Vol.13, No.

3 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION September, 2014

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2014) 13: 455-470 DOI:10.1007/s11803-014-0255-8

Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley

Hemchandra Chaulagain1†, Hugo Rodrigues2‡, Enrico Spacone3§, Ramesh Guragain4*,

Radhakrishna Mallik4* and Humberto Varum1+

1. Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

2. School of Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institiute of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
3. University of Chieti-Pescara, Department PRICOS - Architettura, 65127 Pescara, Italy
4. National Society for Earthquake Technology, Nepal

Abstract: Most current seismic design includes the nonlinear response of a structure through a response reduction
factor (R). This allows the designer to use a linear elastic force-based approach while accounting for nonlinear behavior and
deformation limits. In fact, the response reduction factor is used in modern seismic codes to scale down the elastic response
of a structure. This study focuses on estimating the actual ‘R’ value for engineered design/construction of reinforced concrete
(RC) buildings in Kathmandu valley. The ductility and overstrength of representative RC buildings in Kathmandu are
investigated. Nonlinear pushover analysis was performed on structural models in order to evaluate the seismic performance
of buildings. Twelve representative engineered irregular buildings with a variety of characteristics located in the Kathmandu
valley were selected and studied. Furthermore, the effects of overstrength on the ductility factor, beam column capacity ratio
on the building ductility, and load path on the response reduction factor, are examined. Finally, the results are further analyzed
and compared with different structural parameters of the buildings.

Keywords: RC buildings; pushover analysis; ductility reduction factor; overstrength; response reduction factor

1 Introduction magnitude 6.6 occurred in the Eastern part of Nepal and

Nepal is located in a seismically active region that
has a long history of devastating earthquakes. The main
source of earthquakes in Nepal and the Himalayan
region is the subduction of the Indian plate underneath
the Eurasian plate. The subduction of the Indian plate is
at the rate of 25−30 cm/year, which causes contraction
and stress concentration between the plate boundaries.
Seismicity is considered to be high in this region based on
the frequency and intensity of past earthquakes. Several
major earthquakes were reported in 1255 AD, 1810 AD,
1866 AD, 1934 AD, 1980 AD and 1988 AD in Nepal
(Bilhman et al., 1995; Chitrakar and Pandey, 1986).
The 1934 earthquake largely affected the Kathmandu
valleyand resulted in more than 8,500 deaths. About
19% of the buildings were completely destroyed and
38% of the buildings were badly damaged (Rana, 1935).
Moreover, the earthquake of August 21st, 1988, with a
Correspondence to: Hugo Rodrigues, School of Technology and
Management, Polytechnic Institiute of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria,
Portugal
Tel: +351244843351
E-mail: hugo.f.rodrigues@ipleiria.pt
†
Doctor; ‡Assistant Professor; §Full Professor; *Engineer;
+
Associate Professor
Received July 29, 2013; Accepted April 8, 2014
killed 721 people, injured 6,553 and damaged 66,541
buildings (22,695 destroyed and 43,846 were severally
damaged) (Thapa, 1988).
Global seismic hazard maps indicate that Nepal is
located in a very high seismic hazard zone IV, which
has a possible shaking of MMI IX or above with 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (Giardini et al.,
1999). A seismic hazard map of Nepal, as presented in
Fig. 1 shows that the bedrock peak horizontal acceleration
in Kathmandu valley is up to 300 Gals (Pandey et al.,
2002). Considering all this information, JICA (2002)
conducted astudy for seismic risk mitigation in
Kathmandu valley. This assessment indicated a tragic
scenario: should a large earthquake occur 100 km west
of the Kathmandu valley with a moment magnitude of 8,
about 50% of the buildings will be damaged and 1.3% of
the people will be killed. These percentages are similar
to those caused by the 1934 earthquake, but the damage
will increase by five times. Recently, Wyss (2005)
calculated expected deaths and injuries in this region.
He expected a minimum number of fatalities of about
15,000 for an event in sparsely populated western Nepal,
to a maximum of approximately 150,000 deaths for an
earthquake of magnitude 8.1. These scenarios provide an
image of the future damage that would be caused by an
earthquake in eastern, central (Kathmandu valley) and
456 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
western Nepal.
Over the last few decades, RC building construction
has rapidly increased, replacing other construction
materials, like adobe, stone and brick masonry, in the
Kathmandu valley as well as in other parts of the country
(JICA, 2002). Most of the RC buildings in Nepal are
constructed by reinforced concrete frames with infill
masonry panels. These buildings can be classified as
engineered and non-engineered, based on their design
and construction practices. Most of the non-engineered
buildings are constructed in district headquarters and
rural areas in Nepal. These buildings offered insufficient
capacity, lack ductile detailing, were poorly constructed,
and may have limited durability (NSET, 1999; UNDP,
1994). In contrast, there has been fast growth in the
construction of engineered buildings in the Kathmandu
valley. These buildings are designed and constructed
according to modern seismic codes and guidelines.
The earthquake loads imposed in the structure are
typically greater than the loads considered in design.
Most of the seismic design codes today include the
nonlinear response of a structure through a response
reduction factor. Different codes and guidelines specify
the response reduction factor to scale down the elastic
response reduction of a structure. The same factor ‘R’
is termed as “response modification coefficient” in
ASCE7 (2005), “behavior factor” in Eurocode 8 (2004)
and “response reduction factor” in IS 1893 (2002). The
majority of the structures in Nepal are designed using
the equivalent static method, which is based on the use
of the response reduction factor. In fact, design loads are
obtained by reducing the earthquake loads by the ‘R’
factor. By reducing the earthquake loads, the structure
will enter into the inelastic range. Therefore, in order to
30˚
29˚
28˚
27˚N
81˚E 82˚ 83˚
Fig. 1 Seismic hazard map of Nepal (after Pandey et al., 2002). Bedrock peak ground horizontal acceleration is calculated for a five
hundred year return period. Contour interval is 100 Gals
Vol.13
dissipate the energy, structures will have to experience
rather large deformation. While designing the structures,
the value of response reduction factor in Nepalese
buildings is usually taken as 5, considering the building
is a special moment resisting frame with an expectation
of very high ductility. Different codes and guidelines
specify the ‘R’ value for different moment resisting
frame structures. However, in IS 1893 (2002), the code
does not address the effect of the load path, structural
configuration and irregularities on the response reduction
factor. Thus, the present study attempts to: (a) investigate
the actual response reduction factor, ‘R’ for irregular
RC buildings in the Kathmandu valley, (b) compare
the actual value of ‘R’ to the one assumed in the design
process, and (c) explore the effect of the overstrength
factor on the ductility factor, beam column capacity ratio
on building ductility and load path on response reduction
factor. In this research, twelve irregular engineered RC
buildings in Kathmandu are considered for nonlinear
static pushover analysis. The findings provide details
about the actual value of ‘R’, and the effect of different
factors such as irregularity, beam column capacity ratio,
load path and overstrength on response reduction factor.
2 Case study
2.1 Building structures in Kathmandu valley
The Kathmandu valley is situated almost in the
middle of Nepal and has three administrative districts,
namely Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur. The
majority of administrative offices and headquarters are
located in the valley making it the economic center
of Nepal. Numerous historical monuments, national
84˚ 85˚ 86˚ 87˚ 88˚
No.3 Hemchandra Chaulagain et al.: Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley
and international heritage sites including eight World
Heritage Sites are also located in the Kathmandu
valley. However, the valley is geographically located in
highly seismically active zone. Urbanization is rapidly
occurring throughout the valley, and all these urban
settlements are also exhibiting rapid growth around
their periphery. According to the national census survey,
mud bonded bricks/stones, cement bonded bricks/stones
and reinforced concrete buildings are more common
in Kathmandu (CBS, 2012). Regarding the design and
construction process, RC buildings can be classified into
the following types: (i) moment resisting frame design,
which represents current construction practices in Nepal
(called CCP structure); (ii) Nepal building code based
on Mandatory Rules of Thumb (called NBC design
structure); (iii) modified version of the Nepal building
code (called as NBC+ structure) and (iv) moment
resisting frames designed based on the Indian standard
code with seismic provisions, namely seismic design
with ductile detailing (called Well Designed Structure,
WDS) (Chaulagain et al., 2013a). Most of the CCP
buildings are based on non-engineered construction
whereas the remaining building types (NBC, NBC+ and
WDS) are engineered. Engineered buildings are built by
engineers/designers that have knowledge of earthquake
engineering. Most of the newly constructed buildings in
Kathmandu are likely to be of this type. However, non-
engineered buildings are not professionally designed
and supervised by engineers during construction. This
study focuses on engineered buildings with irregular
configurations in the Kathmandu valley; thus outcomes
of this research are primarily applicable for use in the
seismic design of irregular building structures in Nepal.
2.2 Description of case study building structures
In this study, twelve existing irregular reinforced
concrete moment resisting frame (RC-MRF) structures
are selected for analysis. All of these building
configurations are typical of seismically active regions
like Kathmandu valley. Detailed information has
been collected from previous studies, drawings by
consultants, municipality drawings and a field survey of
current construction and existing buildings in different
localities in the Kathmandu valley (Chaulagain et al.,
2010; Chaulagain et al., 2012; JICA, 2002; NSET,
1999). The general statistical information such as
number of stories, age and building typologies are
considered based on a random sampling of 35 buildings.
To extract more detailed information such as the size
and detailing of RC elements (beam and columns), inter-
story height, number of bays and dimensions, years of
construction, types of steel reinforcement and quality
of concrete, is further studied for twelve buildings.
All these building models have floor areas of less
than 160 m2 and a maximum of five stories. The floor
area and number of stories of the case study buildings
shown in Fig. 2 are representative of common existing
457
RC buildings in the Kathmandu valley (Chaulagain et al.,
2013b). The plan, 3-D view and beam reinforcement
are presented in Fig. 2. From the beam reinforcement
detailing, it can be seen that the structural beam
consists of 3−12 φ to 4−16 φ in the bottom and 5−12 φ
to 6−16 φ at the top of the beam cross section. The same
beam section of 230 × 380 is used for all building types.
Detailing of the column sections are presented in
Table 1.
2.3 Seismic design standards in Nepal
Nepal is considered a country that is vulnerable to
earthquakes. The earthquake in 1988 prompted serious
concern for the safety of the infrastructure. Following
this major earthquake event, the Department of Urban
Development and Building Construction (DUDBC) of
the Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MPPW)
developed the Nepal National Building Code (NBC)
in 1994, with the assistance of the United Nations
Development Programme and United Nations Center
for Human Settlement (UN-HABITAT). NBC was
established when the Building Construction System
Improvement Committee (established by the Building
Act 1998) authorized MPPW to implement the code.
Principally, the seismic design of structures in Nepal
is based on NBC 105 (1994). However, most of the
existing buildings in Nepal are designed based on the
Indian standard code. This is because Nepalese codes
lack sufficient information to address the current design
standard. Moreover, there is no provision for a response
reduction factor in the Nepalese seismic code (NBC105,
1994). However, the horizontal seismic coefficient is
calculated by basic seismic coefficient, zone factor,
important factor and structural performance factor. In
this situation, the calculation of seismic force in this
study is based on IS 1893 (2002) in order to fulfil the
research needs.
The seismic forces in the structural model are
obtained considering the buildings located in seismic
zone V (shaking intensity of IX and higher) and medium
soil type. In this study, zone factor, important factor
and response reduction factor are taken as 0.36, 1 and
5, respectively, for all the building structures (IS 1893,
2002). Due to the geometrical irregularity, the structures
are analyzed with a three-dimensional model. The
material properties of all twelve buildings are assumed
to be identical throughout the height of the structure as:
(a) reinforcing steel yield strength, fey = 415 MPa; (b)
concrete compressive strength, f 'c = 20 MPa; (c) roof
live load = 1.5 kN/m2 (Nil for earthquake); (d) floor live
load = 2 kN/m2 (25 % for earthquake); (e) roof and floor
finish = 1 kN/m2; (f) brick wall on peripheral beams =
230 mm thick; (g) brick wall on internal beams = 115 mm
thick; (h) density of concrete = 25 kN/m3; and (i) density
of brick including plaster = 20 kN/m3. The ground floor
area, building height, seismic weight of the building (W),
458 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.13

Building Model 1

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 2 φ 12 +2 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
Y B-B’ 6 φ 16 4 φ 16
C-C’ 6 φ 16 3 φ 16
Y Z
X
X

Building Model 2

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 6 φ 16 4 φ 16
B-B’ 4 φ 12 + 1 φ 16 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16
C-C’ 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16
Y Z
X
D-D’ 4 φ 12 + 2 φ 16 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16

Building Model 3

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 1 φ 12 + 4 φ 16 1 φ 12 + 2 φ 16
B-B’ 4 φ 12 + 1 φ 16 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16
Y

Z
C-C’ 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16
Y X

Building Model 4

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 5 φ 12 4 φ 12
Y
B-B’ 3 φ 16 + 2 φ 20 2 φ 16 +1 φ 20

Y Z
X X

Building Model 5

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 4 φ 16 3 φ 16
Y B-B’ 5 φ 12 4 φ 12
C-C’ 3 φ 16 +2 φ 20 2 φ 16 +1 φ 20
Y Z
X
D-D’ 3 φ 16 3 φ 16
X

Fig. 2 Plan, 3-D view and beam reinforcement details for case study
No.3 Hemchandra Chaulagain et al.: Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley 459

Building Model 6

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 2 φ 12 + 3 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
B-B’ 4 φ 16 3 φ 16
Y
C-C’ 2 φ 16 + 1 φ 16 2 φ 12 + 1 φ 16

Z
D-D’ 3 φ 16 3 φ 16
Y X
X

Building Model 7

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 5 φ 16 4 φ 16
B-B’ 6 φ 16 4 φ 16
Y
C-C’ 4 φ 12 + 1 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
Z
Y X

Building Model 8

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 2 φ 12 +4 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
B-B’ 3 φ 12 +1 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
C-C’ 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16 4 φ 16
Y
D-D’ 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
Z
Y X E-E’ 3 φ 16 3 φ 16
X

Building Model 9

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 2 φ 12 + 3 φ 16 3 φ 16
B-B’ 3 φ 12 + 1 φ 16 2 φ 12+1 φ 16
Y
Z
X
C-C’ 6 φ 16 4 φ 16

Building Model 10

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 4 φ 16 3 φ 16
Y

Z
Y X
X

Fig. 2 Continued
460 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.13

Building Model 11

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 3 φ 12 +2 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
Y B-B’ 3 φ 12 +1 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
Y
Z C-C’ 6 φ 16 4 φ 16
X

Building Model 12

Section Top bars Bottom bars

A-A’ 4 φ 16 3 φ 16
B-B’ 6 φ 16 3 φ 16
Y C-C’ 4 φ 12 3 φ 12
D-D’ 3 φ 12 +1 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
Z
Y
X E-E’ 3 φ 12 +2 φ 16 2 φ 12 +1 φ 16
X

Fig. 2 Continued

Table 1 Details of column reinforcement considered for case study

Model Column size Interior column Facade column Corner column
1 300 × 300 10 φ 16 6 φ 16+ 4 φ 12 4 φ 16+ 6 φ 12
2 300 × 380 1 φ 16 6 φ 16+ 4 φ 20 4 φ 16+ 4 φ 20
3 350 × 350 8 φ 16 8 φ 16 + 2 φ 12 10 φ 12
4 300 × 300 6 16 + 4 φ 20
φ 10 φ 16 4 20 + 8 φ 16
φ
5 300 × 300 10 φ 16 6 φ 16 + 4 φ 20 8 φ 16 + 2 φ 12
6 230 × 300 8 φ 16 6 φ 16 + 4 φ 20 4 φ 16 + 4 φ 20
7 350 × 350 4 φ 20 + 4 φ 16 8 φ 16 4 φ 16 + 4 φ 12
8 300 × 300 8 φ 20 4 20 + 4 φ 16
φ 4 φ 20 + 4 φ 16
9 350 × 350 10 φ 16 8 φ 16 + 2 φ 12 4 φ 16 + 6 φ 12
10 350 × 350 8 φ 20 4 φ 16 + 4 φ 20 4 φ 16 + 4 φ 20
11 230 × 300 2 φ 20 + 8 φ 16 4 φ 16 + 4 φ 20 6 φ 16 + 4 φ 12
12 230 × 300 10 φ 16 4 φ 16 + 6 φ 12 2 φ 16 + 8 φ 12
Note: All dimensions are in mm unless stated otherwise

Table 2 Details of seismic load considered for the case study

Building models G. F area (m2) Height (m) W (kN) Ah Vd (kN)
1 109.80 10.06 4844.08 0.090 435.97
2 121.60 10.06 5085.82 0.090 457.72
3 108.00 8.55 3481.00 0.090 313.29
4 155.50 15.93 8875.72 0.082 726.64
5 90.00 12.90 5057.50 0.090 455.18
6 60.40 15.75 4392.09 0.083 362.65
7 99.50 10.06 3946.64 0.090 355.20
8 116.00 10.06 4217.36 0.090 379.56
9 112.80 8.55 3903.70 0.090 351.33
10 107.00 15.00 7435.00 0.086 636.78
11 124.10 11.38 5590.00 0.090 503.10
12 95.50 8.55 3050.00 0.090 274.50
No.3 Hemchandra Chaulagain et al.: Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley
design horizontal acceleration spectrum (Ah) and design
base shear (Vd) of the building structures are presented
in Table 2.
3 Evaluation of the response reduction factor
Most of the codes used for the seismic design
of buildings use the concept of response reduction
to implicitly account for the nonlinear response of a
structure. Seismic design codes consider a reduction
in design loads, taking advantage of the fact that the
structures possess significant reserve strength and
capacity to dissipate energy, called overstrength and
ductility, respectively. These two factors are incorporated
in structural design through a response reduction factor.
In fact, response reduction is used to scale down the
elastic response of a structure (Brozi and Elnashai,
2000). It simply represents the ratio of the maximum
lateral force, Ve, which would develop in a structure,
responding entirely linear elastic under the specified
ground motion, to the lateral force, Vd, which it has been
designed to withstand. Response reduction factor ‘R’, is
expressed by the equation,
R = Ve/Vd
The factor ‘R’ is an empirical response reduction
factor intended to account for damping, overstrength,
and the ductility inherent in the structural system at
displacements great enough to surpass initial yield and
approach the ultimate load displacement of the structural
system (Uang and Bertero, 1986). The concept of a
response reduction factor was based on the premise that
well-detailed seismic framing systems could sustain
large inelastic deformations without collapse (ductile
behavior) and develop lateral strength in excess of their
design strength (Christopher, 1988). The R factor was
first introduced in 1978, and was used to reduce the elastic
shear force (Ve) obtained by elastic analysis using a 5%
damped acceleration response spectrum for the purpose
of calculating a design base shear (Vd) (Uang, 1991). The
major static analysis routines are the equivalent lateral
force method and response spectrum method; in both
procedures, R factors are utilized to calculate the design
Maximum force
if structure remains elastic
Total horizontal force (V)
Maximum load capacity
Load at first significant yield Vy
Design force
Fig. 3 Concept of response reduction factor
461
base shear. A review of the literature indicates that the
response reduction factor depends on overstrength,
ductility and redundancy factors (Mertz et al.,
2001; Ozhendekci et al., 2006; Patel and Shah, 2010).
There are differences in the value of the behavior
factors specified in various codes for the same types of
structures (ATC-19, 1995; IS 1893, 2002; Olateanu et al.,
2009; ASCE, 2005; Eurocode-8, 2004). The parameters
indicated in Fig. 3 can be mathematically expressed as:
R = Ω × Rμ × RR (2)
where Ω, Rμ and RR stand for overstrength factor,
ductility reduction factor and redundancy factor,
respectively. By rearranging Eq. (2) and the Indian
seismic code provisions, the response reduction factor
can be presented as:
(2R) = (Elastic strength demand)/(Design strength) =
R μ× Ω (3)
3.1 Overstrength factor
Experimental and numerical research on the
performance of buildings during earthquakes indicates
that structural overstrength plays a very important role in
(1) protecting buildings from collapse (Zahid et al., 2013).
The additional strength beyond the design strength is
called the overstrength. The structural overstrength
results from many factors and the most common sources
are sequential yielding of critical regions, material
overstrength, strain hardening, capacity reduction
factors, member size, nonstructural elements, special
ductile detailing and so on (Elnashai and Mwafy, 2002;
Freeman, 1990; Lee et al., 2005; Rodrigues et al., 2013,
Varum, 2003).
The overstrength factor is used to quantify the
difference between the required and the actual strength
of material, a component or a structural system. The
overstrength factor (Ω) can be defined as the ratio of
the actual to design level strength (Elnashai and Mwafy,
2002). Mathematically, it can be expressed as:
Overstrength factor (Ω) = apparent strength/design
strength
Ω = Vu/Vd (4)
Ve
Over strength Redundancy Ductility factor
Linear elastic
(Rμ)
response
Non linear
Vu response
factor (Ω) factor (RR)
Force
Vy
Vd
Δy Δu
Δw Δy Δu
Displacement
462 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.13

3.2 Ductility reduction factor
It is well known that ductile structures have been
found to perform much better in comparison to brittle
structures. High ductility allows a structure to undergo
large deformations before it collapses. Large structural
ductility allows the structure to move as a mechanism
under its maximum potential strength, resulting in the
dissipation of a large amount of energy (Uang and
Bertero, 1986; Rodrigues et al., 2012a). The extent of
inelastic deformation experienced by the structural
system subjected to a given ground motion or a lateral
loading is given by the displacement ductility ratio
‘μ’ (FEMA-451, 1999). The inelastic behaviors of a
structure can be idealized as:
μ = (Δu )/(Δy ) (5)
where μ is the displacement ductility, Δu is the ultimate
displacement and Δy is the yield displacement. Yield
displacement and yield base shear are judged through
an idealization of the capacity curve. For this purpose,
a bilinear curve is fitted to the capacity curve. For
bilinear idealization of the capacity curve, it is necessary
to simplify the capacity curve for an elastic perfectly
plastic regime. The initial stiffness of the idealized
system is determined in such a way so that the areas
under the actual and idealized force-deformation curves
are equal (Eurocode-8, 2004). In the present research,
the calculation of the displacement ductility demand of
the structure is based on the ATC-40 procedure. This
procedure has been previously used in similar studies
to determine the ductility demand by others (Priestley,
2000; Fajfar, 1999). Similarly, researchers proposed the
different formulations in order to determine the ductility
reduction factor (Miranda and Bertero, 1994; Newmark
and Hall, 1973; Paulay and Priestly, 1992). In this study,
the formulation proposed by Paulay and Priestley (1992)
is used.
Rμ = 1.0 for zero-period structures(6)
where Rμ is the ductility reduction factor and μ is the
displacement ductility. Equal displacement and equal
energy approaches are used to correlate the inelastic
force demand and the displacement ductility for long
and short period structures. The equal displacement rule
is the empirical rule for the assessment of the nonlinear
behavior of structures subjected to earthquake ground
motion. According to the equal displacement rule, the
inelastic peak displacements remain almost the same
as elastic peak displacements. The equal displacement
rule was extensively investigated numerically for both
recorded and synthetic earthquakes (Miranda and
Bertero, 1994). The same concept is adopted in ATC-
40 (1996), FEMA-451 (1999) and Paulay (1999).
On the contrary, the equal energy principle states
that the energy dissipated by an elastic system and its
inelastic counterpart is equal; thereby rendering the
force reduction factor equal to 2μ − 1 , where μ is the
displacement ductility of the inelastic system.
3.3 Redundancy factor
RC structural systems with multiple lines of lateral
load resisting frames are generally in the category of
redundant structural systems, as each of the frames are
designed and detailed to transfer the earthquake induced
inertia forces to the foundation. Inthese systems, the
lateral load is shared by different frames depending on
the relative (lateral) stiffness and strength characteristics
of each frame. ATC-34 (1995) recognized redundancy as
one of the three elements of the ‘R’ factor and introduced
redundancy effects into building design. In their report,
the number of vertical lines of moment frames was
used to measure the redundancy of a building. ASCE-7
(2005), FEMA-450 (2004) and IBC (2000) have also
adopted a redundancy factor and used it as a multiplier
of the lateral design earthquake loads. The benefit of
structural redundancy has been long recognized, and
many researchers have investigated the positive effects
of redundancy on overall structural response.

R  2   1 for short-period structure (7) 3.4 Provisions of ‘R’ factor in international codes and
guidelines
Rμ = μ for long period structure (8)
The response reduction factor in different codes and
Rμ = 1+ (μ-1) T/0.70 (0.70 < T < 0.30) (9) guidelines varies depending on the type of structural
system and ductility class of the structures. In this section,

Table 3 R values allocated in codes and guidelines

R value Overstrength factor
Structural system
IS 1893 Eurocode-8 ASCE7 ASCE7
Ordinary moment resisting frame (OMRF) 3.0 - - -
Special moment resisting frame 5.0 - - -
Medium ductility class (DCM) - 3.0 Vu /Vy = 3.90 - -
High ductility class (DCH) - 4.5 Vu /Vy = 5.85 - -
Ordinary moment frame - - 3.0 3.0
Intermediate moment frame - - 5.0 3.0
Special moment frame - - 8.0 3.0
No.3 Hemchandra Chaulagain et al.: Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley
the ‘R’ factor in some codes and guidelines is presented.
The same factor ‘R’ is termed as response reduction factor
in IS 1893 (2002), behavior factor in Eurocode-8 (2004)
and response modification factor in ASCE-7 (2005).
However, there is no provision of a response reduction
factor in the Nepal building code (NBC105, 1994).
For RC frames, values of ‘R’ as specified in IS 1893,
Eurocode-8 and ASCE-7 are presented in Table 3. IS
1893 gives a value of ‘R’ equal to 3.0 to 5.0 for ordinary
moment resisting frames and special moment resisting
frames. Eurocode-8 gives the behavior factor for regular
RC frame structures for two ductility classes. ASCE-7
(2005) divided RC buildings into three ductility classes.
The values are within the range of 3.0 to 8.0 for ordinary
moment frames to special moment frames, respectively.
Eurocode-8 (2004) specified the overstrength factor (the
ratio of Vu/Vy) as 1.30 in multi-story multibay frames.
For irregular buildings, the behavior factor is reduced by
20% in Eurocode-8. The system overstrength factor
in ASCE-7 (2005) is considered as 3.0 in all the cases.
IS 1893 (2002) does not specify any reduction in the
response reduction factor due to geometrical irregularity.
3.5 Formulation used in the present study
In summary, determination of the response reduction
factor of all the case study buildings in this research
is based on the aforementioned concept described
in Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Equation (4) is used to
determine the overstrength factor. Both the overstrength
and redundancy factors are included in the same Equation
(see Eq. (10)). The displacement ductility and ductility
reduction factor is determined using Eqs. (5) and (9).
Finally, the results from Eqs. (4), (5) and (9) are used in
Eq. (3) to determine the response reduction factor.
Ω =Vu/Vd = (Vu )/(Vy ) × (Vy )/(Vd ) = Ωo × RR (10)
4 Nonlinear static pushover analysis
For nonlinear analysis of a structure, the nonlinear
dynamic time history analysis is widely accepted as being
the most accurate method for the seismic assessment/
design of structures. However, it is too demanding since
it takes too much time and computational efforts and
the resulting responses can not be easily used for design
purposes. Moreover, the selection of proper acceleration
records to run the numerical analysis is a serious issue.
In order to overcome these inherent difficulties of
time history analysis and allow structural engineers to
perform nonlinear seismic analysis in a practical but
still accurate way, a method called the nonlinear static
procedure (NSP) has been used (ATC-40, 1996; FEMA-
356, 2000).
In order to consider the torsion effects in the nonlinear
static responses of irregular buildings, Mwafy and
Elnashai (2001) perform nonlinear analysis with static
pushover and dynamic time history analysis for twelve
463
RC buildings with various characteristics. The result has
shown that static pushover analysis is more appropriate
for low rise and short period frame structures. For well-
designed buildings that have structural irregularities,
the results show the good correlation with the dynamic
analysis. The response obtained for a group of four
eight-story irregular frame buildings using an inverted
triangular lateral load distribution was identical to
inelastic time history analysis. Tso and Moghadam
(1997) simply extended the application of planar
pushover to asymmetric plan buildings. They proposed to
incrementally apply a height wise distribution of lateral
forces at the center of mass in each floor. D i S ar no
et al. (2011) performed nonlinear analyses for irregular
buildings with base isolation systems. Magliulo et al.
(2012) found the acceptable results of nonlinear static
analyses in irregular multi-story reinforced concrete
buildings designed according to Eurocode. Moghadam
and Tso (2000), Chopra and Goel (2004), Kaliar and
Fajfar (1997); and Rodrigues et al. (2012b) proposed
a 3D pushover procedure for the analysis of irregular
building structures. From the aforementioned studies,
it can be concluded that analysis of irregular buildings
with nonlinear static pushover analysis gives acceptable
results. Thus, the response reduction factor for abuilding
model has been performed through nonlinear static
pushover analysis.
Numerical analysis is based on bare frame building
modelling with three-dimensional models.The modelling
of the structures is carried out using SAP2000 (2009),
adopting a member-by-member modelling approach.
Inelastic beam and column members are modelled as
elastic elements with plastic hinges at their ends. The
moment rotation characteristics of the plastic hinges
are estimated from section analysis using appropriate
nonlinear constitutive laws for concrete and steel. The
lumped plasticity approach is used in SAP2000 for
deformation capacity estimates. The hinge option in
SAP2000, based on FEMA-356 and ATC-40, assumes
average values of hinge properties instead of carrying
out detailed calculations for each member. The default
hinge model assumes the same deformation capacity
for all columns regardless of their axial load and their
weak and strong axial orientation. Hence, nonlinear
static analyses are carried out using user-defined plastic
hinge properties. An analytical procedure is developed
to evaluate the yield, plastic and ultimate rotation
capacities of each RC element of the framed buildings.
All the analyses are performed based on a displacement
controlled procedure. The procedure for nonlinear
analysis in this study is summarized as:
•Application of 10% static lateral load induced due
to earthquake, at CG of the building.
•Developing M-θ relationship for critical regions
(Plastic hinging zone) of beam and column element.
•Pushing the structure using the load patterns of
static lateral loads, up to displacements larger than
those associated with target displacement using static
464 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.13

pushover analysis. such as IS 1893 (2002) provide the formulas or the

•Developing hinge progressing sequence in different
steps of the loading.
•Developing tables of roof displacement vs. base
shear or pushover curve.
5 Analysis and interpretation of results
The results from the numerical analysis are discussed
in this section. The results of the analyses are presented in
terms of fundamental period of structures, displacement
ductility, ductility reduction factor, overstrength
factor and response reduction factor of the structure.
Furthermore, the effects of the overstrength factor on the
ductility factor, beam column capacity ratio on building
ductility and load path on the response reduction factor
is also presented.
5.1 Natural period of the structure
Determination of the fundamental period of
vibration (T) of a structure is essential in earthquake
design. Standard design practices typically use code
recommended empirical equations to estimate the
design base shear. The time period obtained from IS
1893 (2002) and SAP2000 (2009) is presented in Fig. 4.
In all the building models, the time period obtained
from the code has higher values then the eigensolution
(SAP2000). This indicates that code-based procedures
overestimate the fundamental period of vibration of
structures. This is because the current code equations
0.7
Tnumerical
0.6
0.5
Time period (s)
approximate period of moment-resisting frames (MRFs),
which are only dependent on the height of the structures.
These formulations are overly conservative and unable
to account for structures with geometric irregularities
(Young and Adeli, 2013). In fact, the fundamental period
is an inherent property of a structure, and depends on the
building's flexibility and mass (Maddaloni et al., 2012).
Krawinkler and Nassar (1992) suggest using a T value
calculated from an eigen solution of the structural model
to obtain the ductility reduction factor.
5.2 Structural parameters
Structural parameters include the ultimate
displacement (Δu), yield displacement (Δy), displacement
ductility supply (μ), initial stiffness (K), elastic base shear
demand (Velastic), elastic displacement (Δe) and ductility
demand (μd). These parameters characterize the nonlinear
response of structures. The displacement ductilityin
this study is examined based on the aforementioned
parameters. The displacement ductility demand of the
structure is determined with elastic based shear demand
(Velastic) and initial stiffness of the structure. Similarly, the
calculation of the displacement ductility supply is based
on the ultimate displacement to yield displacement ratio.
In most engineered buildings, it is expected that ductility
demands (energy dissipation demands) are smaller
than their corresponding capacity. However, this does
not exist in more than 50% of the building structures
studied. From the analyses, it is seen that the increase
of eccentricity considerably increases the ductility
Tcode demands of the structures. Additionally, the results also
indicate that as the structural irregularity increases, the
elastic force demand also increases. The higher elastic

force demand is due to counterpart the highly developed

0.4
torsional moment in irregular structures (Stathopoulos
0.3 and Anagnostopoulos, 2010). The displacement ductility
0.2
capacity and demand of building structures in the X and
Y directions are presented in Fig. 5.
0.1

0 5.3 Response reduction factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Building models Seismic design codes consider a reduction in design
Fig. 4 Time period of the structures

Displacement ductility supply-X Displacement ductility supply-Y

10 Displacement ductility demand-X
10 Displacement ductility demand-Y
Displacement ductility

Displacement ductility

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Building models Building models
Fig. 5 Displacement ductility of building models in the X and Y direction
No.3 Hemchandra Chaulagain et al.: Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley 465

loads, taking advantage of the fact that the structures have a higher degree of irregularity, incomplete load
possess significant reserve strength and capacity to path, and insufficient column beam capacity ratio
dissipate energy, which is called overstrength and have lower ductility and overstrength factors. The
ductility, respectively. These two factors are incorporated level of irregularity, material strength and structural
in structural design through a response reduction factor. configuration tends to display a more significant impact
In this section, the results from the case study buildings on the R factor (Zafar, 2009). It is also evident from the
are presented. The values of the ductility reduction factor results that the stiffer frames due to the geometrical and
range from 1.66 to 4.15 in the X and 1.55 to 3.94 in the structural configuration results ingreater R values (see
Y direction. Similarly, the overstrength factor is within Figs. 7−14). In all the building models, the calculated ‘R’
the range of 1.56 to 4.17 and 1.44 to 4.28 in the X and Y value is lower than the standard one for various reasons,
directions, respectively. From a statistical analysis of the such as irregularity in dimensions leading to moderate to
overall results, the ‘R’ value for maximum, average and major torsional effects, lack of quality control and poor
minimum cases are 4.66, 3.40 and 1.42, respectively. workmanship during construction, not following the
Similarly, average values of overstrength and ductility ductile detailing requirements exactly as per the standard
reduction factors are 2.80 and 2.54 respectively. guidelines, etc. The final result in terms of ductility factor,
These values are similar to the values calculated by overstrength factor and response reduction factor in the
Maddaloni et al. (2012). The building models that X and Y directions are presented in Fig. 6. Furthermore,

6 6 Ductility reduction factor-Y Overstrength factor-Y

Ductility reduction factor-X Overstrength factor-X Displacement ductility
Response reduction factor-X Response reduction factor-Ysupply-Y
Displacement ductility demand-Y
Structural response parameters

5 5
Structural response parameters

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Building models Building models
Fig. 6 Ductility reduction factor, overstrength factor and response reduction factor of building models in the X and Y direction

1.5 1.5 Vu

1.2 Vu 1.2 Vy
Base shear (106 N)

Base shear (106 N)

0.9 Vy 0.9
Rμ = 2.54 Rμ = 2.79
0.6 Ω = 3.26 Y Ω = 2.61
0.6
R = 4.14 R = 3.64
Vd Vd
0.3 0.3
X
Δy Δu Δy Δu
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 7 Performance of building model 1 in the X and Y direction

1.8 1.8
Vu
Vu
1.5 1.5
Base shear (106 N)

Base shear (106 N)

1.2 Vy 1.2 Vy
Rμ = 2.68 Rμ = 2.22
0.9 0.9
Ω = 3.48 Ω = 3.15
Y
R = 4.66 R = 3.50
0.6 0.6
Vd Vd
0.3 0.3
Δy Δu X
Δy Δu
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 8 Performance of building model 2 in the X and Y direction
466 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.13

1.5 1.5
Vu Vu
1.2 1.2
Base shear (106 N)

Base shear (106 N)

Vy
0.9 Vy 0.9
Rμ = 2.11 Rμ = 1.66
Ω = 4.17 Ω = 4.14
0.6 Y 0.6
R = 4.39 R = 3.43
Vd Vd
0.3 0.3
Δy X
Δu Δy Δu
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 9 Performance of building model 3 in the X and Y direction

1.2 Vu 1.2
Vu

0.9 0.9
Base shear (106 N)

Vy

Base shear (106 N)

Vy

0.6 Rμ = 3.64 Rμ = 3.10

0.6
Ω = 2.40 Y Ω = 2.30
Vd Vd
R = 4.15 R = 3.57
0.3 0.3

Δy Δu X Δy Δu
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 10 Performance of building model 5 in the X and Y direction

1.2 1.2
1.5
Vu
0.9 Vu 1.2
0.9
Base shear (106 N)

N)
(106N)
6
shear (10

0.9 Vy
0.6 Vy
Base shear

0.6
Rμ = 3.63 Y 0.6 Rμ = 3.46
Vd Vd
Base

0.3 Ω = 2.10 0.3 Ω = 2.36

R = 3.81 0.3 R = 4.09
Δy Δu X Δy Δu
0 00
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 11 Performance of building model 6 in the X and Y direction
1.8 1.8
Vu
1.5 V 1.5
u
Base shear (106 N)

Base shear (106 N)

1.2 1.2 Vy
Vy
0.9 0.9
Rμ = 2.37 Rμ = 1.99
0.6 Ω = 3.74 Y 0.6 Ω = 4.28
Vd R = 4.44 Vd R = 4.26
0.3 0.3
Δy Δu X Δy Δu
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 12 Performance of building model 7 in the X and Y direction

the capacity curve and allocation of structural parameters overstrength factor (Ω) and response reduction factors
in terms of ultimate base shear (Vu), yield base shear (R) of some representative building models in both the
(Vy), design base shear (Vd), ultimate displacement (Δu), X and Y directions of loadings are summarized in
yield displacement (Δy), ductility reduction factor (Rμ), Figs. (7−14).
No.3 Hemchandra Chaulagain et al.: Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley 467

1.2 1.2
Vu Vu
0.9
Base shear (106 N)

0.9

Base shear (106 N)

Vy
Vy
0.6 Rμ = 2.51 0.6
Vd Y Vd Rμ = 1.79
Ω = 1.85 Ω = 1.80
R = 2.33 R = 1.61
0.3 0.3
Δy Δu X Δy Δu
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 13 Performance of building model 11 in the X and Y direction

0.6 0.6

Vu
Base shear (106 N)

Base shear (106 N)

Vu
Vy
Vy
0.3 0.3
Vd Y Vd Rμ = 1.97
Rμ = 2.11
Ω = 1.44
Ω = 1.56
R = 1.42
R = 1.65 X
Δy Δu Δy Δu
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0 0.03 0.06 0.09
Roof displacement (m) Roof displacement (m)
Fig. 14 Performance of building model 12 in the X and Y direction

the this study shows that strong-column-beak-beam

5.4 Relationship between beam column capacity
ratio, load path and response reduction factor
In this section, the relation between the beam
column capacity ratio, load path and response reduction
factor has been established. The results indicate that
there is a vast difference in the calculated ‘R’ value in
the different building structures. In regular buildings,
the strong-column-weak-beam criteria in design slightly
changes the ‘R’ value (Mondal et al., 2013). However,
criteria have an important role in irregular buildings.
Moreover, the ‘R’ value also depends on the load path
and level of the ductility in a structure. In fact, the values
of ‘R’ computed by employing nonlinear analysis for
the different structural and geometrical configurations
is less than those suggested in the IS 1893 (2002). The
building structures with a sufficient column capacity
ratio and complete load path have an ‘R’ value within
the range of 3.43 to 4.66. The structures have a 2.70 to
3.72 ‘R’ value when the buildings have sufficient column

Table 4 Relation of R with C/B ratio and load path

C/B capacity ratio Load path R
Model C/B > 1.1 C/B < 1.1 Complete Incomplete Rmax Rmin
1 √ √ 4.14 3.64
2 √ √ 4.66 3.50
3 √ √ 4.39 3.43
4 √ √ 4.66 4.20
5 √ √ 4.15 3.57
6 √ √ 4.09 3.81
7 √ √ 4.44 4.26
8 √ √ 3.72 2.94
9 √ √ 2.95 2.70
10 √ √ 2.93 2.52
11 √ √ 2.33 1.61
12 √ √ 1.65 1.42
468 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
beam capacity and incomplete load path. The structures
with a complete load path and insufficient column
beam capacity ratio have ‘R’ values between 1.61 and
2.93. The structures with an insufficient column beam
capacity ratio and incomplete load path have very weak
performance. The resultant ‘R’ value is 1.42 to 1.65. The
relation of ‘R’ to the column beam capacity ratio and load
path is presented in Table 4. Furthermore, the buildings
which fulfil the strong-column-weak-beam criteria in
design have a higher ductility supply in the structure.
The structures with a lower column beam capacity ratio
demand a higher level of ductility.
6 Conclusions
Most seismic design procedures include the
nonlinear response of a structure through the use of a
response reduction factor. This allows a designer to use
a linear elastic force-based design while accounting for
nonlinear behavior and deformation limits. In fact, the
response reduction factor is used in modern seismic
codes to scale down the elastic response of a structure.
The research presented in this study attempts to: (a)
investigate actual response reduction factor, ‘R’ for
irregular RC buildings in the Kathmandu valley through
nonlinear analysis; (b) compare the actual value of ‘R’ to
that assumed in the design process; and (c) explore the
effect of the overstrength factor on the ductility factor,
the beam column capacity ratio on the building ductility,
and the load path on the response reduction factor. In this
research, twelve irregular engineered RC buildings in
Kathmandu are considered for nonlinear static pushover
analysis. The findings provide details about the actual
value of ‘R’, and the effect of different factors such
as irregularity, beam column capacity ratio, load path,
overstrength, etc. on ‘R’. From the results presented in
Tables 4 and 5, it is evident that the ‘R’ factor is sensitive
to both geometric configuration and material strength.
It is also evident that the stiffer the frame, due to the
geometrical and structural configuration, the greater
the ‘R’ value. The results also show that stiffer frames
due to the geometrical and structural configuration
have a greater ‘R’ value. The computed values of ‘R’
obtained by employing nonlinear analysis for different
geometrical configurations is less than those suggested
in the IS 1893 (2002). There are many reasons for this,
such as irregularity in dimensions leading to minor to
moderate torsional effects, lack of quality control and
poor workmanship during construction, not following
the ductile detailing requirements exactly as per the
standard guidelines, etc. The main conclusions are
summarized as follows:
•The average value of ductility reduction factor,
overstrength factor and response reduction factor of
existing irregular buildings in the Kathmandu valley is
2.54, 2.80 and 3.40, respectively. Mahmoudi and Zaree
(2013), Mondal et al. (2013) and Zafar (2009) also found
similar results in their studies.
Vol.13
•Frames that do not meet the criteria of ‘strong
column-weak beam’ do not meet the high ductility
demand required by special moment resisting frames.
The response reduction factor obtained from nonlinear
pushover analysis was less than assumed in these types
of buildings.
•The buildings where the column/beam capacity
(C/B) ratio is satisfied and that have acomplete load
path, obtained a higher ‘R’ value than buildings with an
incomplete load path.
•Buildings with aductility supply ≥ ductility demand
satisfy the column/beam capacity ratio.
•If the overstrength factor is greater, the total
response reduction factor can be achieved even if the
ductility factor is less.
•The ‘R’ value is highly dependenton the C/B ratio of
the structures. Structures with a C/B ratio of < 1.1 have
a minimum ‘R’ value when compared to structures that
have a C/B ratio of > 1.1.
•When the column/beam capacity ratio is satisfied
and the load path is complete, the resultant response
reduction factor of the structure is 4.0.
•When the column/beam capacity ratio is satisfied
and the load path is incomplete, the final response
reduction factor is 3.08.
•When the column/beam capacity ratio is not
satisfied and the load path is complete, the response
reduction factor is 2.16.
•Finally, when the column/beam capacity ratio is not
satisfied and the load path is incomplete, the ‘R’ value
is 1.54.
These conclusions are limited to existing engineered
buildings in the Kathmandu valley located in a single
seismic zone. Moreover, their structural behavior was
not validated by any other nonlinear static procedure/
dynamic time history analysis.
Acknowledgement
This research investigation is supported by
the Eurasian University Network for International
Cooperation in Earthquake (EU-NICE), through a
fellowship for the PhD research of the first Author. This
support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
ASCE SEI/ASCE 7–05 (2005), Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures, Reston (USA):
American Society of Civil Engineers.
ATC 19 (1995), Seismic Response Modification Factors,
Applied Technical Council, California Seismic Safety
Commission, Redwood City, California.
ATC 34 (1995), A Critical Review of Current Approaches
to Earthquake Resistant Design, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California.
No.3 Hemchandra Chaulagain et al.: Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley
ATC 40 (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technical Council,
California Seismic Safety Commission, Redwood City,
California.
Bilham R, Bodin P and Jackson M (1995), “Entertaining
a Great Earthquake in Western Nepal: Historic Inactivity
and Geodetic Tests for the Present State of Strain,” J
Nepal GeolSoc, 11(1): 73–78.
BIS IS 1893 (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures, Part 1, New Delhi (India): Bureau
of Indian Standards.
Borzi B and Elnashai AS (2000), “Refined Force
Reduction Factors for Seismic Design,” Engineering
Structures, 22(10): 1244−1260.
CBS, Nepal (2012), “National Population and Housing
Census 2011,” National Report, NPHC, Kathmandu.
CENEurocode 8 (2004), Design Provisions for
Earthquake Resistance of Structures (European
Prestandard ENV 1998), Brussels (Belgium): Comité
Européen de Normalisation.
Chaulagain H, Guragain R and Mallik RK (2010),
“Assessment of Response Reduction factor of RC
Buildings in Kathmandu Valley Using Nonlinear
Pushover Analysis,” ME Thesis, Purbanchal University.
Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Jara J, Spacone E and Varum
H (2013a), “Seismic Response of Current RC Buildings
in Nepal: A Comparative Analysis of Different Design/
Construction,” Engineering Structures, 49: 284–294.
Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Spacone E and Varum
H (2012), “Reflections on the Seismic Vulnerability
Associated to Common RC Buildings in Nepal,” 15th
WCEE, Paper No. 2859, Sep 24-28, Lisbon, Portugal.
Chaulagain H, Rodrigues H, Spacone E and Varum
H (2013b), “Seismic Assessment of Three-story
Residential Buildings in Nepal,” 4th International
Conference on Integrity, Reliability and Failure, Paper
No. 1977, Funchal, Portugal.
Chitrakar G and Pandey M (1986), “Historical
Earthquakes of Nepal,” Bulletin of Geological Society,
4: 7–8.
Chopra AK and Goel RK (2004), “A Modal Pushover
Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands for
Unsymmetric-plan Buildings,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 33: 903–927.
Christopher R (1988), “An Investigation of Structural
Response Modification Factors,” Proceeding of 9th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-
Kyoto, Japan.
Di Sarno L, Chioccarelli E and Cosenza E (2011),
“Seismic Response Analysis of an Irregular Base
Isolated Building”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
9(5): 1673–1702.
Elnashai AS and Mwafy AM (2002), “Overstrength
and Force Reduction Factor of Multi-story Reinforced
Concrete Buildings,” The Structural Design of Tall
469
Buildings, 11(5): 329–351.
Fajfar P (1999), “Capacity Spectrum Method Based on
Inelastic Demand spectra,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structuaral Dynamic, 28: 979–993.
FEMA 450 (2004), NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structure, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC.
FEMA 451 (1999), NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA 356 (1997), Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Freeman SA (1990), “On the Correlation of Code Forces
to Earthquake Demands,” Proc. 4th US-Japan Workshop
on Improvement of Building Structure Design and
Construction Practices, ATC, Redwood City, California.
Giardini D, Grunthal G, Shedlock K and Zhang P (1999),
“The GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Map,” Annali Di
Deofisica, 42(6).
IBC 2000, International Building Code, BOCA, ICBO.,
1998.
JICA (2002), The Study on Earthquake Disaster
Mitigation in the Kathmandu Valley Kingdom of Nepal,
Japan International Cooperation Agency and Ministry of
Home Affairs, HMG Nepal, Vol. 1.
Kilar V and Fajfar P (1997), “Simple Push-over Analysis
of Asymmetric Buildings,” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 26: 233–249.
Krawinkler H and Nassar A (1992), “Seismic Design
Based on Ductility and Cumulative Damage Demands
and Capacities,” In: Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings, New York, USA; p.
27–47.
Lee DG, Cho SH and Ko H (2005), “Response
Modification Factors for Seismic Design of Building
Structures in Low Sesimicity Regions,” Korea
Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Maddaloni G, Magliulo G, and Cosenza E (2012),
“Effect of the Seismic Input on Nonlinear Response
of R/C Building Structures,” Advances in Structural
Engineering, 15(10): 1861–1877.
Magliulo G, Maddaloni G and Cosenza E (2012),
“Extension of N2 Method to Plan Irregular Buildings
Considering Accidental Eccentricity,” Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 43: 69–84.
Mahmoudi M and Zaree M (2013), “Determination the
Response Modification Factors of Buckling Restrained
Braced Frames,” Procedia Engineering, 54: 222–231.
Mertz G and Houston T (2001), “Force Reduction Factors
for the Seismic Evaluation of Nuclear Structures,”
Transactions, Smirt-16, Washington DC.
Miranda E and Bertero VV (1994), “Evaluation of
470 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
Strength Reduction Factors for Earthquake-resistant
Design,” Earthquake Spectra, 10(2): 357−379.
Moghadam AS and Tso WK (2000), “3-D Pushover
Analysis for Damage Assessment of Buildings,” J.
Seismol Earthquake Eng, 2(3): 23–32.
Mondal A, Ghosa S and Reddy G (2013), “Performance-
based Evaluation of the Response Reduction Factor for
Ductile RC Frames,” Engineering structures, 56: 1808-
1819.
Mwafy AM and Elnashi (2001), “Static Pushover
Versus Dynamic Collapse Analysis of RC Buildings,”
Engineering Structures, 23: 407–424.
NBC 105 (1994), Nepal National Building Code, HMG/
Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, Department
of Building, Nepal.
Newmark NM and Hall WJ (1973), “Seismic Design
Criteria For Nuclear Reactor Facilities,” Report No 46,
Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National
Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.
NSET (1999), Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk
Management Action Plan, National Society for
Earthquake Technology and Geo-hazard International.
Olateanu O, Clongradi L, Anechitel M and Budescu M
(2009), “The Ductile Design Concept for Seismic Actions
in Miscellaneous Design Codes,” Buletinul Institutului
Politechnic Din Iasi Publicat de UniversitateaTehnica.
Ozhendekci D, Ozhendekci N and Ozturk A (2006), “The
Seismic Response Modification Factor for Eccentrically
Braced Frames,” 1st ECEES, Geneva.
Pandey M, Chitrakara G, Kafle B, Sapkota S, Rajaure S
and Gautam U (2002), Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal,
National Seismological Center, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Patel B and Shah D (2010), “Formulation of Response
Reduction Factor for RC Framed Staging of Elevated
Water Tank Using Static Pushover Analysis,” Proceeding
of the World Congress on Engineering, London.
Paulay T (1999), “A Simple Seismic Design Strategy
Based on Displacement and Ductility Compatibility,”
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology,
1(1): 51–67.
Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992), Seismic Design
of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley
Interscience, New York, USA.
Priestley M (2000), “Performance Based Seismic
Design,” 12th WCEE, Paper No. 2831.
Rana B (1935), Great Earthquake of Nepal, Nepali
Edition, Jorganesh Press, pp.235.
Rodrigues H, Arede A, Varum H and Costa A (2012a),
“Comparative Efficiency Analysis of Different
Nonlinear Modeling Strategies to Simulate the Biaxial
Response of RC Columns,” Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration, 11: 553–566.
Vol.13
Rodrigues H, Arede A, Varum H and Costa A (2012b),
“Experimental Evaluation of Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Column Behavior under Biaxial Cyclic
Loading,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamic, doi: 10.1002/eqe.2205.
Rodrigues H, Arede A, Varum H and Costa A (2013),
“Damage Evolution in Reinforced Concrete Columns
Subjected to Biaxial Loading,” Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 11(5): 1517−1540.
SAP2000 V-14 (2009), Integrated Finite Element
Analysis and Design of Structures Basic Analysis,
Reference Manual, Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers
and Structures Inc.
Stathopoulos KG and Anagnostopoulos SA (2010),
“Accidental Design Eccentricity: Is It Important for the
Inelastic Response of Buildings to Strong Earthquakes?”
Soil Dyn and Earthquake Engineering, 30: 782–797.
Thapa N (1988), BhadauPanchKoBhukampa (in Nepali),
Central Disaster Relief Committee, Nepal.
Tso WK and Moghadam AS (1997), “Seismic Response
of Asymmetrical Buildings Using Push-over Analysis,”
In: Proceeding of Workshop on Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Bled,
Slovenia 1997, Rotterdam: Balkema.
Uang CM (1991), “Establishing R and Cd Factors for
Building Seismic Provisions,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 117(1): 19−28.
Uang CM and Bertero VV (1986), “Earthquake
Simulation Tests and Associated Studies of a 0.3 Scale
Model of a Six-story Concentrically Braced Steel
Structure,” Report No. UCB/EERC-86/10, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
UNDP (1994), Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk
Assessment for Nepal, His Majesty's Government of
Nepal, Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning,
UNDP/ UNCHS (Habitat) Subproject NEP/88/054/21.03.
Varum H, “Seismic Assessment, Strengthening and
Repair of Existing Buildings,” PhD Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Aveiro 2003.
Wyss M (2005), “Human Losses Expected in Himalayan
Earthquakes,” Natural Hazard, 35: 305–314.
Young K and Adeli H (2013), “Fundamental Period of
Irregular Moment-resisting Steel Frame Structures,”
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build., doi: 10.1002/tal.1112.
Zafar A (2009), “Response Modification Factor of
Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames in
Developing Countries,” Master Thesis, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Zahid M, Robert D and Shahrin F (2013), “An Evaluation
of Overstrength Factor of Seismic Designed Low Rise
RC Buildings,” Procedia Engineering, 53: 48–51.