Response modification factors of school facilities for non-seismic RC moment frames with partial masonry infills in ‘Manual for Seismic Performance Evaluation and Retrofit of School Facilities’ published in 2018 were investigated in the preceding study. However, since previous studies are based on 2D frame analysis and limited analysis conditions, additional verification needs to be performed to further apply various conditions including orthogonal effect of seismic load. Therefore, this study is to select appropriate response modification factors of school facilities for non-seismic RC moment frames with partial masonry infills by 3D frame analysis. The results are as follows. An appropriate response modification factor for non-seismic RC moment frames with partial masonry infills is proposed as 2.5 for all cases if the period is longer than 0.6 seconds. Also if the period is less than 0.4 seconds and the ratio of shear-controlled columns is less than 30%, 2.5 is chosen too. However, if the period is less than 0.4 seconds and the ratio of shear-controlled columns is higher than 30%, the response modification factor shall be reduced to 2.0. If the period is between 0.4 and 0.6 seconds, then linearly interpolates the response correction factor.

Most school buildings consist of reinforced concrete (RC) moment frames with masonry infills. The longitudinal direction frames of those school buildings are relatively weak due to the short-column effects caused by the partial masonry infills and need to be evaluated carefully. In ‘Manual for Seismic Performance Evaluation and Retrofit of School Facilities’ published in 2018, response modification factor of 2.5 is applied to non-seismic RC moment frames with partial masonry infills, but sufficient verification of the factor has not been reported yet. Therefore, this study conducted seismic performance evaluation of planar RC moment frames with partial masonry infills in accordance with both linear analysis and nonlinear static analysis procedures presented in the manual. The evaluation results from the different procedures are compared in terms of assessed performance levels and number of members not meeting target performance objectives. Finally, appropriate response modification factors are proposed with respect to a shear-controlled column ratio.