You are on page 1of 62

SP 127-4

Laboratory Definitions of Behavior

for Structural Components and
Building Systems
by D.P. Abrams

Synopsis: This chapter serves as a primer to acquaint a novice to the vast

amount of experimental data that has been acquired over the last two decades
on behavior of reinforced concrete components subjected to repeated
reversals of lateral force, and earthquake response of concrete building
systems. General characteristics of hysteretic behavior and dynamic response
are presented rather than discrete summaries of each test program done to
elate. An extensive reference list is presented of over 400 publications that
specifically address laborat01y studies of reinforced concrete members, joints
or building systems. The listing is subdivided for laboratory investigations of
(a) beams and beam-column joints, (b) columns, (c) walls, (d) frame and
frame-wall systems, (e) coupled-wall systems and (f) infilled-frame systems.

Keywords: Beam column frame; beams (supports); columns (supports);

deformation; dynamic characteristics; earthquake-resistant structures;
frames; framing systems; hysteresis; laboratories; load-deflection curve;
reinforced concrete; stiffness; strength; walls.

92 Abrams

Daniel P. Abrams is an associate professor of civil engineering at the University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Abrams is the Chairman of the ASCE
Committee on Concrete and Masonry Structures, the Vice President of The
Masonry Society, and the Secretary of the ACI-ASCE Committee 442 on
Response of Concrete Buildings to Lateral Forces.

When using an inelastic analysis for earthquake resistant design or
response evaluation, it is important to recognize that hysteretic characteristics
of a reinforced concrete component may be dependent on a number of factors
not usually considered for simpler and more conventional cases that are limited
to static loads and linear material behavior. It is probable that nonlinear
response of a system will not be depicted accurately because of the uncertainty
in modeling a number of parameters that define the hysteretic behavior of its
For design of new construction, however, one should note that such
accuracy may not be entirely necessary if the structure has sufficient capacity to
deform withm the inelastic range. Although this statement is vague with respect
to the level of accuracy, or the amount of required deformation capacity, it is
useful simply because it correlates the uncertainty in modeling inelastic
behavior of a particular member type with another attribute of the same
member type: the inelastic deformation capacity. Because laboratory studies
provide information on both hysteretic behavior and deformation capacity,
they become important sources of information that should be relevant even to
the design engineer.
Thsts of hundreds of reinforced concrete components and systems (see
reference list at end of chapter) have indicated that behavior under repeated
and reversed loadings may be dependent on many factors which are not
generally considered with present methods of analysis or design. Crack closure,
slip of reinforcement, the Bauschinger effect, and the accumulation of inelastic
strains have been shown to have significant influences on force-deflection
behavior of components such as columns, beams, beam-column connections
and walls. Common assumptions may no longer be valid. Flexural strains may
not always be linear with the depth of a section. Well defined yield points may
not be observed after the first large-amplitude cycle. Compressive strains in
concrete may exceed the commonly assumed value of 0.003. Shear strength
may deteriorate with accumulation of strains resulting from cyclic flexural
Any nonlinear response history analysis must be considered as
approximate. Relatively stmple bilinear hysteresis models do not represent
inelastic behavior observed with laboratory specimens. Even more
sophisticated models involving complicated hysteresis rules often cannot
depict all aspects of behavior, particularly in load-reversal regions. It may be
the case that inelastic response may not be computed accurately after just a few
large-amplitude cycles have occurred. Conversely, response of a building
Earthquake-Hesistanl Structures 93

system may not be sensitive to all hysteretic properties of its components, and
detailed modeling of evety phenomenon may not be necessary. An analyst
needs to be aware of both the hysteretic characteristics of a structure, and the
significance of a particular parameter of its character on inelastic dynamic
response. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce novice users of inelastic
analyses to the first consideration. Mechanics of actual reinforced concrete
components and systems are discussed in terms of results seen in laboratory
Quantitative details of numerical modeling techniques are not
mentioned, nor is a libnuy of all possible sets of hysteresis rules given. The
intent of the chapter is to educate the user to possible deviations between
idealized modes of behavior, and actual response. Only qualitative
characteristics of members and systems are presented so that the user may
judge more wisely the results of his or her computations.

A reference list is provided at the end of this chapter which contains
nearly all references written in English to date on laboratory studies of the
seismic behavior or response of reinforced concrete structures. The
comprehensive listing of experiments provides a good summary of all research
done on this topic for engineers and researchers, and is unique in this regard.
A total of 420 references are given for studies that have been published
from 1962 through 1989. References are cited from common structural
engineering journals such as the ACI Journal of Structural Engineering, and
the ASCE Structural Engineering Journal. Original reports are cited that are
likely to be accessible in engineering libraries. References to doctoral or
master theses have only been made where no other report is available. Papers
have also been cited that have been published in proceedings of all of the World
Conferences on Earthquake Engineering since the fifth one that was held in
1972 in Rome.
References are grouped in terms of the type of specimen which was
tested. General headings are:
(a) behavior of beams and beam-column joints
(b) behavior of columns
(c) behavior of structural walls
(d) response of frames and frame-wall systems
(e) response of coupled-wall systems
(f) response of infilled frames.
The listing is intended to cover only laboratory experiments, however,
some analytical studies have been listed for cases when studies are based on
experimental results, or help explain behavior or response. Papers are not
listed if they deal exclusively with a numerical study, with a field investigation,
or with recommended design practices. References are only listed if they
pertain to experiments of reinforced concrete structures. Precast concrete and
masonry structures are not addressed.
94 Abrams


General Characteristics of Symmetrically Reinforced Members

Behavior of a reinforced concrete member or joint may comprise several
detailed traits that may be unique for the particular type or configuration of the
member. Many of these traits are described in later sections of this chapter, but
before discussing them, it is useful to review some general characteristics of the
load-deflection relationship that are common to many different component
types. Rather than defining a particular type of member such as a beam,
column or beam-column assemblage, a more general classification is given. In
this section hysteresis properties of members that are symmetrical with respect
to geometry and reinforcement are presented.
For this elementary discussion, a symmetrically reinforced cantilevered
beam is considered whose deflected shape is shown in Fig. 1 for each range of
loading depicted on the typical hysteresis curve of Fig. 2. Because all inelastic
deformations are concentrated across a hinge region at the supported end,
rotation across this gage length is used to express behavior past yield. Behavior
during the first large-amplitude cycle for an arbitrary member is shown in Fig
2. The first-quarter cycle of loading (ranges 1 through 3) is equivalent to that
obtained when loads are increased monotonically. The remainder of the cycle
is a result of unloading (ranges 4 and 5), reversing the sense of the deflection
(range 6), reloading in the other direction (ran&es 7 and 8), and unloading again
(ranges 9 and 10). Small-amplitude cycles which would occur before this first
large-amplitude cycle would follow an essentially linear curve after initial
cracking, and are not represented in the figure for simplicity.
Within a single cycle of response, a member may chan~e its character
several times. Specific ranges that are shown in Fig. 2 are discussed below.
Behavior traits are for members that are designed to behave in flexure with low
shear stresses. Departures from these general tendencies for particular forms
of components are discussed in later sections of this chapter.
Range (I) The member is loaded until cracking of the concrete occurs on the
top of the beam.
Range (2) Further loading results in a gradual softening of the member
which is a result of cracking alon~ the length of the beam, slight
inelastic straining of concrete, a nse in the location of the neutral
axis and slip of longitudinal reinforcement.
Range (3) Thnsile reinforcement (top steel) yields resulting in a substantial
increase in deformation with a small increase in load. The
member does not necessarily fail as the deflection is increased.
The amount of deflection past the yield point which the member
can resist without failure is referred to as the amount of inelastic
Range (4) When inertia and damping forces slow the motion to a zero
velocity, the structure starts to unload. This results in only a slight
decrease in deflection with a substantial decrease in the load. The
length of this part of the curve has been shown to be related to the
amount of damage incurred during the previous quarter cycle of
l~arthquake-Hesistant Structures 95

Range (5) Deformations reduce with a decrease in load as the strains in steel
and concrete reduce with stress, and longitudinal reinforcement
recoils to its original position relative to concrete. Flexural cracks
which opened in Range (2) do not close fully.
Range (6) Reversal of the load results in a substantial increase in
deformation even with a small increase in load. Previously
opened flexural cracks are closed as the member is deflected back
to the neutral position. In this range of loading, resistance to
compressive flexural stresses is provided by the reinforcement
which was previously strained past yield in tension.
Range (7) After cracks close, the member stiffens appreciably. Cracking of
the bottom fibers may occur and the stiffness of a symmetrically
reinforced section in this range may approach that of Range (2).
Deformations are a result of straining of concrete in compression,
steel in tension and slip of tensile reinforcement. Compressive
reinforcement may also resist stress.
Range (B) The tensile reinforcement (bottom steel) yields resulting in
substantial increases in deformation. Unlike Range (3) resistance
of the reinforcement to stress reduces graduallY. rather than at a
specific yield strain. This is because the tensile reinforcement
may have yielded in compression during the previous half-cycle
of loading before the load was reversed. This effect is known as
the Bauschinger effect.
Range (9) Reversal of the displacement again results in only a slight
reduction in the deflection with a large decrease in the load. The
length of this range is dependent on the amount of deterioration
which has occurred during the previous loading (Ranges 7 and 8).
Range (10) Deformations reduce with a decrease in load as the strains in steel
and concrete reduce with unloading. Slip of longitudinal
reinforcement back to the original position may also be a part of
the reduction in deflection. Flexural cracks which opened during
Range (7) do not close fully.
Range (11) Upon reversal of the load starting the next (:ycle, a substantial
increase in deflection is observed for a small increase in load.
Unlike Range (6) of the previous half cycle, this range extends
past the pomt of neutral deflection. The previously opened
flexural cracks do not close fully when the member is loaded to a
zero deflection. This is because flexural cracks may open before
previously opened cracks may close. At the neutral position,
cracks may be opened on both top and bottom faces of the
member. Further loading past the point of zero deflection results
in stiffening of the member as the cracks close in compression.
Compression stresses in this range are resisted solely by the
Range (12) The member resists load with a softer response than that
observed for the same ran&e of the previous cycle (Range 2). This
is attributable to a softenmg of the compressive reinforcement
due to tension-compression cycling, a softening of the initial
elastic modulus of the concrete, and a slight deterioration in the
concrete and in bond.
96 Abrams

Range (13) Further loading results in a gradual softening of the member

which is much different than the initial excursion within the
inelastic range. Because of the fact that the tensile reinforcement
has been subjected to previous compression straining past the
elastic limit, it now is influenced by the Bauschinger effect.
Subsequent cycling of the member will rel?roduce this gradual
softening behavior. The discrete point at which yield occurred for
the initial cycle will never be seen again.
Subsequent cycling with a symmetrical deflection history will result in
nearly the same forms of behavior as described for this single cycle. When new
deflection maximums are reached, behavior in subsequent cycles will result in
softer resistance. The deflection at which stiffening occurs after reversal of the
load will increase progressively from cycle to cycle because of accumulation of
plastic strain in reinforcement and slip of compression reinforcement within
the anchorage. The slope of the load-deflection curve (Ranges 6 and 11) will
also reduce with repeated loading reversals as the bond of compressive
reinforcement to concrete deteriorates with each cycle.
This is a simplified generalization of what may happen when a beam with
symmetrical strengths in each direction is subjected to loading reversals within
the nonlinear range of response. Effects related to shear and the accumulation
of plastic strains in the reinforcement have not been considered. It is important
to recognize that even for this relatively simple structural member, the
behavior is very much dependent on the loading history. This is primarily a
result of the fact that the reinforcement is strained asymmetrically even though
the deflection history may be balanced in each direction of loadmg, and equal
amounts of top and bottom steel are present. Because the reinforcement is
aided by the surrounding concrete in resisting compressive stress, but not for
tensile stress, the inelastic tensile strains cannot be compensated by equal
comr.ressive strains. A typical load-strain curve (Fig. 3, Ref. b6) is presented
to Illustrate this tenaency. Within the elastic range, asymmetrical
tension-compression straining is unimportant because strains reduce to small
values when unloaded. It is possible, however, that the reinforcement may be
strained within the inelastic range while in tension, but within the elastic range
while in compression. For this condition, tensile plastic strains may
accumulate with successive cycles resulting in large crack widths, a progressive
increase in the section curvature, and a decrease in the shear strength. The
relevance of this type of behavior is that the number of loading cycles within the
nonlinear range of response becomes an additional parameter to describe not
only the stiffness and strength characteristics, but also the capacity of the
member to deform inelastically.
It is of interest to note that very few of the many test specimens actually
failed or reached what is termed an ultimate limit state. The overall stiffness of
most specimens deteriorated to such an extent that maximum stroke lengths of
the loading actuators precluded crushing or shear failures. Stiffness
deterioration within the load-reversal range in particular, added substantial
flexibility to a member which resulted in attainment of loads near ultimate at
very large deflections. The capability of the member to resist inelastic
deformation during subsequent large-amplitude cycles of response was not a
major concern because of the inherent softening of the member at low levels of
load. Because of this behavioral r,attern, it is important to define the term,
"inelastic deformational capacity' properly. Furthermore, because of the
rounded nature of the load-deflection curve near the apparent yield load, the
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 97

firm definition of "ductility factor" which is adopted commonly on the premise

of a distinct yield point, cannot be used to represent the nonlinear character of
a member within a subsequent large-amphtude cycle of response.
With a reduced stiffness, the overall frequency of a building will reduce
which would, in most cases, decrease the amplitude of the lateral force.
Strength and inelastic deformational capacity would not necessarily be
required, however, lateral drift of the structure may be excessive. Although
peak acceleration response may occur early during the shaking (before stiffness
IS reduced), lateral drifts would be the largest later in the duration (after
stiffness is reduced). It is plausible that drift limitations may govern the design
in such cases.

Characteristics of Asymmetrical Flexural Members

Response amplitudes for each direction of sway will not be balanced even
if the structure has symmetrical stiffnesses and strengths. When stiffnesses and
strengths are asymmetrical for each half cycle, this Imbalance is accentuated.
Problems assoctated with this type of behavior are an accumulation of plastic
strain for one layer of reinforcement, large crack widths, and a possible
reduction in shear capacity. The capability of the member to perform
inelastically may also be hampered by the asymmetrical nature of the hysteresis
relation which would form as the number of large-amplitude cycles grow.
Most reinforced concrete members have unequal strengths and
stiffnesses for each sense of bending. For example, where a beam frames into a
column, the amount of top reinforcement usually exceeds bottom
reinforcement. Top steel is governed by both gravity and lateral-load effects
whereas bottom steel is subject to only lateral-load effects. If the full design
gravity loading is not present, but the lateral loading is, the top steel may not
yield whereas the bottom steel should as shown in Fig. 4. Such action may tend
to accumulate plastic strains in the bottom steel since reversal of the moment
would not result in compensating strains in compression.
Another condition of asymmetrical bending is the case where strength of
a section is neglected for desi~n calculations, but may indeed be effect1ve in
actuality. In the past, for des1gn for monotonically mcreasing loadings, the
neglectiOn of strength was always deemed conservative. Such an assumption
for a member subjected to load reversals within the inelastic range may be
unconservative in terms of the necessary amount of inelastic deformation
capacity. For example, effective flange widths ofT-beams nearly always are
assumed to be narrower than those widths that are actually stressed during
bending. If tensile forces are developed across a larger width than that
assumed for design, top reinforcement may not yield during the same
large-amplitude cycle that the bottom steel does. Thus, tensile strains will
accumulate in the bottom steel which will result in a similar accumulation of
section curvatures (Fig. 5). It would take only a few inelastic cycles before
curvatures accumulate, the width of flexural cracks grow, and deformation
capacity of the member is expended as shear strength decreases.
A third asymmetrical hysteresis condition may arise for flexural members
subjected to varying axial forces such as exterior columns at the base of frame
structures. Axial forces will vary with the column bending moment, and may
even continue to vary after the column yields. This later case would occur if a
hinge forms at the base of a column before hinges form in all of the
98 Abrams

exterior-bay beams. Even for symmetrically reinforced column sections,

stiffness and strength for each half cycle may differ with the change in effective
area as the amount of axial compression varies (Fig. 6). Reference to this
condition is made in a later section on column members.
These general characteristics have been presented to illustrate some of
the complexities associated with inelastic behavior of concrete members when
subjected to loadins reversals, and thus, to leave the analyst with some insight
to numerical modehng. The sections which follow discuss particular features of
hysteretic character for individual types of components.

Tests of Beams and Beam-Column Assemblies

Hysteresis relations describing load-deflection behavior of beams as
single members, or in beam-column assemblies have comprised the majority
of experimental research on reinforced concrete components. Nearly all of the
studies were based on tests of individual units consisting of beams and columns
intersecting at a single joint (Fig. 7). For most specimens, inelastic behavior
occurred in the beams at the face of the column. A few cases examined the
condition where a weak section was assigned out from the column face.
Although this behavior can be reduced in terms of a moment and a
rotation at the critical regions, measured relations defining properties within
the inelastic range have been difficult to generalize to a standard set of
coml?utational rules. The reason for this is that the specimens have not been
consistent with regard to configuration, section shape or size, amounts and
distribution of reinforcement and anchorage conditions of longitudinal
reinforcement within the joint core. Furthermore, shear stresses have varied
considerably for different specimens as well as loading histories. Despite these
differences, design rules have been formulated and are contained in reports by
ACI Committee 352 (Refs. b7 and b8). However, these reports do not address
computational models.
The shapes of hysteresis loops for interior and exterior beam-column
assemblages have been found to differ, largely because of the transfer of
bending moment across a joint. Interior assemblies can be subject to much
more slippage of beam reinforcement through the joint because of the push
and pull type action on a bar as a result of reversed moments on each beam
member framing into the joint (Fig. 8a). If the width of the column member is
insufficient to anchor twice the yield force of a beam bar, then bond of the bar
may be lost, and a reversal from compressive to tensile force cannot be
attained. Even with adequate anchorage, local slippage may occur because of
incompatible steel and concrete strains, particularly after yield. In either case,
the hysteresis loop will be "pinched" (a sharp reduction in stiffness) in the
load-reversal regwn as a result of bar movement relative to concrete. The
assembly will stiffen after the bar is pushed back through the joint. Because of
this limp type of action, lateral drifts can be quite large, but are poor indicators
of energy dissipation because much of the deflection occurs with a small force.
In such case, the common definition of ductility (peak deflection divided by
yield deflection) becomes a meaningless parameter.
Although bond problems have been observed with exterior joints when
longitudinal beam reinforcement was not anchored sufficiently, such joints are
not prone to bond losses as severely as interior joints. Straight-bar
embedment lengths are many times sufficient within the joint core for
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 99

developing tensile strength of a bar. Furthermore, ends of bars can be hooked

easily for enhanced anchorage. Because tensile bars are only subjected to a
pull action rather than the push-pull action common with an interior joint,
bond stress does not usually exceed anchorage strength and little slip occurs
(Fig. 8b). However, there is usually an elastic extension of the beam bars from
the joint core as the bar strains within the anchorage. This extension adds to the
flextbility of the member, and has been found to reduce elastic stiffness by an
appreciable amount. The shape of the hysteresis loop does not possess the
same "pinching" characteristics of the interior joint. The load-deflection curve
for an exterior joint is more similar to that of a lightly reinforced slender wall
than that of an interior joint because slip of reinforcing bars is not prevalent.
As an example, behavior of an interior joint specimen (Fig. 9a) is
presented for comparison with that of the exterior joint SJ?ecimen (Fig. 9b).
Experimental data has been taken from Ref. b6. Each spectmen was identical
in configuration, dimension, amounts of reinforcement, and type of concrete.
After a few cycles, the interior joint specimen did not stiffen immediately upon
reversal of the load. The bonded length of the bar (the column width whtch was
equal to 24 bar diameters) was not sufficient to develop the transition from
tension to compression along the bar which was needed to react opposite
moments on each side of the column. After a few cycles of reversing this action,
bond strength was reduced, and the bar tenswn could not be reduced
appreciably across the column width. In some cases, the "compressive
remforcement" was actually in tension as can be seen with the load-strain plot
at point "b" along the bottom bar (Fig. 10).
This effect resulted in a very small resistance to crack closure because the
reinforcement was not anchored to resist compression. For this reason
member stiffness was essentially zero upon reversal of the load. Because of the
specimen symmetry, flexural cracks at the column face were nearly equal in
width at a zero rotation. Further loading past this point for an amount of
rotation equal to that between reversal of the load and zero rotation resulted in
a stiffening of the member as the previously opened crack closed. Flexibility
resulting from slip of reinforcement made it necessary to impose very large
deflections to reach specimen flexural strength.
In some cases, the hysteretic character of all interior joints may not be
influenced greatly by bonding of beam reinforcement to concrete in the core
region. Response of an interior joint specimen with the same configuration and
loading, but different size of beam reinforcing bars, did not reveal sharp
stiffness reductions when loads were reversed (Fig. 11). The total amount of
beam reinforcement was similar to the spectmen whose force-deflection
behavior is shown in Fig. 9a, however, a larger number of bars of a smaller
diameter were used (the column width was equal to 36 bar diameters). Beam
reinforcement was chosen so that its development length was larger than twice
the width of the column. Bond was maintained across the column width.
Compression reinforcement did resist stress during the closure of the crack,
much the same as for the exterior-joint specimen.
When governed by flexural actions, measured strengths of exterior and
interior beam-column assemblages were ~enerally in close agreement with
values calculated on the basis of conventtonal strength design procedures.
Capacity for inelastic deformation was rarely tested for most interior
beam-column specimens because the large flexibility of each specimen
exceeded stroke lengths of loading actuators. Slippage of reinforcing bars in
100 Abrams

load-reversal regions precluded large deflections at maximum loads. Lateral

deflections in excess of 4% of story heights were possible for most specimens
with minor losses in strength.
For the interior beam-column assemblage, uncertainties associated with
characterizing hysteretic behavior may be offset by the limp nature of the
component. Lateral forces may be redistributed to more stiffer elements such
as walls and exterior joints when sways reverse. However, at large lateral
sways, forces may be redistributed back to interior joints. If such a system is to
be fully effective, the deformation capacity of the walls and the exterior joints
must be sufficientlY. large to accommodate the flexible interior joints.
Furthermore, flexibility of this element type should be accounted for when
estimating lateral drifts.
In 1983, the Applied Thchnology Council published a summary report on
tests of beam-column joints and shear walls (Ref. b 12). Abstracts of numerous
references are presented along with recommendations for design. Another
program sponsored by the National Science Foundation coordinated research
results on beam-column joints from the United States, New Zealand, China
and Japan. A summary presentation was given at the 1989 ACI Fall Convention
in San Diego.

Behavior of Columns
Design according to present ACI requirements (Chapter 21 of 318-89)
specifies that the sum of column strengths should be larger than the sum of
strengths of adjoining beams. Because of this design requirement, columns
members should not deflect past yield, and thus may in general be modeled as
elastic elements. Inelastic column behavior then becomes a somewhat
irrelevant topic with the exception of a few special cases which are discussed
Although there have been many experimental studies done to investigate
inelastic behavior of columns, many are not referenced herein because they are
related to confinement effects in column members under concentric axial
compression, and thus have little applicability to lateral-force resisting systems
where bending is also a concern, or where loads are repeated and reversed.
Effect of varying axial force on inelastic behavior of columns -- In a
frame structure, some column members (particularly those near the base) will
have to yield in order for the structure to sway as a mechanism and dissipate
energy of a stron~ excitation. It is probable that hinges will not be the last to
form m columns, m which case axial forces will continue to vary while columns
are deflecting past yield. Axial forces will reach a nearly constant value once the
frame develops a mechanism and continues to sway. This is particularly true for
exterior columns, or columns between unequal adjacent bays.
One test program (c1), varied axial force linearly with lateral deflection
until it reached a maximum or a minimum value as shown in Fig. 12. The ran~e
of axial force was kept constant for all specimens, however, the rate of aXIal
force with deflection was varied to represent different sequences of hinge
formation in a hypothetical frame. Axial forces were held constant before yield
for some specimens to reflect the condition for the frame shown in the upper
portion of the figure. In this case, hinges would form in the beams and thus limit
the column axial force before hinges would form at the column bases. Axial
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 101

force was varied after yield for three other specimens to reflect the condition
for the frame shown in the lower portion of the figure. In this case, hinges would
form at the base of the columns before the beams would yield. For each of the
three specimens, axial forces were prescribed to vary at different deflections
within the nonlinear range of response.
Measured moment-rotation curves are shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15 for
cases of (a) a constant axial force, (b) an axial force which varies but is held
constant after yield and (c) an axial force which continues to vary after yield. It
was evident that the hysteresis loops were symmetrical for the control case (a).
For the second case, deflection increased relatively rapidly with load when the
axial compression was decreasing (upper part of curve). Previously opened
flexural cracks were reluctant to close in this range, and compressive
reinforcement was relied on for resistance. When the axial compression was
increasing (lower part of curve), the member stiffened appreciably because the
axial load augmented the moment in closing the flexural crack. For half cycles
where deformation capacity was needed, concrete crushed because of the high
axial compression. Subsequent cycles showed a marked reduction in the
flexural strength of the member because of the loss of shell concrete on one
Because of unequal stiffnesses for each sense of loading, reinforcement
on opposite layers was not strained equally for symmetrical deflections in each
directiOn (Fig. 16). Large inelastic tensile strains were observed on the
left-hand bar for half cycles when axial compression was increasing because
the flexural stiffness was increased by the high axial compression. When
moment was reversed, tensile strains were smaller on the opposite bar because
the stiffness was less with a smaller axial compression.
Similar tendencies were observed for the third case. Because the same
range of axial force was varied across a larger range of deflection, trends were
less accentuated than for the case (b) specimens. The variation in axial
compression past yield did alter strength (from points a to b or from points c to
d in Fig. 15) as would be expected from a load-moment interaction diagram.
However, when axial forces were held constant, behavior resembled that of the
case (b) specimens within the nonlinear range.
The presence of a varying axial load thus has two faults. One is that a
progressive accumulation of plastic strain may occur in the reinforcement that
IS subjected to tensile strains during half-cycles when axial compression is
increasing. This may result in an increase in the section curvature with the
number of large amplitude <:ycles, large crack widths and a possible reduction
in the shear strength. The other fault is that inelastic behavior is being forced to
occur within the half cycle of reduced deformation capacity.
Biaxial bending of columns- Bidirectional shaking of a building system
(or uniaxial shaking with torsion) will induce biaxial moments in column
members. Biaxial bending combined with axial compression can result in
crushing of concrete at a corner of an element. Strength can be less than the
vector sum of uniaxial strengths in each direction. A number of experimental
c59) have examined behavior of reinforced concrete columns under
bidirectional loading histories. However, the problem becomes confused
quickly because the number of possible loading scenarios becomes extremely
large when all possible sequences of axial force, and bending moments (or
102 Abrams

lateral sway) in two directions are considered. Relative histories of loading for
all three parameters also become an added consideration which further
confuses the problem. Behavior of a column member may be different when
resisting moment from one particular direction if it is cracked or yielded in the
normal direction.
Otani (c26 and c27) found that a reinforced concrete column, when
subjected to simultaneous biaxial loading, starts to yield at a load significantly
lower than the uniaxial capacity. When a specimen was displaced in two
directions past yield, the calculated load capacity was not attained in either
direction although the vector sum of the two components did reach the
calculated value. When the lateral displacement was held constant in one
direction, the column specimen lost resistance in that direction as a result of
unloading in the normal direction. This action suggested a strong interaction of
resistances in the two directions. His observation gives warning to the weak
beam/strong column design philosophy because a column, thought to be
strong, might yield before the adjoming beam if response in the normal
direction exceeds yield.
Few tests have been done with a varying axial force and biaxial bending,
however, experiments at the University of Tokyo (c18) have indicated that
interactions of biaxial behavior can be further complicated by a change in axial
force. A larger reduction in strength was observed when the axial compressive
force was decreasing with unloading in the orthogonal direction than for the
same condition with a constant axial force. Conversely, the reduction in
strength was smaller when axial compression was increasing than for the case of
constant axial force.

Concluding Remarks on Components

Behavior of a reinforced concrete member subjected to reversals of
deflection or force may be difficult or impossible to depict precisely.
Substantial uncertainty can exist with respect to modeling complex behavioral
traits with simple numerical models. Inelastic deformation capacity has been
found to be related to the number of large-amplitude cycles of reversed
deflection, and the degree of asymmetly for each half cycle of loading. Because
of the uncertainty involved with modeling stiffnesses for each sense of sway,
some deformation capacity should be allocated in the design process so that
forces may be redistributed in accordance with real actions rather than
imagined actions. In other words, uncertainty in modeling a particular form of
component should be compensated with a deduction in the amount of usable
deformation capacity for that particular member.


Introductocy Remarks
Unlike engineers that design most mechanical systems, structural
engineers seldom are provided with destructive response measurements for the
full-scale civil structures that they design. Very few buildings have been
subjected to extreme lateral forces. In the rare event that a building, it
is usually difficult to rationalize what happened because it is impossible to
recreate the progression of failure from the heap of rubble on the ground.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 103

Furthermore, few buildings are instrumented with the number of channels of

data that is necessary for a complete description of inelastic response
mechanisms. The actual nonlinear behavior of reinforced building systems is
often left to speculation and imagination, much of which varies with the
individual engineer.
Thsting of building systems is expensive, if it can be done at all. It is
impossible to test even a low-rise building with large-amplitude dynamic
forces. Shaking tables or eccentric mass generators of this caliber are simply
not available. If dynamic testing is to be done, test structures must be
constructed at a reduced-scale and subjected to simulated earthquake
motions. Present testing equipment in the United States is limited to tests of
buildings systems less than ten stories at approximately one-tenth scale. An
alternative mode of testing is to simulate dynamic inertia forces with static
forces. Full, or large-scale, multistory structures up to seven-stories can be
tested statically in this manner, however, the high cost limits the number of
experiments to only a few in the entire world.

Planar Idealizations of Building Systems

No truly two-dimensional building systems exist. Such a system is but a
figment of the imagination of the structural engineer who conceives the
lateral-force resisting system of a building structure. There may be conditions
where such a simple idealization may not be warranted such as for an
asymmetrical layout of different lateral-force resisting elements in plan, or a
highly eccentric distribution of mass in plan. Each of these cases would result in
a dominant torsional mode which could not be represented with a planar
For systems whose stiffness and mass are symmetrical, response can be
•,·....:.., idealized by ne~lecting all elements except those whose plane is parallel with
the lateral loadmg. For asymmetrical systems, planar analyses can be used to
represent the resistance of a single substructure such as a frame or a wall.
Substructures are then linked to floor diaphragms which can rotate to model
torsional effects. In any case, behavior of the planar substructure must be
understood to estimate lateral response of the building system.
The direction of the ground motion is seldom correlated with the
orientation ofthe building. Peak ground accelerations are assumed to occur in
any direction. The worst case situation is usually considered when the ground
shakes parallel with each cartesian axis of the building, but not simultaneously.
The system is modeled as two separate planar systems each subjected to 100%
of the earthquake intensity.
Because system response may be expressed as the sum of several planar
substructures, research studies have focused on response of idealized
two-dimensional structures. Experiments of systems have been generally
limited to planar frames and walls because testing facilities often cannot
accommodate complete building systems at a large scale. Whereas there are a
few exceptions such as the facilities at the Building Research Institute in
Thukuba, Japan and at the Powell Laboratory at UCSD, most investigations
have focused on response of individual planar systems that are often
constructed at a reduced scale. Many systems up to ten stories in height have
been tested on shaking tables to study nonlinear dynamic response. Although
most of these structures have been constructed at a reduced scale, their
104 Abrams

measured response provides most of what is known regarding nonlinear

dynamic response of complete building systems.

Frame and frame-Wall Systems

The general hysteretic character of a frame structure as seen with the
relation between base shear or moment and top-level deflection is usually
representative of the hysteresis for its nonlinear components, only more muted
because not all of its members are yielding. Also, because all components do
not enter the inelastic range at the same time, the system hysteresis as noted by
the relation between base shear and top-level deflection is more rounded than
that for a single component (Fig. 17).
Hysteretic response of a reinforced concrete frame system comprises
behavior of all individual beam-column assemblages in the system. Because
not all subassemblages are distorted by the same amount when the system
sways laterally, the load-deflection behavior of a frame system appears to be a
smeared average of both over and under stressed components. Whereas some
elements will be pushed to their maximum deformation capacities, others will
not. Thus, the deformation capacity of a system, as measured by the lateral drift
percentage, will be less than that of the most highly deformed element. For
example, lateral drifts of 2% for a frame system may correspond to drifts of
from 4 to 6% or more in a single component. Furthermore, the load-deflection
behavior of a system will reflect the progressive sequence of yielding of many
individual components, and thus possess a more gradual softening than that of
an individual member.
Frame structures are made up of exterior and interior beam-column
assemblies. Hysteretic behavior of these components has been shown to be
different because of differences in the concentration of bond stress within each .... ,
type of joint. Response of a frame system represents an averaging of the
properties for these two types of components. Because there are more interior
JOints than exterior joints, system behavior is skewed towards that of the
mterior joints. The only other components which must behave inelastically for
a mechanism to develop are columns at the base story. Response of frame
system also reflects hysteretic behavior of these column members, however,
system response is much more sensitive to behavior of beam-column
components because of the much larger number of them than yielding column
For these reasons, an upper bound estimate of nonlinear dynamic
resl?onse can be determined simply by assuming that the system is behaving as
a smgle component or subassemblage. This considers a worst case, but
unrealistic, scenario where all components are equally stressed. The actual
drift response will be less because not all of the components will be behaving in
the nonlinear range.
A frame mechanism will form when a sufficient number of hinges will
develop in either the beams or the column members. For buildings constructed
since 1983 in particular, it is likely that hinges will form at the ends of the beams
rather than m the columns. This is because the ACI design specification
(Chapter 21 of ACI 318-89) states that the column strength be proportioned to
exceed that of the adjacent beam members. Conversely, a few shaking table
tests (t28, f65, f83) have shown that it may be admissible for hinges to form at
the top and bottom of the columns rather than in the beams at the column
Earthquake-Hesistant Structures 105

faces. However, this may be dan~erous for tall buildings where the curvature
ductility demand at the column hmges may be excessive. For either case, it will
be necessary for the columns to hinge somewhere near the base so that a
mechanism may form. Inelastic flexural behavior of column members will be
affected by the change in axial force which may occur past yield.
Although there have been hundreds of papers and reports written on
tests of components subjected to seismic actions, there has been a narrow range
of laboratory tests done on frame, or frame-wall systems. These may be
classified as either shaking-table tests of reduced-scale models or large-scale
static tests. An experimental program has been continuing at the University of
Illinois since the late sixties which has limited itself to tests of the first
classification. A number of shaking-table studies have also been done at the
University of California at Berkeley since the early seventies. Another source
of data on structural systems may be found in literature written on the
US-Japan concrete program. A number of associated tests were done on
components and systems which augmented testing of a full-scale, seven-story
building at the Building Research Institute in Thukuba, Japan. Apart from these
two programs, testing of complete building systems is scant, although there
have been some experimental studies done on systems in New Zealand and
One of the first large-scale multistory frame tests was done on the
shaking table at UC Berkeley. Test results for 0.7 scale, two-story, one-bay
frames (Fig. 18) were published in 1974 (f35) and in 1976 (f25). One conclusion
from the test was that a simple bilinear yield mechanism model could not
adequately simulate true behavior because the stiffness properties change in a
very complex fashion during dynamic response. The addition of a global
stiffness degradation mechanism was found to result in a noticeable
improvement in predicted behavior.
The Illinois shakin~ table tests provided a unique source of response data
for systems behaving Within the nonlinear range. Numerous experimental
studies have been published which were done over the last two decades (fl-fS,
flS, f21, f22, f28-f34, f43, f44, f46, f47, f48, f57, f58, f59, f65, f70-f73, f82, f83).
Reduced-scale structures have represented structural concepts for building
structures up to ten stories tall (Fig. 19). Configurations have included frames,
frame-wall systems, coupled wall systems, and stepped-frame systems. The
intent was to obtain data for confirmation of nonlinear computational models,
and data on which insights could be based in an overall effort to enhance the
knowledge base on how reinforced concrete building structures might respond
to strong shaking. A number of suggestions for development of new simplified
methods of nonlinear analysis were derived from measured response of the
reduced-scale structures. Such analytical methods included (a) the substitute
structure method for assigning specific levels of tolerable damage to discrete
portions of newly designed structures using linear response models, (b) the
0-model for computation of nonlinear response histories with a smgle
generalized coordinate and (c) simple methods for estimating lateral drift of
nonlinear systems with linear spectral response curves.
The Illinois shaking table experiments have demonstrated the
applicability of various design concepts, some of which may contrast
conventional methodologies. A study of frame-wall interaction (fl, f2, f3)
showed that equal or superior response may be had when lateral strength is not
necessarily asstgned in accordance to an elastic analysis. The study showed that
106 Abrams

is possible to underreinforce a primary structural wall by a factor of four from

that needed to satisfy an elastic distribution of lateral forces in a frame-wall
system. Lateral drifts were essentially the same despite the sharp reduction in
congestion of wall reinforcement. Other studies showed that a frame system
comprised of weak columns and strong beams may respond equally as good as
its converse (f65), and that response of a frame with a stepJ.?.ed configuration
can be idealized with conventional elastic modal analyses (f83).
The full-scale, seven-story building tested at the Building Research
Institute in Thukuba, Japan, in 1980 was the first experiment of its size to be
tested within a laboratory (Fig. 20). A number of papers have been written
related to this test program (f27, f36, f39, f40, f41, f61, f74, f76, f77). A few
large-amplitude cycles of the measured relation between base shear and
top-level deflection are shown in Fig. 21. It was evident that the structural
system continued to attract significant amounts of lateral force after a
mechanism was formed. Strength increases were attributed to restraint of wall
base rotation by transverse girders (Fig. 22), and the resulting increase in wall
flexural strength with increased axial compression. It was further surmised after
testing that slab reinforcement enhanced the beam flexural capacity as did
substantial strain hardening in reinforcement. The increase in lateral-force
strength was also confirmed by tests of reduced-scale models done at UC
The experiment showed that a simple summation of resistances for
planar lateral-force resisting elements may underestimate the base-shear
capacity of a system. Whereas it may appear that it would be conservative to
neglect additional strength as a result of three dimensional action, it can be
unconservative because of the potential for a brittle shear failure may be
hidden. Thst results demonstrated that a wall may continue to attract shear
force after it yields because of increasing axial compression, and thus,
suggested that a capacity design approach may be difficult to interpret.
A one-fifth scale replica of the seven-story structure tested in Japan was
constructed and tested on the earthquake simulator at the UC Berkeley. Thst
results and implications from them can be found in Refs. f9, flO, fl1, fl2, f13,
f18, f19, f20, f23, and f24. Through a correlation of results from large and
reduced-scale structures, it was concluded that in general, shaking table tests
can reliably simulate global seismic response as long as it is governed by
flexural yielding. It was concluded that present computer programs for
nonlinear dynamic analyses could not provtde good predictions of response
past the service-load range. A need was expressed for improving mathematical
modeling of nonlinear behavior of beams with floor slabs, columns subjected
to varying axial forces, and shear-flexural-axial behavior of walls subjected to
varying axial forces. It was also recommended that models should include
three-dimensional effects such as the outriggering action of the frames on the
walls that resulted from the growth in height of the wall the uplift due to its
rocking response.
In 1984, a report was published summarizing tests of a two-story,
three-bay flat plate frame (Fig. 23) which was constructed at 30% scale and
subjected to simulated earthquake motions on the UC Berkeley shaking table
(Refs. f26, f45, f49). Yield in the overall force-deflection response was not
apparent until lateral deflections reached 1.5% of the height of the structure
demonstrating the inherent flexibility in flat-plate systems and posing
questions about the applicability of code provisions that assume implicitly that
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 107

deflections beyond yield should occur. Lateral stiffnesses computed using

effective beam width models and equivalent frame models were excessive even
at working loads. At times of peak base shear, lateral force distributions were
typically distributed uniformly over the hei~ht which is in contrast to the
usually assumed inverted triangular distributiOn.
Another multistory frame system tested on the UC Berkeley shaking
table was reported on in 1987 (Ref. f67). The test structure was a one-quarter
scale two-bay, six-story frame with a 50% setback at midheight (Fig. 24) which
was subjected to base motions parallel and skew with its princtpal axis. Base
shears were measured in excess of seven times the design base shear.
Overstrengths were attributed to the contribution of the floor slab to beam
flexural strength, and column and beam overstrength resulting from detailing
requirements. Maximum interstory drifts exceeded 3% which exceeded by far
values computed in the design process. The presence of the setback did not
indicate any unusual distributions in lateral displacement or lateral force.

Coupled Wall Systems

Response studies of coupled wall systems was in vogue in the early ages of
research on reinforced concrete lateral-force resisting systems. This was
because these systems were identified as good energy disst~ators, and were
easier to understand than most systems because melasttc behavior was
localized at the ends of beams used to couple two parallel structural walls. With
a precise depiction of the inelastic behavior of only the coupling beams, lateral
response of the system could be estimated with a high confidence level.
Furthermore, the type of system lent itself well to cost-effective experimental
research because only a few coupling beam specimens needed to be tested
rather than an entire structural system (although a few reduced-scale systems
were tested on shaking tables).
The basic premise that distinguishes a coupled wall system from a frame
system is that the relative flexural strengths and stiffnesses of the beams is one
or two orders of magnitude less than that of the adjoining walls. Thus, rotations
at the ends of the coupling beams will be forced to occur with lateral movement
of the two walls. Because beam strengths are so much less than wall strengths, it
is inevitable that the beams will yield and the walls will remain elastic except at
the base where they may need to rotate inelastically, or not, der.ending on the
beam strength and the intensity of the shaking. Beams act hke fuses in an
electrical circuit. When the system is overloaded, the beams, or fuses, dissipate
the energy and protect the walls from damage. Afterwards, the system returns
to near its original plumb state because much of the walls remain elastic. The
beams can be repaired or replaced without much loss of function to the
building system. The type of system lends itself well to a capacity design
approach because only the beams need to be reinforced for thetr fulf flexural
capacity which is a certain quantity. Inelastic response history calculations can
be avotded in lieu of a simple vtrtual work approach because plastic hinge
locations are obvious. Destgn can actually be easier than a linear elastic
approach because stiffnesses do not enter the problem.
Much of the experimental research has concentrated on inelastic
behavior of cour.ling beams (Refs. cwl, cw2, cw8, cwl3). Attention has been
focused on de tat ling concerns so that beams may be well confined and capable
of deforming to large inelastic excursions. Large-scale coupling beam
108 Abrams

specimens were tested in the seventies at the Portland Cement Association, the
University of California and the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. In
general, tests demonstrated that beams could achieve a high degree of
deformation capacity if their span-to-depth ratio was large, if the ratio of
longitudinal reinforcement was low, and adequate transverse reinforcement
were provided. Diagonal reinforcement was found to improve inelastic
performance. With these experimental component studies, a number of
computational studies were carried out to determine dynamic response of
systems containing beams of known moment-rotation hysteresis.
Reduced-scale, coupled-wall systems have been tested to failure on
shakin~ tables at the University of Illinois (Refs. cw4-cw7, cwlO, cw12) and at
the Umversity of Canterbury in New Zealand (Refs. cw13, cw14). The Illinois
tests were done using structures that were either six or ten-stories in height
(Fig. 25). The New Zealand tests were consisted of shaking one-quarter scale,
seven-story structures. Observed response demonstrated that system behavior
was indeed sensitive to the strength of the coupling beams. When strong beams
were used, the system responded as a cantilevered unit of two walls. Crushing
of concrete was observed at the two exterior faces of each wall. When weak
beams were used, little coupling was observed and damaged occurred at the
base of each wall as thou~h it were bendin~ individually. Some tests revealed
that walls remained elastic throughout theu height while beams had suffered
extremely large inelastic deformations.
It was concluded from the New Zealand tests that with careful detailing, a
coupled-shear wall structure can be made to J?OSsess all the desirable features
of effective earthquake resistance. Although tt was noted after these tests that
coupled-wall systems could offer optimum seismic protection, research on
thetr response diminished in the eighties. The reason for this is not related to
their performance or to their popularity, but simply because the research
problem was no longer I?laced at a high priority. Perhaps the use of
coupled-wall systems may mcrease when and tf capacity design becomes an
accepted method in North America.

Infilled-Erame Systems
One common type of construction is to build a reinforced concrete
frame, and then fill the panels with masonry. The masonry may be reinforced
but it is more common to use unreinforced masonry with perhaps just wire
reinforcement in the mortar bed joints. Brick or concrete block are both
common, as well as composite brick/block walls and cavity walls.
Masonry in fills are typically used to form the envelope of a building, or to
provide sound isolation between rooms or around elevators. It is seldom the
case that masonry infills are added to improve structural strength or stiffness
though it is commonly thought that the addition of masonry panels should
improve each parameter. In fact, many times infills are added to a frame that
has been designed assuming that no infill will be present. Whereas, this may be
a conservative concept for many designs, it may lead to reduced deformation
capacities for some systems as a result of the interaction of an infill panel and
the adjoining frame.
Although early research on infill frames dates back to the 1940's, the
major work on the topic has occurred over the last two decades. One of the
most comprehensive programs in the United States was done at UC Berkeley
Earthquake-Resistant Struelures 109

from the mid to the late seventies (Refs. ifl, if2, ifll, if12). The topic has also
received considerable attention outside of the United States, particularly in
Europe where this type of construction is common. A review of experimental
investigations for infilled frame structures is given by Thssious (if25). Most,
though not all, of the test specimens have consisted of a one-story, one-bay
frame as shown in Fig. 26.
The basic problem with adding a masonry infill to a frame is that the
brittle properties of the masonry are introduced to what is thought to be a
ductile frame. The masonry infill being very stiff, but weak, attracts a large
lateral force that must be transferred to the frame once the infill cracks.
Because the frame is only designed to resist the lateral force that it is expected
to attract, it often fails at a smaller deflection that is expected. Furthermore,
masonry infills can attract larger story shears because natural frequencies are
substantially increased with the larger stiffness that result from their presence.
If the stiffness of the infill is not accounted for, the design may be
More specific problems can occur with different combinations of frame
and infill strengths. For example, research in Yugoslavia (Refs. if31-if34) has
shown that relatively strong masomy can hold together until a diagonal strut
forms across a panel and crushes near the top of the "windward" column. This
results in the column being supported by the lower triangular segment of in fill,
but not at its top (Fig. 27). Thts partial support results in a short-column effect
that destroys the column as dtagonal tension cracks form across the short
unsupported height of the column. The "leeward" column separates from the
panel and forms hinges as intended at its top and bottom, but is overloaded
once lateral force is redistributed when the "windward" column fails. It was
found in the same series of tests that this "short column" effect can be avoided
by using a weaker masonry which would deform with the frame with less
resistance. This "less is more" finding suggests that less masonry strength may
improve deformation capacity which is in contrast to the usual basic structural
engineering concept.
Some experimental studies have looked at the influence of various in fill
repair methods on response of frames (Refs. if35 and if36). Behavior has been
compared for repair methods involving grout injections and cement coatings
with mesh reinforcement. A parged coating on both faces of an infill that is
reinforced is a good solution for improving out-of-plane bending strength.
However, it was found that the coatmg made the infill much more stiff with
respect to in-plane lateral forces which resulted in the attraction of high shear
stresses. Because the strength of the mesh is less than that of the coating, the
repaired panel behaves in a brittle manner once diagonal tension cracks form
in the coating. Grout injections were found to be the better method of repair.
The strength of the failed joints and diagonal cracks through the masonry units
could be increased beyond their original strengths, and cracking had to follow
new paths which required greater amounts of energy than for the original
undamaged panels. Because of the diffusion in stress paths and cracking,
deterioration in the lateral force-deflection behavior was much more gradual
and less brittle than that seen with the coated panels.
The underlying result of much of the infill-frame research is that designs
may be admissible if the masonry in fill is considered to act with the structure. If
it is neglected entirely, problems may exist as a result of increased shear forces
that are attracted to the frame. Some investigations have researched effects of
110 Abrams

separating the masonry from the frame, and have found that this may indeed be
a desirable solution in some cases.
Although research activity on this topic has slowed in recent times, it does
not mean that future work is unwarranted. On the contrary more research is
needed because of the large number of combinations and behavior modes
possible with different types of masonry, frame strengths, aspect ratios of frame
panels, column axial forces and story shears. Problems related to poor design of
mfill-frame structures are still evident after major earthquakes throughout the


A chapter summarizing structural behavior observed during past
laboratory investigations can only be as complete as the research done to date.
Several aspects of system response have not been studied experimentally as yet
because of limited testing facilities or research funding. Rather than disregard
these topics entirely, some are introduced below to complete the discussion on
laboratory defined response, and to demonstrate the need for future research.

Influence of Floor Diaphragms on Dynamic Response

One common design philosophy is to provide floor diaphragms that are
so stiff within their plane that they may be assumed to be rigid. Then, lateral
forces will be distributed to resistin~ elements in accordance to their
stiffnesses. When an individual element ts overloaded and yields, lateral force
will be redistributed to other elements. This sequence will continue until all
elements reach their ultimate limit state. Rigid diaphragms are thus thought to
be a good choice because of the efficiency of using all available strength.
Another option which is contradictory to the first is to provide flexible
diaphragms so that the floor mass will be isolated from wall excitations. In this
case, the diaphragm filters out all of the high accelerations transmitted by stiff
walls, and reduces the inertial load demand since the floor masses accelerate
less. In wall structures, this option is attractive since it may be impractical to
make a floor system much more stiff than the walls acting within their plane.
The disadvantage of flexible diaphrasms is that the integrity of the
lateral-force system can be limited by a smgle element. No redistribution can
occur once the first element yields, and thus the residual strength of the
adjoining elements cannot be relied on.
Many times a floor system will consist of a series of parallel precast
planks that may be welded wtth splice plates and/or made continuous by casting
a thin concrete fill on top. Experimental research has shown that the m-plane
stiffness of such a system can vary substantially for each direction of loadin~.
This is in contrast to the common assumption that the floor diaphragm is a rigtd
and homogeneous medium. The shear-slip behavior of the plank-wall
connections also has been shown to vary for planks running normal or parallel
to a wall.
Although substantial differences can exist in response of systems with
precast or cast-in-place floor systems, common design or analysis practice
treats each as the same. Expenmental research is needed to examine the
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 111

possible differences in dynamic response of systems with these two different

types of floor systems.

Flanged Walls
Many times the crossection of structural walls is not rectangular because
of architectural requirements. It may be common to have L-shaped or
T-shaped walls particularly around elevator or stair cores. Because these
shapes are asymmetrical, flexural stiffness and strength will differ for each
direction of sway. For example, when the web is in compression, a greater
amount of tensile resistance will be available because of the larger number of
reinforcing bars across the flange width. When the flange is in compression,
only a few web bars will be in tension, and thus the cracked-section stiffness
and the flexural strength will be less. Although few tests have been done to date
on reinforced concrete flanged walls, some tests have been done on reinforced
masonry flanged walls at UCSD (Ref. w37). A typical measured
force-deflection curve is shown in Fig. 28.
If the lateral-force resisting system contains a symmetrical layout of
these elements (such as opposite facing T-shaped elements), it is likely that
each element w11l be subJected to equal sways in each direction of loading.
Because stiffness and strength are consistent for each direction, yield should be
balanced for large-amplitude cycles with little or no accumulation of
permanent deformation. However, if the plan layout of the system is
asymmetrical (the simplest configuration would be one T-shaped element),
then it is likely that each element will be subjected to unequal sways in each
direction. The problem becomes a complex one where resistances are
nonlinear across any one cycle of response. Basic concepts such as natural
frequency or mode of response become meaningless for this type of structure.
Because of the asymmetries, a flanged wall may be loaded past yield for loading
in but one directiOn, thus inviting accumulation effects to occur.
Response of even the simplest of flanged-wall systems becomes difficult
to characterize with the present understandmg of their response. Static, as well
as dynamic tests, need to be done to increase the knowledge base on this
commonly used lateral-force resisting element.

Three-Dimensional Building Systems

Nearly all of the past experimental research on lateral-force resisting
structures has concentrated on response of planar systems. Whereas it is
important to understand how two-dimensiOnal systems behave before
attempting to investigate three-dimensional ones, the reason for this
shortcoming is simply a result of limited test facilities and research funding. If it
were l?ossible to test three-dimensional building systems in the laboratory,
there IS little doubt that such investigations would be pursued.
It is important to understand how building systems resl?ond as true
three-dimensiOnal systems to confirm or dispel common conceptiOns. Present
thought on how 3D systems may respond is based on impressions from
computational models and the limited amount of field investigations which are
reported on after major earthquakes. If resources and facilities were available,
the following aspects of three-dimensional response would be worthy of study
with dynamic tests of reduced-scale physical models.
112 Abrams

Unlike a 2D system which has only translational degrees of freedom, a

3D system has torsional modes of vibration. For many building systems, the
frequency of the torsional mode is close to the value for the fundamental
translational mode. When one mode is excited so will the other, and thus lateral
inertial forces, particularly for exterior frames or walls, will be a combination of
effects from both translatiOnal and torsional vibration. Phasing of each mode is
sufficiently uncertain that peak translational and torsional response should be
assumed to occur simultaneously. Resistance must be provided to account for
both modes, despite the fact that many times the tors10nal mode is neglected
when 2D models are relied on exclusively.
For systems with an asymmetrical plan layout of lateral-force resisting
elements, translational and torsional modes will be coupled. This means that
when the structure sways in a certain direction it will also rotate in plan with an
associated direction of twist. 1\'anslation must be correlated with the
appropriate sense of rotation to assign lateral story shear to a particular frame
or wall. This is particularly true for systems where walls are placed eccentric to
the center of stiffness such as for buildin~s with store fronts on one or two
adjacent sides and walls on the other side(s).
Torsion may be a concern even for systems with a symmetrical layout of
lateral force resisting elements if nonlinear action is anticipated. It is certain
that one element will yield before the others, and thus result in an unbalanced
system which must somehow find resistance to twisting. Torsional stability of a
redundant system should be checked after the first lateral-force resisting
element yields. Added resistance should be provided in each element to
counteract torsional effects which may precipitate with progressive nonlinear
action. Otherwise, the ductile character of the system as inferred from
properties of the planar elements will not be attained.
Torsional response data for three-dimensional, nonlinear systems needs
to be generated m the laboratory so that these preconceptiOns may be
expanded further.

Direction of Seismic Waves Relative to Building Axes

According to seismologists, the direction that earthquake waves travel
can be predicted if the location of the epicenter and the local geology and soil
conditions are known. Because much of this information is uncertain, building
systems are designed to resist peak ground accelerations from any direction.
Uniaxial base motions are usually directed parallel to a single cartesian axis of a
building system, and then are assumed to also occur normal to this direction.
This is thought to be conservative because the actual direction of the ground
motion will be skew to the princiral axes of a building system, and any one
component will be less than the ful amplitude of the base excitation. However,
complications may arise when frequency contents of base motions may differ
for directions that are normal and parallel to a traveling wave. Moreover,
biaxial base motions may excite otherwise neglected torsiOnal modes which
may act in tandem with translational modes.
Most shaking tables are capable of only one direction of horizontal
motion. Thst structures can be placed skew to the direction of uniaxial motions
if the earthquake simulator has the strength to resist forces normal to its
primary axis. Torsional and other 3D effects can be studied in this way,
however, effects of motions in two directions with different frequency contents
cannot be studied.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 113

Differential Input Motions for Long Structures

Common practice is to assume that seismic waves are uniform across the
full plan dimension of a building no matter how long it may be. Many
residential buildings run a long dimension parallel to the street but have a short
width so that most rooms face the exterior. This configuration is dominant in
eastern Europe where precast modules are set adjacent to each other for the
length of a city block. It is likely that there will be a slight delay between the
time that a traverse seismic wave first hits a building and when it leaves it. One
end of the building will be excited first which will result in some eccentricity of
the lateral inertial force about the center of resistance, and thus some torsional
movements. It may even be the case that the building is so long that the base
motions may change across its length. Response of such a system will generate a
greater demand than that for a simple strip cut in the short direction which is
subjected to uniaxial excitation.
It is impossible to study this problem with a single shaking table because
it requires translational excitation at multiple locations. Test facilities need to
include a number of shaking tables sequenced in series.

Past experimental research on seismic behavior and response of
reinforced concrete building systems has resulted in a collection of information
so vast that it is near impossible to digest. This chapter has attempted to
identify all references to laboratory studies, and to give an overview of present
day knowledge related to inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structural
components, and dynamic response of building systems comprised of such
components. Over 400 references are given on nearly every experimental
earthquake study done to date.
The purpose of this chapter was to introduce novices to complexities that
may arise when a reinforced concrete structure is loaded past the pro{>ortional
limit. The intent was to instruct practicing engineers comfortable With static,
linear analyses on possible behavioral traits for concrete building systems
subjected to strong shaking by introducing them to the large amount of
experimental research that has taken place over the last two decades. If more
accurate numerical models will result from reading this chapter, or, if better
earthquake resistant structures are designed, the goal of wnting this chapter
wiii be met.
The topics discussed were only those that have been addressed with past
research. Of course, not all of the problems have been researched to date, and
thus not all possible behavioral modes are reported in this chapter. Many more
questions still need to be posed and researched. It is hoped that the pace of
experimental research will increase in the years to come, and that this chapter
wiii soon become obsolete.
114 Abrams


b1 Aalami, B., "Moment-Rotation Relation b12 Applied Technology Council, "Seismic Re-
between Column and Slab," Journal of sistance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
American Concrete lrutitute, Vol. 69, No. 5, and Frame Joints: Implications of Recent
May 1972, pp. 263-269. Research for Design Engineers," Report
ATC-11, 1983, 177pp.
b2 Abdcl-Fattah, B., and J.K. Wight, "Study of
Moving Beam Plastic Hinging Zones for b13 Atalay, M.D., and J. Penzien, "The Seismic
Earthquake-Resistant Design ofR/C Build- Behavior of Critical Regions of Reinforced
ings," Stmctural Journal of the American Concrete Components as Influenced by Mo-
Concrete Institute, Vol. 84, No. 1, January- ment, Shear and Axial Force," Report No.
February, 1987, pp. 31- 39. EERC 75-19, University of California at
Berkeley, 1975.
b3 Abrams, D.P., "Measured Hysteresis Rela-
tionships for Small-Scale Beams," Stmctural b14 Beckingsale, C. W. "Post-Elastic Behavior of
Research Series No. 432, University of Illinois R/C Beam-Column Joints," Research Report
at Urbana-Champaign, November 1976. No. 80-20, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, University of Canterbury, New Zealand,
b4 Abrams, D.P., and M.E. Kreger, "Modelinft 1978, 378 p.
of Reinforced Concrete Members at Sma I
Scales," Proceedingr, Seventh World Confer- b15 Bertero, V.V., "Inelastic Behavior of Beam
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, to Column Subassembl~es Under Re-
'furkey, September 1980. ~ated Loading," Report o. EERC-68- 2,
niversity of California at Berkeley, 1968.
bS Abrams, D.P., and J .H. Stewart, "Scaling Re-
lationships for Concrete Beam-Column b16 Bertero, V.V., E.P. Popov, and T.Y. Wang,
Joints," Stmctural Research Series No. 8301, "Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Con-
University of Colorado, Boulder, March crete Flexural Members with S~cial Web
1983. Reinforcement," Report No. E •RC 74-9,
University of California at Berkeley, 1974.
b6 Abrams, D.P., "Scale Relations for Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints," b17 Bertero, V.V., and E.P. Popov, "Hysteretic
Stmctural Joumal of the American Concrete Behavior of Ductile Moment Resisting Re-
Institute, Vol. 84, No. 6, November-Decem- in forced Concrete Frame Components," Re-
her 1987, pp. 502- 512. port No. EERC-75-16, University of Cali-
Cornia at Berkeley, 1975.
b7 ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352, "Recom-
mendations for Design of Beam-Column b18 Bertcro, V.V., E.P. Po~v, and B. Forzani,
Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete "Seismic Behavior of ightweight Concrete
Structures," Journal of the American Con- Beam-Column Subassemblages,'' Journal of
crete Institute, July 1976, pp. 375-393. the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 77, No.
1, pp. 44- 52.
b8 ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Design of
Slab-Column Connections in Monolithic b19 Bessho, S., et al. "Tests of Beam-Column
Structures,'' Stmctural Journal of the Ameri- Joints of Reinforced Concrete Multistory
can Concrete Institute, Vol. 85, No.6, Novem- Buildings,'' Traruaction of All, Extra, No.
her-December 1988, pp.675-696. 2448, September 1979 (in Japanese).
b9 AI-Haddad, M.S., and J.K. Wight, "Relocat- b20 Birss, G.R., T. Paula~ and R. Park, "The
ing Beam Plastic Hinging Zones for Earth- Elastic Behavior of arthquake Resistant
quake Resistant Design of Reinforced Con- R.C. Interior Beam-Column Joints," Report
crete Buildings," Stmctural Journal of the 78-13, University of Canterbury, Depart-
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 85, No. 2, ment of Civil Engineerin~, Christchurch,
March-April1988, pp.123-133. New Zealand, February 19 8.

b10 Ammerman, O.V., and C.W. French, "RC b21 Blakeley, R.W.G., "Performance of Large
Beam-Column-Slab Subassemblagcs Sub- R/C Beam-Column Joints Under Cyclic
jected to Lateral Loads," Journal of Stmclllr- Loading,'' Proceedinsr, Sixth World Confer-
a/ Engineering, American Society of Civil ence on Eanhquake Engineering, Vol. III, In-
Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 6, June 1989, pp. dia, 1977, pp. 3095-3100.
b22 Blakeley, R.W.G., LM. Megget, and M.J.N.
bll Aoyama, H., H. Umemura, and H. Minami- Priestley. "Seismic Performance of Two
no, "Tests and Analyses of SRC Beam-Co- Full-Size Reinforced Concrete Beam-Co-
lumn Subassemblages,'' Proceedingr of Sixth lumn Joint Units," Bulletin, New Zeala/ld
World Conference on Earthquake Engineer- National Society for Earthquake Engineering,
ing, Vol. III, India, pp. 3081-3088. Vol. 8, March 1975, pp. 38-69.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures ll5


b23 Blakely, R. W.G., ct. al., "Cyclic Load Testing b33 Craig, R.J., S. Mahadev, C.C. Patel, M. Vit-
of 1\vo Refined Reinforced Concrete eri, and C. Kertesz, "Behavior of Joints using
Beam-Column Joints," Proceedingr of the Reinforced Fibrous Concrete," Fiber Rein-
Second Sol/Ill Pacific Regional Conference 011 forced Concrete - International Sympo-
Earthquake E11gi11eerillg, Wellington, New sium, SP-81 American Co11crete liiStitute,
Zealand, Vol. 2, pp. 459-492. Detroit, 1984, pp. 125-167.

b24 Boroojerdi, A. and C.E. French, "T-Beam b34 de Aleman, M.A., D.F. Mcinheit, and J.O.
Effect in Reinforced Concrete Structures Jirsa, "Innuence of Lateral Beams on Be-
subjected to Lateral Load," Stmctural Re- havior of Beam-Column Joints," Proceed-
search Report No. 87-04, University of Min- i11gr ofSixJII World Co11fere11ce 011 Earthquake
nesota, 1987. E11gi11eerillg, Vol. III, India, pp. 3089-3094.
b25 Brown, R.H. and J.O. Jirsa, "Reinforced b35 Durrani, A.J., and J.K. Wight, "Experimen-
Concrete Beams Under Load Reversals," tal and Analytical Study oflnternal Beam to
Joumal of American Co11cre/e l11Siitule, Vol. Column Connections Subjected to Reversed
68, May 1971. Cyclic Loading," UMEE-82-RS, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, July 1982.
b26 Bychenkov, Y. D., ct al. "Strength and
Crack-Resistance of Reinforced Concrete b36 Durrani, A.J., and J.K. Wight, "Behavior of
Frame Joints in Multistory Earthquake Re- Interior Beam-to-Column Connections un-
sistant Buildings," Concrete a11d Rei11[orced der Earthquake 1YPe Loading," Joumal of
Concrete, No.2, USSR, 1971, pp. 10-13 (in the American Concrete Institute, No. 3, Pro-
Russian). ceedings Vol. 82, May-June 1985, pp.
b27 Burguieres, S.'I:, J.E. Longwell, and J.O. Jir-
sa, "Shear and Bond Deterioration in b37 Durrani, A.J., and J.K. Wight, "Earthquake
Beam-Column Joints under Bidirectional Resistance' of Reinforced Concrete Interior
Load Reversals," Proceedings of Seve/1111 Connections Including a Floor Slab," Stmc-
World Conference on Earthquake Engineer- lura/ Joumal of the American Concrete liiSti-
i11g, Vol. 6, Istanbul, 'I\Jrkey, pp. 363- 370. lute, Vol. 84, No. 5, September-October,
1987, pp. 400- 406.
b28 Calcerano, G., and A Moschella, "Com pari-
son between the Behavior of Column-Beam b38 Durrani, A.J., and H.E. Zerbe, "Seismic Re-
External Joints in Both Fibre Bar Rein- sistance of RC Exterior Connections with
forced Concrete and Bar Reinforced Con- Floor Slab," Joumal of Stmctura/ E11gineer-
crete," Proceedingr of Sevelllll World Confer- ing, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987.
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, Is-
tanbul, 1\Jrkey, pp. 561-564. b39 Ehsani, A.J., and J.K. Wight, "Behavior of
External Reinforced Concrete Beam to Col-
b29 Carvalho, B.C., M. Pipa, and E. Coelho, umn Connections Subject to Earthquake
"Nonlinear Seismic Behavior of RC Struc- 'JYpe Loading," UMEE-82-RJ, University
lures Designed for Different Ductility Lev- of Michigan, July 1982.
cis," Proceedingr of Ninth World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, lbkyo-Kyoto, b40 Ehsani, M.R., and J.K. Wight, ""Effect of
August 1988. lransverse Beams and Slab on Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column
b30 Celebi, M., and J. Penzien, "Experimental Connections," Joumal of the American Co11-
Investigation into the Seismic Behavior of crete l11Siitute, No. 4, Proeccdings Vol. 82,
Critical Regions of Reinforced Components March-Aprii198S, pp. 188-195.
as Innuenced by Moment and Shear," Re-
port No. EERC 73-4, University ofCalifor- b41 Ehsani, M.R., and J.K. Wight, "Exterior Re-
nia at Berkeley, 1973. inforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Con-
nections subjected to Earthquake-'JYpe
b31 Chung, L, and S.P. Shah, "Effect of Loading Loading," Joumal of the American Co11crete
Rate on Anchorage Bond and Beam-Co- IIISiitule, No. 4, Proceedings Vol. 82, July-
lumn Joints," Stmctura/ Joumal ofthe Ameri- August 1985, pp. 492-499.
can Co11crete Institute, Vol. 86, No. 2,
March-April1989, pp. 132-142. b42 Ehsani, M.R., A.B. Moussa, and C.R. Valle-
nilla, "Comparison of Inelastic Behavior of
b32 Corley, W.G., "Rotational Capacity of Rein- Reinforced Ordinary and High Strength
forced Concrete Beams," Journal of the Concrete Frames," Stmclural Joumal of the
Stmctura/ Divisio11, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. STS, America11 Co11crete lllstilule, Vol. 84, No. 2,
October 1966, pp. 121-146. March-April 1987, pp. 161-169.
116 Abrams


b43 Ehsani, M.R., A. E. Moussa, and C.R. Valle- b53 French, C. W., and A Boroojerdi, "Contribu-
nilla, "Behavior of 1-Iijlh-Stren~h Concrete tion of RC Floor Slabs in Resisting Lateral
Frames subjected to Simulated ·arthquake- Loads," Journal of Stmcturol Engineering,
~ Loadmg," Proceedingf of Ninth World ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, January 1989, pp.
onference on Earthquake Engineering, 10- 1-18.
kyo-Kyoto, August 1988.

b44 Fenwick, R.C., and H.M. Irvine, "Rein- b54 French, C.W., 0. Anu, and C. Tarzikhan,
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for "Connections between Precast Elements -
Seismic Loading- Part 1," Bulletin ofthe New Failure Outside Connection Region," Jour-
Zealand National Society for Earthquake En- nal of Stmcturol Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
gineering, Vol. 10, No.3, pp.121-128. 115, No.2, February 1989, pp. 316-340.

b45 Fenwick, R.C., and H.M. Irvine, "Rein- b55 French, C.W., M. Hafner and V. Jayashan-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for kar, "Connections between Precast Ele-
Seismic Loading," Report No. 142, Universi- ments- Failure within Connection Region,"
~ of Auckland, New Zealand, March 1977, Journal ofStmcturol Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
0 pp. 115, No. 12, December 1989, pp. 3171-3193.
b46 Fenwick, R.C., and A Fong, "The Behavior
of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Cyclic b56 Fuji, S., and S. Morita, "Behavior of Exterior
Loadin~," Bulletin of the New Zealand Na- RC Beam-Column-Slab Subassem blages
tiona/ ociety for Earthquake Engineering, under Bidirectional Loading," Proceedingf
Vol. 12, No.2, June 1979, pp. 158-167. of US NZ Japan China Seminar, University
of Canterbury, New Zealand, August 1987.
b47 Fenwick, R.C., and I-1.1: Nguyen, "Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for b57 Galunic, B., V.V. Bertero, and E.P. Popov,
Seismic Loadin~" Re~rt No. 220, Universi- '1\n Approach for Improving Seismic-Re-
~of Auckland, ew aland, January 1981, sistant Behavior of Reinforced Concrete In-
8pp. terior Joints," Report No. EERC-77-30,
University of California at Berkeley, 1977.
b48 Fenwick, R.C., "Seismic Resistant Joints for
Reinforced Concrete Structures," Bulletin of
the New Zealand National Society for Earth· b58 Gavrilovic, P., et al. "Behavior of Reinforced
quake Engineering, Vol. 14, No.3, September Concrete Beam-Column Joints Under Cy-
1981, pp. 145-159. clic Loading," Proceedingf of Seventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
b49 Fenwick, R.C., A.T. Tankat, and C.W. Structural Aspects, Istanbul, Thrkey, Scp-
Thorn, "The Deformation of Reinforced tember 1980.
Concrete Beams subjected to Inelastic Cy-
clic Loading - Experimental Results," Re- b59 Gefken, I~R. and M.R. Ramey, "Increased
pott No. 268, School ofEn~1cering, Univer- Joint Hoop Spacing in Type 2 SeismicJoints
sity of Auckland, New aland, October Using Fiber Reinforced Concrete," Stmc-
tum/ Journal of the American Concrete Insti-
b50 Fenwick, R.C., '!Shear Deformation in Seis- tute, Vol. 86, No. 2, March-April 1989, pp.
mic Frame Structures," Journal of Stmctura/ 168-172.
Engineering, ASCE, V. 109, No.4, April1983,
pp. 965-976. b60 Gosain, N.K., R.H. Brown, and J.O. Jirsa,
"Shear Requirements for Load Reversals on
b51 Foranzi, B., E.P. Popov, and V.V. Bertero, RC Members," JournaloftheStmctural Divi·
"Hysteretic Behavior of Li~htwei~ht R/C sian, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. ST7, July 1977, pp.
Beam-Column Subassemb ages,' Report 1461-1476.
No. EERC-79-01, University of California
at Berkeley, 1979.
b61 Guimaraes, G.N., Y. Kurose, M.E. Kreger,
b52 French, C.W., and A Boroojerdi, "T-lleam and J.O. Jirsa, "Bidirectional Response of
Effect in Structures subjected to Lateral Slab Beam-Column Connections using
Loadi~,'' Proceedinf!, of the 1J1ird US Na- High Strength Materials," Proceedingf of
tiona/ onferenceon •arthquake Engineering, Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
Vol. 2, Charleston, SC, 1986. neering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
Earthquake-Hesistant Structures 117


b62 Hamada, K. and T. Kamimura, "'lest of Re- b72 Higashi, Y., and Y. Ohwada, "Failing Be-
inforced Concrete Beam-Column Connec- havior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Co-
lions Q,'art I: Experimental Method andRe- lumn Joints Under Cyclic Loading," Mem-
suits),' TransactiollS o{ AIJ, Extra, Septem- oirs of the Faculty ofTeclmo/ogy, No. 19, To-
ber 1978 (in Japanese . kyo Metropolitan University, Japan, 1969,
pp. 91-101.
b63 Hamada, K. and T. Kamimura, "'lest ofRe-
inforced Concrete Beam-Column Connec-
lions (Part II: Character of Failure in Con- b73 Hwang, T., and C.F. Scribner, "Reinforced
nections)," 1ransactions of All, Extra, No. Concrete Member Cyclic Response During
2444, September 1979 (in Japanese). Various Loadings," Joumal of the Stmctural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 110, No.3, March 1984,
b64 Hanson, N.W., and H.W. Conner, "Seismic pp. 477-489.
Resistance of R/C Beam Column Joints,"
lou mal ofthe Stmctural Division, ASCE, Vol. b74 Ishibashi, K., et al. "Tests of Reinforced
93, No. ST5, October 1967, pp. 533-560. Concrete Beam-Column Connections with
Large Size Deformed Bars Under Cyclic
b65 Hanson, N. W., "Seismic Resistance of Con- Loads (1 )," Experimental Studies on Rein-
crete Frames with Grade 60 Reinforce- forced Concrete Members and Composite
ment," Joumal o~ the Stmctural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 97, o. ST6, June 1971, pp. Steel and Reinforced Concrete Members, Vol.
1685-1700. 2, University of 'Ibkyo, Japan, December
1977, pp. 170-185 (in Japanese).
b66 Hanson, N.W., and H.W. Conner, "'Jests of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints b75 Ishibashi, K., et al. "Tests of Reinforced
Under Simulated Seismic Loading," Port- Concrete Beam-Column Connections with
land Cement Association Research ami Devel- Large Size Deformed Bars Under Cyclic
opment Bulletin, RD012.01D, Skokie, Illi- Loads (2)," Experimental Sllldies on Rein-
nois, 1972. forced Concrete Members and Composite
Steel and Reinforced Concrete Members, Vol.
b67 Hatamoto, H., and S. Bessho, "Structural 2, University of 'Ibkyo, Japan, December
Behavior of Columns and Beam-to-Co-
lumn SubasscmblajlCS of a 30-Story Rein- 1977, pp. 196-221 (in Japanese).
forced Concrete H1gh-Risc Building," Pro-
ceedings ofNinth World Conference on Earth- b76 Jindal, R.L, and K.A. Hassen, "Behavior of
quake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beam-Co-
1988. lumn Connections, Fiber Reinforced Con-
crete - Proceedings of Intemational Sympo-
b68 Hawkins, N.M., A Bao, and J. Yamazaki, sium, SP-81 American Concrete Institute,
"Moment 'Iransfer from Concrete Slabs to Detroit, 1984, pp. 107-123.
Columns," Stmctural lou mal ofthe American
Concrete Institute, Vol. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. b77 Jirsa, J.O., "Seismic Behavior of R/C Con-
1989, pp. 705-716.
ncctions: State of the Art," Proceedings,
b69 HcnaFccr, C.I-1., "Steel Fibrous, Concrete Seventh World Conference on Earthquake En-
Joint or Seismic Resistant Structures," ACI gineering, Istanbul, 'Iurkey, September 1980.
SP-53: Reinforced Concrete Structures in
Seismic Zones, American Concrete Instu- b78 Jirsa, J.O., "Beam-Column Joints: Irratio-
lute, 1977, pp.371-379. nal Solutions to a Rational Problem," Sigmf-
icant Developments in Engineering Practice
b70 Higashi, Y., andY. Ohwada, "Ex'B;rimental and Research, SP-n, American Concrete
Studies on Reinforced Concrete lcmn-Co- Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1981.
lumn Connections subjected to Lateral
Loads," 1irmsactions ~ 11e Architectural In- b79 Jirsa, J.O., D.F. Mcinheit, and Wollen, "Fac-
stitute of Japan, No. 1 7, March 1969. tors Influencing the Shear Strength of
b71 Hi!,lashi, Y., et al. "Experimental Studies on Beam-Column Joints," Proceedings, U.S.
Remforccd Concrete Beam-Column Con- National Conference on Earthquake Engi-
nections (Part g:· Proceedings of Conference
of All, Kanto istrict, June 1975 (in Japa-
neering, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, June 1975,
nese). pp. 297-305 (University of Texas).
118 Abrams


b80 Jirsa, J.O., "Behavior of Elements and Sub- b90 Lee, D.LN., J.K. Wight, and R. Hanson,
assemblages--R.C. Frames," Proceedingr, "R/C Beam-Column Joints Under Large
Workshop on Earthquake-Resistant Rein- Load Reversals," Journal ofthe Stmctura/ Di-
forced Concrete /Juilding Cons/me/ion, Uni- vision, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. ST12, December
versity of California, Berkeley, July 1977. 1977.
b81 Jiuru, T., and X. Xiaolin, "Seismic Behavior b91 Leon, R.T., "The Effect of Floor Member
ofLightwci~ht Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Jomts," Proceedingr of Ninth World Size on the Behavior of Reinforced Con-
Conference on Earthquake Engmeering, Toky- crete Beam-column Joints," Proceedingr of
oKyoto, August 1988. Eighth World Conference ofEarthquake Engi-
neering, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 445-452.
b82 Jol!clkar, M., P. Murry, J.O. Jirsa, and R.E.
Khngner, "Full Scale Tests of Beam-Co- b92 Leon, R.T., and J.O. Jirsa, "Bidirectional
lumn Joints," ACI SP-84: Earthquake EJI:cls Loading of RC Beam-Column Joints,"
on Reinforced Concrete Stmc/ures: US- apan Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 2, No. 3, Earth-
Research, American Concrete Institute, De- quake Engineering Research Institute, May
troit, 1985, pp. 271-304. 1986, pp. 537-564.
b83 Kanoh, Y., and S. Yoshizaki, "Strength of b93 Leon, R.T., ·~nchorage Requirements in
Slab-Column Connections Transferring Interior RC Dcam-Column Joints," Pro-
Shear and Moment," Journal o{.'he American ceedingr ofNinth World Conference on Earth-
Concrete Institute, March 197 , p. 461. quake Engineering, lbkyo-Kyoto, August
b84 Kitayama, K., and S. Otani, "Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column-Slab
Subassemblages subjected to Bi-Directional b94 Leon, R.T., "Interior Joints with Variable
Load Reversals," ProceedingrofNinth World Anchorage Lengths," Journal of Stmctural
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, lb- Engineering, American Society of Civil Engi-
kyo-Kyoto, August 1988. neers, Vol. 115, No. 9, September 1989, pp.
b85 Kokusho, S., et a!. "Tests of Reinforced
Concrete Beam-Column Connections (Part b95 Longwell, J.E., ·~ Comparative Study of
1)," Transactions ofAIJ, Extra, No. 2531, Oc- Biaxially Loaded Reinforced Concrete
Iober 1974 (in Japanese). Beam-Column Joints," Unpublished M.S.
thesis, University of Texas, Austin, May
b86 Kreger, M.E., and D.P. Abrams, "Measured 1980.
Hysteresis Relationships for Small-Scale
Beam-Column Joints,' Stmctura/ Research
Series No. 453, Department of Civil Engi- b96 Ma, S.M., V.V. Bcrtero, and E.P. Popov, "Ex-
neering, University of Illinois, Urbana, !IIi- perimental and Analytical Studies of the
nois, August 1978. Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Rectangular and T-Bcams,'' Report No.
b87 Kurose, Y., G.N. Guimaracs, M.E. Kreger, EERC 76-2, University of California at
and J.O. Jirsa, "Evaluation of Slab-Beam- Berkeley, 1976.
Column Joint Rc~nsc under Bidirectional
Loading,'' Procee ingr of Ninth World Con- b97 Maruyama, K., and J.O. Jirsa, "Shear Be-
ference on Earthquake Engineedng, Tokyo- havior of Reinforced Concrete Members
Kyoto, August 1988. under Bidirectional Reversed Lateral Load-
ing," Department of Civil Engineering, Uni-
b88 Kusto, 0., and J.G. Bouwkamp, "Behavior versity of 'lexas at Austin, August 1979.
of R/C Dt:ef Beam-Column Subassemb-
laftcs CJc ic Loads," Re~;or/ No. b98 Marques, J.LH., and J.O. Jirsa,·~ Study of
E •RC-7 -8, University of California, Hooked Bar Anchorages in Beam-Column
Berkeley, 1973.
Joints," ACJ Journal, May 1975, pp. 198-209.
b89 Lee, D.LN., "Original and Repaired Rein-
forced Concrete Beam-Column Subas- 1>99 Mattock, A. H., "Rotational Capacity of Rc-
semblages Subjected to Earthquake n:pe inforced Concrete Beams," Journal of the
Loading," Report No. UMEE-76-R4, ni- Stmc/ural Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. ST2,
versity of Michigan, April 1976. April 1967, pp. 519-522.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 119


blOO Megget, LM., "Exterior R/C Joints With bllO Morrsion, D.O., "Dynamic Lateral-Load
and Without Intersectinjl Demns Under Tests of RC Column-Slabs," Journal of
Seismic Loading," Bul/etm, New Zealand Stmctural Engineering, ASCE, V. 111, No.3,
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, March 1985, pp. 685-698.
Vol. 11, 1973, pp. 115-167.
bl11 Nakada, S., et al. "Tests ofR.P.C. Deam-Co-
blOl Megget, LM., and R Park, "Reinforced lumn Connections (Part 1)," Experimental
Concrete Exterior Deam-Column Joints Studies on Reinforced Concrete Members and
Under Seismic Loading," New Zealand En- Composite Steel and Reinforced Concrete
gineering, 15 November 1971, pp. 431-453. Members, Vol. 2, University of Tokyo, Japan,
December 1977, pp. 155- 165 (in Japanese).
bl02 Meinheit, D.R, and J.O. Jirsa, "The Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Co- bl12 Nishimura, Y., and K. Minami, ·~nchorage
lumn Joints," CESRL Report 77-1, Universi- Behavior of Dent Dar in Exterior Beam-Co-
ty of Texas, Austin, January 1977, 271 pp. lumn Joints," Proceedings of Ninth World
Conference 011 Earthquake Engineeri11g, To-
b103 Meinheit, D.F., and J.O. Jirsa, "Shear kyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
Strength of R/C Deam-Column Connec-
tions," Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 107, ST11, 1>113 Noguchi, H., and K. Kurusu, "Correlation of
Nov. 1981, pp. 2227-2244. Bond and Shear in RC Deam-Column Con-
nections subjected to Seismic Forces," Pro-
b104 Milburn, J.R., and H. Park, "Dehavior of Re-
ceedings ofNinth World Co!lference on Emth-
inforced Concrete Deam-Column Joints
quake E11gi11eeri11g, Tokyo-Kyoto, August
Designed toNZS 3101," Research Report No.
82-7, Department of Civil En~ineering, b114 Ogura, K., et al. "Experimental Studies on
University of Canterbury, Chnstchurch,
Reinforced Concrete ilcam-Column Joints
New Zealand, 107 pp. (Exterior), Transactio11s of All, Extra, No.
2639, October 1977 (in Japanese).
b105 Minami, K., and M. Wakabayashi, "Seismic
Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Deam 1>115 Ogura, K., et a!. '\\Study on Flexural Ca-
and Column Assemblages with Emphasis on pacity Deterioration of Members Passing
Shear Failure of Column," Proceedings of Through the Deam-Column Joints," 1rons-
Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engi- actions of All, Extra, No. 2585, September
neering, Vol. III, India, 1977, pp. 3101-3106. 1978 (in Japanese).
b106 Minami, K., andY. Hishimura, "Hysteretic bl16 Ohwada, Y. '\\Study on Effect of Lateral
Characteristics of Deam-to-Column Con- Deams on Reinforced Concrete Deam-Co-
nections in Steel Reinforced Concrete lumn Joints (1)," 1ronsactions of All, Extra,
Structures," Proceedings of Seventh World No. 2510, October 1976 (in Japanese).
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
7, Istanbul, Thrkey, 1980, pp. 305-308. b117 Ohwada, Y. '\\Study on Effect of Lateral
Deams on Reinforced Concrete Deam-Co-
b107 Morrsion, D.G., and M.A. Sozcn, "Re- lumn Joints (2)," Proceedings of Conferellce
sponse of Reinforced Concrete Plate-Co- of All, No. 61, 1977 (in Japanese).
lumn Connections to Dynamic and Static
Horizontal Loads," Stmctural Research Se- b118 Ohwada, Y. '\\Study on Effect of Lateral
lies No. 490, University of Illinois at Urba- Deams on Reinforced Concrete Deam-Co-
na-Champaign, April 1981. lumn Joints (3)," Tra11sactions of All, Extra,
No. 2647, October 197x (in Japanese).
blOB Morrison, D.G., and M.A. Sozen, "Strength,
Stiffness and Energy Dissipation Character- bl19 Otani, S., K. Kitayama, and H. Aoyama,
istics of Slab-Column Connections," Pro- "Deam Dar Bond Stress and Dehavior ofRC
ceedings of US/PRC Worlcshop on Seismic Interior Deam Column Connections," Pro-
Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete ceedings of Seco11d US-New Zeala11d-Japa11
Stmctures, University of Michigan, Ann Ar- Seminar on Design of RC Beam-Column
bor, 1981, pp. 98-114. Joints, lbkyo, Japan, 1985.
b109 Morrsion, D.G., I. Hirasawa, and M.A. So- bl20 Pan, A., and J.l~ Moehle, "Lateral Displace-
zen, "Lateral-Load Tests of RC Slab-Co- ment Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Flat
lumn Connections," Joumal of Stmctural Plates," Stmctural Joumal of American Con-
Engineering, ASCE, V. 109, No. 11, Novem- crete Institute, Vol. 86, No.3, May-June 1989,
ber 1983, pp. 2698- 2714. pp. 250-258.
120 Abrams


b121 Park, R., D.C. Kent, and R. Sampson, "Re- b131 Patton, R.N., "Behavior Under Seismic
inforced Concrete Members with Cyclic Loading of R/C Beam-Column Joints with
Loading," Joumal of the Stmctura/ Division, Anchorage Blocks," ME Report, University
ASCE, Vol. 98, No.7, 1972, 1341-1360. of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1972.

b122 Park, R., and S. Islam, "Strength of Slab-Co- b132 Paulay, T., "Coupling Beams of Reinforced
lumn Connections with Shear and Unbal- Concrete Shear Wall," Joumal of the Stmc-
anced Flexure," Jormral of the Stmctura/ Di- tuml Division, ASCE, V. 97, ST3, March
vision, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST9, September 1971, pp. 843-862.
1976, pp. 1879-1901.
b133 Paulay, T., "Equilibrium Criteria for Rein-
b123 Park, R., and Y.S. Keong, "'Jests on Struc- forced Concrete Beam-Column Joints,"
tural Concrete Beam-Column Joints with Stmctural Joumal of the American Concrete
Intermediate Column Bars," Proceedingr of Institute, Vol. 86, No.6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp.
the Second South Pacific Regional Conference 635-643.
on Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New
Zealand, Vol. 2, pp. 513-532. bl34 Paulay, T., R. Park, and M.J.N. Priestley, "R/
C Beam-Column Joints Under Seismic Ac-
b124 Park, R., L Gaerty, and B.C. Stevenson, tions," Joumal of American Concrete lnsti-
"Tests on an Interior Reinforced Concrete tllle, November 1978, pp. 585-593.
Beam-Column Joint," Bulletin, New Zea-
land National Society for Earthquake Engi- h135 Paulay, T., and A Scarpas, "The Behavior of
neering, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 1981. Exterior Beam-Column Joints," Research
ReportBl-1, Department of Civil Engineer-
b125 Park, R., and J.R. Milburn, "Comparison of ing, UnivcrsityofCantcrbury,NcwZcaland,
Recent New Zealand and US Seismic De- 1981.
sign Provisions for RC Beam-Column Joints
and Test Results from Four Units Designed b136 Paulay, '[, and R. Park, "Joints in Rein-
According to the New Zealand Code," /Jul-
forced Concrete Frames Designed for
letin, New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Resistance," Research Report
Earthquake Engineering(Wcllington) Vol. 16, 84-9, Department of Civil Engineering,
No. 1, March 1983, pp. 3-24.
University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand, June 1984.
b126 Park, R., and '[ Paulay, "Behavior of R/C
External Beam-Column Joints Under Cy-
clic Loading," Proceedingr, Fifth World Con- b137 Pozzo, E., "Experimental Investigation on
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Ductility of RC Members under Combined
Italy, June 1973, pp. 772-781. Bending and Axial Loads, Monotonically
and Cyclically Stressed at Different Loading
b127 Park, R., and K.J. Thompson, "Behavior of Rates," Proceedingr of Ninth World Confer-
Prestressed, Partially Prestressed and Rein- ence on Earthquake Engineering, 'Ibkyo-Kyo-
forced Concrete Interior Beam Column As- to, August 1988.
semblies Under Cyclic Loading: 'lest Re-
sults of Units 1 to 7," Research Report 74-9, b138 Popov, E.!~, V.V. Dcrtero, and H. Krawin-
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, kler, "Cyclic Behavior of Three Reinforced
New Zealand, 1974, 41 pp. Concrete Flexural Members with High
Shear," Report No. EERC 72-5, University
b128 Park, R., and S.K. Yeoh, "1csts on Structural of California at Berkeley, 1972.
Concrete Beam-Column Joints with Inter-
mediate Column Bars," Bulletin, New Zea- b139 Popov, E.P., ct. al., "On Seismic Design of
land National Society for Earthquake Engi- RC Interior Joints of Frames," Proceedingr
neering, Vol. 12, September 1979, pp. of Sixth World Conference on Earthquake En-
189-203. gineering, Vol. II, India, pp. 1933-1938.

bl29 Park, R., ct al. "Tests on Interior R/C b 140 Popov, E.P., "Seismic Behavior of Structural
Beam-Column Joints," Bulletin, New Zea- Subassemblages," Joumal of the Stmctura/
land National Society for Earthquake Engi- Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST7, July
neering, Vol. 14, No.2, June 1981, pp. 81-92. 1980, pp. 1451-1474.

bl30 Park, R., L Gacrty, and B.C. Stevenson, b141 Priestley, M.J.N., "'Jesting of Two Rein-
"1csts on an Interior Reinforced Concrete forced Concrete Beam-Column Assemblies
Beam-Column Joint," Bulletin, New Zea- Under Simulated Seismic Loading," Report
land National Society for Earthquake Engi- 5-751 I, New Zealand Ministry of Works and
neering, Vol. 14, No.2, June 1981. Development, New Zealand, 1975.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 121


b142 Rangan, D.V., and A.S. Hall, "Moment and b153 Shibata, T., 0. Joh, and Y. Goto, "Influence
Shear 'fransfcr between Slab and Edge Col- of'fransvcrsc Reinforcement in Beam Ends
umn," Jaumal oftire American Concrete IIISti- and Joints on the Behavior of RC Beam-Co-
111/e, Vol. 5, No.5, May 1983, pp. 183-191. lumn Subasscmblages," Proceedin&JafNinth
World Conference an Earthquake Engineer-
b 143 Renton, G. W., "The Behavior of Reinforced ing, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
Concrete Beam Column Joints Under Seis-
mic Loading," ME Report, University of b154 Shibata, T., and 0. Joh, "Behavior ofThrcc-
Canterbury, New Zealand, 1972. Dimcnsional Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Subasscmblages with Slabs," Pro-
b144 Research Group on Anti-Seismic Joints, ceedin&J ofNinth World Conference an Eatth-
"Tests on Exterior Joints of Frames with quake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August
Cast-in-Place Columns and Precast 1988.
Beams," Jaumal afCaiiStmctian Technology,
Structural Division, China, 1979 (in Chi- b 155 Shimazu, T., and S.M.P. Mohit, "The Behav-
nese). ior of Beams in RC Frames under the Com-
bined Action of Vertical and Horiwntal
b145 Robertson,I.N., and A.J. Durrani, "Seismic Loadings," ProceedingJ ofNinth World Con-
Behavior of Multiple-Connection Flat-Slab ference an Eatthquake Engineering, Tokyo-
Assemblies," Proceedin&J of Ninth World Kyoto, August 1988.
Conference an Earthquake Engineering, Toky-
oKyoto, August 1988. b156 Smith, D.J., "Exterior R/C Joints with Low
Axial Load Under Seismic Loading," ME
b146 Scarpas, A., "The Inelastic Behavior of Report, University of Canterbury, New Zea-
Earthquake Resistant R/C Exterior Beam- land, 1972.
Column Joints," Report No. 81-2, University
of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1971. b157 Soleimai, D., E.P. Popov, and V.V. Dcrtcro,
"Hysteretic Behavior ofR/C Beam-Column
b147 Schwaighofcr, J., and M.P. Collins, ·~n Ex- Subasscmblages," Jaumal of American Can-
perimental Study of the Behavior of Rein- crete Institute, November 1979, pp.
forced Concrete Coupling Slabs," Jaumal of 1179-1195.
the American Concrete IIIStitllle, No. 3, Pro-
ceedings Vol. 74, March 1977, pp. 123-127. b157 Sozen, M.A., and D.P. Abrams, "Strength
and Behavior of Slab-Wall Assemblies Re-
b148 Scribner, C.F., and J.K. Wight, "Delaying inforced with Welded Wire Fabric Subjected
Shear Strength Decay in Reinforced Con- to Load Reversals," Associacion Vencwla-
crete Flexural Members Under Large Load na de Sistemas de Paredes Estructrulas, Car-
Reversals," Report No. UMEE 78R2, Uni- acas, Venezuela, April 1979.
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, May 1978,
221 pp. b 158 Suzuki, N., J .K. Halim, S. Otani, and H. Aoy-
ama, "Behavior of RC Beam-Column Sub-
b149 Scribner, C.F., and J.K. Wight, "Strength assemblages with and without Slab," De-
Decay in R/C Beams under Load Rever- partment of Architecture, Faculty of Engi-
sals," Proceedin&J, ASCE, V. 106, ST4, April neering, University of Tokyo, March 1984.
1980, pp. 861-876.
b159 Suzuki, N., S. Otani, and Y. Kobayashi,
b150 Scckin, M., and S.M. Uzumcri, "Exterior "Three Dimensional Beam-Column As-
Beam-Column Joints in Reinforced Con- semblages under Bidirectional Earthquake
crete Frames," Proceedin&J of Seventh World Loadings," ProceedingJ ofEighth World Con-
Conference an Eatthquake Engineering, Vol. ference an Earthquake Engineering, San
6, Istanbul, 'Ilnkey, 1980, pp. 183-190. Francisco, 1984, pp. 453-460.

b151 Seckin, M., and K. Ogura, "Experimental b 160 Tad a, T., T. Takeda, andY. Takemoto, "Tests
Studies on Reinforced Concrete Beam-Co- of Reinforced Methods of Reinforced Con-
lumn Joints (Exterior)," TraiiSactians of All, crete Beam-Column Joints (Part 1)," Pro-
Extra, No. 2443, September 1979 (in Japa- ceedin&J, Kallio District, Conference an All,
nese). No. 57, 1976 (in Japanese).

b152 Shibata,l:, and 0. Joh, "DchaviorofRC In- b161 Takiguchi, K., and S. Kousho, "Hysteretic
terior Beam-Column Joints with Various Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members
Details on Cyclic Lateral Loads," Proceed- subjected to Biaxial Bending Moments,"
in&' of US-New Zealand-Japan Seminar an Proceedin&J of Sixth World Conference an
Beam-Column Joints, Monterey, California, Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, Paper
July 1984. 11-250, New Delhi, India, 1977, p. 3262.
122 Abrams


b162 Tegos, I.A., and A. G. Thanos, "Seismic Re- b170 Yamaguchi,I.,etal. ·~studyonReinforced
sistance of Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Concrete Beam-Column Joints with U-
Beam-Column Joints," Proceedingrof Ninth Shaped Beam Reinforcements," Takenaka
World Conference on Earthquake Engineer- Teclinica/ Research Report, No. 16, October
ing, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988. 1976, pp. 87-106 (in Japanese).

b163 Townsend, W.H., and R.D. Hanson, "Hys- b171 Yamaguchi, I., et al. '\<\ Study on Anchor-
ages of Beam Reinforcement in Beam-Co-
teretic Loops for Concrete Beam-Column lumn Joints," Takenaka Technical Research
Connections," Proceedingr of Fifth World Report, No. 20, October 1978 (in Japanese).
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Pa-
per 137, Session 3D, Rome, Italy, June 1973. b172 Zee, H.L, and J.P. Moehle, "Behaviorofln-
terior and Exterior Flat Plate Connections
b164 Townsend, W.H., and R.D. Hanson, "Rein- subjected to Inelastic Load Reversals," Re-
forced Concrete Connection Hysteresis port No. UCB/EERC-84/07, University of
Loops," ACI SP-53: Reinforced Concrete California at Berkeley, August 1984 121pp.
Structures in Seismic Zones, American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1977. b173 Zerbe, H.E., and J.K. Durrani, "Effect of a
Slab on the Behavior of Exterior Beam to
b 165 Uzumeri, S.M., and M. Seckin, "Behavior of Column Connections," Report No. 30, De-
partment of Civil Engineenng, Rice Univer-
RIC Beam-Column Joints Subjected to sity, Houston, Texas, March 1985.
Slow Load Reversals," Publication No.
74-05, University of Toronto, Canada, b174 Zerbe, H. E., and A.J. Durrani, "Seismic Be-
March 1974. havior of Indeterminate Beam to Column
RC Subassemblies," Proceedingr of Ninth
b166 Uzumeri, S.M., "Strength and Ductility of World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
Cast-in-Place Beam-Column Joints," ACI ing, TokyoKyoto, August 1988.
SP-53: Reinforced Concrete Structures in
Seismic Zones, American Concrete Insti- b175 Zerbe, H. E., and J.K. Durrani, "Seismic Re-
tute, Detroit, Michigan, 1977, pp. 293-350. sponse of Connections in Two-Day RC
Frame Subassemblies," Journal ofStructural
b167 Viwathanatepa, S., E.P. Popov, and V.V. Ber- Engineering, American Society of Civil Engi-
tero, "Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Con-
neers, Vol. 115, No. 11, November 1989, pp.
crete Interior Beam-Column Subassemb-
lages," Report No. EERC-79-14, University b176 Zhang, L, and J.O. Jirsa, "Shear Stren~th of
of California at Berkeley, 1979. Reinforced Concrete Planar Frame Jomts,"
Proceedingr of US/PRC Worlcshop on Seismic
b168 Watanabe, K., and H. Noguchi, ·~nalysis of Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete
Shear Resistance Mechanisms of RC Beam- Stmctures, University of Michigan, Ann Ar-
Column Connections subjected to Seismic bor, May 1981.
Forces," Proceedingr of Nimh World Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyo- b177 Zhang, L, and J.O. Jirsa,'\<\ Study of Shear
to, August 1988. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column Joints," Ref!l!_rt No. PMFSEL 82-1,
b169 Wight, J.K., B.A. Abdel-Fattah, and M.S. Department of Civil Engineering, Universi-
ty of Texas at Austin, February, 1983.
AI-Haddad, "Relocating Beam Plastic
Hinging Zones for Improved Earthquake b 178 Zhu, S., and J.O. Jirsa,'\<\ Study of Bond De-
Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Build- terioration in Reinforced Concrete Beam-
ings," Proceedingr ofNinth World Conference Column Joints," Ref!l!_rt No. PMFSEL 83-1,
on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Department of Civil Engineering, Universi-
August 1988. ty of Texas at Austin, 1983.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 123


c1 Abrams, D.P., 'fuial Force Influence on ell Hirosawa, M., M. Ozaki, and M. Wakabaya-
Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Columns," shi, "Experimental Study on Large Models
Stmctuml Joumal of the American Concrete of Reinforced Concrete Columns," Session
lllStitute, Vol. 84, No.3, May-June 1987, pp. 2D: Dynamic Behavior of Structural Elc-
246-254. ments, No. 139, Proceedings of Fifth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
c2 Aktan, A.E., Pccknold, D.A.W, and M.A. Rome, Italy, 1973.
Sozcn, "Effects of Two-Dimensional Earth-
~uakc Motion on a Reinforced Concrete c12 Hu, Q., and Y. Hsu, '\<\ New Way for Im-
olumn," Stmctural Research Series Report proving the Seismic Behavior of Reinforced
No. 399, University of Illinois ar Urbana-
Champaign, 1973. Concrete Short Column," Proceedings of
Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
Bedell, R., and D.P. Abrams, "Scaling Rela- neering, TokyoKyoto, August 1988.
tionships for Concrete Columns," Stmctural
Research Series Report No. 83- 2, University c13 Iwasaki, R. "Full Scale Test of Reinforced
of Colorado, Boulder, 1983. Concrete Short Columns with deformed
Main Bars Subjected to a Constant Axial
c4 Craig, IU., J. McConnell, H. Germann, H. Load and Anti-Symmetric Lateral Loads,"
Dib, and F. Kashani, "Behavior of Rein- Experimental Studies on Reinforced Concrete
forced Fibrous Concrete Columns," Fiber Members and Composite Steel and Reinforced
Reinforced Concrete - Intemational Sympo- Concrete Members, Vol. 2, Faculty of Engi-
sium, SP-81 American Concrete Institute, ncering, Department of Architecture, Uni-
Detroit, 1984, pp. 69-105. versity of Tokyo, Japan, December 1977.

c5 Focardi, F., "Seismic Behavior of Circular c14 Jirsa, J.O., "Development of Loading Sys-
Columns: An Experimental Research," Pro- tern and Initial1ests -Short Columns Under
ceedings ofNinth World Conference on Earth- Bi-Directional Loading," CERSRL Report
quake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August No. 78-2, Department of Civil Engineering,
1988. University of 1exas, Austin, September
c6 Ghee, A.B., M.J.N. Priestlcf' and T Paulay,
"Seismic Shear Strength o Circular Rein-
forced Concrete Columns," Stmctuml Jour- ciS Karlson, B., H. Aoyama, and M.A. So7.en,
nal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. "Spirally Reinforced Concrete Columns
86, No. !,January-February 1989, pp. 45-59. subjected to Loading Reversals Simulating
Earthquake Effects," Proceedings of Fifth
c7 Gilberstscn, N.D., and J.P. Moehle, "Exper- World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
imental Study of Small-Scale RC Columns ing, Rome, Italy, 1973, pp. 803-806.
subjected to Axial and Shear Force Rever-
sals," Stmctural Research Series No. 481, Uni- cl6 Kobayashi, K., S. Kokusho, K. Takiguchi,
vcrsity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and C. Yang-Boo, "Study on the Restoring
July 1980. Force Characteristics of of RC Column to
Bidirectional Deflection History," Proceed-
c8 Gill, WD., R. Park, and M.J.N. Priestley, ings of Eighth World Conference on Earth-
"Ductilit~ of Rectangular Reinforced Con- quake Engineering, San Francisco, 1984, pp.
crete Co umns with Axial Load," Research 537-544.
Report 79-1, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Unvicrsit~ofCanterbury, New Zealand, c17 Kuramoto, H., K. Minami, and M. Wakabay-
February 197 , 136 pp. as hi, "Deformation Capacity of Diagonally
Reinforced Concrete Short Columns subject
c9 He, M.X., T Arakawa, Y. Aria, and M. Mi- to High Axial Compressive Stress," Proceed-
zoguchi, "Shear Stren~th of Reinforced ings of Ninth World Conference on Earth-
Concrete Columns with piral Hoops," Pro- quake Engineering, TokyoKyoto, August
ceedings ofNinth World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
ciS Li, K.N., S. Otani, and H. Aoyama, "Rein-
c!O Hiraishi, H., ct. al., "Experimental Study on forced Concrete Columns under Varying
Deformation Capacity of Wall Columns af- Axial Load and Bidircction Horizontal
ter Flexural Yielding," Proceedings of Ninth Load Reversals," Proceedings ofPacific Con-
World Conference on Earth~uake Engineer- ference on Earthquake Engineering New Zea-
ing, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1 88. land, August 1987, Vol. 1, pp. 141-152.
124 Abrams


c19 Li, K.N., and H. Aoyama, "Reinforced Con- c29 Park, R., and R.A. Sampson, "Ductility of
crete Columns under Varying Axial Load Reinforced Concrete Column Sections in
and Bidirectional Lateral Load Reversals," Seismic Design," Journal of the American
Proceedin&r of Ninth World Conference on Concrete Institute, Vol. 69, No. 9, September
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Au- 1972, pp. 543-551.
gust 1988.
c30 Park, R., M.J.N. Priestley, and W.D. Gill,
c20 Low, S., and J.P. Moehle, "Experimental "Ductility of Square-Confined Concrete
Study of RC Columns subjected to Multiax- Columns," Journal of the Stmctural Division,
ial Cyclic Loading," Report No. UCB/ ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST4, April 1982, pp.
EERC-87/14, University of California at 929-950.
Berkeley, September 1987, 117pp.
c31 Priestley, M.J.N., R. Park, and R.T. Potanga-
c21 Maruyama, K., H. Ramirez, and J.O. Jirsa, roa, "Ductility of Spirally-confined Con-
"Short RC Columns under Bidirectional crete Columns," Journal of the Stmctural Di-
Load Histories," Journal of Stmctural Engi- vision, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. ST1, January
neering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 1, January 1984, 1981, pp. 181-202.
pp. 120-137.
c32 Priestley, M.J.N., and R. Park, "Strength and
c22 Ogawa, J., and T. Shiga, "Earthquake Dam- Ductility of Concrete Brid~c Columns under
age Index for Reinforced Concrete Col- Seismic Loading," ACI tmctural Journal,
umns," Proceedin&r of Ninth World Confer- Vol. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 61-76.
enceon Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyo-
to, August 1988. c33 Ramirez, H., and J.O. Jirsa, "Effect of Axial
Load on Shear Behavior of Short RC Col-
c23 Okada, T., M. Scki, and S. Asai, "Response umns Under Cyclic Lateral Deformations,"
of Reinforced Concrete Columns to Bidirec- PMFSEL Report No. 80-1, Department of
tiona! Horizontal force and Constant Axial Civil Engineering, University of Texas, Aus-
Force," Bulletin of Earthquake Research Cen- tin, June 1980.
ter, No. 10, University of Tokyo, 1976, pp.
30-36. c34 Saatcioglu, M., "Reinforced Concrete Col-
umns Subjected to Uniaxial and Biaxial
c24 Okada, T., ct at. "Restoring Force of Rein- Load Reversals," Proceedings ok Eighth
forced Concrete Columns Under Biaxial World Conference on Earthquake •ngineer-
ing, San Francisco, California, July 1984.
Load Reversals with Constant Axial Load,"
Papers Nos. 2506, 2507 and 2508, Architectur- c35 Saatcioglu, M., "Effects of Va'ifcng Axial
a/ Institute of Japan, 1916.
Foree on Hysteretic Response of einforccd
Concrete Members," Proceedin&r of Ninth
c25 Otani, S., and C.S. Tang, "Behavior of Rein- World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
forced Concrete Columns Under Biaxial ing, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
Lateral Load Reversals, I - Pilot Test," Pub-
lication 78-03, Department of Civil Engi- c36 Saatcioglu, M., and G. 07.cebe, "Response
nccring, University of Toronto, Canada, of Reinforced Concrete Columns to Simu-
February 1978. Ia ted Seismic Loading," Stmctural Journal of
the American Concrete Institllle, Vol. 86, No.
c26 Otani, S., V.W. Cheung, and S. Lai, "Rein- 1, January-February 1989, pp. 3-125.
forced Concrete Columns subjected to Diax-
ial Lateral Load Reversals," Proceedin&r of c37 Saiidi, M., G. Ghusn and Y. Jiang, "Five-
Seventh World Conference on Earthquake En- Spring Element for Biaxially Bent RC Col-
gineering, Vol. 6, Istanbul, 1\ukey, 1980, pp. utnns," Journal of the Stmctural Division,
525-532. ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 2, February 1989, pp.
c27 Otani, S., and V.W. Cheung, "Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Biax- c38 Saisho, M., and K. Senba, "Dynamic Restor-
ial Lateral Load Reversals, II- 'lest Without ing Force Characteristics of Reinforced
Axial Loads," Publication 81-02, Depart- Concrete Members," Proceedin&r of Ninth
mcnt of Civil Engineering, University of To- World Conference 011 Earthquake E11gi11eer-
ronto, Canada, February 1981. ing, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
c28 Park, R., D.C. Kent, and R.A. Sampson, c39 Selna, L, I. Martin, R. Park, and L. Wyllie,
"Reinforced Concrete Members with Cyclic "Strong and Tough Columns for Seismic
Loading," Journal of the Stmctural Division, Forces," Journal of the Stntctural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 98, No. ST7, July 1972, pp. ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST8, August 1980, pp.
1341-1360. 1717- 1734.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 125


c40 Sheikh, S.A., and S.M. Uzumcri, "Strcnfh c49 lamura, K., and S. Morichi, "Dynamic Prop-
and Ductility of Tied Columns," Journa
Stmctuml Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 106, ST ,
1, crties of RC Columns with Different Rein-
forcement Ratios under Lateral Loadings,"
May 1980, pp. 1079-1102. Proceedin&r of Ninth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, lbkyo-Kyoto, Au-
c41 Sheikh, S.A., and K. Sakai, "Strength and gust 1988.
Ductility of Confined Concrete Columns for
Seismic Design," Proceedi~ of Ninth World c50 Tanaka, Y., et. al., "Study on Shear Failure
Conference on Earth~1ake ~ngineering, Toky- Properties of Reinforced Concrete Short
oKyoto, August 198 .
Columns," Proceedin&r of Ninth World Con-
c42 Sakai, K., and S.A. Sheikh, "What Do We ference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-
Know about Confinement in Reinforced Kyoto, August 1988.
Concrete Columns (A Critical Review of
Previous Work and Code Provisions)," Stmc- c51 Umehara, H., and J.O. Jirsa, "Short Rectan-
/ural Journal of the American Concrete Insti- gular RC Columns under Bidirectional
111/e, Vol. 86, No. 2, March-April 1989, pp. Loadings," Journal ofStmc/1/ral Engineering,
192-207. ASCE, V. 110, No. 3, March 1984, pp.
c43 Shen, J.M., and Y.J. Weng, "Inelastic Be-
havior of Reinforced Concrete Columns un- c52 Vallenas, J., V.V. Bcrtero, and E.P. Popov,
der Biaxial Reversal Lateral Load," Proceed- "Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops
in&r of Nilllh World Conference on Earth- subjected to Axial Loads," Report UCB/
quake Engineering, 'lbkyo-Kyoto, August
1988. EERC-77-13, University of California at
Berkeley, 1977.
c44 Song, J., X. Chou, W. Jiang, andY. Shimizu,
"Rectangular Spiral Confining Hogps to c53 Wight, J.K., and M.A., "Strength
Enhance Ascismatic Behavior of R Col- Decay ofR/C Columns Under Shear Rever-
umns," Proceedin&r of Ninth World Confer- sals," Journal of the Stmctural Division,
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyo- ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST5, May 1975, pp.
to, August 1988. 1053-1065.
c45 Su&ano, S., T. Nagashima, H. Kimura, and c54 Woodward, K.A., and J.O. Jirsa, "Behavior
A lamura, "Experimental Studies of Scis- Classification of Short Reinforced Concrete
mic Behavior of H~h Strength Concrete Columns Subjected to Cyclic Deforma-
Columns Laterally einforced with High lions," PMFSEL Report No. 80-2, Depart-
Strer:fth Steel Bars," Proceedingr of Ninth
Wolf Conference on Earth~wke Engineer- ment of Civil Engineering, University of
ing, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1 88. 'lexas, Austin, July 1980.

c46 Sugano, S., et. al., "Ductility and Its Evalua- c55 Woodward, K.A., and J.O. Jirsa, "Influence
lion of Reinforced Concrete Structural of Reinforcement on RC Short Columns
Members," Proceedin&rofNinth Wolfd Con- Resistance," Journal of the Stmctural Divi-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, 'lbkyoKy- sion, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 1, January 1984.
oto, August 1988.
c56 Yamada, M., "Shear Strength, Deteriora-
c47 Taki§uchi, K., S. Kokusho, and K. Kobaya- lion and Explosion of Reinforced Concrete
shi, \<\nalysis of Reinforced Concrete Sec- Short Columns," ACI SP-42: Shear in Rein-
lions sUbJected to Biaxial Bend~ Mo- forr:ed Concrete, American Concrete Insti-
ments," 1ransactions of A./.1., No. 0, De- tute, Detroit, 1973, p. 617.
cember 1976, pp. 1-8.

c48 Takizawa, H., and H. Aoyama, "Biaxial Ef- c57 Yamaguchi, L, ct. al., '\<\n Experimental
feels on Modeli'F. Earthluake Response of Study on Cyclic Behavior of RC Short Col-
RC Structures," •arthqu e Engineering ami umns," Proceedin&rofUS-Japan Seminar on
Stmctural Dynamics, Vol. 4, 1976, pp. 523- Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, Califor-
552. nia, 1973.
126 Abrams


c58 Zagajeski, S.W., V.V. Bertero, and J.G. c60 Zhou, X., T. Satoh, W. Jiang, A. Ono, andY.
Bouwkamp, "Hysteretic Behavior of Rein- Shimizu, "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
forced Concrete Columns subjected to High Column under High Axial Load," Proceed-
Axial and Cyclic Shear Forces," Repon No. ings of Ninth World Conference on Eanh-
UCBIEERC 78/05, University of California quake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August
at Berkeley, 1978, 233pp. 1988.
c59 Zahn, RA., R. Park and M.J.N. Priestley, c61 Zhu, B.L, K.L Zhang, and M.S. Wu, ·~
"Strength and Ductility of Square Rein- Study of Restoring Foree Characteristics of
Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members
forced Concrete Column Sections Subjected with a Constant Axial Load," Proceedings of
to Biaxial Bending," Stmctural Joumal ofthe US/PRC Worlcshop on Seismic Analysis a/ld
American Concrete liiStitute, Vol. 86, No. 2, Design of Reinforr:ed Concrete Stmctures,
March-April1989, pp. 123-131. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1981,
pp. 152-167.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 127


w1 "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete w11 Cardenas, A. E., J.M. Hanson, W.O. Corley,
Shear Walls and Frame Joints: Implications and E. Hognestad, "Design Provisions for
of Recent Research for Design Engineers," Shear Walls," Joumal of the America/1 Con-
Report ATC-11, Applied Technology Coun- crete liiStitute, Vol. 70, No. 3, March 1973, pp.
cil, 1983, 177pp. 221-230.
w2 Aktan, A. E., and V.V. Bertero, "RC Struc- w12 Cardenas, A.B., and D.D. Magura,
tural Walls: Seismic Design for Shear," Jour- "Strength of High-Rise Shear Walls- Rect-
nal of Stmctural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. angular Cross Section," ACI SP-36: Re-
111, No.8, 1985, pp. 1775-1791.
sponse of Multistory Concrete Stmctures to
w3 Alexander, C.M., A.C. Heidebracht, and Lateral Forces, American Concrete Institute,
W.K. Tso, "Cyclic Load Tests on Shear Wall Detroit, 1973, pp. 119- 150.
Panels," Proceedings of Fifth World Confer-
ence on Earlhquake Engineering, Rome, 1973. w13 Cardenas, A.B., "Shear Walls - Research
and Design Practice," Proceedings of Fifth
w4 Anieic, D., and M. Zamolo, "Structural As- World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
semblage of Shear Wall High-Rise Build- ing, Rome, 1973, 11 pp.
ings Exposed to Cyclic Loading," Proceed-
ings ofFifth World Conference 011 Earthquake w14 Corley, W.O., "Laboratory Tests of Shear
Engineering, Rome, Vol. III, 1973, pp. Walls for Multistory Buildings," Proceedings
3138-3143. ofFifth World Conference on Earthquake En-
gineering, Rome, 1973, 12 pp.
w5 Aristizabai-Ochoa, J.D., "Cracking and
Shear Effects on Structural Walls," Joumal w15 Corley, W.O., A.B. Fiorato, and R.G. Oes-
of Stmctural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, terle, "Structural Walls," ACI SP-72, Ameri-
No. 5, 1983, pp. 1267-1277. can Concrete liiStitute, Detroit, 1981, pp.
w6 Barda, F., J.M. Hanson, and W. Gene
Corley, "Shear Strength of Low-Rise Walls w16 Fiorato, A.B., ct. al., "Highlights of an Ex-
with Boundary Elements," ACI SP-53: Rein-
forced Concrete Stmctures in Seismic Zones, perimental Investigation of the Seismic Per-
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1977, formance of Structural Walls," Proceedings
pp. 149-202 ASCE/EMD Specialty Conference on Dy-
namic Response of Stmctures: l11Sintmenta-
w7 Bertero, V.V., E.P. Popov, T. Endo, and T.Y. tion, Testing Methods, and System Identifica-
Wang, "PseudoDynamic Testing of Wall tion, Los Angeles, 1976, pp. 308-317.
Structural Systems," Dynamic Response of
Structures: Instrumentation, Testing Meth- w17 Fiorato, A.B., R.G. Oesterle, and W.O.
ods and System Identification, ASCE!EMD Corley, "Ductility of Structural Walls for De-
Specialty Conference, Los Angeles, 1976, pp. sign of Earthquake Resistant Buildings,"
286-297. Proceedings of Sixth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. III, India, 1977,
w8 Bertero, V.V., ct. al., "Seismic Design Impli- pp. 2797- 2802.
cations of Hysteretic Behavior of Rein-
forced Concrete Structural Walls," Proceed- w18 Fiorato, A.B., and W.O. Corley, "Laborato-
ings ofSixth World Conference on Earthquake ry Tests of Earthquake-Resistant Structural
Engineering, Vol. It, India, 1973, pp. Wall Systems and Elements," Proceedings,
Worlcslwpon Earthquake Resistant Reinforced
w9 Bertero, V.V., "Seismic Behavior of RC Wall Concrete Building CoiiS/mction, University
Structural Systems," Proceedings of the of California at Berkeley, 1978, p.
Seventh World Conference on Earthquake En- 1388-1429.
gineering, Vol. 6, Istanbul, Thrkey, Septem-
ber 1980. w19 Fiorato, A.B., R.G. Oesterle, and W.O.
Corley, "Behavior of Earthquake Resistant
wlO Calvi, G.M., and G. Macchi, "Ductility Eval- Structural Walls Before and After Repair,"
uation of Concrete Wall Panels," Proceedings Joumal of the American Concrete l11Siitute,
ofNinth World Conference on Earthquake En- No. 5, Proceedings Vol. 80, September-Oc-
gineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988. tober 1983, pp. 403-413.
128 Abrams


w20 Hiraishi, H., "Evaluation of Shear and Flex- w29 Oesterle, R.G., J.D. Aristizabai-Ochoa,
ural Deformations of Flexural 'Iype Shear K.N. Shiu, and W.G. Corley, "Web Crushin~
Walls,'' Proceedin&r o{. Eighth World Confer- of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,'
ence o11 Earthqua e E11gineeri111!• San lou mal of the American Co11crete lllstitute,
Francisco, 1984. Also in Procccdmgs of Vol. 81, No. 3, May-June 1984.
Third Pacific Regional Conference on
Earth~uake Engineering, New Zealand, w30 Oesterle, R.G., A.E. Fiorato, and W.G.
May 1 83, Vol. 1, pp. 122-136. Corley, "Effects of Reinforcement Details
on Seismic Performance of Walls," Earlh-
w21 Hiraishi, I-1., ct. al., "Experimental Studlon f.uakes a11d Earthquake Engi11eeri11g: The
Seismic Performance of Multistorp Stear -:astem U11ited States, Ann Arbor Science,
Walls with Fhtntifd Cross Section,'' 'roceed- Michigan, pp. 685-707.
ill&r of Ninth oriel Conference 011 Earlh-
yuake E11gi!leeri11g, Tokyo-Kyoto, August w31 Oesterle, R.G., A. E. Fiorato, LS. Johal, J.E.
988. Carpenter, H.E. Russell, and W.G. Corley,
"Earth~uakc Resistant Structural Walls -
w22 lliya, R., and V.V. Bcrtero, "Effects of lests o Isolated Walls,'' Construction lech-
Amount and Arran~ement of Wall-Panel nology Laboratories, Portland Cement As-
Reinforcement on I- ysterctic Behavior of sociation, Skokie, Nov. 1976, 315 pp.
Reinforced Concrete Walls,'' Re{XJrl No.
UCB/EERC- 80-04, University o Califor- w32 Paulay, ·r., "Ductility of Reinforced Con-
nia at Berkeley, 1980. crete Shearwalls for Seismic Areas,'' ACI
SI'-53: Reinforced Concrete Stmctures i11
w23 Irwin, A.W., "Static and Dynamic 'Jests on a Seismic Zo11es, American Concrete lnsti-
Model Shear Wall Structure,'' l'mceedin&r of lute, Detroit, 1977, pp. 127-147.
the lllstilutioll of Civil Engineers, Vol. 51,
1972, pp. 7-01-710.
w33 Paulay, 'I:, and A.R. Santhakumar, "Ductile
Behavior of Shear Walls subjected to Re-
w24 Johnstone, l~G., and D.G. Elms, "Dlnamic versed Cyclic Loadings,'' Proceedill&rofSixth
Testi7, of a Concrete Shear Wall," 1 roceed- World Conference 011 Earlhquake Engineer-
ill&r o the 17zird Austmlia11 Collference on the ing, Vol. II, India, 1977, pp. 1201-1210.
Mecha11ics of Stmctures a11d Materials, Univ.
of Auckland, New Zealand, 1971.
w34 Paulay, T., "Earth1uake Resistin~ Shear-
walls: New Zealand )esign Trends, 'Joumal
w25 Morgan, B.J., H. Hiraishi, and W.G. Corley, ofthe America11 Concrete Institute, No. 3, Pro-
"Tests of Planar Wall Assemblies under In-
Plane Static Reversing Loads," ReJXJrl No. cccdinfs Vol. 77, May-June 1980, pp.
1703, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, 144--15 .
Illinois, July 1982.
w35 Paulay, 1:, "Design of Reinforced Concrete
w26 Morgan, B.J., H. Hiraishi, and W.G. Corley, Ductile Shear Walls for Earth~akc Resis-
"Medium Scale Wall Assemblies: Compari- lance,'' Research Report 81-1, cpartmcnt
son of Ana~sis and Test Results," ACI of Civil Engincerin~ University of Canter-
SP-84: Earl zquake E.(Acls 011 Reinforced bury, Christchurch, ew Zealand, 1981.
Concrete Stmctures, S-Japan Research,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985, w36 Paulay, T., M.J.N. Priestley, and A.J. Sl,ngc,
pp. 241-270. "Ductilit?J in Earthquake Resisting ~uat
Shcarwa Is,'' Joumal of the American on-
w27 Mor~an, B.J., I-1. Hiraishi, and W.G. Corley, crete I11Siitute, No.4, Proceedings Vol. 79, Ju-
""U -Japan Quasi-Static 'lest of Isolated ly-August 1982, pp. 257-269.
Wall Planar Reinforced Concrete Struc-
turc,'' Construction Technology Laborato- w37 Priestley, M.J.N., and H. Limin, "Seismic
ries, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Rcsronsc pf T- Section Mason.z Shear
Aug. 1986, 78 pp. Wal s," Proceedingr of Fifth Norlh mericmr
Masomy Collference, Univ. of Illinois at Ur-
w28 Oesterle, R.G., J.D. Aristizabai-Ochoa, bana, June 1990.
A.E. Fiorato, H.E. Russell, and W.G.
Corley, "Earthquake Resistant Structural w38 Shiga, T., A Shibata, amd J. Takahashi, "Ex-
Walls - Tests of Isolated Walls - Phase II," \Jeri mental Study on Dynamic Pro~rties of
Construction 'Jechnology Laboratories, ~cinforced Concrete Shear Walls,' Proceed-
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Oct. in&r ofFifth World Co11/erence on Earlhquake
1979, 325 pp. E11gineering, Rome, 1973, 10 pp.
Earthquake-Hesistant Structures 129


w39 Shiu, K.N., J.l. Daniel, J.D. Aristizabai- w42 Wang, T.Y., V.V. Bertcro, and E.P. Popov,
Ochoa, A.E. Fiorato, and W.O. Corley, "Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Con-
"Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - crete Framed Walls", Reporl No. UCB/
1bsts of Walls with and without Openings," EERC-75/23, University of California at
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illi- Berkeley, Dec. 1975, 367pp.
nois, 1981.
w43 Wood, S.L, "Minimum Tensile Reinforce-
w40 Stevens, N.J., and S.M. Uzumeri, "Rein- ment Requirements in Walls," Stmctura/
forced Concrete Elements subjected to Re- Journal of American Concrete Institute, Vol.
versed Shear," Proceedin&r of Ninth World 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp. 582-591.
Conference on Earlllquake Engineering, 1b-
kyo-Kyoto, August 1988. w44 Yamada, M., ct. al., "Cyclic Deformation
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear
w41 Vallcnas, J.M., V.V. Bertero, and E.l~ Popov, Walls," Proceedin&rofSixiiJ World Conference
"Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Con- on Earlllquake Engineering, Vol. III, India,
crete Structural Walls," Reporl No. UCIJI pp. 3075-3080.
EERC-79/20, University of California at
Berkeley, August 1979, 234pp.
130 Abrams


fl Abrams, D.P., and M.A. Sozcn, "Exper- flO Aktan, A. E., and V.V.llcrtero, "Earthquake
imental Study of Frame-Wall Interaction in Response of a 1/5 Scale Model of a 7-Story
Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected RC Frame-Wall Structural System," Pro·
to Strong Earthquake Motions," Stmctural ceedingr of Eighth World Conference on
Research Series No. 460, University of Illinois Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco,
at Urbana Champaign, UILU- 1984.
ENG-79-2002, May, 1979, 386pp.
fl1 Aktan, A.E., and V.V. llcrtcro, "Seismic Re-
f2 Abrams, D.P., "Experimental Study of Rein- sponses of RC Frame-Wall Structures,"
forced Concrete Frame-Wall Structures Joumal ofthe Stmctura/ Division, ASCE, Vol.
subjected to Strong Earthquake Motions," 110, No. ST8, August 1984, pp. 1803-1821.
Nonlinear Design of Concrete Stmctures, SM
Study No. 14, Solid Mechanics Division, fl2 Aktan, A.B., V.V. llcrtero, and K. Sakino,
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, "Lateral Flexibility Characteristics of RC
1980, pp. 467-488. Frame-Wall Structures," ACI SP-86: De/fee-
lions of Concrete Stmctures, American Con-
f3 Abrams, D.P., "Experimental Study of Fra- crete Institute, Detroit, 1985.
me-Wall Interaction in Reinforced Con-
crete Structures subjected to Strong Earth- fl3 Aktan, A.B., and V.V. llcrtero, "Evaluation
quake Motions," Proceedings of Seventh of Seismic Response of RC Buildings
World Conference on Earthquake Engineer- Loaded to Failure," lou mal ofStmctura/ En·
ing. Vol. 6, Istanbul, Turkey, September gineering. ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5, May 1987,
1980, pp. 585-593. pp. 1092-1108.

f4 Abrams, D.P., "Behavior of Small-Scale Re- fl4 Aktan, A.B., and G.B. Nelson, "l'roblems in
inforced Concrete Model Structures," ACI Predicting Seismic Responses of RC Build-
SP-73: Dynamic Modeling of Concrete Stmc- ings," Jouma/ of Stmctural Engineering,
tures, American Concrete Institute, 1982, pp ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 9, September 1988, pp.
65-82. 2036-2056.

f5 Abrams, D.P., "Small-Scale ModclingofRC CIS Algan, B.D., "Drift and Damage Consider-
Structures to Resist Earthquake Motions," ations in Earthquake Resistant Design of
Design for Dynamic Loading: the Use ofMod· Concrete Buildings," Doctoral Dissertation,
el Analysis, The Institution of Structural En- Graduate College, University of Illinois at
gineers, Construction l'rcss, London, 1982, Urbana-Champaign, March 1982.
pp. 9-1 to 9-7.
fl6 llcrtcro, V.V. and E.P. l'opov, "Seismic Be-
f6 Abrams, D.P., and S. Tangkijngamvong, havior of Ductile Moment-Resisting Rein-
"Dynamic Response of Reduced-Scale forced Concrete Frames," ACI SP-53: Rein·
Models and Reinforced Concrete Struc- forced Concrete Stmctures in Seismic Zones,
tures," Proceedingr of the Eighth World Con· American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1977,
terence on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. VI, pp. 247-292.
San Francisco, California, July 1984, pp.
371-378. fl7 llcrtcro, V.V., and S.W. Zagajcski, "Optimal
Inelastic Design of Seismic-Resistant Rein-
f7 Abrams, D.I~. "Dynamic and Static Testing forced Concrete Framed Structures," Non-
of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Struc- linear Design of Concrete Stmctures, SM
tures," Jouma/o{111eMasonrySociety, Vol. 7, Study No. 14, Solid Mechanics Division,
No. 1, Jan.-June 1988, pp. Tl8-T22. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
1980, pp. 219-272.
f8 Abrams, D.P., and T.J. l'aulson, "Measured
Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Rein- fl8 llcrtcro, V.V.,ct. al, "US-Japan Cooperative
forced Concrete Masonry Building Sys- Earthquake Research l'rogram: Earthquake
tems," Proceedingro{Fifth Ca11adian Mason· Simulation Tests of a 1/5 Scale Model for the
ry Symposium, University of British Colum- 7-Story RC Frame-Wall Test Structure," Re-
bia, June 1989. port No. UCIJ/EERC-84-05, University of
California at Berkeley, 1984.
f9 Aktan, A. E., ct. al, "Experimental and Ana-
lytical Predictions of the Mechanical Char- fl9 llcrtcro, V.V., and A.B. Aktan, "Correlation
acteristics of a 7-Story 1/5 Scale Model RC of the Analytical and Experimental Re-
Frame-Wall Building Structure," Reporl No. sponses of a 1/Sth Scale Model," Proceedingr
UCB/EERC-83/13, University of California ofthe Eii/1th World Conference on Earthquake
at Berkeley, 1983. Engineering. San Francisco, 1984.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 131


!20 Bertero, V.V., A.B. Aktan, F.A. Charney, 129 French, C. E., "Experimental Modell inA and
and R. Sause, "Earthquake Simulation Tests Analysis of Three One-Tenth Scale ein-
and Associated Experimental, Anal~ical forced Concrete Frame-Wall Structures,
and Correlation Studies of a One- ifth Doctoral Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Scale Model," ACI SP-84: Eanhquake Ef- University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
feels on Reinforced Concrete Stmc/1/res, US- paign, 1984.
Japan Research, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, March 1985, pp. 375-424. fJO French, C. E., "Experimental ModellinA and
Analysis of Three One-Tenth Scale ein-
121 Ccccn, H., "RC Frame Models: Observed forced Concrete Models of the BRI Test
Seismic Resrcnse," Joumal ofStmctural En- Structure," Proceedin&T of the Eighth World
~neering, A CE, V. 110, No. 12, December Co't:re11ce 011 Eanhquake E11gi11eeri11g, Vol.
984, pp. 3015-3030. 6, an Francisco, 1984.
122 Cecen, H., "RC Frame Models: SIP Studies f31 Gulkan, P., and M.A. Sozcn, "ResJCnse and
on Seismic R~nse," Joumal of Stmctural Energy Dissipation of Reinforce Concrete
E11gi11eeri11g, CE, V. 110, No. 12, Decem- Frames subjected to Strong Base Motions,"
her 1984, pp. 3031-3042. Stmc/ural Research Series No. 377, Universi7.
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, May 197 ,
123 Charnel, F.A., and V.V. Bcrtero, ·~n Evalu- 288pp.
ation o the Design and Analytical Seismic
Response of a Seven-Story Rem forced Con- f32 Gulkan, P., and M.A. Sozcn, "Inelastic Re-
crete Frame-Wall Structure," Report No. sponses of Reinforced Concrete Structures
UCB/EERC-82-08, University of Califor- to Earthquake Motions," ACI SP-53: Rei11-
nia at Berkeley, 1982. forced Co11crete Stmctures in Seismic Zo11es,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1977,
124 Charneli, F.A., and V.V. Bcrtero, "Earth- pp. 109-116.
quake imulator Tests and Associated Ex-
pcrimental, Analytical, and Correlation Stu- f33 Gulkan, P., and M.A. Sozcn, "Inelastic Re-
dies of One-Fifth Scale Model," Publicatio11 Wa:nse of Reinforced Concrete Structures to
SP-84: Earthquake Effects on Rei11forced arthquake Motions," Joumal of the Ameri-
Co11crete Stmc/ures, US- Japa11 Research, ca11 Co11crete lllslitule, V. 71, No. 12, Novem-
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, her 1974, pp. 601-609.
Mich., 1985, pp. 375-424.
f34 Healey, T.J., and M.A. Sozcn, "Experimen-
125 Clough, R. W., and J. Gidwani, '"'Reinforced tal Stuw-;ofthe DJnamic Response of a Ten-
Concrete Frame 2: Seismic Testi~ and Ana- Story einforcc Concrete Frame with a
~tical Correlation," Report o. EERC Tall First Story," Stmctura/ Research Series
r,..-15, University of California at Berkeley, No. 450, University of Illinois at Urbana-
1976. Chamf:aign, UILU-ENG- 78-2012, August
1978, 20pp.
126 Diebold, J., and J.P. Moehle, "Experimental
Stu~ oft he Seismic Resp,onse of a Two--Sto- f35 Hildalgo, P., and R.W. Clou~h, "Earthquake
at Plate Structure, ' Report No. UCB/
University of California at
Simulator Study of a Rein orccd Concrete
Frame," Report No. EERC 74-13, Universi-
Berkeley, August 1984. ty of California at Berkeley, December 1974.
127 "Earthquake Effects on Reinforced Con- f36 Hiraishi, H., S. Nakata, Y.Kitagawa and T.
crete Structures: US-Japan Research," J.K. Kaminosono, "Static 1ests on shear Walls
Wight, Editor, ACI SP-84: Earthquake Ef- and Beam-Column Assemblies and Study
feels 011 Reillforced Co11crete Stmctures, US- on correlation between Shaking Table Tests
Japan Research, American Concrete Insti- and PscudoD~1amie Tests," AC/ SP-84:
lute, Detroit, 1985, 428pp. Earthquake E eels 011 Rei11forced Co11crete
Stmctures, U -Japan Research, American
128 Eberhard, M.O., and M.A. Sozen, "Ex_pcri- Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985, pp.ll-48.
ments and Analyses to Study the Se1smic
Resrlnse of Reinforced Concrete Frame- f37 Hiramatsu, A., "Restoring Force Character-
Wal Structures with Yieldi~ Columns," isties of Reinforced Concrete Structures in
Stmctural Research Series No.5 8, University Large Deformation Region," Proceedi}fn of
of Illinois at Urbana-Cham~aign, UILU- Ni11th World Confere/lce 011 Eanhquake •11gi-
ENG-89-2007, Sept. 1989, 4 pp. 11eeri11g, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
1:~2 Abrams


f38 Hsu, Y., Q. Hu, and H. Yu, "Inelastic Bchav- f48 Moehle, J.P., "Strong Motion Drift Esti-
ior of Reinforced Concrete Ductile Frame mates for RC Structures," Joumal of Stmc-
under Cyclic Loading," Proceedings of Ninth 11/ral Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 9,
World Conference 011 Earthquake Engineer- September 1984, pp. 1988-2001.
ing, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
f49 Moehle, J.P., and J.W. Diebold, "Lateral
f39 Kabeyasawa, 'I:, S. Otani, and H. Aoyama, Load Response of Flat-Plate Frame," Jour-
"Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analyses nal of Stmctural Engineering, ASCE, V. 111,
of RC Wall Frame Structures," Transactions, No. 10, October, 1985, pp.2149-2164.
Japan Concrete Institute, 1983, pp. 277-284.
fSO Moehle, J.P., and L.F. Alarcon, "Seismic
f40 Kabcyasawa, T., H. Shiohara, and S. Otani, Analysis Methods for Irregular Buildings,''
"US-Japan Cooperative Research on RC Joumal ofStmctura/ E11gineeri11g, ASCE, Vol.
Full-Scale Building 1ests, Part 5, Discussion 112 No. 1, January 1986, pp. 35-52.
of Dynamic Response System," Proceedings
of Eighth World Conference on Earthquake f51 Morgan, D.J., H. Hiraishi, and W.G. Corley,
Engineering, San Francisco, 1984. "US-Japan QuasiStatic Test of Wall-Frame
Planar Reinforced Concrete Structure,"
f41 Kato, D., H. Katsumata, and H. Aoyama, Construction 'Iechnology Laboratories,
"Effect of Wall Base Rotation on Behavior Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Aug.
of RC Frame-Wall Buildings," Proceedings 1986, 111pp.
of Eighth World Conference on Earthquake
E11gineering, San Francisco, 1984. Also in f52 Okada, 'I:, R. 'Ihmura, and F. Kumazawa,
Proceedings of 111ird So/1/h Pacific Regional "Observation of Nonlinear Earthquake Re-
Co/lference on Earthquake Engineering, New sponse of Reinforced Concrete Weak Build-
Zealand, May 1983, Vol. 1, pp. 171-190.
ing Model Structures," Proceedin!:f of Ninth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
f42 Kreger, M.E., and M.A. Sozcn, ''A Study of ing, 'Ibkyo-Kyoto, August 1988.
the Causes of Column Failures in the Impe-
rial County Services Building During the 15
f53 Okamoto, S., J. Wight, S. Nakata, M. Yoshi-
October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake,"
Stmc/1/ra/ Research Series No. 509, University mura, and 1: Kaminosono, "Testing, Repair
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UILU- and Strengthening, and Retesting of a Full
ENG-83-2013, August 1983, 321pp. Scale Seven Story Reinforced Concrete
Building," ACI SP--84: Earthquake Effects on
f43 Moehle, J.J~. and M.A., "Earthqua- Reinforced Concrete Stmctures, US-Japan
ke-Simulation 1ests of a 'len-Story Rein- Research, American Concrete Institute, De-
forced Concrete Frame with a Discontinued troit, 1985, pp.133-162.
First-Level Beam," Stmctural Research Se-
ries No. 451, University of Illinois at Urba- f54 Oliva, M.G., "Shaking Table 1estingof aRe-
na-Champaign, UILU-ENG-78- 2014, Au- inforced Concrete Frame with Biaxial Rc-
gust 1978, 134pp. sponse," Report No. UCJJ/EERC-80-28,
University of California at Berkeley, 1980.
f44 Moehle, J.P., and M.A. Sozcn, "Experiments
to Study Earthquake Response of R/C f55 Oliva, M.G., and R.W. Clough, "Biaxial
Structures with Stiffness Interruptions," Table Study of a RC Frame," Pro-
Stmctural Research Series No. 482, University ceedmgs of Seventh World Conference on
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, lJILU- Earthquake E11gineering, Vol. 7, Istanbul,
ENG-80- 2016, August 1980, 421pp. 1tiTkey, 1980.

f45 Mochle,J.I~. andJ.W. Diebold, "Expcrimcn- f56 Oliva, M.G., and R.W. Clough, "Biaxial Scis-
tal Study of the Seismic Response of a '1\vo- mic Response of RC Frames," Joumal of
Sto~ Flat-Plate Structure," Report No. Stmctural E11gineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No.
UCJ/EERC--84/08, University of California 6, June 1987.
at Berkeley, August 1984, 238pp.
f57 Otani, S., and M.A., "Behavior of
f46 Moehle, J.J~. "Seismic Response of Vertical- Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frame
ly Irregular Structures," Joumal ofStmctural Structures during Earthquakes," Stmctural
Engineeri11g, ASCE, Vol. 110, No.9, Scptcm- Research Series No. 392, University of Illinois
ber 1984, pp. 2002-2014. at Urbana-Champaign, 1972.

f47 Moehle, J.P., "Seismic Analysis of RC Fra- f58 Otani, S., and M.A. Sozen, "Simulated
me-Wall Structures," Joumal of Stmctural Earthquake 'Jests of R/C Frames,'' Joumal
Engineering, A.<;CE, Vol. 110, No. 11, No- of the Stmctural Division, ASCE, Vol. 100
vember 1984, pp. 2619-2634. No. STJ, March 1974, pp. 687-701. '
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 1::33


f59 Otani, S., "Earthquake Tests of Shear Wall- f69 Simazu, 'I:, and H. Araki, "Experimental
Frame Structures to Failure," Proceedin(ls of Study on the Dynamic Resistance Meehan-
Sixth World Conference on Earthquake l~ng1- ics in RC Multistory Plane Frame Structure
New Delhi, India, January 1977, pp. against Strong Base Motion Inputs," Pro-
2759- 764. ceedings ofNinth World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineeling, 'Ibkyo-Kyoto, August
f60 Otani, S., "Effectiveness of Structural Walls 1988.
in Reinforced Concrete Buildings during
Earlbjuakes," Stmclllral Research Series No. flO Sozen, M.A., and H. Aoyama, "Uses of Ob-
492, niversi~oflllinois at Urbana-Cham- servation in Earthquake Resistant Design of
paign, June 1 81. Reinforced Concrete," Stmctuml and Geo-
technical Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Inc., En-
f61 Otani, S., M. Emura, and H. Aoyama, "Be- glewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 305-332.
havior of Full Scale RC Structure on Real is-
tic Foundation," Proceedings of 17lird Spe- f7l Sozen, M.A., "Review of Earthquake Rc-
cialty Conference on fknamic Response of sponsc of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Stmctures, UCLA, 198 . with a View to Drift Control," Proceedings of
Seventh World Conference on Earthquake En-
f62 Paulay, T., and D. D. Spurr, "Simulated Scis- gineering, Istanbul, 1980, pp. 119-174.
mic Loadin~ on Reinforced Concrete Fra-
me--Shear all Structures," Proceedings of f72 Sozen, M.A., and l~J. Wilson, "Dynamic Rc-
Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engi- sponsc of a l/10th Scale Model of the BRI
neering, New Delhi, 1977, pp. 221-226. RCTest Structure," Department of Civil En-
ginccrin~, UniversitK of Illinois at Urbana-
f63 Popov, E.P., "Seismic Behavior of Rein- Champatgn, July 19 2.
forced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frames," Proceedinfe% Seventh World Con- f73 Sozcn, M.A., "Lateral Drift of Reinforced
ference on Earthqua e •ngineering, Vol. 6, Is- Concrete Structures subjected to Strong
tanbul, Thrkey, pp. 355-362. Ground Motions," Proceedings, 111ird South
Pacific Regional Conference on Earthquake
f64 Sattary-Javid, V., and J.K. Wifiht, "Earth- Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand, May
~uake Load on RC Beams: uildin~ vs. 1983.
inglc Beam," Joumal ofStmctural Engmeer-
ing, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 7, July 1986, f74 Sozcn, M.A., "U.S.- Japan Coo~rativc Rc-
search on RC: a Retrospect," CE Struc-
lures Congress, San Francisco, May 1989.
f65 Schultz, A.E., and M.A. Sozcn, "An Expcr-
imcntal and Analr;tical Study ofR/C Frames
with Yielding Co umns," Doctoral Disserta- f75 Takeda, 'I:, M.A. Sozen, and N. Nielsen,
lion, Graduate College, University of !IIi- "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simu-
nois at Urbana-Champaign, September lated Earthquakes," Proceedings, ASCE,
1985. Vol. 96, ST12, Dec. 1970, pp. 2557-2573.

f66 Sclna, L.G., and J.H. Lawdcr, "Biaxial In- f76 US-Japan Joint Technical Coordinating
elastic Frame Seismic Behavior," ACJ Comnuttcc, "Interim Summary Report on
SP-53: Reinforced Concrete Structures i~1 Tests of 7-Story RC Building," Joumal of
Seismic Zones, American Concrete Insll- Stmclllml Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No.
lute, Detroit, 1985, pp.11-48. 10, October 1984.

f67 Shahrooz, B.M., and J.P. Moehle, "Expcr- f77 "U.S.- Japan Research: Seismic Dcsi~n Im-
imental Studr, of Seismic Response of RC plications," U.S. Members of Joint 'Icchni-
Setback BUildings," Report No. UC/J! cal Coordinating Committee, Joumal of
EERC-87/16, Umversity of California at Stmctuml Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114 No.
Berkeley, October 1987, 339pp. 9, September 1988, pp. 2000-2016.

f68 Shimazu, T., H. Araki, M. Kohrama, and S. f78 Wallace, B., and H. Krawinkler, "Small-
Ishii, "Fundamental Study on I ynamic 'Ibr- Scale Modellcsts ofStructural Components
sional Responses of RC ~ace Structures," and Assemblies," ACI Sl'-84: Earthquake
Proceedings g Ninth Wo d C01:{~rence on
Earthquake •ngineering, lbkyo- yo to, Au-
Effects on Reinforced Concrete Stmctures,
US-Japan Research, American Concrete In-
gust1988. stitutc, Detroit, 1985, pp. 305-346.
134 Abrams


f19 Wight, J.K., V.V. Bertero, and H. Aoyama, 183 Wood, S.L, and M.A. So?.cn, "Experiments
"Comparison Between the Reinforced Con- to Study the Earthquake Res~nse ofRein-
crete Test Structure and Design Require- foreed Concrete Frames With Setbacks,"
ments from U.S. and Japanese Bu1lding Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate College,
Codes," Publication SP-M: Eanhquake Ef- University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
fects 011 Reinforced Concrete Stmctures, US- paign, December 1985.
Japan Research, American Concrete Insti-
tute, Detroit, Mich., 1985, pp. 73-104. 184 Yoshimura, M., and Y. Kurose, "Inelastic
Behavior of the Duildin_g,'' ACI SP-84:
180 Wight, J.K., "Earthquake Design Compared Eat1hquake Effects on Remforced Concrete
to Measured Response," lou mal ofStmctur- Stmctures, US-laJXUI Research, American
a/ Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112 No. 1, J anu- Concrete Instllute, Detroit, 1985,
ary 1986, pp. 149-164. pp.163-202
181 Wilby, O.K., "Response of Concrete Struc-
tures to Seismic Motions,'' Department of 185 Zhang, M., J. Sun, G. Shou, and W. Su, "Ex-
Civil Engineering, University of Canterbu- perimental Research on the Reinforced
ry, Christehurch,-New Zealand, July 1975. Concrete Frame-Thbe Model Building
Structure," Proceedin&r ofNinth World Con-
182 Wolfgram, C., D. Rothe, P. Wilson, and M.A. ference 011 Earthquake Engineering, lbkyo-
Sozen, "Earthquake Simulation lbsts of Kyoto, August 1988.
Three One-Tenth Scale Models," ACI
SP-84: Earthquake Effects 011 Reinforced
Concrete Stmctures, US-Japan Research,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985,
pp. 347-374.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 135


cw1 Aktan, A. E. and V.V. Dertero, "The Seismic cw9 Coull, A., and A.A. El Hag, "Effective Cou-
Resistant Desi&n of RC Coupled Structural plil,of Shear Walls by Floor Slabs," Journal
Walls," Reporl o. UCB/EERC--ill-07, Uni- of 1erican Concrete Institute, No. 8, Pro-
versity of California at Berkeley, 1981. cecdings Vol. 72, August 1975, pp. 429- 431.

cw2 Aktan, A.B., and v.v. Bertero, '\1\naiWcal cw10 Lybas, J.M., and M.A. Sozen, "Effect of
and Physical Modeling of RC Frame- all/ Beam Strength and Stiffness on Dynamic
Coupled Wall Structures," Proceedin&r ofIn- Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Coupled
temational Seminaro11 Dynamic Modeli11gof Walls," Structurol Research Series No. 444,
Structures, Buildin~ Research Station, En- University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
gland, November 981, pp.19-20. paign, July 1977.
cw3 Aktan, A.B., V.V. Dertero, and M. Piazza, cwll Oesterle, R.G., J.D. Aristizabal-Ochoa,
"Prediction of the Seismic Response of RC A. E. Fiorato, H.G. Russell and W.O. Corley,
Frame-CouEied Wall Structures," ReCalrl "Earth~uake Resistant Structural Walls -
No. UCB/E •RC-il2-12, University of ali- Tests o Isolated Walls," Portland Cement
fornia at Berkeley, 1982. Association, Skokie, Illinois, 1979.
cw4 Aristizabai-Ochoa, J.D., and M.A. Sozen, cw12 Sozen, M.A., J.D. Aristizabal, and J.M. Ly-
... "Behavior of Ten-Story Reinforced Con-
crete Walls subjected to Earthquake Mo-
bas, "Multistory Walls subjected to Simu-
lated Earthquakes," Proceedin&r of Sixth
lions," Structurol Research Series No. 431, World Conference on Earlhquake Engineer-
UniversitL of Illinois at Urbana-Cham- ing, Vol. III, India, 19n, pp. 3321-3226.
~aign, UI U-ENG-76-2017, October 1976,
cw13 Paulay, T., and R.G. Thylor, "Slab Coupling
cw5 Aristizabai-Ochoa, J.D., "Dynamic Re- of Earthquake Resisting Shearwalls," Jour-
~nse ofCouJ,>Ied Wal~tems," Journal of
nal of the American Co11crete Institute, No.2,
tructural E11gmeering, CE, Vol. 108, No. Proceedings Vol. 78, March-April 1981, pp.
ST8, August, 1982, pp. 1846-1857. 130-140.

cw6 Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D., "Seismic Analysis cw14 Paulay, T., and R.A. Santhakumar, "Ductile
of Slender Coupled Walls," Journal of Struc- Behavior of Coupled Shear Walls," Proceed-
lllro/EIIgilleerillg,ASCB, Voi.109,No. 7,July in&r, ASCE, V. 102, ST1, January 1976, pp.
1983, pp. 1538-1552. 93-108.

cw7 Aristizabai-Ochoa, J.D., "Seismic Behavior cw15 Pekau, O.A., and V. Goecvski, "Behavior of
of Slender Coupled Wall ~terns," Journal Coupled Nonlinear Shear Walls," Canadian
~Structural E11gineering, CE, Vol. 113, Journal ofCivil Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.
o. 10, October 1987, pp. 2221-2234. 367-373.

cw8 Barney, G.B., K.N. Shiu, B. G. Rabbat, A.B. cw16 Shiu, K.N., T. Takayanagi, W.O. Corley,
Fiorato, H.G. Russell, and W.O. Corley, "Seismic Behavior of Coupled Wall Sys-
"Earth~uake Resistant Structural Walls - terns," Journal of Structural Engineering,
Tests o Couplinl\cBeams," Portland Cement ASCE, V. 110, No. 5, May 1984, pp.
Association, Sko ie, Illinois, 1978. 1051-1066.
136 Abrams


ifl Axle~ J.W. and V.V. Bertero, "lnfillcd Pan- ifll Klingncr, R.E., and V.V. Bertcro, "lnfillcd
cis: heir Influence on the Seismic Rc- Frames in Aseismic Construction," Report
19onse of Buildin~s," Report No. EERC No. UCB/EERC-76--32, University of Cali-
9-28, University o California at Berkeley, fornia at Berkeley, 1976.
ifl2 Klingner, R.E., and V.V. Bertero, "Earth-
if2 Bertero, V.V., and S.l: Brokken, "lnfills in quake Resistance of Infillcd Frames," Pro-
Seismic Resistant Buildin~," Journal of ceedi111~ of Stmctuml Divisio11, ASCE, Vol.
Stmctuml E11gimeri11g, ASC , Vol. 109, No. 104, No. ST6, June 1978.
6, June 1983, pp. 1337-1361.
if13 Kosi, E.G.,"Nonlincar Dynamic Analysis of
if3 Benjamin, J.R., and B.A. Williams, "The Frames with Filler Panels", John A. Blume
Behavior of One-Sto:z Brick Shear Walls," and Associates Report No. JAIJ-99-100, San
Journal ofthe Stmctum Divisio11, ASCE, Vol. Francisco, November, 1972
84, ST4, July 1958.
.if14 Leuchars, J.M. and Scrivener, J.C., "Mason-
if4 Drokkcn, S. T., and V. V. Bertcro, "Studies on ry In fill Panels Subjected to Cyclic In-Plane
Effects of Infills in Seismic Resistant RC Loading", Proceedill&r of South Pacific Re-
Construction," Report No. UCB! gio11al Confere11ce of the NZNSEE, Welling-
EERC-81-12, University of California at
Berkeley, 1981. ton , N.Z., May 1975. .... '

if5 Esteva L.,"Bchaviour under Alternating ifl5 Liaw,l:C.,"Tcsts on Multistorcy lnfillcd

Loads of Masonry Dia~uagms Framed ~ Frames Subjected to Dynamic Lateral
Reinforced Concrete embers", Procee - Loading", ACI Journal, Voi.76,No.4.,April
ill&r of lllternatiollal Symposium 011 the Ef- 1979.
feels of Repeated Loadi11g 011 Mateda/s and
Stmctures, (RILEM), Voi.V, Mexico City, if16 Maio, N.A., "Dynamic Behavior of Brick
1966. Structural Elements Infilled to Strengthen
R.C. Structures," Proceedin&r ofVth In lerna-
if6 Fedorkiw, J.P., and M.A. Sozcn, ·~Lumped tiona/ Brick Masonry Conference.
Parameter Model to Simulate Rcs£fnse of
Reinforced Concrete Frames with asonry if17 Mallick , D.V. and Garg R.P., "Effects of
Filler Walls," Stmctura/ Research Series No. Openings on the Lateral Stiffness oflnfillcd
338, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham- Frames", Proceedin&r of Institutio11 of Civil
paign, 1968. E11gineers, 49, Paper No.7371, June 1971.
if7 Fiorato, A.E., M.A. Sozen, and W.L. if18 Page, A.W., "Finite Element Model forMa-
Gamble, ·~n Investigation of Reinforced sonry," Journal of the Stmctum/ Division,
Concrete Frames with Masonrk Filler ASCE, Vol. 104, ST8, August 1978.
Walls," Stmctuml Research Repo11 o. 370,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham- if19 Parducci A. and Mczzi M., "Repeated Hori-
paign, November 1970. zontal Displacements of Infillcd Frames
Having Different Stiffness and Connection
ifB Franklin, B.A., "Nonlinear Anajsis of Re- Systems-Experimental Analysis", Proceed-
inforccd Concrete Frame an Panels," ingr of Seventh World Conference on Earth-
Stmctures and Materials Research Report quake Engi11eering, Vol.7, Istanbul, 1980.
SESM 70-5, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, University of California, Berkeley,
March 1970. if20 Rivero, C. E., and W.H. Walker, ·~n Analyti-
cal Study of the Interaction of Frames and
if9 Glogau, D.A., "Masonry Performance in Infill Masonry Walls," Stmctuml Research
Earthquakes", Bulletin of the New Zealand Sedes No. 502, University of Illinois at Urba-
Natio11al Society for Earthquake Engineed11g, na-Champaign, September 1982.
Vol.7, No.4, December, 1974.
if21 Sachanski,S., ·~nalysis of the Earthquake
if!O Karamanski, T., "Calculatin~ Infillcd Resistance of Frame Buildings Taking into
Frames by the Method of Finite ·lements", Consideration the Carrying Capacity of the
Proceedin&r of Symposium 011 Tall Buildingr, Filling Masonry", Proceedi11gr of the Seco11d
Univcrsi~ of Southampton, l'crgammon World Conferellce on Earthquake E11gi11eer-
Press, 19 7. ing, Vol.3, p.2127-2141, Tokyo, 1960.
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 137


if22 Smith, S., "Lateral Stiffness of Infilled if30 Yorulmaz, M., and M.A. Sozen, "Behavior
Frames," Joumal of tire Stmctural Division, of Single-Story Reinforced Concrete
Frames with Filler Walls," Teclrnica/ reJXJrlto
ASCE, Vol. 88, ST6, December 1962.
Defense, Colllract OCD-
of Illinois, Urbana,
if23 Smith, S., "Method for Predicting the Later-
al Stiffness and Strength of Multistory In- 1967.
filled Frames", Building Science, Vol. 2, Per-
gamon Press, November 1969, p.247-257. if3l Zarnic, R. and M. Tomazcvic, "Study of the
Behavior of Masonry Infilled Reinforced
Concrete Frames Subtected to Seismic
if24 Storm, J.I-1., '\1\ Finite Element Model to Loading - Part One," ublication ZRMK/
Simulate the Nonlinear Response of Rein- IKPI No. 84/04, Ljubljana, 1984.
forced Concrete Frames with Masonry Filler
Walls," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, if32 Zarnic, R. and M. Toma?.evic, "Study of the
Urbana, 1973. Behavior of Masonry lnfilled Reinforced
Concrete Frames Su~ected to Seismic
if25 Thssios, T.P., "Masonry, Infill and R.C. Walls Loading - Part 1\vo," ublication ZRMK/
under Cyclic Actions-An Invited State-of- IKPI No. 85/02, Ljubljana, 1985.
the-Art Report", CIB Symposium : Wall
Stmctures, Warsaw, 1984. if33 Zarnic, R., and M. Tomazcvie, "Study of the
Ilchavior of Masonry Infilled Reinforced
if26 Trigo, d\1\.,"Estruturas de Paineis sob a ac- Concrete Frames Su~ected to Seismic
eao de Solieitacocs 1-Iorinzotais", Laborato- Loadint" Proceedingro tlreSeventlrlntema-
rio National de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon,
tiona/ rick-Masonry Conference, Mel-
bourne, February 1985, Vol. 2, pp.
1968. 1315-1325.
if27 Whitney, C.S., Anderson, B. G., and Cohen if34 Zarnic, R., and M. Tomazcvic, '\1\n Exper-
E.,"Design of Blast Resistant Construction imental~ Obtained Method for Evaluation
for Atomic Explosions" lou mal oftlreAmeri- of the Jehavior of Masonry Infilled RC
can Concrete Institute, Vol.5, 1955. Frames," Proceedinl£ofNillllr World Co;tr-
ence on Earllrquake •ngineering, Tokyo- yo-
if28 Yin, Z, S. Li, and Z Cheng, '\~\seismic Prob- to, August 1988.
lems of Multistory RC Frame with Infills,"
Proceedings of US/PRC Wotkslrop on Seis- if35 Zarnie, R., and M. Toma?.cvic, "Behavior of
mic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Con- Repaired Masonry Infilled RC Frames -
crete Stmctures, University of Michigan, Ann First Year Report," ZRMK Publication,
Arbor, 1981, pp. 252-262. Ljubljana, March 1989.

if36 Zarnic, R., M. Toma?.evic, and T. Velechov-

if29 Yin, Z., S. Li, Z Cheng, P. Sun, and Y. Li,
sky, "Experimental Study of Methods for
"Earthquake Simulation Test of a 7-Story Repair and Strengthening of Masonry In-
RC Framed Structure," Selected Papers on filled Reinforced Concrete Frames," Pro-
Eanlrquake Engineering and Engineering Vi- ceedingr of tire Eiglrtlr EurofJ:an Conference
bmtion, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, on Earllrquake Engineerin~ isbon, Septem-
Harbin, China. ber 1986, Vol. 5, pp. 11.1 41-11.1/48.
138 Abrams

6 11

Fig. 1--Examples of bending deformations for one inelastic cycle

Fig. 2--Stages of behavior for a typical inelastic cycle

Fig. 3--Asymmetrical straining of reinforcement

Earthquake-Resistant Structures 139


Fig. 4--Asymmetrical behavior of member with different strengths



Fig. 5--Asymmetrical behavior ofT-beam





Fig. 6--Asymmetrical behavior of member with varying axial force

140 Abrams

Fig. 7--Typical beam-column test specimen

a) interior joint

b) exterior joint
Fig. 8--Equilibrium conditions Fig. 9--Hystcresis for beam-
for beam-column joints column joints (Ref. b6)
Earthquake-Resistant Struetures 141



c )


Fig. tO--Relations between lateral force and reinforcing strain (Ref. b6)

Fig. 11--Hysteresis for interior beam-column joint with

small diameter beam reinforcement (Ref. b6)
142 Abrams

.!:L. r~ I_
I:A 'I}
Time p p



Fig. 12--Variations in column axiai force and lateral drift (Ref. cl)

Fig. 13--Hysteresis for column with constant axial force (Ref. cl)
Earthquake-Hesistanl Structures 143

IOOKN·M A-;:y..-._ ~il.-·._•."'_•·


Fig. 14--Column hysteresis for axial force varying with moment (Ref. c1)

Fig. 15--Column hysteresis for axial force varying with deflection (Ref. cl)


Fig. 16--Relation between moment and reinforcing strains (Ref. cl)

144 Abrams

- ,--~----)rO----o.

..... Last hinge forms


~ First hinge forms


Lateral Deflection

Fig. 17--Sample system behavior for yielding frame

ACCELEROMETERS 6"-, :...... 6"


2'-1 314" 5'-9"
Fig. 18--Two-story frame test specimen on shaking table (Ref. f35)

14·6 Abrams

I .,

r I 8
~lr5~ Slruclurol
fd I f 38
(All Dimensions
Are In Millimoler~l

Slruclurol Wall

470 kg Moss

ls 457 457


0 bdCbd

Section A-A Section B-B

Fig. 19--Reduced-scale frame-wall test structure (Refs. f1-f3)


01~ 'l M
·I ~

I;:: ~

All Columns c
SOOXSOOmm t"::
(19.7 X 19.7in) c
a) Plan b) Elevation Ul

Fig. 20--Seven-story, full-scale test structure (Ref. f27) ,.f::o.
148 Abrams

-400. -240. -ao. ao. 240. 400,
Roof Dlsplacement lmml

Fig. 21--Force-deflection relation for 7-stOJy test structure (Ref. f27)

Fig. 22--Tbree dimensional wall-frame interaction (Ref. f27)

Earthquake-Resistant Structures 149

Fig. 23--Flat-plate test structure at 30% scale (Ref. f26 and f49)

DD ~
II II ...
2 @ 75=150 2 I! 45=90

Fig. 24--Setback frame test structure at 25% scale (Ref. f65)

150 Abrams

Fig. 25--Coupled shear wall test structure (Refs. cw4 and cw5)
Earthquake-Resistant Structures 151

+ - - - - - - - - 252 em - - - - - - - - - ' 1 - -

== _I _I_

r- I

t== II

'I @

Fig. 26--Infilled frame test structure (Ref. if31)

J:L. .-------::a.

·l ·l
Fig. 27--Short column effect for in filled frame (Ref. if31)
] 52 Abrams

web in compression

Lateral Drift(%)

flange in compression

a) Initial cycles

web in compression


Lateral Drift (%)

flange in compression

b) Stabilized loops

Fig. 28--Load-deflection relations for masonry flanged walls (Ref. w37) )