous studies of earthquake
response spectra have been considered in this study. In the previous studies [10, 12, 13,
14] the dynamic response of single degree of freedom systems subjected to earthquake
excitations was considered with various purposes: (a) to evaluate the effect of damping
combined with inelastic behavior, (b) to assess the influence of the type of material
nonlinearity on inelastic response, (c) to propose recommendations for deriving inelastic
design spectra that take into account the effect of the previously mentioned factors, (d) to
study the characteristics of response spectra for ground motion data recorded in subduction
zones, and (e) to examine the characteristics of response spectra for records in the epicentral
region of a large magnitude subduction type event.
Hereafter the previous studies will be referred to as A, B, C, and D. In Study A
[12] ten records corresponding to nine different earthquakes were used as input motion.
Information regarding the characteristics of the events, sites, and records is given in Table 1.
No attempt of selecting the records of this group according to similar characteristics was
made; on the contrary, the ground motions cover a variety of situations regarding tectonic
environment, intensity, duration, epicentral distance, and site conditions (soft soils were not
included though). Six records correspond to the west coast of the United States, one to
Central America, and three to South America. It is believed that the diversity of the ground
motions indicated in Table 1 is representative of the randomness of earthquake excitations
and gives some generality to the conclusions of the study. This study concentrated in the
objectives indicated in (a), (b), and (c) above.
 TABLE 2. EARTHQUAKE, SITE, AND RECORD DATA FOR GROUND MOTIONS USED IN STUDY B. (Ref. 14)

Earthquake Date Fpipw>r>f Focal Depth Magnitude Station Station Site Geology Epicenuai Components Peak Ground Peak Ground Peak Ground
Day-Moxuh-Year Coordinates Coordinates Distance Acceleration Velocity Displacement
(bn) Mi (bn) (8) (cnVsec) (cm)

3312W S Santiago, 332812* S Alluvium. S80PW 0.145 7.4 42

13-09-1945 100 7.1 U. Of Chile 250m 34 N 10 W 0.087 52 12
7030W W 704Oir W

3224XXT S Santiago, 3328*ir S Alluvium, S 80W 0.180 62 1Z7

28-03-1965
711200 W
61 -
7.1 725 U. Of Chile
704<ri2" W
250m 129 N10W 0.176 7.8 6.1

3230*00" S Santiago, 3328'12" S Alluvium, S 80 W 0.133 13.4 432

08-07-1971 58 7.1 U. Of Chile 250m 118 N 10PW 0.168 13.7 62
7112W W 7040*ir w

3618tXT s 36S0*41" S L 0291 92 142

21-12-1978 46 52 Conception 88 T 0J079 7.7 92
7224txr W 730637" W

32OOW S LaUgna, 3229*26" S

05-07-1979 56 5.73 Colegio Santa Alluvium, 64 L 0235 8.4 56
7148W W Maria 7115Tr W 250m
R.
Papudo
3231'40 S
7115ir w
Granite 34
L
T
0603
0297
18.9
172
7.4
52
Rid el,
R
3213'54 S LaLigua, 322976 S L 0.469 182 42
07-11-1981
7122*12" W
6.8 Colegio Sana
Maria

Santiago.
70o40*12"W

3328'12" S
Alluvium
250m

Alluvium
31 T

S 80 W
0271

0.080
13.0

5.6
2.4

14.4
Hidalgo,
U. Of Chile
7040*12* W
250m 138 N 10 W 0283 5.9 17.0
aE.nd
Not available

Cruz
Response Modification Factors of Short Period Buildings 575

All the ground motions considered in studies B [14] and C [10] correspond to
Chilean records. The records have in common that they all correspond to subduction type
earthquakes. Information on the ground motions used in Study B is given in Table 2; the
group includes fifteen records obtained during six different earthquakes on firm ground sites
between 1945 and 1981. Other characteristics such as the intensity of motion, earthquake
magnitude, focal depth, and epicentral distance, represent a wide range of conditions. The
purpose of Study B is indicated in (c) and (d) above.
The purpose of Study C is indicated in (e) above. The ground motions considered
in this study correspond to records in the epicentral zone of the March 3, 1985 earthquake in
Chile [15]. Data for these records is given in Table 3; the group consists of eight records
obtained in four stations in the cities of Vina del Mar, Valparaiso (2), and Llo-Lleo. Two
sites correspond to firm ground, one is a rock site, and the other is an artificial fill.
In Study D [13], twenty records obtained in Peru in seven earthquakes which
occurred between 1951 and 1974 were considered with the purpose indicated in (d) above,
and also to compare with the results of Study A. The records correspond to stations on firm
ground, and fourteen of them were recorded in the same station in Lima. Data for these
records is given in Table 4 [4, 13],

SYSTEM AND LOAD DEFORMATION MODELS CONSIDERED

In Study A, a simple single degree of freedom system was considered with three
types of resistance functions: elastoplastic, bilinear, and stiffness-degrading. The
elastoplastic model was used both for its simplicity and because it has been widely used in
nonlinear analyses, thus, comparison with other models is of great interest. The bilinear
model, also frequently used, represents an upper bound to the hysteretic behavior of
intrinsically ductile, nondeteriorating systems, like steel members, eccentrically braced steel
frames and unbraced steel frames, with moderate axial loads. The stiffness degrading model
represents the characteristic behavior of reinforced concrete members, frames and walls
under predominantly flexural stresses. None of the models presents strength deterioration.
Spectra were computed for linear elastic responses and for inelastic responses associated
with predetermined values of the ductility factor of 1.5, 2, 3, 5, and 10.
In addition to the energy dissipated by the structure by inelastic behavior, there are
energy losses even in the elastic range which are customarily taken into account by means of
a damping factor. There is no evidence indicating what degree of damping should be used
when inelastic behavior is explicitly considered by means of a nonlinear resistance function.
It seems reasonable to consider damping values corresponding to responses at moderate
amplitude vibrations to represent energy dissipation associated with elastic stages of
response. In Study A relative damping values of 2, 5, and 10 percent of critical were used.
In studies B, C, and D, a single value of the damping factor of 5% was used, since
there was no interest in analyzing the effect of damping in detail. In turn, the design spectra
recommended in several seismic codes are based in 5% damped response spectra [1, 9, 17].
On the other hand, one of the main conclusions of Study A was that the ordinates of average
spectra for a number of records did not differ significantly for the three types of resistance
functions used, and that, in general, mean spectra for elastoplastic systems gave in almost all
cases conservative estimates for the other types of resistance functions considered.
Therefore, in studies B, C, and D, only elastoplastic systems were considered.
 Ol
a

TABLE 3. SITE, AND RECORD DATA FOR GROUND MOTIONS OF THE MARCH 3, 1985 EARTHQUAKE IN CHILE USED IN STUDY C. (Ref. 10)

Earthquake Epicenter Focal Depth Magnitude Station Station Site Geology Epicentral Components Peak Ground Peak Ground Peak Ground
Date Coordinates Coordinates Distance Acceleration Velocity Displacement
and Time (km) Ms (km) (8) (cm/sec) (cm)

ViAadelMar 3301T2" S Alluvial S 20 W 0360 33.1 47.7

7134T2*W Sand * N 70 W 0326 27.6 27.0

Valparaiso, 33or4r s Artificial S 40 E 0.162 19.7 27.1

El Aimendral 7136'00- W Fill N50E 0394 26.9 143
3-3-1985 3315OT S 33 7.8
19:47 local 7158-00 W
Valparaiso, Rode S 20E 0.167 9.7 27.5
UTFSM * * N 70 E 0.176 163 13.7
R.

Rid el,
Uo-Lleo 3336XXT S S 80 E 0.424 23.7 13.4
7136(Xr w N 10 E 0.668 43.6 27.7

* Not available

P.

Hidalgo,
aE.nd
Cruz
 TABLE 4. EARTHQUAKE, SITE, AND RECORD DATA FOR GROUND MOTIONS USED IN STUDY D. (Ref, 13)
Response
MFoadicftcaotrsn
Earthquake Epicenter Focal Depth Magnitude Station Station Site Geology Epicemral Components Peak Ground Peak Ground Peak Ground
Date Coordinates Coordinates Distance Acceleration Velocity Displacement
Day-Month*Year (km) Ms (km) (8) (cm/sec) (cm)

\2PQV S Lima. 1242WS Alluvium, N 82 W 0.080 12 0.49

31-01-1951 Inst. Geoflsico 772400'W 100.200m * N 08 E 0.070 1.4 0.42
780O W

1042 S Lima, 124200 S Alluvium. N 82 W 0268 10.2 6.9

17-10-1966 73 Inst Geoflsico 7724X)0 W 100-200m m N08E 0.409 152 11.7
7842 W
of

31-05-1970
912* S
784y w
56 7.7
I Jim,
Inst Geoflsico
1242W S
7724TXT W
Alluvium,
100-200m
L
T
0.129
0.133
4.6
6.7
3.1
3.1 Short
29-11-1971
iiir S
5.3
Lima,
Inst Geofisico
1242W S
7724,00 W
Alluvium
I00-200m *
N 82 W
N 08E
0.064
0.111
3.9
43
2.4
1.9
Period
05-01-1974
7748*

12I8* S
W

98 6.6
Lima.
Inst Geoflsico
1242W S
7724'(Xr W
Alluvium,
100-200m
N 82 W
N 08 E
0.107
0.115
3.3
3.1
12
12
Buildngs
7624 W
T ima, Zarate 12l2tXT S L 0.159 4.1 12
77060<r w T 0.173 5.6 1.1

Lima. 1242D0- S Alluvium, N 82 W 0233 16.9 12.1

1218* S Inst Geoflsico 7724tXr W 100-200m N 08 E 0207 102 63
03-10-1974 13 7.6

7748 W Lima. Casa Dr. 120T48' S L 0204 20.1 72

Huaco 765848 W T 0232 16.6 18.1

Lima. 1242W S Alluvium, L 0.056 32 3.7

123(T S Inst Geoflsico 7724'00" W 100-200 m T 0.086 4.3 21
09-11-1974 6 6.9
7748* W Lima. La Molina 1248*00 S L 0.131 7.7 62
765T00" W * * T 0.104 5.7 3.1
* Not available
577
578 R. Riddell, P. Hidalgo, and E. Cruz

a) Construction of Design Spectra

(IN/SEC)

',4C

0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0

FREQUENCY I CPS I
b) Average Response Spectra Normalized to Peak Ground Acceleration

Figure 1. Design Spectra and Average Response Spectra

Response Modification Factors of Short Period Buildings 579

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In the four previous studies, A, B, C, and D, the response spectra were processed
according to the methodology presented in detail in Ref. 12 and briefly described herein. As
a first step in the analysis of the data the spectra were normalized to peak ground
acceleration, peak ground velocity, and peak ground displacement, and statistics were
computed for each frequency, so that mean and mean plus one standard deviation spectra
could be plotted. These plots indicate that normalization to peak ground acceleration
minimizes the dispersion of the response data in the high frecuency region whereas
normalization to peak ground displacement reduces the scatter of the data in the low
frequency region; normalization to ground velocity leads to a more uniform scatter of the
response data over the entire frequency range. In turn, the mean spectra feature segments
that present nearly constant response amplification with respect to the peak ground motion
parameters, thus making possible to recognize a region of spectral acceleration amplification,
a region of spectral velocity amplification, and a region of spectral displacement
amplification. Details about the procedure for the determination of the mentioned spectral
regions and the evaluation of the corresponding response amplification factors are given in
Ref. 12.
This methodology leads to factors for constructing design spectra in a tripartite
logarithmic plot according to the well known technique developed by Newmark and Hall [7]
and later modified for a more accurate specification of the inelastic design spectrum in the
high frequency range [12]. The procedure for constructing design spectra, as shown in Fig.
la, is presented in detail in Refs. 8 and 12. In summary, the procedure consists in applying
amplification factors to a design ground motion defined by effective peak values of the
ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement, A, V, and D respectively, to determine the
elastic design spectrum between points J and M. The elastic spectrum is completed with a
transition line MN and a line coincident with A for frequencies larger than fN. The inelastic
design spectra may be also obtained by means of factors applied directly to the design ground
motion parameters or, as it was originally recommended, by applying reduction factors to the
elastic spectrum. In this manner, the inelastic design spectrum between points J' and M' is
determined and completed with a transition line M'N'; conservatively N' may be taken
coincident with N. The relevant point for the discussion in this paper is the modification
proposed in Refs. 8 and 12 for the case when the ordinate of point L' corresponds to an
acceleration value less than the design ground acceleration A; in this case, a transition line
such as L'N must be used instead of a segment L'M' parallel to LM. This correction was
made to obtain a smooth inelastic design spectrum with a shape similar to the actual inelastic
response spectra, i.e., recognizing the fact that the reduction factor is not a constant in the
high frequency range for moderate and high ductility factors. It is apparent from Figure la
that the ratio between the ordinate of the elastic (L to N) and the inelastic design spectrum (L'
to N) varies significantly between fL and fN.

The same is observed in actual average response spectra as shown in Figure lb.
The spectra shown correspond to elastoplastic systems with 5% damping and ductility
factors of 1 (elastic) and 5, as presented in Ref. 12. The distance between the two curves,
i.e. the reduction factor, is approximately constant for frequencies less than 2 cps but
decreases monotonically as the frequency increases above 2 cps.

AVERAGE SPECTRA AND RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTORS

Data from Studies A, B, C, and D [10, 12, 13, 14] was used to plot average
spectra as shown in Fig. 2 and to compute response reduction factors as shown in Fig. 3.
 580
cn
>
C3

X
cs o
oo e
a
it
100

R.

Rid el,
R

Hidalgo,
and
E.

Figure 2. Average Normalized Spectral Acceleration for each Group of Earthquake Records Cruz
Response Modification Factors of Short Period Buildings 581

The average spectra were computed as follows. Each particular record was
normalized to a peak ground acceleration of lg, which is equivalent to divide the
pseudoacceleration response Sa by the peak ground acceleration amax of the corresponding
record. Then, the average of the normalized spectra (Sa/amax)avg for each of the groups of
records A, B, C , and D was computed. These average spectra for ductility factors of 1, 1.5,
2, 3, 5, and 10 are presented as a function of the natural period T in Fig. 2.
Several observations can be made from Fig. 2. The average spectra for groups A,
B, and D are of the same general nature, although B and especially D reveal narrower
frequency content. The dominant high frequencies must not be only attributed to the
subductive character of the records in groups B and D, because group C that also
corresponds to subductive ground motions presents even wider frequency content than group
A which contains a majority of records in a transcursive tectonic environment. It is
concluded that the records of the March 3, 1985 earthquake (group C) correspond to very
energetic motions with longer duration and longer wave periods than previously available
Chilean records on firm ground. In turn, the March 3, 1985 records are very demanding in
terms of structural energy dissipation capacity, and therefore valuable in representing what
may be expected from future severe earthquakes not only in Chile but also in other regions of
the world.

It may also be noted in Fig. 2 that the maximum response amplification is of the
same order of magnitude for all the groups.
Since the average spectra were available from previous studies, reduction factors
were computed by means of the ratio of the average elastic spectrum over the average
inelastic spectrum for the various values of the ductility factor p. The reduction factor for
each group of records and for ductility factors of 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, and 10 are plotted as a
function of T in Fig. 3.
It must be pointed out that the R values plotted do not correspond to the actual
mean values of the stochastic variable R, because R was computed as the ratio of the
averages and not as the average of the ratios of the responses of each individual system.
This was done for practical reasons since otherwise it would have been necessary to go back
to the original data for the several thousand individual systems considered in each study.
Instead the available average spectra were directly used.

ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR CURVES

The response reduction factor R is defined from the average spectral acceleration
for each group of earthquake records as

R = R(T,p) = Sa(p=l)/Sa(p) (1)

and has been plotted in Figures 3 and 4. Both figures show the values of R up to T=2
seconds because this is the range where the fundamental periods of the majority of structures
fall. Nevertheless, some characteristics of the R values for periods longer than 2 seconds
will also be discussed later on. Figure 3 shows the response reduction factors for each
group of earthquake records; it can be observed that the value of R tends to a value very
close to 1 for very small periods, and to a constant value larger than 1 for periods over 0.5
seconds.
1)/S(J4)
=
R=S(>1

Ji)

1)/S( R.

Rid el,
=
S(/i P.

= Hidalgo,
andE.
Figure 3. Response Reduction Factors for each Group of Earthquake Records and Various Ductility Factors Cruz
 Response
MFoadciftcoatrsn
of

Short
Period
Buildngs

Figure 4. Comparison of Response Reduction Factors for the Different Earthquake Groups 583
 584

R.

Rid el,
P.

Hidalgo,
and
E.

Figure 5. Average Response Reduction Factor for the Four Earthquake Groups and Idealized Relationship Cruz
Response Modification Factors of Short Period Buildings 585

However, it is more interesting to plot the R values for each ductility factor p and
compare the results for different groups of earthquake records, as it is shown in Fig. 4. It
can be seen that there is practically no influence of the group of earthquake records in the
response modification factor for ductility factors of 2 and 3. On the other hand, the influence
of the group of records becomes increasingly larger as the ductility factor increases, which
reflects that inelastic response of single degree of freedom systems with large inelastic
incursions are more affected by the characteristics of the accelerograms than those with small
inelastic incursions. Particularly, the Chilean records of groups B and C show larger R
values for ductility factors of 5 and 10 and periods between 1 and 2 seconds.
Nevertheless, the most important conclusion that may be inferred from Fig. 4 is
that the shape of the function R=R(T) is approximately the same for the different ductility
factors. There is a build up from R=1 at T= 0 seconds up to a certain value that remains
essentially constant for periods larger than 0.5 seconds. In order to have a better picture of
the shape of this function, the averages of R for the four groups of earthquake records and
for ductility factors of 2, 3, 5, and 10 were computed giving the same weight to each group
and are shown in Fig. 5. The relationship between the average of R and T may be idealized
as a bilinear function than can be written as

R=1+ T for 0 T < T*

T*
(2)

R = R* for T* > T

The value of T varies between 0.1 and 0.4 seconds, as shown in Fig. 5. The
value of R coincides with the ductility factor p for p=2, 3, and 5, but it is smaller than p for
a ductility factor of 10. It is important to examine what happens with these plots for periods
larger than 2 seconds; the same curves were obtained up to 10 seconds and showed no
difference with Fig. 5 for ductility factors of 2, 3, and 5. However, for a ductility of 10 the
value of R* shows a slow increase up to a value of the order of 10 for long periods.

The idealized bilinear relationship between R and T represented by Equations 2 is a

function of the parameters R* and T*. Table 5 shows a proposition for the values of R* and
T* for different ductility factors, on the basis of the data presented in Fig. 5.
The bilinear model for the response modification factor R may be used in
conjunction with an elastic design spectrum to obtain the inelastic design spectrum. To do
this, the elastic values must be divided by R. Such elastic design spectra have been proposed
in References 1 and 17 and show a constant plateau up to periods that vary between 0.3 and
1 second, depending on the characteristics of the foundation soil, and a decaying portion
afterwards that is proportional to T"c, with c<l. If the values of the elastic design spectra
proposed in Refs. [1] and [17] are divided by the values of R given by the bilinear model, a
distortion appears in the range of periods between 0 to T* because these spectra exhibit a
constant plateau and therefore they do not tend to the ground acceleration at T=0, as an actual
response spectrum does. To solve this problem, average values of (Sa/amax)avg for all
groups of earthquake records were computed for ductility factors of 2 and 5, as shown in
Fig. 6. Inspection of this figure permits to suggest the following procedure to derive the
inelastic design spectrum:
586 R. Riddell, R Hidalgo, and E. Cruz

AACELRTION GCRELORUTNIODN
SPECTRAL MAXIU
Figure 6. Comparison of Average Response Spectra and Idealized Design Spectra
Response Modification Factors of Short Period Buildings 587

a) For periods T equal or larger than T*, divide the elastic design spectrum values by R*.
b) Use a straight line to join the value determined for T=T* with the design ground
acceleration value at T=0.

TABLE 5. VALUES OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE BILINEAR

RELATION FOR THE RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR R

DUCTILITY FACTOR R* T* (sec)

2 2.0 0.1
3 3.0 0.2
4 4.0 0.3
5 5.0 0.4
6 5.6 0.4
7 6.2 0.4
8 6.8 0.4
9 7.4 0.4
10 8.0 0.4

The above procedure is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 for response reduction factors
R* of 2 and 5. Figure 6 shows the comparison between average response spectra and the
idealized design spectra derived using the proposed procedure. It is interesting to compare
this proposition with the ATC-3 [1] procedure that uses constant response reduction factors
for every structure, philosophy that is also being considered by SEAOC [17]. Figure 8
shows the comparison of this proposition with that of ATC-3 for response reduction factors
of 2 and 5. It may be concluded that, for fundamental periods T<T* the ATC-3 procedure is
conservative for small response reduction factors but unconservative for response reduction
factors equal or larger than 4. The conservatism of ATC-3 for small values of R* comes
from the use of a flat elastic design spectrum for small values of the fundamental period.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Elastic and inelastic response spectra for various sets of earthquake records have
been considered to study the response reduction factor to account for the energy dissipation
capacity of the structures. It has been shown that the response reduction factor is not
constant over the whole range of periods, and that a simple model can be devised to represent
its variation in the short period range.
It is also shown that the use of a constant reduction factor in design codes is
unconservative for reduction factor values equal or greater than 4 for structures with periods
less than 0.4 seconds. A correction suitable for code formulation is proposed to obtain
realistic inelastic design spectral values in the short period range.
588 R. Riddell, R Hidalgo, and E. Cruz

AACELRTION GRCOELURNTDION
SPECTRAL MAXIU
3
7. Derivation of Inelastic Design Spectra from Elastic Spectrum

AACELRTION GCREOLURNTIDON
SPECTRAL MAXIUM
Figure 8. Comparison between ATC and Proposed Design Spectra
Response Modification Factors of Short Period Buildings 589

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported herein was carried out in the Department of Structural
Engineering of the Universidad Catdlica de Chile, with financial support provided in part by
the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Cientffxco y Tecnoldgico under grant 271-86.

REFERENCES
1.- Applied Technology Council, "Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic
Regulations for Buildings," Publication ATC 3-06, NBS Special Publication 510,
NSF Publication 78-8, US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1978.
2.- Bertero, V., "Evaluation of Response Reduction Factors Recommended by ATC and
SEAOC," 3rd. United States National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Charleston, S.C., August 1986, Vol. Ill, pp. 1663-1673.

3.- Bertero, V., "Lessons Learned from Recent Earthquakes and Research and
Implications for Earthquake Resistant Design of Building Structures in the United
States," Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Earthquake Spectra,
Vol. 2, N94, El Cerrito, California, October 1986.
4.- Brady, A.G., and Perez, V., "Strong Motion Earthquake Accelerograms, Digitization
and Analysis, Records from Lima, Peru, 1951 to 1974," Open File Report N8 77-587,
U.S. Geological Survey, Seismic Engineering Data Report, Menlo Park, California,
1977.
5.- Instituto Nacional de Normalizaci6n, "Cdlculo Antislsmico de Edificios," NCh 433,
Santiago, Chile, 1972.
6.- International Conference of Building Officials, "Uniform Building Code," Whittier,
California, USA, 1985.
7.- Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.H., "Procedures and Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design," Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, D.C., Building Sciences Series 46, Vol. 1, Feb. 1973.
8.- Newmark, N.M., and Riddell, R., "Inelastic Spectra for Seismic Design,"
Proceedings of the 7th. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul,
Turkey, September 1980, Vol. 4, pp. 129-136.
9.- "Reglamento de Construcciones para el Distrito Federal," Diario Oficial de la
Federaci6n, Mexico, D.F., Mexico, 1976.
10.- Riddell, R., and Vdsquez, J., "Analysis of Response Spectra for Records in the
Epicentral Region of the March 3, 1985 Earthquake in Chile," 9th. World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, August 1988.
11.- Riddell, R., "Effect of Damping and Type of Material Nonlinearity on Earthquake
Response," Proceedings of the 7th. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey, September 1980, Vol. 4, pp. 427-433.
590 R. Riddell, P. Hidalgo, and E. Cruz

12.- Riddell, R. and Newmark, N.M., "Statistical Analysis of the Response of Nonlinear
Systems Subjected to Earthquakes," Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research
Series Ns 468, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois, August 1979.
13.- Riddell, R., and Vargas, J., "Caracterfsticas de Espectros de Terremotos Peruanos,"
3er. Seminario Latinoamericano de Ingenierfa Sismorresistente, Guayaquil, Ecuador,
Sept. 1984.
14.- Riddell, R., V&squez, J., Wlez, A., "AnSlisis de Espectros de Terremotos Chilenos
(Registros hasta 1981)," DIE Ne 85-5, Departamento de Ingenierfa Estructural,
Universidad Catdlica de Chile, 1985.
15.- Saragoni, R., personal communication, 1986.
16.- Standards Association of New Zealand, "Code of Practice for General Structural
Design and Design Loading for Buildings," NZS 4203:1984, Wellington , New
Zealand, 1984.
17.- Structural Engineers Association of California, "Tentative Lateral Force Requirements
(Draft)," San Francisco, California, October 1985.