Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01718-7

S.I. : TEN-STORY RC FULL-SCALE BUILDINGS

Evaluation of ACI 318‑19 provisions for special

moment frames and special structural walls using data
from the E‑Defense 10‑story tests

Mehmet Emre Unal1 · Saman A. Abdullah1 · Kristijan Kolozvari2 · John W. Wallace1 ·

Koichi Kajiwara3

Received: 3 June 2022 / Accepted: 5 June 2023 / Published online: 21 June 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023

Abstract
This paper focuses on the evaluation of the ACI 318-19 provisions for special moment
frames and special structural walls using data from the 10-story reinforced concrete build-
ing tested on a shake table at the E-Defense facility (Miki, Japan) in 2018/2019. Using
analytical models available in the literature and the data collected from the strain gauges
affixed to the longitudinal reinforcement of the perimeter moment frame beams and the
slabs, effective overhanging flange widths of the beams were calculated and compared with
those required by ACI 318-19. Subsequently, beam and beam-column joint shear demands
were calculated using the tested material properties of the reinforcement and the calculated
effective flange widths of the beams. Although the ACI 318-19 provisions tend to under-
estimate beam effective flange widths, the beam and beam-column joint shear demands
calculated using the experimentally determined effective flange widths were similar to val-
ues calculated using the ACI 318 requirements. Finally, floor acceleration recordings were
used to determine the story shear forces in both directions of the structure to compare with
ACI 318-19 design requirements. New provisions added to ACI 318-19 to address wall
shear amplification provided a reasonably accurate estimate of the shear demands in the
wall direction of the building, with test-to-predicted ratio of 0.97. However, ratios of test-
to-predicted (by ACI 318) column story shear forces of 1.24 and 1.63 for the 50% and
100% JMA-Kobe ground motions, respectively, indicate that the ACI 318-19 provisions
significantly underestimated shear demands in the moment frame direction. Approaches
available in the literature to address shear amplification of moment frames were evalu-
ated and found to significantly improve these predictions, suggesting that column moment
frame shear demands could be updated.

Keywords Beam effective flange widths · Beam shear demands · Joint shear demands ·
Column shear amplification · Wall shear amplification

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
6700 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

1 Introduction and objectives

Results from a series of tests on a 10-story, full-scale reinforced concrete (RC) building
conducted on the E-Defense shake table in 2018 and 2019 are utilized to evaluate ACI
318-19 (2019) provisions for special moment frames and special structural walls, which are
commonly used in regions susceptible to strong earthquake shaking in the US and around
the world. The lateral force-resisting systems for the test building generally complied with
ASCE 7-16 (2016) and ACI 318-19 design requirements. The primary difference between
the test building and another 10-story RC building tested in the E-Defense shake table
in 2015 was the design of the beam-column joints of the perimeter moment frames. For
the 2015 test building, the connections did not satisfy the ACI 318-19 column-to-beam
strength ratio (closer to 1.0, versus ≥ 1.2) and beam-column joint transverse reinforcement
was less than required by ACI 318-19, whereas for the 2018 test building, the column-to-
beam strength ratios exceeded 1.2 (generally in the range of 1.5–2.0) and twice as much
joint transverse reinforcement was provided. At the base, each building was subjected to
shakings that approximately represented low-level, service-level, design-level, and max-
imum considered earthquake level shaking. Roughly 700 sensors were used to measure
responses during each test, including sensors to measure accelerations, displacements, and
strains, providing a level of instrumentation that is rarely, if ever, available for full-scale
buildings and enables very detailed studies.
Given the lack of strong shaking impacting urban regions in the US since the Northridge
earthquake in 1994, these tests provide unique and detailed data to evaluate ACI 318 provi-
sions and gain insight into the expected performance of ACI 318 compliant, or nearly com-
pliant, designs. Of particular interest is the ability to predict structural wall and perimeter
moment frame column shear demands since wall shear amplification was recently adopted
in ACI 318-19, and analytical studies (e.g., NIST 2016; NZS 2006; Visnjic et al. 2017)
have shown that column shear demands in buildings subjected to strong shaking are sig-
nificantly higher than required for design per ACI 318-19. In addition, since the beams lon-
gitudinal reinforcement were instrumented with strain gauges, the effective flange widths
determined using the test data are compared with values stipulated by ACI 318-19 provi-
sions and are used to evaluate ACI 318-19 provisions for special moment frame beams,
joints, and columns (e.g., beam shear, beam-to-column strength ratios, and joint shear).
In the following sections, a brief overview of the tests is provided, followed by an
assessment of beam effective flange widths, and finally detailed evaluation of some of the
ACI 318-19 provisions for special moment frames and special structural walls is presented.

2 Overview of the 2018 tests

2.1 Test structure and experimental setup

The E-Defense 2018 structure was a 10-story RC structure comprised of special

structural walls in x-direction, referred to as the wall direction, and perimeter special
moment-resisting frames in the y-direction, referred to as the frame direction (Fig. 1).
According to Kang et al. (2020), the structure was designed based on the Architectural
Institute of Japan (AIJ) Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Concrete

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6701

Fig. 1  Plan view of the structure

for the 2nd through 8th floors
(Note: Dimensions are in mm)

Structures (2010) and the Technological Standard Related to Structures of Buildings,

Japan (2007). The allowable stress design was done using a base shear coefficient ­(C0)
of 0.20. In the frame direction, two three-bay perimeter special moment frames were
used along with two three-bay interior moment frames. The plan dimensions of the
structure were 9.7 m × 15.7 m at the base and was reduced to 9.4 m × 15.7 m for the
rest of the upper floors. The total height of the building was 27.45 m from the surface
of the shaking table to the rooftop, with first story height of 2.8 m, and heights of 2.6
m, 2.55 m, and 2.5 m, for stories 2–4, 5–7, and 8–10, respectively. A 100 mm thick
slab was constructed with an overhang width of 700 mm measured from the centerline
of longitudinal axis of the perimeter beams to the free edge of the floor slab. Typical
dimensions (bw×h) of the perimeter beams (G1, G2 and G3 beams) ranged from 320
mm × 500 mm at the second floor to 250 mm × 450 mm at the roof. The columns of the
perimeter moment frames were identified as C1 (corner) and C2 (exterior) with typical
dimensions of 500 mm × 500 mm. For interior moment frames, beams framed into the
boundaries of the structural walls detailed as columns (referred to as C3), which were
230 mm × 450 mm. The webs of special structural walls only extended to the bottom of
the 8th floor; however, the C3 wall boundary columns extended to the roof. Although
the length of the web of the walls was constant (1350 mm), the web thickness was var-
ied (230 mm at Levels 1-6 and 150 mm at Level 7). More information regarding the

13
6702 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

member sizes, and the used reinforcement and concrete materials can be found in Kang
et al. (2020).

2.2 Instrumentation and excitation program

During the experiments, more than 700 channels of instrumentation were used to record
various responses, including floor and base (table) accelerations, story displacements, local
deformations, and reinforcement strains. The floor accelerations were recorded using tri-
axial accelerometers placed at the opposite corners of the floor slabs, and the average of
the data recorded at different corners of each floor and estimated floor masses were used
to calculate story shear forces; therefore, the calculated values represent the forces at the
geometric center of the slab. Story displacements were recorded with displacement trans-
ducers attached to a rigid steel reference at opposite corners of every floor slab. A total of
433 channels were used to record data from strain gauges installed on both the transverse
and longitudinal reinforcement of the slabs, beams, columns, and walls at various loca-
tions. For the beams and columns of the perimeter moment frames, the strain gauges were
used only up to 6th floor. They were attached to the slab reinforcement only at the 5th
floor. Fig. 2 shows the locations of the strain gauges used at the perimeter moment frames,
and Fig. 3 illustrates the locations of the strain gauges installed on the 5th floor slab top
reinforcement. The gauges illustrated with the red star signs are the ones that were used to
calculate the beam effective flange widths in Sect. 4.1.2.
The structure was subjected to ground motion recordings of JMA-Kobe (Tosauchi et al.
2017), with the east-west (EW) component applied in the x-dir. of the building (struc-
tural walls), the north-south (NS) component applied in the y-dir. (moment frames), and
the vertical (UP) component in the z-dir. Based on the response spectra of the JMA-Kobe
(Fig. 4), the spectral accelerations were approximately 1.27g and 1.53g in the wall and

Fig. 2  Strain gauge locations

for the perimeter moment frame
beams and columns (Note:
dimensions are in m)

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6703

Fig. 3  Strain gauges installed on top slab reinforcement at 5th floor in the y- direction (Note: Dimensions
are in mm)

Fig. 4  Response spectra for JMA

Kobe 100%: a NS component b
EW component (Adopted from
Tosauchi et al. 2017)

frame directions, respectively, at the fundamental periods measured during white noise
excitation before earthquake records were applied to the test structure. The experiments
were conducted in two phases, Phase 1, sliding base, and Phase 2, fixed base. In Phase
1, the structure was placed on top of eight cast iron plates that created a sliding surface
between the superstructure and the foundation. The foundation was fixed to the shake table

13
6704 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

and subjected to increasing intensity of JMA-Kobe ground motions (at scales of 10%, 25%,
50% and finally 100%). After completion of the sliding tests, the superstructure was con-
nected (fixed) to the foundation for Phase 2 tests. During Phase 2, the test building was
subjected to the same excitations (10%, 25%, 50% and 100% JMA-Kobe); however, the
JMA-Kobe 100% excitation was applied to the structure three times. For the third 100%
test, the EW and NS components of the JMA Kobe record were switched so that NS com-
ponent is aligned with the walls. Since the main purpose of this paper is to assess the pro-
visions of ACI 318, the data collected during the fixed-base phase under 50% and the first
100% (100%-1) ground motions are used, i.e., the lower intensity shaking tests and the
effects of sequentially ground motions are not considered.

3 The elastic model

A three-dimensional (3D) model of the test structure was created using CSI ETABS (2018)
to obtain the column and the wall shear demands that will be used in Sects. 4 and 5, respec-
tively, using the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) per ASCE 7-16 §12.9. In
the frame direction (y- dir.), both the perimeter and interior moment frames were included
in the model. For the interior frames, C3 columns (Fig. 1), which represented boundary
regions of the walls, were modeled as shell elements and connected to shell elements rep-
resenting the wall web. In the wall direction (x- dir.), G7 and G9 beams (Fig. 1) fram-
ing between perimeter columns and the wall edges (C3 columns) were also included in
the model as required by ASCE 7-16 §12.7.3 because including these beams substantially
changed (reduced) the natural periods of the structure by engaging the perimeter columns
(outrigger effect). According to Table 12.2-1 of ASCE 7-16, R values of 5 and 8 were
selected for wall and moment frames directions, respectively. Since this paper aims to
evaluate the provisions of ACI 318-19 for special structural walls and special moment-
resisting frames, the stiffness multipliers of the elastic structural elements were selected
based on the ACI 318-19 Table 6.6.3.1.1(a); therefore, the moments of inertia (I) of the
gross concrete sections were multiplied by 0.7 for the columns, 0.35 for the beams and wall
sections (assumed cracked), and 0.25 for the slabs supported by beams. A rigid diaphragm
was assigned to each story in the model. The total floor weight and masses at each floor
were selected to match the values measured for the test structure as reported by Kang et al.
(2020).
The modal periods of the model of 1.16 s and 0.71 s in the frame and the wall direc-
tions, respectively, are essentially the same as the reported values of 1.17 s and 0.72 s from
the experiments (Kang et al. 2020) after the base-sliding test phase was concluded and the
building base was fixed to the shaking table. The flexural stiffness multipliers of the walls
were increased from 0.35 to 0.5 and 0.75 to evaluate the effects of variation of the wall
lateral stiffness on the computed fundamental period. The fundamental period decreased
from 0.71 to 0.67 s when the wall stiffness multiplier was increased from 0.35 to 0.75 ­EcI,
indicating that the fundamental period was not sensitive to the wall stiffness multiplier.
This result is likely because of the stiffness contributions of beams G7 and G9, and the slab
that couple the walls with the perimeter columns.
As explained in Sect. 2.2, during the experiments, the NS component of the JMA-Kobe
ground motion was applied to the structure in the frame direction, whereas EW component
was applied in the orthogonal x-direction (wall direction). Based on the response spec-
tra of the 100% JMA-Kobe ground motions shown in Fig. 4 (Tosauchi et al. 2017), the

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6705

Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (­MCER) spectral response acceleration

parameter at a period of 1.0 s (­S1), as defined in ASCE 7-16 §11.4.2, is 1.2 for the EW
component and 1.5 for the NS component. Since the values of S ­ 1 are greater than 0.75 and
the building is not an essential facility (Risk Category = I, II, or III), the Seismic Design
Category (SDC) of the building is E in accordance with ASCE 7-16 §11.6. Since verti-
cal lateral force-resisting elements are parallel to the major orthogonal axes of the seis-
mic force-resisting system, the structure in question does not possess a Type 5 irregularity.
Therefore, seismic forces were applied independently in each of the two orthogonal direc-
tions, and orthogonal interaction effects were neglected. Consequently, only the response
spectrum of the NS component of the JMA-Kobe ground motion is applied to the structure
in the frame direction for the column shear calculations (Sect. 4.5) and only the response
spectrum of the EW component was applied independently in the wall direction (Sect. 5).
The response spectra shown in Fig. 4 were used in the analysis based on the assumption
of considering the JMA Kobe scaled to 100% as the ASCE 7’s ­MCER spectra. Although
scaling is required by §12.9.1.4 of ASCE 7-16 for the cases where the base shear from
MRSA analysis is less than the value calculated using the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF)
procedure; in this study, the base shear was not scaled (except by the R factors) to be con-
sistent with the experimental conditions. Similarly, no redundancy or importance factors
were applied.

4 Special RC moment frames

4.1 Beam effective flange widths

ACI 318-19 requires the use of an effective flange width to determine the beam flexural
strength, which is used within a capacity design framework to calculate the beam shear,
column shear, and beam-column joint shear demands. The ACI 318-19 beam effective
flange widths for the test building are compared with the flange widths calculated using the
test data in the following sections to evaluate the ACI 318 provisions.

4.1.1 ACI 318‑19 provisions

According to ACI 318-19 Table 6.3.2.1, the effective overhanging flange widths (beff) of
T-beams are determined as the least of 8h, sw/2 and ln/8, where h is the slab (flange) thick-
ness, sw is the clear distance to the adjacent web, and ln is the beam clear span. For the
building, the limit of ln/8 was found to govern for both the cantilever (between the web and
the edge of the floor) and the interior bay (between the web and the interior gravity beams),
see Fig. 1. Since the three-bay perimeter moment frames have the same span lengths for
G1, G2 and G3 beams, beff values are the same and equal to 437.5 mm (ln/8) for all bays
except for the second floor (due to the larger column widths at the first floor), where the beff
value is 431.5 mm (ln/8).

4.1.2 Pantazopoulou et al. 1988

As an alternative to using the ACI 318-19 provisions, although there are various studies
in the literature (Kabeyasawa et al. 2017; Zerbe et al. 1985; French et al. 1989) focuses on
the effect of the floor slabs to the beam moment capacity, in this study equivalent effective

13
6706 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

overhanging flange widths (denoted as dequiv.) were calculated using the closed-form solu-
tion proposed by Pantazopoulou et al. (1988). According to the proposed model, under
negative moment where slab bars are in tension, longitudinal bar strains are determined
using a maximum strain at the slab-column connection (εmax), and strains in slab bars (εi)
are computed based on εmax and the distance of the longitudinal bar from the face of the
beam web (xi) as: εi = εmax ­sin2α, where tanα is the ratio of beam effective depth (d) to
xi. Using this approach, a strain distribution in the slab reinforcement is predicted and
compared with strains measured using strain gauges affixed to longitudinal reinforcement
within the beam web and slab effective width at the 5­ th floor G1 and G2 beams (Figs. 2 and
3) for the data collected during the 50% and the 100%-1 JMA Kobe excitations (Fig. 5).
In Fig. 5, the distances of the longitudinal bars (with strain gauges) from the beam center
line are shown, with positive x-axis values for the cantilevered slab, where only one strain
gauge was used on top reinforcement, and negative x-axis values for the interior side of the
beam, where strain gauges were placed on both the top and the bottom longitudinal rein-
forcement. Since the analytical model predicts strains of slab reinforcement under tension,
for the G1 beam, the values from loading in the positive Y-direction are used, whereas for
the G2 beam, the values from loading in the negative Y-direction are used. The results
shown in Fig. 5, plotted for the peak drift ratio during each test, indicate that, for both the
50% and the 100%-1 JMA-Kobe excitations, the analytical model does a fairly good job
estimating the distribution of strains measured in the experiment. Therefore, this model
is used to compare effective widths determined from strain gauge data with ACI 318-19
prescribed values.
Different closed-form solutions for effective overhanging flange widths (dequiv.) are pro-
posed by Pantazopoulou et al. (1988) depending on the strain levels reached in the beam
longitudinal reinforcement. If no yielding is observed in the beam reinforcement, then
dequiv. depends only on the maximum allowable slab width (denoted as xmax) and the beam

Fig. 5  Comparison of the analytical model results with the strain gauge data from 5th floor a G1 beam
under 50% JMA-Kobe, b G1 beam under 100%-1 JMA-Kobe, c G2 beam under 50% JMA-Kobe, d G2
beam under 100%-1 JMA-Kobe

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6707

Table 1  Effective overhanging Strain in the beam main rein- dequiv

flange widths per Pantazopoulou forcement
et al. (1988)
Elastic dtan−1
xmax
d
Inelastic
( xy
)
εmax x
xy + εslab
d tan−1 max
d
− tan−1 d
y

Table 2  Comparison of effective overhanging flange widths from ACI 318-19 and Pantazopoulou et al.
(1988) under 50% JMA-Kobe ground motion
Floor Beam Strain gauge # ACI 318-19 Pantazopoulou et al. (1988)
Both sides Cantilever side Floor side

2 G1 Outer 30 ln/8.0 ln/6.4 ln/4.0

2 G1 Inner 31 ln/8.9 ln/6.3
2 G2 32 ln/8.9 ln/6.3
3 G1 Inner 37 ln/9.1 ln/6.5
3 G2 38 ln/6.5 ln/3.7
4 G1 Outer 46 ln/7.9 ln/5.4
4 G1 Inner 47 ln/9.1 ln/6.5
4 G2 48 ln/9.1 ln/6.5
5 G1 Inner 59 ln/9.1 ln/6.5
5 G2 60 ln/6.6 ln/4.0
6 G1 Inner 63 ln/9.1 ln/6.4
6 G2 64 ln/7.4 ln/5.0

effective depth (d). The value of xmax is defined as the minimum of: (1) the transverse dis-
tance from the side of the beam to the edge of the slab, (2) sw/2 and (3) 10d. On the other
hand, for the case where the beam reinforcement is yielding, dequiv. is calculated using εmax
and xy, where xy is the distance from the side face of the beams to the point where the slab
reinforcement starts to yield, and is calculated as:
( )1∕2
𝜀
xy = d max −1 (1)
𝜀slab
y

where 𝜀slab
y
is the yield strain of the slab longitudinal reinforcement. Table 1 shows the
resulting equations for dequiv.
Using the equations given in Table 1, the effective flange widths are calculated for all
the beams where the strain gauges were affixed to the beam top reinforcement (see Fig. 2).
The results from these expressions for both the 50% and 100%-1 JMA-Kobe ground motion
are compared with values calculated using ACI 318-19 provisions. Tables 2 and 3 provide
dequiv. values for the 50% and 100%-1 JMA-Kobe ground motions respectively only for the
beams where the strain gauges were not damaged during the experiment. The values given
in Tables 2 and 3 indicate that the ACI 318-19 provisions for the effective overhanging
flange widths generally underestimate the values determined from the experimental data
(using Pantazopoulou et al. 1988). The ln/8 limit in ACI 318-19 reasonably represents the

13
6708 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

Table 3  Comparison of effective overhanging flange widths from ACI 318-19 and Pantazopoulou et al.
(1988) under 100%-1 JMA-Kobe ground motion
Floor Beam Strain gauge # ACI 318-19 Pantazopoulou et al. (1988)
Both sides Cantilever side Floor side

2 G1 Inner 31 ln/8.0 ln/7.6 ln/5.2

3 G1 Inner 37 ln/6.5 ln/2.9
3 G2 38 ln/6.5 ln/3.1
4 G2 48 ln/6.9 ln/4.4
5 G1 Inner 59 ln/6.7 ln/4.1
5 G2 60 ln/6.5 ln/2.8
6 G1 Inner 63 ln/6.5 ln/2.6

calculated values for the cantilever slab where no yielding was observed in the beam top
reinforcement (on average ln/9). If yielding had been observed in the cantilever side of the
web, then the dequiv. values would be higher (ln/6.8). Regardless of the beam reinforcement
behavior, the effective flange widths estimated for the test structure are found to be higher
than the ln/8 ratio for the interior span, with average values of ln/4.0 and ln/6.4 where beam
longitudinal reinforcement yields and does not yield, respectively.

4.2 Beam shear demands

According to ACI 318-19 §18.6.5.1, the design shear force (Ve,b,ACI) for a special moment
frame beam is calculated using the probable moment capacities of the beam (Mpr) assum-
ing that Mpr of opposite signs are acting at joint faces, with the factored gravity and vertical
earthquake loads acting along the beam span. The probable moment capacities are used in
these calculations to ensure that the shear strengths of the members are related to the flex-
ural strength rather than the factored shear forces resulting from the lateral load analysis.
The probable moment capacity is computed using a reinforcement tensile stress of at least
1.25fy to account for the expected yield strength of the reinforcement (typically 1.17fy) and
also the increase in stress due to strain hardening that might occur at the joint faces. In
this section, T-beam design shear force using ACI 318-19 effective width of ln/8 (Ve,b,ACI)
are compared with shear force values calculated by using the tested material properties of
reinforcement (Ve,b,tested) along with the overhanging flange widths that are calculated in
Sect. 4.1.2 using the analytical model of Pantazopoulou et al. (1988).
For each bar size used for the longitudinal reinforcement of beams and the columns at
each story, three reinforcement coupons were tested, which showed a mean yield stress
(fy,tested) of 389 MPa. No significant strain hardening was observed for the bars used. Since
the specified yield strength of the bars was 345 MPa (SD345 steel) and the bars did not
strain harden, the actual overstrength (389 /345 = 1.13) is found to be less than the ACI
318-19 requirement of 1.25. Table 4 shows ratios of Ve,b,ACI / Ve,b,tested for both the 50% and
100%-1 JMA-Kobe ground motions using the effective flange widths from Tables 2 and 3,
respectively. Shear forces are only calculated at the 2nd and 4th floors for the G1 beams
where effective flange widths are known for both beam ends. On the other end, due to the
symmetry of G2 beams, Ve,b,tested values are calculated for all the floors where the strain
gauges were placed at one end and continued to record data throughout the experiment.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6709

Table 4  The beam design shear Loading direction Floor Beam JMA-Kobe 50% JMA-Kobe
force ratios, Ve,b,ACI / Ve,b,tested 100%-1

Sway + y 2 G1 1.06 –
4 G1 1.08 –
Sway -y 2 G1 1.02 –
4 G1 1.08 –
Sway + y and -y 2 G2 1.08 –
3 G2 1.01 0.98
4 G2 1.09 1.00
5 G2 1.00 0.97
6 G2 1.04 –

The comparisons of results shown in Table 4 indicate that, although ACI 318-19 under-
estimates the effective flange widths for most of the beams under 50% JMA-Kobe excita-
tion, the higher overstrength factor assumption (1.25 vs. 1.13) results in higher shear forces
using ACI 318 (Ve,b,ACI) versus obtained using test results (Ve,b,tested). However, for the
100%-1 JMA-Kobe ground motion, the significant increase in the flange widths (as high as
ln/2.6) results in slightly higher shear demands for Ve,b,tested than for Ve,b,ACI.

4.3 Effect of beam flange widths on shear demands

The differences between the two different sets of shear demands presented in the preced-
ing section (Ve,b,tested and Ve,b,ACI) included: (1) the reinforcement yield strength (1.25fy
for Ve,b,ACI and 1.13fy for Ve,b,tested), and (2) the effective overhanging flange widths of the
beams (ln/8 for Ve,b,ACI and Tables 2 and 3 for Ve,b,tested). Given these differences, a sensitiv-
ity study is conducted in this section to assess the effects of beff on the beam shear demands
using a beam cross-section representative of the E-Defense 2018 structure perimeter beams
over the first six floors. Fig. 6 shows the cross-sectional properties of the beam used where
the diameter of the rebars were 22 mm for the beam and 10 mm for the slab reinforce-
ment. For the material properties of the bars (in both the beam and the slab), two different
sets of calculations are performed. For the first set, tested material properties of the build-
ing are used, i.e., fy,tested = 389 MPa with no strain-hardening, whereas for the second set,
strain-hardening behavior is included, as shown in Fig. 7. The strain-hardening properties
are selected based on coupon tests of Grade 60 reinforcement reported by Abdullah et al.
(2020).

Fig. 6  Cross-sectional dimensions of the beam used in the sensitivity analysis

13
6710 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

600

500

400
Stress (MPa)

300

200

without Strain hardening

100
with Strain hardening
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 7  Stress–strain curves of the two different reinforcement behavior used

Table 5  The nominal moment capacities and the corresponding shear demands without strain-hardening
behavior
beff Mn+ (kN*m) % Difference Mn− (kN*m) % Difference Ve,b (kN) % Difference

ln/10 287.5 −2.5 361.9 −6.2 185.5 −4.6

ln/8 294.7 0.0 385.7 0.0 194.4 0.0
ln/6 301.9 2.5 409.4 6.2 203.3 4.6
ln/4 306.6 4.0 433.0 12.3 211.3 8.7
ln/2.5 314.1 6.6 479.9 24.4 226.8 16.7

Table 6  The nominal moment capacities and the corresponding shear demands with strain-hardening
behavior
beff Mn+ (kN*m) % Difference Mn− (kN*m) % Difference Ve,b (kN) % Difference

ln/10 318.0 −3.2 371.6 −5.8 197.0 −4.6

ln/8 328.5 0.0 394.6 0.0 206.6 0.0
ln/6 341.9 4.1 417.3 5.8 216.9 5.0
ln/4 355.7 8.3 439.9 11.5 227.3 10.0
ln/2.5 377.0 14.8 484.3 22.7 246.1 19.1

The nominal moment capacities (Mn) and the corresponding shear demands (Ve,b)
of the beam calculated using flange widths ranging from ln/10 to ln/2.5 are given in
Tables 5 and 6 for the reinforcement behavior of without and with strain-hardening,
respectively. The percent differences in the tables are the difference of the values from
the results of the beam with ln/8 flange width. Comparison of the results indicate that:

• Variation in the effective flange width has a greater effect on the negative moment
capacities (Mn−) than the positive moment capacities (Mn+).

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6711

• For beams with strain-hardening bars, the percent differences for Mn+ are higher
than for the beams without steel strain-hardening behavior, which is opposite to
what is observed for Mn−.
• Shear demands are more affected with the changes in the beff for the beam with strain-
hardening. Increasing the effective flange widths from ln/8 to ln/6 resulted in only
around 4.5–5% increase in the beam shear demands. However, if the flange widths are
increased to ln/4 or ln/2.5, the Ve values increase by around 10% and 18% respectively.

Therefore, for a design level earthquake (DE) where beam effective flange widths are on
the order of ln/6, the current ACI 318-19 approach results in beam shear demands that are
approximately 5% less than the calculated shear demands. However, for a maximum con-
sidered earthquake (MCE), the larger beff values might result in beam shear demands that
are 15% to 20% higher than the ones calculated using the ACI 318 flange widths. There-
fore, it is recommended to use a value of ln/4 to ln/3 for beam effective overhanging flange
widths for beams in buildings subjected to MCE level shaking. It should also be noted here
that the percent differences given in Tables 5 and 6 are for the beam-slab configuration
shown in Fig. 6. Accordingly, for the T-beams where the slab’s contribution to the beam
moment demand is higher due to thicker slabs or higher reinforcement ratios in the slab,
the increase in the moment demands due to the larger beff values would be higher.

4.4 Beam‑column joint shear demands

According to ACI 318-19 §18.8.4.1, joint shear force (Vu,j) of a special moment frame joint
is calculated on a plane at mid-height of the joint as given by Eq. (2):
�
Vu,j = Tpr + Tpr − Ve,c (2)

where the Tpr and T’pr are calculated as 1.25Asfy and 1.25 A’sfy, respectively. As and A’s
represent the amount of top and bottom reinforcement at the beam-joint interface. For ACI
318-19, column shear forces (Ve,c,ACI) are typically calculated using beam Mpr values (see
Sect. 4.5.1).
Similar to beam shear demand calculations, joint shear forces are calculated using the
experimental data (Vu,j,tested) and compared with values calculated based on the ACI 318-19
provisions (Vu,j,ACI). In these calculations, instead of Tpr and T’pr, the experimental values
(Texp and T’exp) are calculated using the tested material strengths of the reinforcement and
the strain values are measured using strain gauges at the point where the structure reached
the peak roof drift.

Table 7  Internal joint shear Floor Sway + y Sway -y

demands under 50% JMA-Kobe
ground motion Vu,j,ACI (kN) Vu,j,tested (kN) Vu,j,ACI (kN) Vu,j,tested (kN)

2 1199.1 575.2 1199.6 449.3

3 1336.2 777.1 1337.7 1205.6
4 1198.4 856.7 1199.9 750.3
5 1050.6 736.0 1203.0 1082.6
6 975.3 695.1 980.8 903.4

13
6712 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

Peak values of Vu,j,tested and Vu,j,ACI for an internal joint with beams G1 and G2 fram-
ing into the C2 columns are given in Table 7 for the 50% JMA-Kobe ground motion for
loading in the +y and -y directions. Results given in Table 7 indicate that, for the 2nd and
4th floor joints, the values calculated using ACI 318-19 provisions are significantly higher
than the values determined from the experimental data. The lower values for the Vu,j,tested
are typically for the cases where beams G1 and G2 did not yield; however, where adjoin-
ing beams yield, Vu,j,ACI is approximately 10% higher than Vu,j,tested. This difference can be
explained by the lower overstrength factor of the tested bars, i.e., 1.13 for the test versus the
1.25 used in ACI 318-19. Therefore, current provisions of ACI 318-19 for the joint shear
demand calculations can estimate the experimental values correctly.
The joint shear demands under JMA-Kobe 100%-1 ground motion are not included in
this paper since reinforcement used for the beams did not have strain hardening behavior;
therefore, results for the JMA-Kobe 50% and 100%-1 ground motions are expected to be
similar, although beam moment demands for the test building would increase slightly due
to increase in effective flange widths.

4.5 Column shear demands

4.5.1 ACI 318‑19 approach

In Fig. 8, the story shear forces in the frame direction from the column and beam hinging
models are shown along with elastic analysis results (Vu,MRSA) of the model explained in

30
Vu,MRSA
Beam Hinging
25 Column Hinging
50% JMA Kobe
100-1% JMA Kobe
20
Building Height, H (m)

15

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Story Shear, Vi (kN)

Fig. 8  Story shear forces in the frame direction

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6713

Sect. 3. The value for beam hinging is based on using T-Beam sections with the effective
flange widths required by the ACI 318 (ln/8). The results presented in Fig. 8 indicate that
the column shear demands (Ve,c,ACI) are governed by the beam hinging and that the column
shear for beam hinging is considerably less than the values determined for column hinging.
Story shears at the peak roof drift ratio are also plotted in Fig. 8 using average floor accel-
erations measured at each floor during the experiment under both the 50% (Ve,c,50%) and the
100%-1 (Ve,c,100%-1) excitations (as discussed earlier). The comparisons between the beam
hinging model and the 100%-1 ground motion results show that the ACI 318-19 provisions
significantly underestimate the column shear demands with an average ratio for all stories
of Ve,c,100%-1 / Ve,c,ACI = 1.62 and a peak ratio of 2.0 at the 8­ th floor. The difference between
the experimental and ACI 318-19 results are smaller under 50% excitation, with story shear
ratios of Ve,c,50% / Ve,c,ACI of 1.61 at the 8th floor (largest) and 1.05 at the 5th floor (low-
est). It should be noted here that, according to Sect. 4.3, an increase in the beam effective
flange widths from ln/8 to ln/4, which is the average ratio for the interior flange of the yield-
ing beams, will increase the beam moment capacities around 10% in average. Therefore,
usage of ln/4 for the calculation of the column shear demands with the beam hinging model
would decrease the Ve,c,100%-1 / Ve,c,ACI ratio from 1.62 to 1.47 on average.

4.5.2 NIST (2016) and NZS 3101‑06 approaches

Column shear demands are also calculated using recommendations given in NIST (2016)
and NZS 3101-06. For both approaches (except at the first floor), column shear demands
are calculated by amplifying the column shear demands from a code-based elastic analysis
(Vu) as given by Eq. 3:
Ve,c = 𝜔v Ωv Vu (3)
where 𝜔v is a dynamic amplification factor, and Ωv is an overstrength factor. In both
approaches, the overstrength factor is based on the ratio of probable moment strength
to design moment strength (Mpr/Mu) of the yielding members at the top and bottom of a
column. For typical stories, the Mpr/Mu ratio is generally governed by beam overstrength
(weak-beam, strong-column) framing into the bottom and the top of the column. Although
the NIST (2016) recommendations do not specifically state that a different approach should
be used for first story columns, the Mpr/Mu at the top of the column is typically governed
by beam yielding, whereas the Mpr/Mu ratio at the bottom of the column is governed by
column yielding (at the column-foundation interface). On the other hand, NZS 3101-06
requires the usage of the column Mpr values directly (column hinging model, Sect. 4.5.1)
for the first-floor columns i.e., Ve,c = 1.15(Mpr,c,bottom + Mpr,c,top )∕ln. The overstrength fac-
tor for NZS 3101-06 is similar to the value recommended by NIST (2016), except the over-
strength ratios for Mpr/Mu are calculated using bar tensile stresses of 1.35fy in NZS 3101-06
and 1.25fy in NIST (2016) and ACI 318-19. In the NIST (2016) recommendations, ωv is
taken as 1.0 (i.e., it is not considered), whereas in NZS 3101-06, ωv is set to a constant
value of 1.3, except at the first story, where it is taken as 1.15.
Story shear forces, calculated as the sum of the column shears in all perimeter columns,
using the NIST (2016) and NZS 3101-06 approaches, are shown in Fig. 9, along with
Vu,MRSA computed for the JMA-Kobe 100%-1 response spectrum (5% damping) and story
shear forces determined using measured floor accelerations for the JMA Kobe 100%-1
excitation. The results presented in Fig. 9 indicate that the NIST approach underestimates
the experimental results with an average ratio of Ve,c,100%-1/Ve,c,NIST = 1.4, except at the first

13
6714 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

30
Vu,MRSA

NIST 2016
25
100-1% JMA Kobe

NZS 3101
20
Building Height, H (m)

15

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Story Shear, Vi (kN)

Fig. 9  Story shear demands in the frame direction calculated using the NIST (2016) recommendations and
NZS 3101-06 provisions

and the last floors. For the first story columns, the overstrength ratios were taken as the
average of Mpr/Mu ratios using the column hinging model at the base and the beam hinging
at the top of columns. This approach resulted in closer story shear values to the experimen-
tally measured ones. At the top floor, due to the high values of beam overstrength ratios,
the results were very similar to the experimental values. The NZS 3101-06 approach rea-
sonably matches the story shears derived from the experiment because of the 1.3 dynamic
amplification factor and due to the higher tensile bar stress used to calculate Mpr, i.e.,
1.3*(1.35/1.25) = 1.4. The 1st story shear demand for NZS 3101-06 is higher due to use
column hinging model and the 1.15 dynamic amplification factor. Yielding at the top of
the first story column in the NZS approach is required (and is likely to be conservative)
to address the potential for yielding at the top of the first story columns due to the relative
lateral displacement produced over the column height due to moment frame beam axial
elongation (beam plastic hinging) at the top of the columns and the fixity (restraint) at the
bottom of column. Based on these results, use of a dynamic amplification factor in ACI
318 should be considered, and a value of 1.4 is recommended, except for the first and the
last floors, where a lower, but conservative, value of 1.15 could be considered until further
studies are available.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6715

4.5.3 Visnjic et al. (2017)

A fourth approach, based on the work of Visnjic et al. (2017), was also used to calculate
story shear demands and to compare with the values derived from the test building.
The study is based on results obtained from nonlinear response history analyses
(NRHA) of four archetype buildings with 10 and 20 stories with either three or four bays of
moment-resisting frames (A10-3, A10-4, A20-3, A20-4). The proposed approach is simi-
lar to that given by NZS 3101-06 in terms of the application of an overstrength (Ω) and a
dynamic amplification factor (𝜔v,i ) to the elastic analysis results (Vu,MRSA) to calculate the
Ve,c, except that, instead of a constant 𝜔v,i of 1.3 used in NZS 3101 (except at the ­1st story),
𝜔v,i consists of three different factors to calculate story shear at story “i” as given by Eq. 4:

(4)
( )( ) ( )( )
Ve,c,i = 𝜅v 𝜔v,i Vu,MRSA,i = 𝜅v ΩAD Ψv,i 𝜒i Vu,MRSA,i

where 𝜅v is 1.0 for the interior columns and 1.2 for the exterior columns, Ω is used to
account for overstrength, AD and Ψv are factors that account for dynamic amplification,
and χ is a factor used to amplify mean demands to achieve a prescribed (or desired) level
of conservatism based on the coefficient of variation of shear demands determined in the
study. The factor AD is defined as the ratio of the mean base shear from the NRHA results
divided by the base shear value from MRSA results multiplied by the overstrength fac-
tor, i.e., AD = Vbase,NRHA ∕(ΩVu,MRSA ). Therefore, AD accounts for the increase in base shear
due to nonlinear dynamic response; a value of 1.2 to 1.25 is recommended for AD. A sec-
ond dynamic amplification factor, Ψv = Vi,NRHA ∕AD ΩVu,MRSA,i where Vi,NHRA is the mean
story shear forces of the 30 ground motions used in the NRHA, is used to amplify story
shear demands over the building height considering both fault-normal (FN) and fault-par-
allel (FP) ground motions. Based on these analyses, recommended values of Ψv are 1.0
for the bottom half of a structure and 1.4 at the roof level, with linear variation between
1.0 and 1.4 from building mid-height to the roof level (Fig. 10a). Finally, the percentile

Fig. 10  Proposed functions for: a Ψv, and b χ (FN = Fault Normal; FP = Fault Parallel) (Adopted from Vis-
njic et al. 2017)

13
6716 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

modification factor, χ, was introduced to adjust values based on the coefficient of variation
of the NRHA results for different building types and for the different components of the
ground motions. Depending on the number of standard deviations (σ) away from the mean,
different functions were proposed for χ, as shown in Fig. 10b.
Unlike NIST (2016) or NZS 3101-06, the overstrength factor in Visnjic et al. (2017)
is not calculated for each column separately but is based on a system overstrength factor
at the base of the building (Ω) using a summation of overstrength (Mpr/Mu) of all hinges
in an idealized strong-column – weak-beam mechanism, as given by Eq. 5.
∑Ncol
Mpr,c,k + Nbm
∑ � �
k=1 k=1
Mpr,b,i + Mpr,b,j
Ω = ∑Ncol (5)
Mu,c,k + Nbm
∑ � �
k=1 k=1
Mu,b,i + Mu,b,j

where k=1 Mpr,c,k and k=1 Mpr,b,i + Mpr,b,j represent the sum over all the columns at
∑Ncol ∑Nbm � �

the base and all the beams over the building height at the ends i and j, respectively. For the
test structure, the AD factor, the ratio of the base shear value recorded at the peak roof drift
under 100%-1 excitation to the Vu,MRSA, is about 1.2. Given that the test structure has 10
stories and a three-bay perimeter frame, it is not surprising that the test value is in line with
the proposed values (which included a 10-story archetype with a 3-bay perimeter frame,
A10-3). Results for the story shears over the building height are presented in Fig. 11 for
the code-level analysis, Visnjic et al. (2017) approach, and the test results. These results
indicate that the proposed approach does a good job at estimating column shear demands,

30
Vu,MRSA

100-1% JMA Kobe

25
Mean

Mean + 1std
Building Height, H (m)

20

15

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Story Shear, Vi (kN)

Fig. 11  Story shear demands in the frame direction calculated using the approach recommended by Visnjic
et al. (2017)

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6717

where mean and mean plus one standard deviation values slightly underestimate and over-
estimate experimental values, respectively.

5 Special RC structural walls

5.1 Wall shear demands

New provisions were added to ACI 318-19 to amplify code-level wall shear demands to
account for wall overstrength and dynamic amplification. The approach is similar to that
presented for column shear demands (Ve,c) using NZS 3101-06 and proposed by Visnjic
et al. (2017), and very similar to the approach used in NZS 3101-06 for wall buildings. In
ACI 318-19, wall shear forces are computed as given by Eq. 6:
Ve,w = Ωv 𝜔v Vu,w ≤ 3Vu,w (6)
where Vu,w is the wall shear determined from code-level analysis (ASCE 7-16), Ωv is an
overstrength factor, and ωv is a dynamic amplification factor. Similar to the overstrength
factor of NIST (2016) for the column shear demands, Ωv is calculated as the ratio of the
probable moment capacity of the wall section to the factored design moment i.e., Ωv
=Mpr,w/Mu,w. A minimum value of 1.5 is set for the Ωv, except for walls where the aspect
ratio (hwcs/lw) ≤ 1.5, where an overstrength factor of 1.0 is permitted. As shown in Table 8,
ωv is dependent on the wall aspect ratio and the building height, which is considered using
the number of stories above the critical section (ns).
The code-level lateral forces were determined from the ETABS model as described in
Sect. 3 with the response spectrum for EW component of the JMA-Kobe ground motion
applied to the model without any scaling (except the R factor of 5). Figure 12 shows the
normalized story shear forces in the wall direction both in SI (top x-axis) and in Imperial
(bottom x-axis) units. For the analysis results, the story shears are obtained as the summa-
tion of the calculated wall shear forces for four walls at levels 1 through 7. The experimen-
tal results are obtained using the story acceleration recordings under the 100%-1 JMA-
Kobe ground motion. Story shear√ forces are normalized by the sum of the Acv values for the
walls in a given story and by fc′ . Comparison of the results show that the modal response
spectrum analysis results (Vu,w) significantly underestimate the experimental wall shear
demands. However, application of Eq. 6 to the Vu,w results in shear wall demands that are
much closer to the experimental values; with error less than 10% except for the top two
stories, where the walls are discontinuous and the building lateral force resisting system
becomes a Special Moment-Resisting Frames in both directions.

Table 8  Calculation of the

dynamic amplification factor Condition ωv
hwcs/lw ≥ 2.0 ns ≤ 6 0.9 +
ns
10
ns > 6 Greater of: 1.3 +
ns
30
1.8
hwcs/lw < 2.0 1.0
*
ns shall not be taken less than 0.007hwcs

13
6718 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

Fig. 12  Normalized story shear forces in the wall direction

5.2 Wall drift capacity

According to §18.10.6.2 of ACI 318-19, the wall displacement capacity at the top of the
wall can be calculated using Eq. 7,
� � �� � �
𝛿c 1 1 lw c Ve
= 4− − √ � (7)
hwcs 100 50 b b 8 fc Acv

where b and lw are defined as the width of the compression zone and the length of the wall,
respectively, hwcs is the height of the entire structural wall above the critical section (where
yielding of longitudinal reinforcement is likely to occur, typically defined as lw/2), and c is
the neutral axis depth at the critical section. For this study, c values are calculated for both
interior walls (c = 275 mm) and exterior walls (c =√298 mm), and wall shear demands (Ve)
were calculated in Sect. 5.1 (see Fig. 12, where Ve/ fc′ Acv = 0.63 in SI units). The resulting
wall displacement capacities are δc = 457 mm and δc = 448 mm for the exterior and interior
walls, respectively. The drift demands were determined from the ETABS model using a Cd
factor of 5 (ASCE 7-16, Table 12.2-1). The displacement demands for ACI 318-19 (δu) at
the top of the walls using the EW response spectrum JMA-Kobe earthquake are found to
be 293 mm and 268 mm for the exterior and interior walls, respectively; therefore, δc/δu
ratios are 1.56 and 1.67 for the exterior and interior walls, respectively, indicating that wall
damage (strength loss) is not expected.

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6719

The displacements at the top of the wall are also calculated using the experimental data.
During the tests, the story displacements were recorded with displacement transducers
which were attached to steel frames located at the opposite corners of every floor slab.
The average value of the values recorded at the opposite corners are taken to find the story
displacements at the center of mass of the floors. During the 100%-1 JMA-Kobe excitation,
the story displacement of the ­8th floor (top of the walls) is 205 mm at the peak roof drift, or
26% lower, on average, than the value obtained using the ETABS model. This difference
may be explained by the fact that the model predicts the period (0.72 s) of the test structure
very well after the base sliding phase completed and before the fixed base started. However,
according to Kang et al. (2020), the period of the structure in the wall direction increases to
0.86 s after the application of 10%, 25% and 50% JMA-Kobe ground motions. Because of
the shape of the response spectrum of the EW component of the ground motion, the spec-
tral accelerations (Sa) have a very steep decline after T = 0.73 s. Therefore, the increase of
the period of the structure from 0.72 s to 0.86 s before the 100%-1 excitation will result in
lower Sa values (2.1 g vs. 1.8 g), lower base shear (14%) and, therefore, lower displace-
ment values compared to the ETABS model.

6 Summary and conclusions

Results obtained from the 10-story E-Defense building with fixed based conditions at the base
of the building were used to evaluate ACI 318-19 provisions for Special Moment Frames
(SMF) and Special Shear Walls (SSW). The test building was heavily instrumented with over
700 sensors to measure various responses during the tests where the building was subjected
to the JMA-Kobe recordings at the base of the building on the E-Defense shake table. In spe-
cific, measured responses were used to evaluate the following issues for SMFs: (1) effective
flange width values of T-beams, (2) beam shear, (3) column shear, (4) joint shear, and (5) story
shear. For SSWs, the following items were evaluated: (6) wall drift capacity, and (7) wall shear
amplification. Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were reached.

1. The effective overhanging flange widths (beff) calculated using the ACI 318-19 provi-
sions was governed by §6.3.2 and resulted in beff = ln/8. Evaluation of rebar strain gauge
data indicated that overhanging widths were close to beff = ln/9 (prior to rebar yield) and
ln/6.8 (where rebar yielded) for the cantilevered slab at the perimeter of the building. For
the interior span, average overhanging flange widths of ln/6.4 (prior to rebar yield) and
ln/4.0 (where rebar yielded) were estimated. Since rebar yield is anticipated for Special
Moment Frames designed according to ACI 318-19, the results suggest that use of a
larger flange width might be appropriate in Chapter 18.
2. Although flange widths calculated using ACI 318-19 provisions underestimated the
flange widths in the test, using larger flange widths for the test building beams only led
to modest increases in Mpr,tested (and beam shear demands), with increases of less than
5% for positive moments and 10 to 15% for negative moments for the test building. This
was primarily due to the low reinforcement yield overstrength (fy,tested = 1.13fy) and the
lack of strain hardening for the rebars used in the test structure.
3. Because of the higher multiplier on rebar stress (1.25fy) in ACI 318-19 relative to that
of the rebar used in the test building (1.13fy), beam shear demands calculated accord-
ing to ACI 318-19 were similar to the values calculated for the test building. Results
of a sensitivity analysis where the rebar properties of the test building were modified

13
6720 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721

to include strain hardening typical of rebar used in the U.S., indicated that, if beff val-
ues are increased from ­ln/8 to ­ln/4 and ­ln/2.5 (the largest values determined for the test
building), the beam shears (Ve,b) increase by 10% to 18%, respectively. To address this
underestimation, either a larger effective flange width could be used (e.g., ln/4) or the
multiplier on fy could be increased from 1.25 to 1.35.
4. For the beam-column shear demands, Vu,j,ACI was about 10% higher than Vu,j,tested primar-
ily due to the higher rebar stress multiplier, i.e., 1.25fy/1.13fy = 1.1. As noted above, 10
to 18% higher shear demands would be the result if rebar properties of the test building
were more consistent with typical U.S. rebar.
5. Column story shear demands were calculated using four different approaches. For the
ACI 318-19 approach, column shear was limited by the beam Mpr values, which under-
estimated the test story shears by 5% and 60% at the ­5th and ­8th floors, respectively, for
the 50% JMA Kobe record, and 44% and 100%, respectively, for 100%-1 record. The
approaches used in the NIST design guide (2016), the NZS 3101 standard (2006), and
by Visnjic et al. (2017) were reasonably effective at estimating column story shear
demands. The approaches in NZS 3101 (2006) and Visnjic et al. (2017) produce slightly
better results because they apply both overstrength and dynamic amplification factors to
the code-base analysis results. Updating ACI 318 to address this substantial underesti-
mation of column story shear demand should be considered using an approach similar
to the ones evaluated here. If column shear demand is updated, column shear capacity
also should be reassessed to provide appropriate demand-to-capacity ratios.
6. The new provisions implemented in ACI 318-19 for estimation of wall shear forces
accurately predict the shear demand determined for the test building. In addition, the
new displacement capacity check implemented in ACI 318-19 indicated that no strength
loss due to wall boundary element damage was expected, which was consistent with test
observations.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the work performed by researchers at the
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED) for designing, construct-
ing, and testing the building used in this study and for sharing the shake table test data, including J. Kang,
E. Sato, Y. Tosauchi, K. Fukuyama, T. Inoue, H. Shiohara, T. Kabeyasawa, T. Nagae, H. Fukuyama, T.
Kabeyasawa, and T. Mukai. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of others mentioned here.

Funding Funding for this study was provided by the ACI Foundation Project CRC 2020 P0038 that focuses
on the assessment of the ACI 318 using data from the 2015 and 2019 E-Defense 10-Story, full-scale build-
ing tests.

Declarations
Competing interests The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

References
Abdullah SA, Aswegan K, Jaberansari S, Klemencic R, Wallace JW (2020) Performance of reinforced con-
crete coupling beams subjected to simulated wind loading. ACI Struct J, 283–295
ACI Committee 318 (2019) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19) and commen-
tary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 628
AIJ Structure Committee (2010) AIJ standard for structural calculation of reinforced concrete structures.
Architectural Institute of Japan (in Japanese)

13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:6699–6721 6721

ASCE/SEI (2016) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16). Reston, VA:
American Society for Civil Engineers, 690
Computer and Structures (CSI) Inc (2018) ETABS version 18, CSI. Berkeley, CA
French CW, Boroojerdi A (1989) Contribution of R/C floor slabs in resisting lateral loads. ASCE J Struct
Eng 115(1):1–18
Kabeyasawa T, Kabeyasawa T, Fukuyama H (2017) Effects of floor slabs on the flexural strength of beams
in reinforced concrete buildings. In: Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
pp 517–526
Kang J, Kajiwara K, Fukuyama K, Sato E, Inoue T, Kabeyasawa T, Shiohara H (2020) E-Defense test of a
10-story reinforced concrete building (FY 2018). In: 17th World conference on earthquake engineer-
ing. Sendai, Japan, 12
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism (2007) Technological standard related to structures
of buildings, Japan
NIST (2016) Seismic design of reinforced concrete special moment frames: a guide for practicing engineers,
second edition, GCR 16-917-40. In: NEHRP seismic design technical Brief No. 1. Gaithersburg, MD
NZS 3101 (2006) Concrete structures standard, part 1: the design of concrete structures, Part 2: commen-
tary on the design of concrete structures. Standards New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand
Pantazopoulou SJ, Moehle JP, Shahrooz BM (1988) Simple analytical model for T-beams in flexure. J Struct
Eng, 1507–1523
Tosauchi Y, Sato E, Fukuyama K, Inoue T, Kajiwara K (2017) 2015 Three-dimensional Shaking Table Test
of a 10-story Reinforced Concrete Building on the E-Defense Part 3: base slip and base fixed test
results. In: 16th World conference on earthquake. Santiago Chile, 12
Visnjic T, Panagiotou M, Moehle J (2017) Estimating seismic shear in columns of RC special moment
frames. In: 16th World conference on earthquake. Santiago, Chile, 12
Zerbe HE, Durrani AJ (1985) Effect of a slab on the behavior of exterior beam to column connections.
Report No. 30, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.

Authors and Affiliations

Mehmet Emre Unal1 · Saman A. Abdullah1 · Kristijan Kolozvari2 · John W. Wallace1 ·

Koichi Kajiwara3

* Mehmet Emre Unal

umehmetemre@g.ucla.edu
* John W. Wallace
wallacej@ucla.edu
Saman A. Abdullah
sabdullah@ucla.edu
Kristijan Kolozvari
kkolozvari@fullerton.edu
Koichi Kajiwara
kaji@bosai.go.jp
1
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
2
California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA
3
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, Tsukuba, Japan

13