Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Importance of shear assessment of concrete structures detailed to different capacity design requirements
Aman Mwafy a, , Amr Elnashai b
a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box. 17555, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Received 9 September 2006; received in revised form 6 July 2007; accepted 28 October 2007 Available online 20 February 2008

Abstract Shear failure of RC structures signies rapid strength degradation and signicant loss of energy dissipation capacity. It is thus necessary to avoid this failure mode by insuring that the shear supply exceeds the capacity corresponding to the maximum realistic exural strength. A realistic and versatile approach is proposed in the current study and implemented in a general nonlinear dynamic analysis program to allow for the prediction of shear failure in structural member. The shear demand-supply response is monitored through employing two shear strength approaches. The rst is based on extensive experimental results and has proven to be effective in representing the reduction of shear supply with the degradation in concrete strength. A design code shear strength model is also selected for comparison after eliminating the safety factors used by the code. The analytical models are implemented in a time-step fashion to allow for shearaxial interaction and to account for the instantaneous ductility demand imposed during the analysis. The investigated structures were realistically designed and detailed to different design ground accelerations and capacity design requirements to represent a wide range of contemporary buildings with variations in longitudinal (exure) and transverse (shear and connement) reinforcement. A series of inelastic response history analyses is conducted using a set of earthquake records scaled to increasing intensities up to collapse. The signicance of including shear as a failure criterion in seismic assessment is conrmed in this study. Variations of axial forces lead to high uctuation in shear supply and decrease the contribution of the concrete compression zone to shear resistance. The improved response of structural members designed to the modern seismic provisions is conrmed. Shear failure may be the controlling limit state in buildings designed for low-to-medium ductility capacity. This suggests improvements in the design provisions, particularly those related to beam critical regions. c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shear strength; Shear failure; Concrete structures; Nonlinear analysis; Earthquake damage; Seismic design

1. Introduction Modeling the inelastic cyclic behavior of RC structural members using the ber approach has proved its reliability for the cases of uniaxial and biaxial exure with varying axial load, e.g. [1]. The effectiveness and applicability of this modeling technique increases signicantly when accounting for shear. Modeling the shearbending interaction insures that nonductile modes of failure are inhibited and a favorable inelastic exural response is achieved. Prediction of shear supply using simple analytical approaches to compare with the anticipated
Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 3 7621694; fax: +971 3 7623154.

E-mail address: amanmwafy@uaeu.ac.ae (A. Mwafy). 0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.015

demand is thus signicant for seismic assessment of concrete structures. In the majority of simple shear strength models, the ultimate capacity is dened by the superposition of three terms: (i) parallel chord truss mechanism, (ii) strut and tie mechanism and (iii) transmission of shear by concrete in compression and the dowel effect of longitudinal reinforcement. The behavior of slender exure-dominated RC members can be approximated using the truss analogy. When the shear span ratio decreases, shear stresses become more important compared with normal stresses. In this case the behavior is represented using the strut and tie mechanism. Results of the shear strength models adopted by design codes vary signicantly. For instance, the truss mechanism term in the US design practice [2] assumes a 45 angle in determining the diagonal compression. This is justied by the fact that this approach lead to conservative

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

1591

designs. In contrast, other design codes, e.g. [35], enable the designer to use a atter angle for evaluating the contribution of shear reinforcement to shear capacity. The remaining shear resistance terms are based on experimental results and thus treated in varies ways by design code. Most of the codied shear strength models cannot be utilized to predict shear failure in seismic assessment studies since they are intended to provide a conservative and safe lower bound to strength. Some of these models were also developed for static loads, and hence do not account for important features under earthquake loads such as the interaction between shear strength and the instantaneous level of ductility. Considerable experimental research has been therefore directed towards better denition of shear in RC members and quantifying the inuence of exural ductility in reducing shear transfer across wide cracks in plastic hinge regions, e.g. [6,7]. These simple and experimentally veried shear strength models can be used along with the ber modeling approach to monitor the shearbending interaction in RC members and the associated non-ductile shear failure modes. Comprehensive set of contemporary RC buildings designed to modern seismic codes are assessed in the present study against shear failure modes using rened modeling and stateof-the-art analytical tools. The assessed structural systems vary in their characteristics to represent common medium-rise RC buildings in different seismicity regions. An ensemble of code spectrum-compatible accelerograms and natural ground motions are employed in the analysis. A brief description is presented for the structural systems and their analytical models as well as the comprehensive response criteria employed to monitor the seismic response at both the member and the structure level, particularly monitoring the shear capacitydemand ratio during the multi-step analysis. Finally, sample results from this comprehensive study are presented to highlight the signicance of shear modeling in seismic assessment of RC structures. 2. Selection of a realistic shear strength model It has been conrmed in a recent study focused on the shear strength of concrete members [8] that the approach of design codes provides over-conservative estimates of shear capacity compared with test results. The shear strength estimated using different design provisions, e.g. [25], was compared with test results to evaluate the relative conservatism of different approaches. All resistance and strength reduction factors of the design approaches were set to unity. A large experimental database, consists of 878 RC and 481 prestressed concrete members, was employed in the study. Table 1 shows sample results from this comparison for RC members. It is observed that EC2 [4] is less successful in predicting the shear capacity. The ACI [2] approach is about 40% greater than the least overall COV. JSCE [5] is somewhat better than EC2 and ACI, while CSA [3] is the best approach. The comparison conrms that different design approaches are unduly conservative and inadequately correlate with test results. Furthermore, in another study on RC columns, Priestley et al. [6] concluded that the

Table 1 Correlation of experimental results with the code shear strength models (after NCHRP, 2005) Member type (with or without shear Rft) No. of test results ACI [2] CSA [3] JSCE [5] EC2 [4] Without shear Rft 718 1.54 (0.418) 1.27 (0.282) 1.35 (0.293) 1.75 (0.328) With shear Rft 160 1.35 (0.277) 1.19 (0.218) 1.38 (0.216) 1.70 (0.373) Both

878 1.51 (0.404) 1.25 (0.274) 1.36 (0.280) 1.74 (0.336)

Rft: Denotes reinforcement. Mean and coefcient of variation (COV, in brackets) are presented.

code approach does not provide a consistent estimate of the shear strength. For low ductility levels, the code approach was excessively conservative, while it was non-conservative at high ductility levels. Considerable experimental research has been therefore directed towards better denition of shear deformation and failure in RC members and quantifying the inuence of exural ductility in reducing the shear transfer in plastic hinge regions. Priestley et al. [6] suggested three independent components to realistically predict the shear strength of rectangular columns. These are: Vc = k f c Ae ,

(1) (2)

Vs = Av f y D cot 30 /s and V p = P tan = P ( D c)/2a .

(3)

The above mentioned equations represent the concrete component, the truss mechanism component and the axial load component, respectively; where k is a function of the member ductility, f c is the concrete compressive strength, Ae is the effective shear area (0.8 Agross ), Av is the total transverse reinforcement area per layer, f y is the steel yield stress, D is the distance between centers of the peripheral hoop, P is the axial force, D is the overall section depth, c is the depth of the compression zone and a is the shear span. In the latter approach, the reduction in the concrete contribution begins earlier when the element is subjected to ductile response in two orthogonal axes, while it increases considerably for low ductility levels. Since the member curvature ductility is a more meaningful indicator of the degradation in the aggregate interlock component of shear resistance, the coefcient k is estimated in the present study based on the curvature ductility [9] rather than the displacement ductility formulation introduced in the original study of Priestley et al. [6]. Moreover, since columns benet from the uniform distribution of longitudinal reinforcement, the concrete contribution in RC beams should be lower than columns. Hence, an enhanced approach for estimating the coefcient k was employed for assessment of RC beams [10]. In the

1592

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 Table 3 Characteristics of the investigated structural systems Group Design ductility IF 1.424 (0.342) M&L 1.060 (0.202) 0.998 (0.113) 1.041 (0.132) 1.060 (0.202) 1.021 (0.124) RF H&M M&L 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.15 Eight Twelve H&M Design PGA 0.30 No. of stories Eight T 1elastic (s) 0.674 & 0.654 0.719 & 0.723 0.857 & 0.893 0.920 & 0.913 0.538 & 0.533 0.592 & 0.588 T 2elastic (s) 0.216 & 0.210 0.234 & 0.236 0.277 & 0.288 0.295 & 0.294 0.150 & 0.148 0.165 & 0.164

Table 2 Correlation of test results and analytical shear strength approaches (after Priestley et al. [6]) Shear model ASCE-ACI 426 [11] Wong et al. [12] Priestleyet al. [6] Circular columns 1.209 (0.226) Rectangular columns 1.630 (0.306) All data

Mean and standard deviation (in brackets) are presented.

latter proposal, k depends on the ratio between the tension and the compression reinforcement area. The concrete component degrades to zero at a ductility level of 8 when the compression reinforcement area is larger than the tension area since wide exural cracks may develop within plastic hinge regions. Clearly the truss mechanism component of the latter approach is similar to the corresponding term in several design codes, with a crack inclination angle of 30. This increases the truss mechanism component signicantly (73%) compared with the 45 adopted by some design codes. The strut and tie term increases with the decrease in the member aspect ratio. For an increasing axial load, and hence increasing the depth of the exural compression zone, the effectiveness of this term is also less signicant. Separation of this term from the concrete term thus enables considering the possible internal arch action with formation of an inclined strut. The enhancement introduced in the concrete and the strut and tie terms to account for the inuence of ductility and axial load levels, results in a considerable enhancement in predicting the shear strength. Comparison between the shear strength estimated from the latter analytical mode with experimental test results of rectangular and circular columns is presented in Table 2 (after Priestley et al. [6]). It is clear that the margin of error of the design code model is higher for rectangular columns, which are mostly utilized in RC buildings. Several other predictive approaches of shear strength have been suggested in the literature. For instance, based on extensive laboratory tests, a model for shear strength of lightly reinforced rectangular columns has been recently suggested [7]. The model accounts for several parameters, including the displacement ductility demand. However, it is commented in the latter study that the model may be useful in applications to columns having similar congurations and loadings (i.e. lightly reinforced rectangular columns). The discussion presented above and the enhancements introduced by Priestley et al. [9, 10] to predict the shear strength of various structural members with different cross-sections renders the approach of Priestley et al. [6] to be one of the most effective proposals amongst the models classied as simple predictive approaches. This model was therefore selected in the present study to predict the ultimate shear strength of structural members in adequately designed RC buildings. Eurocode 2 approach is also employed after eliminating its safety factors to compare between a code-based model and a simple and experimentally veried alternative.

FW

H&M M&L

IF: Irregular Frame, RF: Regular Frame and FW: Frame-Wall group of buildings. H: High, M: Medium and L: Low.

3. Structural systems, modeling and post-processing of results A representative sample of structural congurations was selected in the present study to characterize the contemporary medium-rise RC buildings designed to modern seismic codes. Twelve RC buildings were selected and split into three sets based on their structural system, as shown in Table 3. These are the Irregular Frame (IF), Regular Frame (RF) and Frame-Wall (FW) group of buildings. Within each group, combinations of three design ductility classes (High, Medium and Low) and two design ground accelerations (0.15g and 0.30g ) lead to the four investigated cases. This selection was motivated by the desire to compare the shear response of structures designed to different ductility and ground acceleration levels. Each building was designed and detailed in accordance with Eurocode 2 and 8 [13]. Higher response modication factors, R , (behavior factors q in Eurocode 8) are allowed by Eurocode 8 [14] for higher ductility classes, while more rigorous standards on member detailing requirements are imposed. The cross-section capacities were computed by considering a characteristic cylinder strength of 25 N/mm2 for concrete and a characteristic yield strength of 500 N/mm2 for steel. The elastic fundamental periods Telastic , obtained from elastic free vibration analyses conrm that the uncracked periods of the selected buildings (0.530.92) cover a wide range. Different building heights (2436 m) and structural systems (moment-resisting frames and frame-wall systems) as well as the structural system regularity were taken into consideration. This insures that the assessment sample represents the most common types of medium-rise RC building. The geometric characteristics of the structures are briey explained in Fig. 1, while Fig. 2 depicts sample reinforcement details of an 8-story irregular building designed to ductility Medium for a PGA of 0.30g . Rened three-dimensional models of the entire buildings employing the ber approach were assembled for inelastic analysis. The nite element analysis platform used in this study was originally developed and thoroughly tested at Imperial College,

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

1593

Fig. 1. Description of the investigated buildings.

Fig. 2. Sample reinforcement details of one of the twelve buildings investigated (8-story irregular building designed to ductility Medium and a PGA of 0.30g ).

UK [15]. The further development and verication of the program with full scale test results have continued at University Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, to deliver a state-of-theart inelastic analysis platform for static and dynamic simulations [16]. The program and the adopted modeling approach have been employed in several design and assessment studies of high-rise buildings and bridges, e.g. [17,18]. In the detailed modeling approach adopted in the present study, each structural member is assembled using a number of cubic elasto-plastic elements capable of representing the spread of inelasticity within the member cross-section and along the member length via the ber modeling approach. The lengths of the cubic elasto-plastic elements are determined on the basis of the critical member lengths, which are controlled by

the Eurocode 8 provisions for different ductility classes. The numerical integration for the cubic elasto-plastic elements is performed over two Gauss sections, which have a xed position within the element length. Reinforced concrete rectangularsection and T-section are utilized for the modeling of structural members. Both sections allow the geometric denition of the steel, conned and unconned concrete regions within the section. Connement factors are evaluated as described in Eurocode 8, and varied along the member length according to the arrangement of transverse reinforcements. The inelastic response of the cross section is assembled from contributions of different concrete and steel bers for which inelastic cyclic material constitutive relationships are applied. A bilinear model is used to idealize steel reinforcement. In this model, the

1594

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

Fig. 3. Description of the inelastic analysis post-processing procedure to monitor the seismic response and the shear supplydemand ratio.

loading and unloading in the elastic range follow a linear function throughout various loading stages with constant stiffness represented by the Youngs modulus of steel. In the post-elastic range, a kinematic hardening rule for the yield surface dened by a linear relationship is assumed [19]. A uniaxial constant active connement concrete model [20], which includes enhanced cyclic degradation rules, inelastic strain and shape of unloading branches, is employed. Based on the anticipated critical response, the analyses are conducted along the global X -axis for the frame buildings and along the Y -axis for the FW structures. The bidiagonal reinforcements included in the design of several structural members (refer to Fig. 2) are taken into consideration by adding the horizontal and the vertical projection of the steel area to the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. This approach is utilized to represent the bidiagonal shear reinforcement in coupling beam and in the lower two stories of the core of the FW-H030 and FW-M030 buildings. Three main criteria are utilized in the current study to dene global structural failure. These are: an upper limit of the interstory drift (ID) ratio equal to 3%, formation of a column hinging mechanism and a drop in the overall lateral resistance by more than 10%. Two additional failure criteria on the member level are employed: exceeding the ultimate curvature or the shear strength. As discussed above, the latter is mainly evaluated using the approach of Priestley et al. [6], while the Eurocode 2 model is also included after eliminating

its safety factors to allow calibration with the code used in design and as a second level check. The adopted performance criteria are implemented in a versatile post-processing program to systematically monitor capacities and demands on the member and the structure level. The developed algorithm traces the continuous variation of forces and deformations in the assembly of elements representing structural members during the multi-step analyses. Fig. 3 summarizes the post-processing procedure by means of a ow diagram. Inelastic pushover analysis results are rst processed to evaluate the global response and yield curvature ( y ) of critical sections. Yielding in the top and bottom reinforcement of all critical regions should be achieved to obtain y . This is carried out in the current study by applying the incremental lateral forces in the inelastic pushover analysis twice, in the positive and in the negative directions, up to a high drift limit. Hence, two yield curvature values are calculated for all critical sections, corresponding to yielding of the top and bottom reinforcement. The calculated y values are then employed to calculate the curvature ductility ( = / y ), which is required to evaluate the shear supply from the model of Priestley et al. [6] during the response history analyses. The post-processor also monitors satisfaction of other limit state criteria adopted in the current study, including the maximum curvature ductility demand in all structural members to provide insight into the level of exural damage in structural member.

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

1595

Fig. 4. Shear demandsupply response in beams designed to different ductility classes (RF-buildings).

Inelastic response history analysis is performed using six input excitations; four 10 s duration articially-generated records compatible with the design code response spectrum for medium soil class and two natural earthquake records (Kobe KBU, Japan, 1995 and Loma Prieta SAR, US, 1989). The records were scaled to possess equal velocity spectrum intensity of the design spectrum. Further information regarding the analytical modeling of the buildings and the assessment methodology can be found elsewhere [2123]. 4. Shear demandsupply response at the member level Employing shear as a failure criterion in the present study conrms its importance in assessing the seismic response of RC buildings. Shear failure at low levels of PGA is frequently recorded when employing the design code shear model. A clear difference between the supply predicted by the code and that estimated using the model of Priestley et al. [6] was observed. The conservatism of the design approach and its inapplicability for seismic assessment were conrmed. In frame structures, it is observed that the most susceptible buildings to shear failure are those designed to ductility level Low. For those buildings, shear failure is the controlling failure criterion. Capacity design rules are not required by EC8 when designing for this level of ductility. Hence, the minimum transverse reinforcement, which plays a signicant role in determining the shear strength, is generally associated with those buildings.

Shear failure modes, detected using the realistic shear strength model of Priestley el al. [6], are observed at PGA levels notably higher than the design intensity. It is conrmed that design ductility class Low frames are vulnerable to this type of failure, particularly beams, but at higher PGA levels than the design. It is observed in several cases that the distribution of stirrups in structural members is determined according to the maximum hoop spacing required by EC8 in critical regions rather than the requirements of shear design. The requirements of the maximum hoop spacing are mainly imposed by EC8 to enhance the ductility and energy dissipation in critical regions of ductility High and Medium buildings. These add an additional protection against shear failure. Moreover, since inelastic shear deformations are associated with limited ductility, strength reduction and signicant loss of energy dissipation, EC8 imposes more stringent provisions to improve the shear resistance and inhibit shear failure modes in critical regions of ductility High and Medium buildings over those required by EC2. Clearly, this leads to signicant differences between the shear resistances of structural members designed to the three levels of ductility. Fig. 4 compares between the shear demandsupply observed in a rst story external beam for the four regular frame buildings under an articial record (Art-rec1) scaled to twice the design intensity (intensity 2.0). Comparison between each pair of buildings designed to the same PGA shows the enhancement of shear strength for higher ductility level buildings. It is also important to note that not only the supply increases in higher ductility level

1596

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

Table 4 Maximum curvature ductility demand (MCDD) of the twelve buildings at twice the design intensity Ref. Art-rec1 MCDD Locationa Art-rec2 MCDD Locationa Art-rec3 MCDD Locationa Art-rec4 MCDD Locationa Kobe MCDD Locationa Loma Prieta MCDD Locationa

MCDD in beams IF-H030 IF-M030 IF-M015 IF-L015 RF-H030 RF-M030 RF-M015 RF-L015 FW-H030 FW-M030 FW-M015 FW-L015 4.40 4.95 2.66 2.24 5.69 6.27 3.15 2.08 12.98 13.46 4.76 5.30 B55R B44L B47R B54L B11L B107R B77L B77L B15L B85L B15R B85L 5.84 4.61 3.01 2.10 6.28 8.95 3.46 3.54 15.28 9.94 10.24 5.26 B42R B52R B47L B52R B77R B87R B77L B87L B15L B85L B15R B85L 3.95 4.34 2.49 1.93 5.23 5.98 5.09 3.05 6.49 9.79 4.64 4.63 B52R B62R B13L B67R B37L B97L B37L B77L B85R B85L B85R B85L 4.88 4.35 3.10 3.16 4.66 6.55 2.35 2.89 11.52 7.64 6.49 5.01 B32R B42R B37L B28L B37R B97R B37R B87R B15L B85L B15R B85L 5.73 5.64 3.49 3.18 3.26 3.51 1.23 1.34 4.75 1.91 1.67 1.11 B34L B22R B47R B42R B67R B87L B77R B87L B35L B85L B75R B85L 4.04 3.05 1.98 1.38 5.52 6.31 3.64 3.77 8.45 6.66 2.98 4.41 B57L B22R B47L B54L B67R B87R B67L B87R B35L B85L B75R B85L

MCDD in columns IF-H030 IF-M030 IF-M015 IF-L015 RF-H030 RF-M030 RF-M015 RF-L015 FW-H030 FW-M030 FW-M015 FW-L015 3.50 4.09 2.10 1.92 2.81 1.99 1.00 3.84 4.22 5.44 1.75 C22B C25B C22B C82T C17B C11B C17B C16B C16B C16T C16B 4.50 4.90 2.05 2.51 1.12 1.12 5.00 3.56 5.19 2.03 C82T C22B C22B C25B C17B C12B C17B C17T C16T C16T 4.17 2.85 2.20 1.96 2.39 1.84 1.47 1.05 3.06 3.70 4.99 1.54 C22B C22B C25B C82T C17B C11B C110B C16B C17B C16T C17T C16T 5.07 4.68 2.59 3.49 2.12 1.72 3.61 3.69 4.94 2.36 C22B C25B C22B C25B C17B C11B C17B C17T C17T C17B 4.49 6.79 2.37 2.90 1.18 1.06 2.72 3.38 4.65 C25B C22B C22B C22B C17B C12B C16B C17T C16T 4.66 3.61 1.82 1.88 1.78 1.94 1.10 3.16 3.80 4.83 1.50 C22B C22B C22B C25B C17B C17B C17B C16B C17T C16T C17T

Indicates no yielding yet of tensile reinforcement. a Refer to the index plan shown above.

buildings but the demand also decreases. Higher ductility class structures generally attract lower base shear due to employing higher reduction in the design seismic forces, which leads to a reduction in the lateral strength. Hence, lower forces are attracted to these buildings. It is shown from Fig. 4 that this also applies to the member level. An observable drop in the shear strength evaluated using the Priestley et al. [6] shear model is shown in Fig. 4 for the 0.30g buildings, particularly for the higher ductility level structure. It is also interesting to record an increase in the shear strength of the design code shear model at the same time-step. For the RF-H030 building, the maximum shear and compressive axial

force demands (653 and 975 kN, respectively) are recorded at 3.5 s. The increase in the compressive axial force results in increasing the concrete contribution term and consequently the total shear strength (659 kN) predicted using the design code shear model. In contrast, the drop in the shear strength of Priestley et al. model is mainly due to the high ductility demand recorded in the beam shown in Fig. 4. Table 4 shows the Maximum Curvature Ductility Demands (MCDD) observed in the beams and columns of the twelve buildings investigated at twice the design PGA. It is clear that MCDD in beams of the RF-H030 building when subjected to Art-rec1 is observed in the beam shown in Fig. 4 ( = 5.69). Contrary to the

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

1597

Fig. 5. Shear demandsupply response in columns designed to different ductility classes (IF-buildings).

design code, the degradation of shear strength with increasing inelastic deformation is effectively accounted for in the model of Priestley et al. [6,9,10]. In comparing the shear strength of buildings designed to the same PGA but for different ductility levels, it is observed that the reduction in the shear strength when designing to lower ductility level is higher in the 0.15g pair compared with the 0.30g pair. On average, this reduction is 25% and 41%, respectively. This conrms the non-uniform safety margin of the code provisions when designing for different seismic regions. It is noteworthy that the difference between the shear strength when designing to ductility High and Medium is less than that shown in Fig. 4. This is because the beam depth of the RF-H030 building is 0.65 m, whilst it is 0.60 m for RFM030. The comparison shown in Fig. 4 conrms the low safety margin against shear failure of ductility Low beams compared with the ductility classes Medium and High. Shear forces in columns designed to ductility class Low are determined from the analysis for the seismic load combinations required by EC8. For ductility levels Medium and High the design shear forces are determined in accordance with the capacity design criterion considering equilibrium of the column under actual resisting end moments. Clearly the safety factors added to the columns designed to ductility High and Medium, through the shear magnication factor, lead to signicantly higher shear resistance when compared with columns of ductility class Low. Comparison between the shear demand-supply response of columns designed to different ductility levels is shown in Fig. 5 for the four IF buildings. The higher margin of safety against shear failure for columns

compared with beams designed to ductility Low is conrmed from this gure. It is clear that the difference between shear strength of the two buildings designed to a PGA of 0.15g is not signicant, contrary to that observed in beams (refer to Fig. 4). Since lower ductility class buildings have higher stiffness, they attract higher levels of axial force. This is the reason behind the higher uctuation in shear supply in the right plots of Fig. 5. This variation in supply is higher for the design code model compared with Priestley et al.s approach. The effectiveness of the axial force component of Priestley et al. [6] shear model becomes less signicant with the increase in axial forces, which leads to an increase in the depth of the compression zone. Although the increase in axial forces causes some enhancement in the concrete contribution, combining this term with the axial force term in the EC2 shear model has the drawback of ignoring the adverse effect of increasing the axial forces on the arch mechanism contribution. Comparison between structural walls designed to different ductility classes leads to the same observation of the column response. Generally, higher margins of safety are observed for the higher ductility level buildings (FW-H030 and FW-M015), as shown in Fig. 6. The highest safety margin is for the building designed to ductility High, which attracts lower shear forces, while provided with signicant enhancement in shear strength. It should be noted that the wall of the FW-H030 building is provided with bidiagonal reinforcement in the lower two stories. This type of reinforcement is modeled by adding the horizontal and the vertical projection of the bidiagonal steel area to the longitudinal and the transverse reinforcements. The shear resistance of the bidiagonal reinforcement should be more

1598

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

Fig. 6. Shear demandsupply response in walls designed to different ductility classes (FW-buildings).

Fig. 7. Axial force and shear demandsupply response of a rst story external column with and without the effect of vertical ground motion (RF-M30 building).

effective than the contribution of its equivalent steel areas added to the longitudinal and the transverse reinforcements.

Fig. 7 depicts the axial force and shear demandsupply timehistories for a ground story external column of the RF-M030

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 Table 5 Shear failure in structural members at twice the design intensity Ref. IF-H030 IF-M030 IF-M015 IF-L015 RF-H030 RF-M030 RF-M015 RF-L015 FW-H030 FW-M030 FW-M015 FW-L015 Shear model EC2 EC2 EC2 EC2 Priestleya EC2 EC2 EC2 Priestleya EC2 EC2 EC2 EC2 Records All records All records All records All records Art-2, 4 & Kobe All records All records All records Art-3 All records All records All records All records Observed shear failure Columns or walls First story cut-off columns Several cut-off cols. and few other cols. First story cut-off columns Walls at different stories Walls at almost all stories Walls at different stories Walls at different stories

1599

Failure pattern Beams Few external frame beams Several internal beams Almost all beams in 1st & 2nd stories Few external beams First oor external beams Few internal frame beams Many ext. & few Int. frame beams Few external beams Coupled beams at several stories Coupled beams at several stories Fig. 8 (1) Fig. 8 (2) Fig. 8 (4) Fig. 8 (1) and (6) Fig. 8 (7) Fig. 9 (9) Fig. 9 (10) Fig. 9 (12) Fig. 9 (13) Fig. 10 (16) Fig. 10 (18) Fig. 10 (20) and (21) Fig. 10 (23) and (24)

a Priestley et al. [6] shear strength model.

building when subjected to Loma Prieta (scaled to a PGA of 0.60g ). The strong relationship between the variation in axial force and shear supply is exemplied in this gure. It is clear that the shear strength is adversely affected by the reduction in compressive forces. Variations of axial forces lead to high uctuation in shear supply and decrease the contribution of the concrete compression zone to shear resistance. On the other hand, the ratio of peak vertical to horizontal acceleration (V / H ) often exceeds the values adopted in design codes in the vicinity of the source of moderate-to-strong earthquakes [24]. This casts doubt regarding the adequacy of the simplied approach adopted in seismic design codes to account for vertical ground motion [25]. The effect of vertical ground motion (VGM) on the seismic response and force reduction factors supply of modern code-designed RC buildings located in the vicinity of active faults was therefore extensively investigated by Mwafy and Elnashai [26] using the twelve structures presented in the present study. The response of the buildings was monitored using a comprehensive set of local and global response parameters under multi-axial earthquake loading. Analyses under horizontal-only ( H ) and horizontal plus vertical ( H + V ) motions were undertaken. Sample results demonstrating the effect of including VGM is presented in Fig. 7. In this gure, vertical ground motion increases the maximum axial compressive forces by 16%. Tensile forces also increase by 50% in the selected external column when VGM is included. However, this has a marginal effect on the shear response. It is noteworthy that axial forces in low-rise buildings and interior columns of taller structures at higher stories are more inuenced by the vertical ground motion. This effect generally increases when the contribution of the lateral seismic action is relatively small. The situation is even more critical in irregular structures. Mwafy and Elnashai [26] concluded that VGM has a signicant effect on the seismic response on both the member and the structure levels. This effect was more pronounced on

the member response compared with the global response. Axial compressive forces in vertical structural members increased by up to 45% and tensile forces were detected only when VGM is included. The conservatism of the capacity design requirement of columns designed to modern seismic codes is the underlying reason behind the high margin of safety against shear failure modes. For the sake of brevity, additional information regarding the response of structures under the effect of vertical ground motion is presented in the abovementioned references. 5. Shear demandsupply response at the structure level Brief summary of the results from the extensive shear demandsupply assessment study carried out on the twelve buildings investigated here at increasing earthquake intensities are presented in Figs. 810. The distribution of shear failure in horizontal and vertical structural members is shown in the latter gures for the three groups of buildings. Shear failure modes observed in the rst and the second story beams are only shown in the latter gures since the design indicated that these are the most vulnerable beams to shear failure. Due to the signicance of vertical structural members in resisting lateral forces, shear failure modes of columns and walls are depicted for all stories. This also applies to the coupling beams in the third group of buildings, which have a signicant role in transferring shear forces between the coupled walls. Table 5 also summarizes the observed shear failure modes and their locations for the twelve buildings at twice the design intensity. In spite of the conclusions drawn above regarding the conservatism of the design code shear model, it is still useful to verify the design of the buildings using a shear model representing the design code and to compare the response of structures designed to different capacity design requirements. It is clear from the results that higher ductility class buildings are less vulnerable to shear failure. This is better exemplied by the four irregular frame buildings shown in Fig. 8. In this group,

1600

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

Fig. 8. Mapping shear failure modes of the IF-buildings at the design and twice the design intensities.

shear failure occurs in IF-H030 only at the base of the cutoff columns. For IF-M030, shear failure increases signicantly in the cut-off columns at different story levels as well as in some primary columns and external beams. Amongst the twelve buildings investigated here, shear failure (employing the code approach) in primary columns is only observed in IF-M030 at twice the design intensity. Comparison between the two buildings designed to a PGA of 0.15g also shows a signicant difference between IF-M015 and IF-L015. In the former, shear failure is observed in few internal beams, which exhibit high shear forces due to their low slenderness. For the building designed to ductility Low, several shear failure modes are observed in beams at intensity 1.0, whilst at twice the design PGA this occurs in almost all rst and second oor beams. Additionally, shear failure, detected using the realistic shear

model of Priestley et al. [6], is observed in several beams, conrming the vulnerability of beams designed to ductility Low. Comparison between the two groups of frame buildings shows clearly the deciency of irregular structures. In the regular frame buildings (refer to Fig. 9), shear failure occurs only in few rst and second oor beams. No shear failure is observed in columns up to twice the design intensity even using the conservative design model. However, the vulnerability of beams designed to ductility Low is conrmed, whereas shear failure, utilizing the model of Priestley et al. [6], is observed in two beams. This also highlights advantages of regular structural systems since shear failure modes according to the Priestley et al. model are observed in several beams in the rst group of buildings.

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

1601

Fig. 9. Mapping shear failure modes of the RF-buildings at the design and twice the design intensities.

Results of the third group of buildings also conrm the abovementioned conclusion. It is clear that shear failure increases in lower ductility class buildings, particularly at the ground story. In this group, all shear failure modes are observed from the design model, while no indication of actual shear failure from the more realistic model of Priestley et al. [6] is observed up to twice the design intensity. The results indicate that shear failure is not the controlling member failure criterion for the four dual structures, contrary to frame buildings particularly those designed to ductility Low. The results clearly show that capacity design provisions of Eurocode 8 have succeeded in protecting the columns and walls from shear failure. Although beam failure is less signicant, the observed spread of shear failure in beams highlights their lower margin

of safety. The apparent vulnerability of beams designed to ductility class Low and cut-off columns are conrmed from this extensive analysis. Sample results from the incremental collapse analysis at the rst attainment of shear failure are presented in Fig. 11. The shear supplydemand time-histories are presented at the intensity levels that cause rst indication of member shear failure. These are shown for the two frame structures designed to ductility class Low. The results clearly conrms the signicance of employing shear as a failure criterion in seismic assessment of RC buildings, particularly those designed without additional seismic provisions, and the applicability of tracing brittle shear failure modes using simple and realistic predictive approaches.

1602

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

Fig. 10. Mapping shear failure modes of the FW-buildings at the design and twice the design intensities.

6. Conclusions The shear response of RC buildings designed and detailed to modern seismic provisions was assessed in the present study. Implications of designing to increasing capacity design requirements on the margin of safety against shear failure were investigated. A wide range of buildings with various characteristics were idealized using a rened modeling approach and analyzed using distinct set of synthetic and natural ground motions scaled to different PGA levels. A wide range of failure criteria on the member and the structure levels,

including a ductility- and axial force-sensitive shear strength model, were monitored using an effective approach to assess the seismic response. The adopted shear strength model proved its realism in accounting for the degradation of the concrete contribution to shear strength with increasing inelasticity. It also insures that the axial force contribution is realistically included by separating it from the concrete contribution. The signicance of including shear in seismic assessment of concrete buildings was conrmed in the present study. Buildings designed to high ductility levels exhibited higher margins of safety against shear failure than their medium and

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

1603

Fig. 11. First observed member shear failure in frame buildings designed to ductility level Low.

low ductility counterparts. This is a result of the capacity design requirements imposed to enhance ductility and shear strength as well as since the former class attract lower shear demands. The code provisions succeeded in protecting the columns from shear failure even for those designed to ductility class Low. Beams exhibited relatively lower safety margins. Those beams designed to ductility class Low and cut-off (planted) columns were vulnerable to shear failure, but at intensities higher than the design PGA. In frame buildings designed to ductility Low, shear failure was the controlling failure criterion. The study conrmed the applicability of tracing brittle shear failure modes in concrete structures using simple and realistic approaches alongside state-of-the art analysis tools. Old structures and those designed without seismic provisions, particularly irregular buildings, are more susceptible to shear failure mode than the adequately designed buildings investigated in the present study. Monitoring the shear response of the former class of structures is therefore inevitable for the reliable seismic assessment of their response. References
[1] Jeong S-H, Elnashai AS. Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame for full-scale 3d pseudo-dynamic testing Part I: Analytical model verication. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2005;9:95128. [2] ACI (318-02). Building code requirements for structural concrete. Detroit (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2002. [3] CSA. Design of concrete structures. Rexdale (Ontario, Canada): CSA committee A23.3-04; 2004. [4] Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2004. [5] JSCE. Specication for design and construction of concrete structures: Design. JSCE Standard, Part 1. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers; 1986. [6] Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 1994;120:231029. [7] Sezen H, Moehle JP. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130:1692703. [8] NCHRP. Simplied shear design of structural concrete members. Report 549. Washington (DC): Transportation Research Board; 2005.

[9] Priestley MJN, Benzoni G, Ohtaki T, Seible F. Seismic performance of circular reinforced concrete columns under varying axial load. ReportSSRP-96/04. Division of Structural Engineering, University of California; 1996. [10] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrot of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996. [11] ASCE-ACI. Shear strength of reinforced concrete members. ASCE-ACI joint task committee 426. Journal of Structural Engineering 1973; 99: 1091187. [12] Wong Y-L, Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Response of circular reinforced concrete columns to multi-directional seismic attack. ACI Structural Journal 1993;90:18091. [13] Fardis MN. Analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings according to Eurocodes 2 and 8. Reports on Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8. Greece: University of Patras; 1994. [14] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2004. [15] Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. ADAPTIC, A program for adaptive large displacement elastoplastic dynamic analysis of steel, concrete and composite frames. ESEE research report no. 89/7. Imperial College, University of London; 1989. [16] Elnashai AS, Papanikolaou V, Lee D. ZEUS-NL A system for inelastic analysis of structures. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2006. [17] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS, Sigbj ornsson R, Salama A. Signicance of severe distant and moderate close earthquakes on design and behavior of tall buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2006; 15:391416. [18] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS, Yen W-H. Implications of design assumptions on capacity estimates and demand predictions of multi-span curved bridges. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering 2007;12:71026. [19] Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of material nonlinearities in steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:50932. [20] Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. Conned concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures 1997;30:13947. [21] Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM. Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistorey reinforced-concrete buildings. The Structural Design of Tall Buildings 2002;11:32951. [22] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Calibration of force reduction factors of RC buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6:23973. [23] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures 2001;23:40724. [24] Papazouglou AJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical and eld evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:110937.

1604

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 [26] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Vulnerability of code-compliant RC buildings under multi-axial earthquake loading. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on earthquake engineering. 2006.

[25] Collier CJ, Elnashai AS. A procedure for combining vertical and horizontal Seismic Action Effects. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2001;5:52139.