Configuration-Sensitive Decomposition of the Response Modification Factor in Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames

The response modification factor R is a fundamental parameter in seismic design, linking the elastic demand expected under strong ground motion to the reduced forces used in practice. It reflects the capacity of well-detailed structures to dissipate energy through stable inelastic behavior while maintaining sufficient strength, stiffness, and deformation capacity to prevent collapse. Accordingly, R directly influences design base shear, member forces, reinforcement demands and expected seismic performance. It is prescribed by seismic codes as a single typology dependent value, although analytical evidence indicates that its magnitude varies systematically with structural configuration. Therefore, this study decomposes R for twelve reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame archetypes that combine three heights (4, 8, and 14 stories) with four span configurations (1–4 spans) over a constant 12 m plan length. All frames are designed per ACI 318-19 and ASCE/SEI 7-22 for the Pedernales, Ecuador, subduction-zone seismic hazard. The response modification factor R is evaluated through a component-based decomposition that separates the effects of ductility, overstrength, and redundancy—namely the capacity ductility (Formula presented.), the demand ductility (Formula presented.), the overstrength (Formula presented.), and a geometric redundancy index (Formula presented.), using bilinearized pushover analyses. Dynamic verification, used here as a consistency check, is explicitly restricted to the low-rise class (four-story frames) through nonlinear response-history analysis under eleven spectrum-matched ground-motion records; results for the 8- and 14-story frames are therefore pushover-based only. To bracket the inelastic reduction capacity, a demand-based companion factor (Formula presented.) is reported and defined as the demand-based counterpart of R, providing a capacity-oriented estimate R and a demand-oriented companion estimate (Formula presented.). R ranges from 3.80 to 14.56, whereas (Formula presented.) ranges from 1.82 to 7.63. The component ranges are the capacity ductility (Formula presented.) – (Formula presented.), the demand ductility (Formula presented.) – (Formula presented.), the overstrength (Formula presented.) – (Formula presented.), and the geometric redundancy index (Formula presented.) – (Formula presented.). Capacity ductility saturates in taller frames (about (Formula presented.) variation). In addition, (Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.) exhibit a mechanical trade-off that challenges the independence assumption implicit in the multiplicative decomposition. Dynamic results corroborate the pushover-implied demand only for the low-rise class; no extrapolation to taller frames is claimed. Overall, the findings motivate configuration-sensitive analytical calibration as a prerequisite for any future normative discussion on R.