NIST GCR 10-917-8

Evaluation of the
FEMA P-695 Methodology
for Quantification
of Building Seismic
Performance Factors

NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture

A partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
Disclaimers
This report was prepared for the Building and Fire Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) under contract number SB134107CQ0019, Task Orders 67344 and 68002. The statements and conclusions contained
herein are those of the authors, and do not imply recommendations or endorsements by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.

This report was produced under contract to NIST by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a joint venture of the Applied
Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). While
endeavoring to provide practical and accurate information, the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, the authors, and the
reviewers assume no liability for, nor make any expressed or implied warranty with regard to, the information contained in this
report. Users of information contained in this report assume all liability arising from such use.

The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all
of its publications. However, in North America in the construction and building materials industry, certain SI units are not
widely used such that it is more practical and less confusing to include measurement values for customary units only.

Cover photo – Illustration of steel concentrically braced frame archetype for performance evaluation.
 NIST GCR 10-917-8

Evaluation of the
FEMA P-695 Methodology for
Quantification of Building Seismic
Performance Factors
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

By
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture
A partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering

November 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director
 NIST GCR 10-917-8

Participants
National Institute of Standards and Technology
John (Jack) R. Hayes, Director - National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
John (Jay) L. Harris, Project Manager

NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture

Applied Technology Council Consortium of Universities for
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Research in Earthquake Engineering
Redwood City, California 94065 1301 S. 46th Street - Bldg. 420
www.ATCouncil.org Richmond, California 94804
www.CUREE.org

Joint Venture Management Joint Venture Program Committee

Committee
Jon A. Heintz (Program Manager)
James R. Harris Michael Constantinou
Robert Reitherman C.B. Crouse
Christopher Rojahn James R. Harris
Andrew Whittaker William T. Holmes
Jack Moehle
Andrew Whittaker

Project Technical Committee Project Review Panel

Charles Kircher (Project Director) Ronald O. Hamburger
Gregory Deierlein James R. Harris
John Hooper William T. Holmes
Helmut Krawinkler Richard E. Klingner
Steve Mahin Philip Line
Benson Shing Nicolas Luco
John Wallace Bonnie E. Manley
Laurence Novak
Working Group Members Rafael Sabelli
Kurt Stochlia
Chui-Hsin Chen
Brian Dean
FEMA Representatives
Aysegul Gogus
Ioannis Koutromanos Michael Mahoney
Dimitrios Lignos Robert D. Hanson
Farzin Zareian
 100% Draft

Preface

The NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture is a partnership between the Applied

Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). In 2007, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) awarded a National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) “Earthquake Structural and Engineering Research” contract (SB1341-07-
CQ-0019) to the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture to conduct a variety of tasks,
including Task Orders 67344 and 68002 entitled “Quantification of Building System
Performance and Response Parameters.”

This work was an extension of work conducted under the ATC-63 Project, funded by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which resulted in the
publication of the FEMA P-695 report, Quantification of Building Seismic
Performance Factors (FEMA 2009). The FEMA P-695 report outlines a procedural
methodology for reliably quantifying seismic performance factors, including the
response modification coefficient (R factor), the system overstrength factor (Ω0), and
the deflection amplification factor (Cd). While the ATC-63 Project included testing
of the Methodology on selected systems (e.g., special and ordinary reinforced
concrete moment frames and wood light-frame structural panel shear walls), the
purpose of this NIST project was to expand the testing of the Methodology to
additional seismic force-resisting systems.

Beta testing was overseen by members of the original ATC-63 Project Team, but was
conducted by working groups consisting of individuals who were not directly
involved in the development of the Methodology. The following systems were
tested as part of this work: (1) special and ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls;
(2) special and ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls; (3) special steel
concentrically braced frames and buckling-restrained braced frames; and (4) special
steel moment frames. With certain exceptions, results confirmed the applicability of
the Methodology for quantifying seismic performance factors, and verified that
currently-approved seismic force-resisting systems generally meet the inherent safety
against collapse intended by current seismic codes.

The NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture is indebted to the leadership of Charlie

Kircher, Project Director, and to the members of the Project Team for their efforts in
testing the Methodology and developing this report. The Project Technical
Committee, consisting of Greg Deierlein, John Hooper, Helmut Krawinkler, Steve

GCR 10-917-8 Preface iii

100% Draft

Mahin, Benson Shing, and John Wallace monitored and guided the beta testing work.
The Project Working Groups, including Chui-Hsin Chen, Brian Dean, Aysegul
Gogus, Ioannis Koutromanos, Dimitrios Lignos, and Farzin Zareian prepared
archetype designs and conducted nonlinear response history analyses. The Project
Review Panel, consisting of Ron Hamburger, Jim Harris, Bill Holmes, Rich
Klingner, Phil Line, Nico Luco, Bonnie Manley, Laurence Novak, Rafael Sabelli,
and Kurt Stochlia provided technical review, advice, and consultation at key stages
of the work. The names and affiliations of all who contributed to this report are
provided in the list of Project Participants.

The NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture also gratefully acknowledges Jack Hayes
(NEHRP Director), Jay Harris (NIST Project Manager), Michael Mahoney (FEMA
Project Officer), and Robert Hanson (FEMA Technical Monitor) for their input and
guidance in the preparation of this report, and Ayse Hortacsu and Peter N. Mork for
ATC report production services.

Jon A. Heintz
Program Manager

iv Preface GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table of Contents

Preface ............................................................................... iii

List of Figures ........................................................................xi

List of Tables ...................................................................... xvii

1. Introduction ............................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background and Purpose ................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Scope of the Beta Testing Effort .................................................... 1-2
1.3 Report Organization and Content ................................................... 1-7

2. Overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology .......................... 2-1

2.1 Selected Terminology ..................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Elements of the Methodology......................................................... 2-2
2.3 Scope and Basis of the Methodology ............................................. 2-3
2.4 Outline of the Process ..................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation ............................. 2-5

3. Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall

Structures .................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction..................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Overview and Approach ................................................................. 3-2
3.3 Structural System Information ........................................................ 3-3
3.3.1 Design Requirements ......................................................... 3-3
3.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements ............................ 3-3
3.3.3 Test Data ............................................................................ 3-3
3.3.4 Quality Rating of Test Data ............................................... 3-4
3.4 Archetype Configurations ............................................................... 3-4
3.5 Nonlinear Model Development .................................................... 3-12
3.5.1 Modeling Approach............................................ ............. 3-12
3.5.2 Nonlinear Material Models for Reinforced Masonry ...... 3-14
3.5.3 Non-Simulated Collapse Criteria..................................... 5-17
3.5.4 Model Calibration and Validation...................... ............. 3-18
3.5.5 Quality Rating of Analytical Models............................... 3-20
3.6 Nonlinear Analyses ....................................................................... 3-21
3.6.1 Static Pushover Analyses................................................. 3-21
3.6.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses .......................................... 3-24
3.7 Performance Evaluation................................................................ 3-26
3.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results ................. 3-27
3.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength .............................................. 3-31
3.9 Observations and Recommendations ............................................ 3-31
3.9.1 Observations on System Performance ............................. 3-31

GCR 10-917-8 Table of Contents v

100% Draft
3.9.2 Observations on the Methodology ................................... 3-32
3.9.3 Recommendations for Further Investigation.................... 3-33

4. Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall

Structures .................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Overview and Approach ................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Structural System Information ........................................................ 4-2
4.3.1 Design Requirements ......................................................... 4-2
4.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements ............................ 4-2
4.3.3 Test Data ............................................................................ 4-2
4.3.4 Quality Rating of Design Requirements ............................ 4-3
4.4 Archetype Configurations ............................................................... 4-4
4.5 Nonlinear Model Development ....................................................... 4-9
4.5.1 Modeling Approach..................... ...................................... 4-9
4.5.2 Nonlinear Material Model for Concrete ............................ 4-9
4.5.3 Nonlinear Material Model for Reinforcing Steel ............. 4-11
4.5.4 Extension and Slip of Reinforcing Steel .......................... 4-11
4.5.5 Shear Model ..................................................................... 4-12
4.5.6 Damping ........................................................................... 4-13
4.5.7 Model Validation ............................................................. 4-14
4.5.8 Non-Simulated Failure Criteria........................................ 4-14
4.5.9 Quality Rating of Analytical Models ............................... 4-18
4.6 Nonlinear Analyses ....................................................................... 4-18
4.7 Performance Evaluation ................................................................ 4-22
4.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results ................. 4-23
4.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength .............................................. 4-23
4.9 Observations and Recommendations ............................................ 4-26
4.9.1 Observations on System Performance ............................. 4-26
4.9.2 Observations on the Methodology ................................... 4-27
4.9.3 Recommendations for Further Investigation.................... 4-28

5. Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures ................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Overview and Approach ................................................................. 5-1
5.3 Structural System Information ........................................................ 5-3
5.3.1 Design Requirements ......................................................... 3-3
5.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements ............................ 3-3
5.3.3 Test Data ............................................................................ 3-4
5.3.4 Quality Rating of Test Data ............................................... 3-4
5.4 Archetype Configurations ............................................................... 5-4
5.5 Nonlinear Model Development ....................................................... 5-8
5.5.1 Modeling Approach ........................................................... 5-8
5.5.2 Nonlinear Models of Braces .............................................. 5-9
5.5.3 Non-Simulated Failure Modes.................. ....................... 5-10
5.5.4 Model Validation................. ............................................ 5-11
5.5.5 Quality Rating of Analytical Models................. .............. 5-12
5.6 Nonlinear Analyses ....................................................................... 5-12
5.7 Performance Evaluation ................................................................ 5-15
5.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results ................. 5-15
5.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength .............................................. 5-18

vi Table of Contents GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
5.9 Observations and Recommendations ............................................ 5-18
5.9.1 Observations on System Performance ............................. 5-18
5.9.2 Observations on the Methodology ................................... 5-20
5.9.4 Recommendations for Further Investigation ................... 5-21

6. Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures ............... 6-1

6.1 Introduction..................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Overview and Approach ................................................................. 6-1
6.3 Structural System Information ........................................................ 6-2
6.3.1 Design Requirements ......................................................... 6-2
6.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements ............................ 6-2
6.3.3 Test Data ............................................................................ 6-2
6.3.4 Quality Rating of Test Data ............................................... 6-2
6.4 Archetype Configurations ............................................................... 6-2
6.4.1 Summary of Pertinent Design Observations...................... 6-6
6.5 Nonlinear Model Development ...................................................... 6-7
6.5.1 Modeling Approach ........................................................... 6-7
6.5.2 Joint Panel Zone Model ..................................................... 6-8
6.5.3 Beam Plastic Hinge Model ................................................ 6-9
6.5.4 Column Plastic Hinge Model........................................... 6-11
6.5.5 Quality Rating of Analytical Models............................... 6-11
6.6 Nonlinear Analyses ....................................................................... 6-12
6.7 Performance Evaluation................................................................ 6-14
6.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results ................. 6-14
6.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength .............................................. 6-18
6.9 Observations and Recommendations ............................................ 6-19
6.9.1 Observations on System Performance ............................. 6-19
6.9.2 Observations on the Methodology ................................... 6-24
6.9.3 Recommendations for Further Investigation ................... 6-24

7. Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space .................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction..................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Overview and Approach ................................................................. 7-1
7.3 Structural System Information ........................................................ 7-2
7.3.1 Design Requirements ......................................................... 7-2
7.3.2 Test Data ............................................................................ 7-2
7.4 Archetype Configurations ............................................................... 7-3
7.4.1 Brace Configuration .......................................................... 7-3
7.4.2 Brace End Connections ..................................................... 7-4
7.4.3 Building Height ................................................................. 7-4
7.4.4 Bay Size ............................................................................. 7-5
7.4.5 Brace Size .......................................................................... 7-8
7.4.6 Plan and Elevation Configuration...................................... 7-8
7.4.7 Seismic Design Category ................................................... 7-9
7.4.8 Gravity Design Load.......................................................... 7-9
7.4.9 Occupancy and Use ........................................................... 7-9
7.5 Determination of Performance Groups ......................................... 7-10
7.6 Determination of Controlling Performance Groups ..................... 7-10
7.6.1 Sensitivity Studies ........................................................... 7-11
7.6.2 Controlling Performance Groups..................................... 7-14
7.7 Archetype Design ......................................................................... 7-15

GCR 10-917-8 Table of Contents vii

100% Draft
7.7.1 Archetype Design Criteria ............................................... 7-15
7.7.2 Phase I Design .................................................................. 7-16
7.7.3 Phase II Design................................................................. 7-17
7.8 Observations.................................................................................. 7-18

8. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations .................... 8-1

8.1 Summary of Beta Testing Work...................................................... 8-1
8.2 General Findings ............................................................................. 8-3
8.2.1 Does the Methodology Meet Its Intended Purpose? .......... 8-3
8.2.2 Is the Methodology Practical to Implement? ..................... 8-5
8. 3 Findings Related to System Performance ....................................... 8-5
8.3.1 Short-Period Systems ......................................................... 8-5
8.3.2 Partially-Grouted Masonry Walls ...................................... 8-6
8.3.3 Drift and Stability Design Requirements ........................... 8-6
8.3.4 Design Assumptions........................................................... 8-7
8.3.5 Nonlinear Modeling Assumptions ..................................... 8-7
8. 4 Findings Related to the Methodology ............................................. 8-8
8.4.1 Selection of Analysis Procedure ........................................ 8-8
8.4.2 Quality Ratings .................................................................. 8-9
8.4.3 Period-Based Ductility ..................................................... 8-10
8.4.4 Acceptance Criteria for Archetypes with Low
Ductility ........................................................................... 8-11
8. 5 Recommendations for Improving the Methodology ..................... 8-11
8.5.1 Methodology Improvements ............................................ 8-12
8.5.2 Methodology Implementation .......................................... 8-12

Appendix A: Design Details of Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall

Archetypes .................................................................A-1
A.1 Introduction .................................................................................... A-1
A.2 Material Properties and Gravity Loads .......................................... A-1
A.3 Structural Configurations ............................................................... A-2
A.4 Shear Wall Designs ........................................................................ A-4
A.5 Calibration of Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Models ............. A-16
A.6 Supplemental Model Validation Studies ..................................... A-17

Appendix B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall

Archetypes ................................................................. B-1
B.1 Introduction .................................................................................... B-1
B.2 Material Properties and Gravity Loads .......................................... B-1
B.3 Structural Configurations ............................................................... B-2
B-4 Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs...................................... B-3
B.5 Model Sensitivity Studies .............................................................. B-9
B.6 Axial Failure Model ..................................................................... B-10
B.7 Shear Model Sensitivity Studies .................................................. B-15

Appendix C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes .......... C-1

C.1 Introduction .................................................................................... C-1
C.2 Material Properties and Gravity Loads .......................................... C-1
C.3 Seismic Design Loading ................................................................ C-1
C.4 Story Drift and P-Delta Effects ...................................................... C-3
C.5 Load Combinations ........................................................................ C-4

viii Table of Contents GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
C.6 Structural Configurations ............................................................... C-4
C.7 Member Sizes ................................................................................. C-5

Appendix D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame

Archetypes ................................................................ D-1
D.1 Introduction.................................................................................... D-1
D.2 Structural Configuration ................................................................ D-1
D.3 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs ........................................... D-1
D.4 Additional Modeling Considerations............................................. D-8
D.5 P-Delta Considerations .................................................................. D-9
D.6 Assessment of Relationship between Design and Analytical
Models for Special SMFs ............................................................ D-10

Appendix E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained Brace

Archetypes ................................................................. E-1
E.1 Introduction..................................................................................... E-1
E.2 Buckling-Restrained Frame Designs .............................................. E-1
E.2.1 Buckling-Restrained Frame Designs for Phase I ............... E-2
E.2.2 Buckling-Restrained Frame Designs for Phase II.............. E-9

References .......................................................................... F-1

Project Participants .............................................................. G-1

GCR 10-917-8 Table of Contents ix

 100% Draft

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Key elements of the FEMA P-695 Methodology ........................... 2-3
Figure 2-2 Outline of process for quantitatively establishing and
documenting seismic performance factors ..................................... 2-5
Figure 3-1 Plan view of typical single-story reinforced masonry shear
wall building configuration ............................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-2 Plan view of typical multi-story reinforced masonry shear
wall building configuration ............................................................ 3-6
Figure 3-3 Dimensions and aspect ratios of multi-story reinforced
masonry shear walls ........................................................................ 3-7
Figure 3-4 Representative element assembly in a typical archetype
model ........................................................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-5 Normalized reference stress-strain curves used for compressive
behavior of masonry: backbone curve (top); and cyclic loading
and unloading curves (bottom). .................................................... 3-15
Figure 3-6 Reference stress-strain relations used for reinforcing steel:
backbone curve (top); cyclic loading and unloading curves
(bottom) ........................................................................................ 3-16
Figure 3-7 Single-story walls tested by Shing et al. (1991). .......................... 3-19
Figure 3-8 Lateral load versus lateral displacement hysteretic curves for
Specimen 1 tested by Shing et al. (1991); (a) experimental
results; (b) analytical model ......................................................... 3-20
Figure 3-9 Lateral load versus lateral displacement hysteretic curves for
Specimen 12 tested by Shing et al. (1991); (a) experimental
results; (b) analytical model ......................................................... 3-20
Figure 3-10 Pushover curve for the 2-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype ....................................................................................... 3-21
Figure 3-11 Pushover curve for the 12-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype ....................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3-12 Pushover curve for the 12-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype. ...................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3-13 Pushover curve for the 12-story, high axial load,
SDC Cmax archetype. ..................................................................... 3-23

GCR 10-917-8 List of Figures xi

100% Draft
Figure 3-14 Pushover curve for the 4-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype. ...................................................................................... 3-23
Figure 4-1 Plan configuration for reinforced concrete shear wall
archetypes........................................................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-2 Concrete stress-strain behavior model (C02) contained in
OpenSees ....................................................................................... 4-10
Figure 4-3 Hysteretic material model for reinforcing steel ............................ 4-11
Figure 4-4 Rotational spring model for reinforcing steel extension and
slip ................................................................................................. 4-12
Figure 4-5 Generalized shear model adapted from ASCE/SEI 41-06 ............ 4-13
Figure 4-6 Plot of Rayleigh damping model, ζ = 2.5%, at T1 and 0.2T1,
for archetype ID 8 ......................................................................... 4-14
Figure 4-7 Non-simulated criteria for buckling and fracture of reinforcing
steel ............................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-8 Pushover analysis results for 4-story, low axial load, SDC
Cmax archetype (ID 33) .................................................................. 4-15
Figure 4-9 Pushover analysis results for 4-story, high axial load, SDC
Cmax archetype (ID 23) .................................................................. 4-16
Figure 4-10 Non-simulated criteria for crushing and spalling of concrete in:
(a) special RCSW archetypes; and (b) ordinary RCSW
archetypes...................................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-11 Approximate shear failure criterion used to account for the
effects of flexural demand on shear behavior ............................... 4-17
Figure 4-12 Pushover results for the 1-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 11) .......................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-13 Pushover results for the 2-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 12) .......................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-14 Pushover results for the 4-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 13) .......................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-15 Pushover results for the 8-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 14) .......................................................................... 4-20
Figure 4-16 Pushover results for the 12-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 5) ............................................................................ 4-20
Figure 5-1 Typical plan configuration of special SCBF and BRBF
archetypes........................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-2 Elevation of 2-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 16-story braced frame
archetypes........................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-3 Two-dimensional plane frame model with a leaning column ......... 5-8

xii List of Figures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
Figure 5-4 Initial camber used to model buckling behavior of brace
elements ........................................................................................ 5-10
Figure 5-5 Comparison of experimental data and nonlinear simulation
for the two-story SCBF archetype ................................................ 5-12
Figure 5-6 Pushover curves for the set of 3-story special SCBF and
BRBF archetypes .......................................................................... 5-13
Figure 5-7 IDA results for 3-story special SCBF SCD Dmax archetypes ........ 5-13
Figure 5-8 Demand profile of pushover analysis and approximate capacity
of archetype 16BRBFDmax(RSA) ............................................... 5-19
Figure 6-1 Typical plan configuration of special SMF archetypes .................. 6-3
Figure 6-2 Typical floor model used for special SMF archetypes ................... 6-7
Figure 6-3 Joint panel zone model ................................................................... 6-9
Figure 6-4 Parameters of the initial (monotonic) backbone curve of the
Ibarra-Krawinkler model ................................................................ 6-9
Figure 6-5 Basic and post-capping strength deterioration.............................. 6-10
Figure 6-6 Match between deterioration model and experimental results ..... 6-10
Figure 6-7 Example of moment – rotation backbone curves.......................... 6-11
Figure 6-8 Example pushover curve and illustration of how to compute
archetype overstrength factor, Ω, and ultimate
displacement, δu. ........................................................................... 6-12
Figure 6-9 Graphical representation of ACMRs for all archetypes ............... 6-17
Figure 6-10 Graphical representation of overstrength factor for all
archetypes ..................................................................................... 6-18
Figure 6-11 Global pushover curves for 1-, 2-, 4-, and 20-story SMFs ........... 6-20
Figure 6-12 Deformation profile of the 20-story, RSA, Dmax archetype
showing the change in deflected shape with increasing roof
displacement ................................................................................. 6-21
Figure 6-13 Response characteristics of 20-story RSA Dmax archetype at
scale factor of 4.1 of ground motion record no. 1207214 ............ 6-22
Figure 6-14 Response characteristics of 20-story RSA Dmax archetype at
scale factor of 4.4 of ground motion record no. 120721
(structure collapses) ...................................................................... 6-23
Figure 7-1 BRBF brace configurations considered in the trial application
(illustrated for two-story, single-bay archetypes) ........................... 7-3

GCR 10-917-8 List of Figures xiii

100% Draft
Figure 7-2 Archetype heights considered for single-bay, chevron archetype
configurations designed for SDC Dmax seismic loading .................. 7-6
Figure 7-3 Plan configurations considered for ZZ- and LB-brace
configurations; illustrated for single-bay, 2-story archetypes
with bay widths of 15 feet and 25 feet ............................................ 7-7
Figure 7-4 Plan configurations considered for chevron and X-brace
configurations; illustrated for single-bay, 2-story archetypes
with bay widths of 20 feet and 30 feet ............................................ 7-8
Figure A-1 Single-story reinforced masonry shear wall building
configuration .................................................................................. A-2
Figure A-2 Multi-story reinforced masonry shear wall building
configurations................................................................................. A-3
Figure A-3 Plan sections of fully-grouted special reinforced masonry
shear walls, SDC Dmax .................................................................... A-7
Figure A-4 Plan sections of fully-grouted special reinforced masonry
shear walls, SDC Dmin .................................................................. A-10
Figure A-5 Plan sections of partially-grouted ordinary reinforced
masonry shear walls, SDC Cmax ................................................... A-13
Figure A-6 Plan sections of partially-grouted ordinary reinforced
masonry shear walls, SDC Cmin .................................................... A-16
Figure A-7 Lateral load-vs.-lateral displacement hysteretic curves for
Specimen 2a tested by Merryman et al.; (a) experimental;
(b) analytical model ..................................................................... A-18
Figure A-8 Lateral load-vs.-lateral displacement hysteretic curves for
Specimen 6 tested by Shedid et al.; (a) experimental;
(b) analytical model ..................................................................... A-19
Figure A-9 Lateral load-vs.-lateral displacement curves for a wall tested
by Ghanem et al. .......................................................................... A-20
Figure B-1 Axial load–moment (P-M) interaction diagram for
Archetype 12 .................................................................................. B-4
Figure B-2 Example shear wall section with boundary element
reinforcing ...................................................................................... B-4
Figure B-3 Cracked pier free-body diagram................................................... B-11
Figure B-4 Wall pier geometry and critical crack angles ............................... B-11
Figure B-5 Drift ratio at axial failure for different critical crack angles
and axial load levels ..................................................................... B-13
Figure B-6 Model results with an effective shear modulus of 0.1E ............... B-16
Figure B-7 Model results with an effective shear modulus of 0.05E ............. B-16

xiv List of Figures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
Figure B-8 Model results with an effective shear modulus of 0.01E ............. B-17
Figure B-9 Shear model with reduced shear modulus for calibration
with specimen RW2 ...................................................................... B-17
Figure C-1 Plan configuration of 2-story braced frame archetypes .................. C-4
Figure C-2 Plan configuration of 3-story and 6-story braced frame
archetypes ....................................................................................... C-5
Figure C-3 Plan configuration of 12-story and 16-story braced frame
archetypes ....................................................................................... C-5
Figure D-1 Typical plan view of buildings used for archetype selection ........ D-2
Figure D-2 Definition of terms for reduced beam section design .................... D-2
Figure D-3 Estimate of story shear capacity, 4-story Dmax-RSA .................... D-10

GCR 10-917-8 List of Figures xv

 100% Draft

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Summary of Design Coefficients and Factors from

Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 for Each System.......................... 1-3
Table 1-2 Summary of Design Criteria Used to Prepare Index Archetype
Configurations for Each System ..................................................... 1-4
Table 1-3 Summary of Index Archetype Heights (Number of Stories)
for Each System .............................................................................. 1-5
Table 1-4 Summary of Performance Groups and Total Number of
Archetypes Used to Evaluate Each System .................................... 1-6
Table 3-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Reinforced
Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes .................................................... 3-8
Table 3-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Ordinary Reinforced
Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes .................................................... 3-8
Table 3-3 Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype
Design Variables............................................................................. 3-9
Table 3-4 Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype
Design Variables............................................................................. 3-9
Table 3-5 Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype
Design Properties .......................................................................... 3-10
Table 3-6 Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype
Design Properties .......................................................................... 3-11
Table 3-7 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Reinforced
Masonry Shear Wall Archetype Designs ...................................... 3-25
Table 3-8 Summary of Collapse Results for Ordinary Reinforced
Masonry Shear Wall Archetype Designs ...................................... 3-26
Table 3-9 Summary of Quality Ratings for Reinforced Masonry
Shear Wall Systems ...................................................................... 3-27
Table 3-10 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of
Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes .................. 3-28
Table 3-11 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of
Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes ................ 3-29
Table 3-12 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special
Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls ................................................. 3-30

GCR 10-917-8 List of Tables xvii

100% Draft
Table 3-13 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Ordinary
Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls ................................................. 3-30
Table 4-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes .................................................... 4-6
Table 4-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Ordinary Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes .................................................... 4-6
Table 4-3 Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Design
Properties ........................................................................................ 4-7
Table 4-4 Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Design
Properties ........................................................................................ 4-8
Table 4-5 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Designs ...................................... 4-21
Table 4-6 Summary of Collapse Results for Ordinary Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Designs ...................................... 4-22
Table 4-7 Summary of Quality Ratings for Reinforced Concrete Shear
Wall Systems ................................................................................. 4-23
Table 4-8 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Special
Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes ............................... 4-24
Table 4-9 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Ordinary
Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes ............................... 4-25
Table 4-10 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls ................................................. 4-26
Table 4-11 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Ordinary
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls ................................................. 4-26
Table 5-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special
Steel Concentrically Braced Frame Archetypes ............................. 5-6
Table 5-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Buckling-
Restrained Brace Frame Archetypes ............................................... 5-6
Table 5-3 Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame Archetype
Design Properties ............................................................................ 5-7
Table 5-4 Buckling-Restrained Brace Frame Archetype Design
Properties ........................................................................................ 5-7
Table 5-5 Modeling Status of Critical Deterioration Modes in Steel
Braced Frame Structures ............................................................... 5-11
Table 5-6 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Steel
Concentrically Braced Frame Archetype Designs ........................ 5-14
Table 5-7 Summary of Collapse Results for Buckling-Restrained
Braced Frame Archetype Designs ................................................. 5-14

xviii List of Tables GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
Table 5-8 Summary of Quality Ratings for Steel Braced Frame Systems .... 5-15
Table 5-9 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Special
Steel Concentrically Braced Frame Archetypes ........................... 5-16
Table 5-10 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetypes........................... 5-16
Table 5-11 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special Steel
Concentrically Braced Frames ...................................................... 5-17
Table 5-12 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Buckling-
Restrained Brace Frames .............................................................. 5-17
Table 6-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Steel Moment
Frame Archetypes Designed by ELF Method ................................ 6-4
Table 6-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Steel Moment
Frame Archetypes Designed by RSA Method ................................ 6-4
Table 6-3 Special Steel Moment Frame Archetype Design
Properties - ELF Design Basis ........................................................ 6-5
Table 6-4 Special Seel Moment Frame Archetype Design
Properties - RSA Design Basis ....................................................... 6-5
Table 6-5 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Steel Moment
Frame Archetypes - ELF Design Basis......................................... 6-13
Table 6-6 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Steel Moment
Frame Archetypes - RSA Design Basis ........................................ 6-13
Table 6-7 Summary of Quality Ratings for Special Steel Moment Frame
Systems ......................................................................................... 6-14
Table 6-8 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of
Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes - ELF
Design Basis ................................................................................. 6-15
Table 6-9 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of
Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes - RSA
Design Basis ................................................................................. 6-16
Table 6-10 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special Steel
Moment Frames Designed by ELF Method ................................. 6-16
Table 6-11 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special Steel
Moment Frames Designed by RSA Method ................................. 6-17
Table 7-1 Building Height and Building Period of Buckling-Restrained
Brace Frame Archetypes................................................................. 7-5
Table 7-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Buckling-Restrained
Braced Frame Archetypes............................................................. 7-11

GCR 10-917-8 List of Tables xix

100% Draft
Table 7-3 Summary of Archetype Configurations used in Sensitivity
Studies of the BRBF System ......................................................... 7-14
Table 7-4 Controlling Performance Groups for the Buckling-Restrained Braced
Frame System (used for Phase II Performance
Evaluation) .................................................................................... 7-15
Table 7-5 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Phase I Archetype Design
Properties ...................................................................................... 7-17
Table 7-6 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Phase II Archetype Design
Properties ...................................................................................... 7-18
Table 8-1 Number of Archetypes Passing the Acceptance Criteria for
Collapse Performance Evaluation ................................................... 8-4
Table 8-2 Comparison of Fundamental Period, T1, of Special SMF
Archetypes Designed Using ELF and RSA Procedures ................. 8-9
Table 8-3 Comparison of Normalized Strength, Vmax/W, of Special SMF
Archetypes Designed Using ELF and RSA Procedures ................. 8-9
Table 8-4 Summary of Quality Ratings for All Systems Evaluated .............. 8-10
Table A-1 Material Properties for Special RMSW and Ordinary RMSW
Archetypes...................................................................................... A-1
Table A-2 Gravity Load Assumptions for Special RMSW and Ordinary
RMSW Archetypes ........................................................................ A-2
Table A-3 Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Building Archetype
Configurations ................................................................................ A-4
Table A-4 1-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmax ........................................................................................ A-5
Table A-5 2-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmax ........................................................................................ A-5
Table A-6 4-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmax ........................................................................................ A-5
Table A-7 8-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmax ...................................................................................... A-5
Table A-8 12-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmax ........................................................................................ A-6
Table A-9 1-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmin ....................................................................................... A-8
Table A-10 2-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmin ........................................................................................ A-8
Table A-11 4-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmin ........................................................................................ A-8

xx List of Tables GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
Table A-12 8-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmin ........................................................................................ A-8
Table A-13 12-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Dmin ........................................................................................ A-9
Table A-14 1-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmax ...................................................................................... A-11
Table A-15 2-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmax ...................................................................................... A-11
Table A-16 4-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmax ...................................................................................... A-11
Table A-17 8-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmax ...................................................................................... A-11
Table A-18 12-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmax ...................................................................................... A-12
Table A-19 1-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmin ...................................................................................... A-14
Table A-20 2-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmin ...................................................................................... A-14
Table A-21 4-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmin ...................................................................................... A-14
Table A-22 8-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmin ...................................................................................... A-14
Table A-23 12-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs,
SDC Cmin ...................................................................................... A-15
Table B-1 Material Properties for Special RCSW and Ordinary RCSW
Archetypes ...................................................................................... B-1
Table B-2 Gravity Load Assumptions for Special RCSW and Ordinary
RCSW Archetypes .......................................................................... B-1
Table B-3 Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype
Configurations ................................................................................ B-2
Table B-4 Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype
Configurations ................................................................................ B-3
Table B-5 1-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ............ B-5
Table B-6 2-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ............ B-5
Table B-7 4-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ............ B-5
Table B-8 8-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ............ B-6
Table B-9 12-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs .......... B-6

GCR 10-917-8 List of Tables xxi

100% Draft
Table B-10 1-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ......... B-7
Table B-11 2-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ......... B-7
Table B-12 4-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ......... B-7
Table B-13 8-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ......... B-8
Table B-14 12-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs ....... B-8
Table B-15 Estimated Plastic Hinge Lengths and Number of Elements
Per Story ......................................................................................... B-9
Table B-16 Results of Sensitivity Studies for 1-story Archetype ................... B-10
Table B-17 Modeled and Assumed Drift at Axial Failure for Special
Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes .............................. B-13
Table B-18 Modeled and Assumed Drift at Axial Failure for Ordinary
Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes .............................. B-14
Table B-19 Comparison of ACMR Values Considering All Failure
Modes and Axial Failure Modes .................................................. B-15
Table C-1 Structural Materials for Special SCBF and BRBF Archetypes ..... C-2
Table C-2 Gravity Loads for Special SCBF and BRBF Archetypes .............. C-2
Table C-3 Seismic Design Parameters for Special SCBF and BRBF
Archetypes...................................................................................... C-3
Table C-4 Member Sizes for 2-Story Braced Frame Archetypes .................. C-6
Table C-5 Member Sizes for 3-Story Braced Frame Archetypes ................... C-6
Table C-6 Member Sizes for 6-Story Braced Frame Archetypes ................... C-7
Table C-7 Member Sizes for 12-Story Braced Frame Archetypes ................. C-8
Table C-8 Member Sizes for 16-Story Special SCBF Archetypes ................. C-9
Table C-9 Member Sizes for 16-Story BRBF Archetypes ............................ C-10
Table D-1 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - ELF
Design Basis (PG-1ELF)................................................................ D-3
Table D-2 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - ELF
Design Basis (PG-2ELF)................................................................ D-3
Table D-3 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - ELF
Design Basis (PG-3ELF)................................................................ D-4
Table D-4 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - ELF
Design Basis (PG-4ELF)................................................................ D-4
Table D-5 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - RSA
Design Basis in (PG-1RSA) ........................................................... D-5

xxii List of Tables GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
Table D-6 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - RSA
Design Basis (PG-2RSA)............................................................... D-5
Table D-7 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - RSA
Design Basis (PG-3RSA)............................................................... D-6
Table D-8 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - RSA
Design Basis (PG-4RSA)............................................................... D-7
Table E-1 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for
Sensitivity Study 1, 2-Story Archetypes ......................................... E-2

Table E-2 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

Sensitivity Study 1, 12-Story Archetypes ....................................... E-3

Table E-3 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

Sensitivity Study 2, 2-Story Archetypes ......................................... E-4

Table E-4 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

Sensitivity Study 2, 12-Story Archetypes ....................................... E-5

Table E-5 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

Sensitivity Study 3, 2-Story Archetypes ......................................... E-6

Table E-6 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

Sensitivity Study 3, 12-Story Archetypes ....................................... E-7

Table E-7 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

SDC Dmax, Long Period (PG-10)..................................................... E-9

Table E-8 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

SDC Dmin Long Period (PG-12) .................................................... E-11

Table E-9 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

SDC Dmax Short Period (PG-13) ................................................... E-13

Table E-10 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype Designs for

SDC Dmin Short Period (PG-15, PG-11, PG-20) ........................... E-13

GCR 10-917-8 List of Tables xxiii

 100% Draft

Chapter 1
Introduction

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report, FEMA P-695

Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (FEMA 2009), outlines a
procedural methodology for establishing global seismic performance factors (SPFs),
including the response modification coefficient (R factor), the system overstrength
factor (), and deflection amplification factor (Cd). These factors are fundamentally
critical in the specification of seismic design loading. The ability to accurately and
reliably quantify these factors is important for new seismic force-resisting systems
being proposed for adoption, as well as for established systems currently allowed in
national model building codes and standards.

In 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated a

project to investigate the FEMA P-695 Methodology in its final stages of
development. Performed by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of
the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), this work was an extension of work
conducted under the FEMA-funded ATC-63 Project. While the ATC-63 Project
included testing of the Methodology on selected systems, the purpose of this NIST
project was to expand the testing of the Methodology to additional seismic force-
resisting systems.

This report presents the results of expanded testing of the FEMA P-695
Methodology, summarizes findings and conclusions for the systems studied, and
provides recommendations for possible improvement of the Methodology and further
study related to the specification and use of seismic performance factors in seismic
design codes and standards.

1.1 Background and Purpose

Seismic performance factors were initially introduced in the ATC-3-06 report,

Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings (ATC,
1978). They are now used in current seismic codes and standards to estimate strength
and deformation demands for seismic force-resisting systems that are designed using
linear methods of analysis, but are responding in the nonlinear range. Until recently,
derivations of these parameters have been based largely on engineering judgment or
qualitative comparisons with systems of known response capabilities.

Advances in performance-based seismic design tools and technologies have resulted

in the ability to use nonlinear collapse simulation techniques to link seismic

GCR 10-917-8 Introduction 1-1

 100% Draft

performance factors and system performance on a probabilistic basis. The FEMA

P-695 Methodology utilizes these techniques in a probabilistic procedure that directly
accounts for potential variations in structural configuration, ground motion, and
available experimental data on the behavioral characteristics of structural components
and systems.

Currently there are more than 75 individual systems contained in the 2003 Edition of
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (NEHRP
Recommended Provisions), (FEMA, 2004a). Development of the FEMA P-695
Methodology included testing on selected seismic force-resisting systems. To date,
this has included investigation of special reinforced concrete moment frames,
ordinary reinforced concrete moment frames, and light-framed walls with wood
structural panel sheathing.

While these investigations have served to test, refine, and illustrate the application of
the Methodology, additional testing was necessary to further verify the accuracy and
reliability of the procedures. The primary objective this work was to test the FEMA
P-695 Methodology on additional seismic force-resisting systems, evaluate the
results for the system of interest, and develop recommendations for improving the
Methodology, if needed. A secondary objective was to identify possible
improvements to the specification and use of seismic performance factors in model
codes and standards, and to recommend areas for further study. It is anticipated that,
once validated, the FEMA P-695 Methodology will be used by model codes and
standards organizations to set minimum acceptable design criteria for code-approved
systems, and to provide guidance in the selection of appropriate design criteria for
alternative systems when linear design methods are applied.

1.2 Scope of the Beta Testing Effort

The beta testing effort was structured to cover a broad range of building types,
response characteristics, and seismic detailing requirements. The availability of
reliable test data on component and system performance, as well as the ability to
simulate significant failure modes and component degrading behavior in analytical
models, were also considered in system selection. The following seismic force-
resisting systems were investigated:
 Special reinforced masonry shear wall (special RMSW) systems
 Ordinary reinforced masonry shear wall (ordinary RMSW) systems
 Special reinforced concrete shear wall (special RCSW) systems
 Ordinary reinforced concrete shear wall (ordinary RCSW) systems
 Special steel concentrically braced frame (special SCBF) systems

1-2 Introduction GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

 Buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) systems

 Special steel moment frame (special SMF) systems designed using both the
equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure, and the response spectrum analysis
(RSA) procedure.

Beta testing was overseen by members of the original ATC-63 Project Team, but was
conducted by working groups consisting of individuals who were not directly
involved in the development of the Methodology. Systems were divided across four
teams as follows: (1) reinforced masonry shear walls; (2) reinforced concrete shear
walls; (3) steel concentrically braced frames and buckling-restrained braced frames;
and (4) steel moment frames. Each team was headed by a researcher with active
research on the material and system of interest, and was advised by a practicing
structural engineer with design expertise on the material and system of interest.

Teams were given the autonomy to develop system archetypes, prepare trial designs,
and conduct nonlinear analyses using software of their choosing. While teams
performed their work independently, they did not operate in isolation. At key
developmental stages, work was coordinated with regard to the scope of the
archetype design space, analytical assumptions, design decisions, criteria for non-
simulated collapse modes, and overall compliance with the requirements of the
Methodology. Tables 1-1 through 1-4 summarize key information on each of the
systems selected for beta testing.

Table 1-1 Summary of Design Coefficients and Factors from Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI
7-05 for Each System
Seismic Force- Primary ASCE/SEI 7-05, Table 12.2-1
ResistingSystem Analysis
No. Type Detailing Procedure No. R 0 C0 SDC Limit (ft)
1 RMSW Special ELF A.7 5 2.5 5 D 160
2 RMSW Ordinary ELF A.9 2 2.5 1.75 C 160
3 RCSW Special ELF B.5 6 2.5 5 D 240
4 RCSW Ordinary ELF B.6 5 2.5 4.5 C NL
5 SCBF Special ELF B.3 6 2 5 D 240
6 BRBF n/a ELF B.26 8 2.5 5 D 240
7a SMF Special ELF C.1 8 3 5.5 D NL
7b SMF Special RSA C.1 8 3 5.5 D NL

Table 1-1 provides a summary of the coefficients and factors taken from Table 12.2-1
of ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE 2006a). Archetype designs for each system were developed using the R
factors shown in this table. In a departure from current seismic design practice, the

GCR 10-917-8 Introduction 1-3

 100% Draft

FEMA P-695 Methodology specifies the use of Cd = R. In order to test the effects of
this requirement, archetype designs were developed using code-specified drift limits
and values of Cd = R. The Cd values from ASCE/SEI 7-05 have been provided for
reference only, and were not used.

Table 1-2 summarizes design criteria used to prepare index archetype configurations
for each system, including analysis procedures, seismic design levels, and gravity
load levels. In most cases, the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure of Section
12.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 was used as the basis for design. In certain cases the
response spectrum analysis (RSA) procedure of Section 12.9 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 was
used, particularly when RSA methods are commonly used in design practice. Special
SMF archetypes have been purposely designed using both the ELF and RSA
procedures to investigate differences in performance due to the choice of analytical
method. Selected taller archetypes for other systems were also designed using the
RSA procedure.

Table 1-2 Summary of Design Criteria Used to Prepare Index Archetype

Configurations for Each System
Seismic Force-Resisting Primary Seismic Design Gravity Design
System Analysis
No. Type Detailing Procedure Max. Min. High Low
1 RMSW Special ELF Dmax Dmin  
2 RMSW Ordinary ELF Cmax Cmin  
3 RCSW Special ELF Dmax Dmin  
4 RCSW Ordinary ELF Cmax Cmin  
5 SCBF Special ELF Dmax Dmin Typical
6 BRBF n/a ELF Dmax Dmin Typical
7a SMF Special ELF Dmax Dmin Typical
7b SMF Special RSA Dmax Dmin Typical

Archetypes were designed for maximum and minimum spectral acceleration

intensities (e.g., Dmax, Dmin, Cmax, and Cmin) associated with the governing Seismic
Design Category (SDC). Although FEMA P-695 requires checking of other SDCs to
fully evaluate system performance, studies have shown that the SDC with the highest
permitted level of seismicity governs the evaluation of the R factor, and beta testing
was limited to archetypes within the governing SDC.

To evaluate the influence of gravity load on performance, archetypes for masonry

and concrete wall systems were designed for both high and low levels of gravity load
intensity. For steel braced frame and steel moment frame systems, in which the

1-4 Introduction GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

effects of gravity loads were judged to be insignificant, a single (typical) level of

gravity load was used to design system archetypes.

Table 1-3 lists the index archetype heights (in number of stories) that were evaluated
for each system. Heights were selected to represent both short-period (T < Ts) and
long-period (T > Ts) systems, as defined in FEMA P-695. In certain cases, the
number of stories was considered above (or below) the practical limit for the system
of interest. For example, shear wall configurations greater than 12 stories and braced
frame configurations less than 2 stories were not designed.

Table 1-3 Summary of Index Archetype Heights (Number of Stories) for Each
System
Seismic Force-Resisting Primary
System Index Archetype Heights
Analysis
(Number of Stories)
No. Type Detailing Procedure

1 RMSW Special ELF 1 2 4 8 12 n/a

2 RMSW Ordinary ELF 1 2 4 8 12 n/a
3 RCSW Special ELF 1 2 4 8 12 n/a
4 RCSW Ordinary ELF 1 2 4 8 12 n/a
5 SCBF Special ELF n/a 2 3 6 12 16
6 BRBF n/a ELF n/a 2 3 6 12 16
7a SMF Special ELF 1 2 4 n/a n/a 20
7b SMF Special RSA 1 2 4 8 12 20

Performance groups are used to evaluate the average performance of archetypes with
common design features and behavioral characteristics. Key features that were
considered include: building height (e.g., short-period or long-period systems); level
of gravity loading (e.g., high, low, or typical gravity loads); and level of seismic
loading (e.g., maximum or minimum spectral acceleration intensities for the
governing SDC). To fully evaluate a system of interest, a sufficient number of
performance groups must be populated with a sufficient number of archetypes to
encompass the permissible design space over the range of applicability of the system.

A total of 120 archetypes were developed for the seven systems selected for beta
testing. Table 1-4 summarizes the performance groups and number of archetypes
used to evaluate each system. Each cell in the table corresponds to one performance
group, and the number shown in the cell is the number of archetypes in that
performance group.

Because of practical limitations in available resources, the scope of the beta testing
effort was necessarily limited. Since the primary objective of this work was to test
the FEMA P-695 Methodology on as many seismic force-resisting systems as

GCR 10-917-8 Introduction 1-5

 100% Draft

possible, it was considered more beneficial to evaluate a larger number of systems

with a carefully selected, but limited, number of archetypes per system, rather than to
evaluate fewer systems with a larger number of archetypes per system.

Table 1-4 Summary of Performance Groups and Total Number of Archetypes Used to
Evaluate Each System

Seismic Force-Resisting No. of Archetypes by Performance Group

System Short-Period Long-Period
Gravity Seismic Loads Total
No. Type Detailing Loads (Maximum or Minimum of SDC)
Max. Min. Max. Min.
High 3 2 2 3
1 RMSW Special 20
Low 3 2 2 3
High 2 3 2 3
2 RMSW Ordinary 20
Low 2 3 2 3
High 3 2 2 3
3 RCSW Special 20
Low 3 2 2 3
High 2 3 2 3
4 RCSW Ordinary 20
Low 2 3 2 3
5 SCBF Special Typical 2 3 2 3 10
6 BRBF n/a Typical 2 3 2 3 10
7a SMF Special Typical 2 1 2 3 8
7b SMF Special Typical 2 1 4 5 12

Full implementation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology, however, would require at

least three archetypes to evaluate the statistics within each performance group. Also,
additional performance groups for each system would likely be required to fully
evaluate the design space permitted by current code requirements. For example,
shear walls could be constructed with varying thicknesses in pierced, flanged, or T-
shaped configurations, and steel braced frames could be constructed with tube, wide-
flange, or double channel braces arranged in single-diagonal, “X”, or multi-story
configurations.

To test the feasibility of full implementation of the Methodology, the trial application
on buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBF) was selected for further study. In this
study, the process for developing a full set of archetypes for evaluation of the
complete design space was illustrated. While nonlinear analyses and performance
evaluations were not performed as part of this work, the expanded trial application
demonstrates how systematic identification of controlling characteristics can be used

1-6 Introduction GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

to limit the number of archetypes needed for full implementation of the

Methodology.

1.3 Report Organization and Content

This report summarizes modeling methods, assumptions, and results for the beta
testing effort. It is organized to present findings and conclusions for each individual
system of interest, and to allow comparison of results across different systems.

Chapter 1 provides background information and describes the scope of the beta
testing effort.

Chapter 2 provides a brief overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for context,
introducing the basic theory and concepts as they relate to the beta testing effort.

Chapters 3 through 6 describe the application of the FEMA P-695 Methodology to

reinforced masonry shear wall systems, reinforced concrete shear wall systems, steel
braced frame systems, and steel moment frame systems, respectively. Each chapter
follows a common organizational format that includes identification of structural
system information, development of index archetype configurations, conduct of
nonlinear analyses, and system performance evaluation. Results for each system are
summarized in tables in a consistent manner. Each chapter concludes with a
summary of observations on the FEMA P-695 Methodology, observations on system
performance, and recommendations for possible future experimental and analytical
research.

Chapter 7 illustrates the development of a complete set of archetypes that would be

necessary to cover the code-permitted design space for performance evaluation of
buckling-restrained braced frame systems.

Chapter 8 summarizes general findings and conclusions across all systems,

recommendations for possible improvement or refinement of the FEMA P-695
Methodology, and recommendations for further study on the specification and use of
seismic performance factors in model codes and standards.

Appendices A through E provide additional information on the development of index

archetype configurations, the resulting archetype designs, and analytical model
development for each system of interest.

GCR 10-917-8 Introduction 1-7

 100% Draft

Chapter 2
Overview of the FEMA P-695
Methodology

This chapter provides a brief summary of the scope and basis of the methodology
contained in FEMA P-695 Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors
(FEMA 2009). It defines terminology and key concepts used in the trial applications
described herein. Readers are referred to the FEMA P-695 report for complete
information on the specific requirements of the Methodology, and guidance on its
implementation and use.

The purpose of the FEMA P-695 Methodology is to provide a rational basis for
determining global seismic performance factors (SPFs), including the response
modification coefficient (R factor), the system overstrength factor (), and
deflection amplification factor (Cd) that, when properly implemented in the seismic
design process, will result in “equivalent safety against collapse in an earthquake,
comparable to the inherent safety against collapse intended by current seismic codes,
for buildings with different seismic-force-resisting systems,” (FEMA 2009).

The Methodology is intended for use with model building codes and standards to set
minimum acceptable design criteria for code-approved seismic-force-resisting
systems when linear design methods are applied. It also provides a basis for
evaluation of current code-approved systems and their ability to meet the seismic
performance intent of the code.

2.1 Selected Terminology

The following selected terminology is key to the FEMA P-695 Methodology, and is
utilized in descriptions of the beta testing effort:
 Archetype: A prototypical representation of a seismic-force-resisting system.
 Archetype Design Space: The overall range of permissible configurations,
structural design parameters, and other features that define the application limits
for a seismic-force-resisting system.
 Collapse Level Earthquake Ground Motions: The level of earthquake ground
motions that cause collapse of the seismic force-resisting system of interest.
 Collapse Margin Ratio: The primary parameter used to characterize the collapse
safety of a system, taken as the ratio between the median collapse intensity and
the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motion intensity.

GCR 10-917-8 Overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology 2-1

100% Draft

 Design Requirements-Related Uncertainty: Collapse uncertainty associated

with the quality of the design requirements of the system of interest.
 Index Archetype Configuration: A prototypical representation of a seismic-
force-resisting system configuration that embodies key features and behaviors
related to collapse performance when subjected to earthquake ground motions.
 Index Archetype Design: An index archetype configuration that has been
proportioned and detailed using the design requirements of the system of interest.
 Index Archetype Model: An idealized mathematical representation of an index
archetype design used to simulate collapse using nonlinear static and dynamic
analyses.
 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motions: The most severe
earthquake effects considered, as defined by Section 11.4 of ASCE/SEI 7-05.
 Modeling Uncertainty: Collapse uncertainty associated with the quality of the
index archetype models.
 Non-Simulated Collapse: Structural collapse caused by collapse modes that are
not represented in the analytical model. Non-simulated collapse occurs when a
component limit state is exceeded, as defined by component fragility functions.
 Performance Group: A subset of the archetype design space containing a group
of index archetype configurations that share a set of common features or
behavioral characteristics, binned for statistical evaluation of collapse
performance.
 Record-to-Record Uncertainty: Collapse uncertainty due to variability in
response to different ground motions.
 Simulated Collapse: Structural collapse caused by collapse modes that are
directly represented in the analytical model.
 Test Data-Related Uncertainty: Collapse uncertainty associated with the
quality of the test data for the system of interest.

2.2 Elements of the Methodology

Key elements of the FEMA P-695 Methodology are illustrated in Figure 2-1. The
Methodology involves the development of detailed design information and test data
for the system of interest. It utilizes nonlinear analysis techniques, and explicitly
considers uncertainties in ground motion, modeling, design, and test data in the
probabilistic assessment of collapse risk.

Implementation of the Methodology involves uncertainty, judgment, and potential for

variation. In its envisioned application, decisions regarding an appropriate level of
detail for adequately characterizing the performance of a proposed system are made
in collaboration with an independent peer review panel.

2-2 Overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Ground Analysis
Motions Methods

Methodology

Test Data Design Information

Requirements Requirements

Peer Review
Requirements

Figure 2-1 Key elements of the FEMA P-695 Methodology (FEMA 2009).

2.3 Scope and Basis of the Methodology

The following principles outline the scope and basis of the FEMA P-695
Methodology:
 Applicable to New Building Structural Systems. The Methodology applies to
the determination of seismic performance factors appropriate for the design of
seismic-force-resisting systems in new building structures. Nonstructural
systems, non-building structures, and retrofit of existing seismic-force-resisting
systems are not explicitly considered.
 Compatible with the NEHRP Recommended Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7-05.
The Methodology is intended for use with applicable design criteria and
requirements of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures (NEHRP Recommended Provisions),
(FEMA, 2004a), and the seismic provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, (ASCE 2006).
 Consistent with the Life Safety Performance Objective. The Methodology is
consistent with the primary “life safety” performance objective of seismic
regulations in model building codes, identified as “minimum criteria considered
prudent for protection of life safety in structures subject to earthquakes,” (FEMA
2004b).
 Based on Acceptably Low Probability of Structural Collapse. The
Methodology achieves the primary life safety performance objective by requiring
an acceptably low probability of collapse of the seismic-force-resisting system
when subjected to Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motions.

GCR 10-917-8 Overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology 2-3

100% Draft

 Earthquake Hazard based on MCE Ground Motions. The Methodology

evaluates collapse under Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground
motions for various geographic regions of seismicity, as defined by the
coefficients and mapped acceleration parameters of the general procedure of
ASCE/SEI 7-05, based on the maps and procedures contained in the NEHRP
Recommended Provisions.
 Concepts Consistent with Current Seismic Performance Factor Definitions.
The Methodology is consistent with the definitions of seismic performance
factors given in ASCE/SEI 7-05, and the underlying nonlinear static analysis
(pushover) concepts described in the Commentary to the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions. The R factor is keyed to the ratio between the MCE ground motion
intensity and the design strength of a system, but there are differences related to
the system overstrength factor (), and deflection amplification factor (Cd),
which is taken as equal to the R factor.

2.4 Outline of the Process

The steps comprising the FEMA P-695 Methodology outline a process for
developing system design information with enough detail and specificity to identify
the permissible range of application for the proposed system, adequately simulate
nonlinear response, and reliably assess the collapse risk over the proposed range of
applications. The process includes the following steps:
 Obtain Required Information. Obtain required system information in the form
of detailed design requirements and system and component test data.
 Characterize Behavior. Characterize system behavior through consideration of
configuration issues and behavioral effects, development of index archetype
configurations, definition of an archetype design space, and identification of
performance groups.
 Develop Models. Develop nonlinear models by applying design requirements
and utilizing test data to prepare index archetype designs, develop mathematical
models for explicit simulation of collapse modes, calibrate models, and establish
criteria for non-simulated collapse modes.
 Analyze Models. Perform nonlinear static (pushover) and nonlinear dynamic
(response history) analyses using a set of pre-defined (Far-Field) ground motion
records.
 Evaluate Performance. Evaluate system collapse performance by assessing
total uncertainty (based on the quality of test data, design requirements, and
analytical models), determining the collapse margin ratio, and comparing an
adjusted collapse margin ratio to acceptable values based on an acceptably low
probability of collapse.

2-4 Overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

 Document Results. Identify sources of required system information, and

document information on system behavior, development of index archetype
designs, nonlinear model development, analytical results, quality ratings, and
system performance evaluation criteria.

Figure 2-2 Outline of process for quantitatively establishing and documenting

seismic performance factors (FEMA 2009).

2.5 Implementation of the Performance Evaluation

The performance of a structural system is deemed acceptable if the probability of

collapse due to Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motions is limited
to an acceptably low value. Within each performance group, systems are required to
meet a 10% collapse probability limit, on average, across all archetypes in the
performance group. Recognizing that some individual archetypes could have
collapse probabilities that exceed this value, a limit of twice that value, or 20%, is
used as the criterion for evaluating the acceptability of potential “outliers” within a

GCR 10-917-8 Overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology 2-5

100% Draft

performance group. In the trial applications that follow, collapse performance

evaluation is performed for each system as follows:

Probability of collapse is measured through the use of collapse margin ratios (CMRs).
A collapse margin ratio (CMR) is the ratio of the median collapse intensity ( Ŝ CT )
obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis to the Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) ground motion spectral demand (SMT).
Sˆ
CMR  CT (2-1)
S MT

Adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMRs) are obtained by multiplying the CMRs,
computed from nonlinear dynamic analysis results, by a spectral shape factor, SSF.

ACMRi  SSFi  CMRi (2-2)

The SSF for each archetype is determined using Table 7-1 of FEMA P-695, based on
the code-based fundamental period, T, and period-based ductility, μT. Period-based
ductility is obtained by dividing the ultimate roof drift by the effective yield drift
obtained from static pushover analysis:
u
T  (2-3)
 y ,eff

The acceptable average value of ACMR for each performance group is denoted by
ACMR10%. The acceptable value of ACMR for individual archetypes within a
performance group is denoted by ACMR20%.

Values of ACMR10% and ACMR20% are specified in Table 7-3 of FEMA P-695, based
on total system collapse uncertainty, βTOT. Collapse uncertainty is a function of the
quality ratings associated with the design requirements, test data, and nonlinear
models, as well as record-to-record uncertainty. Values of βTOT are determined from
Table 7-2 of FEMA P-695 or from the following equation:

TOT   RTR
2
  DR
2
 TD
2
  MDL
2
(2-4)

Calculated values of ACMR are compared on average across a performance group

and individually for each archetype:

ACMR i  ACMR10% (2-5)

ACMRi  ACMR 20% (2-6)

The overstrength factor,  for each archetype is calculated as the ratio between the
maximum shear force obtained from pushover analysis, Vmax, and the design shear
force, V:
Vmax
 (2-7)
V

2-6 Overview of the FEMA P-695 Methodology GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Chapter 3
Trial Application - Reinforced
Masonry Shear Wall Structures

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a trial application of the FEMA P-695 Methodology on special
reinforced masonry shear wall (special RMSW) and ordinary reinforced masonry
shear wall (ordinary RMSW) structures. It summarizes design requirements and
available test data for reinforced masonry shear walls, explains the development of
masonry shear wall archetype configurations, documents the nonlinear modeling
approach, presents the results of a performance evaluation, and summarizes
observations on the Methodology specific to reinforced masonry shear wall systems.

3.2 Overview and Approach

In this trial application, special and ordinary reinforced masonry shear wall systems,
as defined in ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08/TMS 402-08, Masonry Standards Joint
Committee (MSJC), Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI,
2008b), were considered as if they were new systems proposed for inclusion in
ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE,
2006). Although the intent was to treat special and ordinary masonry shear wall
systems as if they were new systems, the purpose was not to re-derive or validate
seismic performance factors (R, Ω0, and Cd) for these systems. Rather, it was to
examine whether masonry shear wall systems would satisfy the acceptance criteria of
the FEMA P-695 Methodology, test the application of the Methodology with respect
to these systems, and identify possible improvements to the Methodology or current
masonry shear wall design provisions.

The system design requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-05, including minimum base shear
and story drift limits, were used as the basis for design, with the exception that Cd
was taken equal to R, as specified in the FEMA P-695 Methodology. Values of R for
load-bearing special RMSW and ordinary RMSW systems are 5 and 2, respectively.

Reinforced masonry shear wall systems can have many different configurations,
including perforated walls with regular or irregularly-shaped openings, cantilever
walls with strong or weak coupling beams, and walls rectangular or flanged cross
sections. For practical reasons, the scope of the beta testing effort on reinforced
masonry shear walls was necessarily limited. A single wall configuration, cantilever
with rectangular cross section, was used to investigate results for a range of building

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-1

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

heights and design parameters. The selection of this configuration, and the
development of corresponding index archetype designs for masonry shear wall
buildings, is described below.

Cantilever walls with weak coupling and rectangular cross sections can be found in
both low-rise and mid-rise masonry shear wall buildings. Compared to other wall
types, they are easier to design and detail to achieve a desired seismic performance.
Furthermore, rectangular cantilever wall systems can be analyzed with a higher level
of confidence than other configurations using currently available nonlinear modeling
capabilities.

Focus on a single reinforced masonry shear wall configuration allows a broad range
of design variables to be examined with a reasonable number of building archetypes.
Design variables that were considered include the number of stories, wall aspect
ratio, level of gravity load, seismic design category, and full or partial grouting.

In this study, special RMSWs are fully-grouted, while ordinary RMSWs are partially-
grouted. This is not a code requirement, but reflects current design practice for
special and ordinary walls. Special RMSWs are most prevalent in the western United
States, where these walls are normally fully-grouted. Partially-grouted ordinary
RMSWs are used in other regions of the country where the seismic risk is perceived
to be less severe.

Strictly speaking, partially-grouted special walls and fully-grouted ordinary walls

should also be considered in the design space, as they are permitted by the code.
Since partially-grouted walls are not expected to perform as well as fully-grouted
walls, doing so would bias the results for special RMSWs in a way that is contrary to
common design practice. Results of this study should be interpreted with this
condition in mind.

In the design of taller (e.g., 12-story) special RMSW configurations, use of the
equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure was found to result in a design that was
governed by story drift. In this case, use of Cd = R resulted in a more conservative
design than would have been obtained using the value of Cd given in ASCE/SEI 7-05.
If the response spectrum analysis (RSA) procedure was used, calculated story drifts
were smaller, and did not govern the design. For shorter wall configurations and
ordinary RMSWs, drift did not control, regardless of the analysis procedure used. To
avoid biasing the results with drift-controlled (conservative) designs, 12-story special
RMSW archetypes were designed using the RSA procedure. Other archetypes were
designed using the ELF procedure.

3-2 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft
3.3 Structural System Information
3.3.1 Design Requirements

Reinforced masonry shear walls were designed and detailed in accordance with the
strength design requirements of the ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08/TMS 402-08, Masonry
Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) code. According to the MSJC code, special
RMSWs are required for Seismic Design Category (SDC) D, while ordinary RMSWs
can be used for SDC C. Special RMSWs are very often fully-grouted, while ordinary
RMSWs are partially-grouted. In this study, fully-grouted special RMSWs were used
for SDC D archetypes, and partially-grouted ordinary RMSWs were used for SDC C
archetypes.

With the strength design provisions of the MSJC code, it is possible that a wall could
develop very high compressive strains and exhibit severe toe-crushing behavior when
subjected to combined vertical and lateral loads, even when special boundary
elements are not required. On the other hand, alternative conditions specified to
assure adequate flexural ductility can be too stringent, leading to uneconomical
design solutions. Consistent with typical engineering practice, wall designs
satisfying strength design requirements were checked against the allowable stress
design requirements and modified, if necessary, so that the maximum compressive
stress limit of f m′ / 3 was not violated (where f m′ is the specified masonry
compressive strength). This allowable stress requirement was found to govern the
design of some of the taller, partially-grouted archetypes.
3.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements

The design requirements for special RMSWs are considered well-developed and
reasonably substantiated by experimental data. They are based on a capacity design
approach, and have reasonable safeguards against unanticipated failure modes. A
quality rating of (B) Good was assigned to the design requirements for special
RMSWs.

The design requirements for ordinary RMSWs are not well-substantiated by

experimental data. Ordinary walls are partially-grouted, and as a result, their
behavior is not as consistent as that of special RMSWs. A quality rating of (C) Fair
was assigned to the design requirements for ordinary RMSWs.
3.3.3 Test Data

To develop and calibrate analytical models for the evaluation of the seismic
performance of the archetype wall systems, past experimental studies were reviewed,
and suitable data were selected for model validation. Tests on fully-grouted walls
have been conducted by Shing et al. (1991), Voon and Ingham (2006), Shedid et al.
(2008), Merryman et al. (1990), and Kingsley et al. (1994).

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-3

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Shing et al. (1991) tested 24 one-story walls with a height-to-length ratio of one, and
axial compressive load ratios, P / ( f m′ An ) , not greater than 0.10, where An is the net
cross-sectional area. Seven of the walls had flexure-dominated behavior, most of
which satisfied the requirements for special walls, while the rest had flexure-shear or
shear-dominated behavior. Voon and Ingham (2006) tested eight fully-grouted and
two partially-grouted reinforced concrete masonry cantilever shear walls under cyclic
loading. Different height-to-length ratios (0.6, 1.0, and 2.0), reinforcement ratios,
and axial loads were considered. Most specimens exhibited shear-dominated
behavior. Shedid et al. (2008) tested six small-scale walls with a height-to-length
ratio of two. Merryman et al. (1990) tested two two-story coupled wall systems with
the coupling forces introduced by floor and roof slabs. Kingsley et al. (1994) tested a
five-story masonry wall system with coupled flanged walls.
3.3.4 Quality Rating of Test Data

There is a reasonable amount of data from tests on fully-grouted walls that are well-
documented and considered to be reliable. However, they do not cover the broad
range of reinforcement ratios, wall aspect ratios, and axial load levels that are
encountered in the archetype design space. Furthermore, there are not enough data to
determine the statistical variability of the test results. Data on multi-story wall
systems are scarce, and there are only limited data available to determine the
influence of the wall aspect ratio and loading condition on the effective plastic-hinge
length of a flexure-dominated wall. Given the reasonable availability of data along
with the limitations noted above, test data for special RMSWs were assigned a
quality rating of (B) Good.

Test data on partially-grouted walls are extremely limited, especially with respect to
flexure-dominated behavior. Most of the walls tested by Ingham et al. (2001) had
shear-dominated behavior. Ghanem et al. (1992) tested three small-scale partially-
grouted walls, which exhibited shear, flexure-shear, and flexure-dominated behaviors
as the distribution of the vertical and horizontal reinforcement was varied. In
general, the observed behavior of partially-grouted walls in available test data is not
as consistent as that of fully-grouted walls. Given these limitations, test data for
ordinary RMSWs were assigned a quality rating of (C) Fair.

3.4 Archetype Configurations

The design space for reinforced masonry shear wall systems includes many different
configurations. They can be perforated wall systems, with regular or irregular
openings, which are common in low-rise buildings. In mid-rise and taller buildings,
cantilever wall systems are often used. Cantilever walls can be strongly or weakly
coupled, and can include flanged or rectangular cross sections.

The design of perforated wall systems is not addressed well in current code
provisions. These walls may not possess the desired ductility even if they are

3-4 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

detailed in accordance with the requirements for special RMSWs. In contrast,

cantilever wall systems are easier to design and detail to attain a desired seismic
performance. They can also be analyzed with a higher level of confidence using
currently available nonlinear modeling capabilities. For these reasons, archetypes
considered in this trial application were limited to cantilever wall systems with
rectangular cross sections.

Focus on rectangular shear wall configurations allowed consideration of the

following additional design variables: special versus ordinary detailing, fully-grouted
versus partially-grouted construction, seismic design category, level of seismic
design loading, level of gravity load, number of stories, period, and wall aspect ratio.
Two plan configurations were selected as representative of realistic reinforced
masonry shear wall arrangements in buildings encompassing these design variables.
To produce lower-bound designs without excessive overstrength, the number of walls
and plan dimensions of these typical configurations were varied in each archetype to
optimize strength relative to the level of seismic design loading.

204 ft.

Column
Lines

204 ft.

24 ft.

Figure 3-1 Plan view of typical single-story reinforced masonry shear wall
building configuration (design for SDC Dmax shown).

Single-story archetype configurations (Figure 3-1) were selected to be representative

of masonry buildings used in retail-type occupancies. They are one-story structures
with a roof height of 12 feet and shear walls located on the building perimeter. As
idealized in this study, the archetypes included large storefront windows and minimal
(24 feet long) reinforced masonry walls as the exterior enclosure. All walls had a
fixed aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1. The number of walls and the total length of shear wall
in each archetype were kept to the minimum required for strength, based on the plan

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-5

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

dimensions and seismic design category. Gravity loads were distributed to interior
columns and exterior wall lines based on tributary roof area. Since all walls carry the
same level of gravity load, the same one-story wall archetype design is used for both
the low and high gravity load conditions for each seismic design category.

8-in. Precast Hollow Core Planks

with 2-in. Topping

A B C D E F

32 ft.

2
5-in. Cast-in-Place Slab 10 ft.
3

32 ft.

4
32 ft.
5 @ 36 ft. = 180 ft.

Figure 3-2 Plan view of typical multi-story reinforced masonry shear wall
building configuration (design for 12-story SDC Dmax shown).

Multi-story archetype configurations (Figure 3-2) were selected to be representative

of masonry buildings used in hotels, condominiums, and college dormitory
residential-type occupancies. Story heights are 10 feet in all cases, and building
heights of two, four, eight, and twelve stories were considered. All shear walls are 32
feet long, so wall aspect ratios varied with the number of stories (Figure 3-3). Shear
walls in the transverse and longitudinal directions are not structurally connected, so
walls were assumed to act as independent rectangular sections in each direction. The
number of walls provided in each direction for each archetype was reduced to the
minimum required for strength, based on seismic design category and number of
stories.

For the purpose of estimating design gravity loads, the floor and roof systems were
assumed to consist of cast-in-place concrete slabs in the corridors, and precast hollow
core planks with a cast-in-place concrete topping slab elsewhere. While the absolute
magnitude of axial load on a wall will depend on the height of the building, higher
gravity load conditions occurred on transverse walls and lower gravity load
conditions occurred on longitudinal walls based on the orientation of the floor
framing. Although Merryman et al. (1990) and Kingsley et al. (1994) have shown
that axial compression loads introduced into a wall by the coupling action of the slabs
can significantly increase lateral resistance, coupling moments and forces induced by
the floor and roof slabs were neglected in the design and analysis of the archetypes.

3-6 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

32 ft.

32 ft.

12@10 ft.

32 ft.

8@10 ft.
32 ft.

4@10 ft.

2@10 ft.
Figure 3-3 Dimensions and aspect ratios of multi-story reinforced masonry
shear walls.

Walls were assumed to be constructed of hollow concrete masonry units with

nominal widths ranging from 8 inches to 16 inches. In multi-story walls,
reinforcement quantities and nominal masonry design strength, f m′ , were changed
every other story, as needed, for economies in design. Wall thicknesses, however,
remained constant over the height of a building.

Both special and ordinary RMSW archetypes were considered. Fully-grouted special
RMSW archetypes were designed for the maximum and minimum seismic criteria
associated with SDC D (i.e., Dmax and Dmin). Partially-grouted ordinary RMSW
archetypes were designed for the maximum and minimum seismic criteria associated
with SDC C (i.e., Cmax and Cmin).

Archetypes were grouped into performance groups containing a set of common

features or behavioral characteristics, including seismic design category, gravity load
level, and code-based period of the structure. Considering the design variables listed
above, a total of 40 archetypes were developed. These were divided into 16
performance groups, eight attributed to special RMSWs and eight attributed to
ordinary RMSWs, as shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Performance groups with less
than three archetypes did not meet the minimum number of archetypes per
performance group required in a full application of the Methodology.

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 summarize the design variables for the 40 archetypes considered
in this trial application, including the number of stories, the wall geometry, the
number of walls in each direction, and the seismic weight per floor shared by each
wall.

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-7

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Table 3-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Reinforced

Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1S Short 3
SDC Dmax 2
PG-2S Long 2
High 3
PG-3S Short 2
SDC Dmin 4
PG-4S Long 3
Cantilever 1
PG-5S Short 3
SDC Dmax 2
PG-6S Long 2
Low 3
PG-7S Short 2
SDC Dmin 4
PG-8S Long 3
1. Short-period, SDC Dmax, performance groups, PG-1 and PG-5, include
1-story, 2-story and 4-story archetypes.
2. Long-period, SDC Dmax, performance groups, PG-2 and PG-6, include 8-story
and 12-story archetypes.
3. Short-period, SDC Dmin, performance groups, PG-3 and PG-7, include 1-story
and 2-story archetypes.
4. Long-period, SDC Dmin, performance groups, PG-4 and PG-8, include 4-story,
8-story and 12-story archetypes.

Table 3-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Ordinary Reinforced

Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1O Short 2
SDC Cmax 2
PG-2O Long 3
High 1
PG-3O Short 2
SDC Cmin 2
PG-4O Long 3
Cantilever 1
PG-5O Short 2
SDC Cmax 2
PG-6O Long 3
Low 1
PG-7O Short 2
SDC Cmin 2
PG-8O Long 3
1. Short-period performance groups, PG-1, PG-3, PG-5 and PG-7, include 1-
story and 2-story archetypes.
2. Long-period performance groups, PG-2, PG-4, PG-6 and PG-8, include 4-
story, 8-story and 12-story archetypes.

3-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Table 3-3 Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype Design

Variables
Design Parameters

Arch. No. of Roof Floor

Wall Weight
Design Walls Weight
No. of Height/ Gravity
SDC in Per Per
ID No. Stories Length Loads 1 1
Each Wall Wall
(ft.) Direct. (kips) (kips)
Performance Group No. PG-1S and PG-5S
S1/S11 1 12/24 High/Low Dmax 2 1,292 NA
S2/S12 2 20/32 High/Low Dmax 4 516 617
S3/S13 4 40/32 High/Low Dmax 8 231 286
Performance Group No. PG-2S and PG-6S
S4/S14 8 80/32 High/Low Dmax 12 115 151
S5/S15 12 120/32 High/Low Dmax 12 126 174
Performance Group No. PG-3S and PG-7S
S6/S16 1 12/24 High/Low Dmin 2 1,756 NA
S7/S17 2 20/32 High/Low Dmin 4 893 1,053
Performance Group No. PG-4S and PG-8S
S8/S18 4 40/32 High/Low Dmin 4 642 762
S9/S19 8 80/32 High/Low Dmin 4 390 464
S10/S20 12 120/32 High/Low Dmin 4 402 493

1. Seismic weight shared by each wall per floor.

Table 3-4 Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype Design

Variables
Design Parameters

Arch. No. of Roof Floor

Wall Weight
Design Walls Weight
No. of Height/ Gravity
SDC in Per Per
ID No. Stories Length Loads 1 1
Each Wall Wall
(ft.) Direct. (kips) (kips)
Performance Group No. PG-1O and PG-5O
O1/O11 1 12/24 High/Low Cmax 4 318 NA
O2/O12 2 20/32 High/Low Cmax 4 381 450
Performance Group No. PG-2O and PG-6O
O3/O13 4 40/32 High/Low Cmax 8 158 193
O4/O14 8 80/32 High/Low Cmax 12 107 135
O5/O15 12 120/32 High/Low Cmax 12 111 144
Performance Group No. PG-3O and PG-7O
O6/O16 1 12/24 High/Low Cmin 4 873 NA
O7/O17 2 20/32 High/Low Cmin 4 631 740
Performance Group No. PG-4O and PG-8O
O8/O18 4 40/32 High/Low Cmin 4 319 374
O9/O19 8 80/32 High/Low Cmin 8 192 232
O10/O20 12 120/32 High/Low Cmin 8 163 200

1. Seismic weight shared by each wall per floor.

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-9

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Key seismic design parameters for the special RMSW and ordinary RMSW
archetypes are summarized in Tables 3-5 and 3-6. Values of the seismic base shear
coefficient, V/W, and the MCE-level spectral acceleration, SMT, for SDC Dmax, Dmin,
Cmax, and Cmin were determined using the code-based structural period, T, and the
spectral values given in Table 5-1 of FEMA P-695. The code-based period is the
upper-limit period calculated using the approximate method provided in ASCE/SEI
7-05, with a lower bound of 0.25 seconds, in accordance with the Methodology.

Table 3-5 Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype Design

Properties
Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype
No. of Seismic Design Criteria
Design ID Gravity SMT(T)
Stories
Number Loads (g)
T T1 V/W
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1S
S1 1 High Dmax 5 0.25 0.10 0.200 1.50
S2 2 High Dmax 5 0.26 0.13 0.200 1.50
S3 4 High Dmax 5 0.45 0.21 0.200 1.50
Performance Group No. PG-2S
S4 8 High Dmax 5 0.75 0.55 0.160 1.20
S5 12 High Dmax 5 1.02 0.93 0.118 0.89
Performance Group No. PG-3S
S6 1 High Dmin 5 0.25 0.14 0.100 0.75
S7 2 High Dmin 5 0.28 0.19 0.100 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-4S
S8 4 High Dmin 5 0.48 0.35 0.084 0.63
S9 8 High Dmin 5 0.80 1.12 0.050 0.37
S10 12 High Dmin 5 1.09 1.74 0.037 0.28
Performance Group No. PG-5S
S11 1 Low Dmax 5 0.25 0.10 0.200 1.50
S12 2 Low Dmax 5 0.26 0.13 0.200 1.50
S13 4 Low Dmax 5 0.45 0.26 0.200 1.50
Performance Group No. PG-6S
S14 8 Low Dmax 5 0.75 0.61 0.160 1.20
S15 12 Low Dmax 5 1.02 0.93 0.118 0.89
Performance Group No. PG-7S
S16 1 Low Dmin 5 0.25 0.14 0.100 0.75
S17 2 Low Dmin 5 0.28 0.21 0.100 0.75
S18 4 Low Dmin 5 0.48 0.43 0.084 0.63
S19 8 Low Dmin 5 0.80 1.16 0.05 0.37
S20 12 Low Dmin 5 1.09 1.94 0.037 0.28

3-10 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Table 3-6 Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetype Design

Properties
Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype
No. of Seismic Design Criteria
Design ID Gravity SMT(T)
Stories
Number Loads (g)
T T1 V/W
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1O
O1 1 High Cmax 2 0.25 0.10 0.250 0.75
O2 2 High Cmax 2 0.28 0.19 0.250 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-2O
O3 4 High Cmax 2 0.48 0.28 0.210 0.63
O4 8 High Cmax 2 0.80 0.59 0.125 0.37
O5 12 High Cmax 2 1.09 1.0 0.092 0.28
Performance Group No. PG-3O
O6 1 High Cmin 2 0.25 0.16 0.150 0.45
O7 2 High Cmin 2 0.31 0.20 0.150 0.45
Performance Group No. PG-4O
O8 4 High Cmin 2 0.52 0.43 0.128 0.38
O9 8 High Cmin 2 0.87 0.72 0.076 0.23
O10 12 High Cmin 2 1.18 1.19 0.056 0.17
Performance Group No. PG-5O
O11 1 Low Cmax 2 0.25 0.10 0.250 0.75
O12 2 Low Cmax 2 0.28 0.17 0.250 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-6O
O13 4 Low Cmax 2 0.48 0.28 0.210 0.63
O14 8 Low Cmax 2 0.80 0.59 0.125 0.37
O15 12 Low Cmax 2 1.09 1.04 0.092 0.28
Performance Group No. PG-7O
O16 1 Low Cmin 2 0.25 0.16 0.150 0.45
O17 2 Low Cmin 2 0.31 0.20 0.150 0.45
Performance Group No. PG-8O
O18 4 Low Cmin 2 0.52 0.42 0.128 0.38
O19 8 Low Cmin 2 0.87 0.82 0.076 0.23
O20 12 Low Cmin 2 1.18 1.24 0.056 0.17

Values of code-based period, T, and fundamental period, T1 (calculated from

eigenvalue analysis), are shown for comparison in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6.
Eigenvalue periods, T1, were calculated using linear elastic models, which considered
the flexural and shear flexibility of the walls. The effective moment of inertia, Ie,
was taken as 50% of the uncracked net masonry wall section, and the modulus of
elasticity was estimated using the formula given in the MSJC code, based on the
expected masonry compressive strength.

For the low-rise (1- and 2-story) archetypes, T1 tends to be much smaller than T.
Low values of T1 can be attributed to the low aspect ratios of the low-rise walls. On

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-11

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

the other hand, values of T1 for the 12-story special walls designed for SDC Dmin are
much higher than T. This can be attributed to the large seismic mass carried by each
wall in these archetypes. Variations in structural properties such as these are not
accounted for in the code-based period formulation.

Since design wind load varies with geographic location, wind load has been ignored
in the design so that the archetypes in lower seismic design categories are over-
designed for seismic load. Out-of-plane seismic forces were not critical in the design
of the walls, given the unsupported story heights considered in this application.

Detailed information used in design, and additional details for the resulting
reinforced masonry shear wall archetypical designs, including plan configurations
and wall reinforcing patterns, are provided in Appendix A.

3.5 Nonlinear Model Development

3.5.1 Modeling Approach

For nonlinear analysis, each archetype was idealized as an uncoupled cantilever wall,
with appropriate gravity load and seismic mass determined based on tributary area.
Since the walls in the two orthogonal directions are not structurally connected, each
wall was considered as a rectangular section. The base of each wall was assumed to
be perfectly fixed, without consideration of soil-structure interaction effects.

The analyses were conducted using OpenSees, Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (OpenSees, 2007), with displacement-based fiber-section
beam-column elements to model the flexural behavior of the walls. For calculating
story drift, an effective moment of inertia, Ie, equal to 50% of the uncracked net
masonry section was used. Shear deformation was modeled with zero-length elastic
springs. Inelastic shear behavior was not accounted for, and shear failure was treated
as a non-simulated collapse mode.

Figure 3-4 shows a representative element assembly used in a typical archetype

model. One shear spring was used for each story, with stiffness equal to the elastic
shear stiffness of the story below. Vertical degrees of freedom for the two nodes
connected with a horizontal shear spring are constrained to be equal. The
discretization scheme adopted for each archetype model, i.e., the number and size of
beam-column elements used, was determined by the effective plastic-hinge length at
the base of the wall and the height of the first story. If the plastic-hinge length was
on the order of (or larger than) the story height, the bottom story was represented by
one beam-column element. Otherwise, the bottom story was modeled with two
beam-column elements, and the length of the element at the base was set equal to the
effective plastic-hinge length. In either case, the upper stories were represented by
one beam-column element.

3-12 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

The same modeling approach was used for fully-grouted and partially-grouted walls.
Ungrouted sections of partially-grouted walls were represented by a reduced section
thickness corresponding to the total thickness of the face shells of a masonry unit.
Grouted and ungrouted sections were assumed to have the same compressive
strength, taken as the expected strength of masonry. Test data for concrete masonry
have indicated that the compressive strengths of grouted and ungrouted masonry
prisms are only slightly lower than that of masonry units.

Elastic horizontal spring to

model shear deformation in
each story

Beam-column element with a fiber

cross section (one or more elements
for each story)

Figure 3-4 Representative element assembly in a typical archetype model.

In some archetype configurations, the seismic mass for the horizontal degree of
freedom at each floor can be much larger than the gravity mass directly supported by
the wall because a large portion of the gravity load might be carried by other adjacent
elements (e.g., gravity frames, or walls oriented in the perpendicular direction).
While the gravity load is applied as a static load at the nodal point at each floor level,
mass is still needed for the vertical degrees of freedom to account for inertia effects
introduced by a rocking wall. In the dynamic analyses, this resulted in unrealistically
large vertical accelerations introduced by the rocking of a cracked wall, resulting in a
large oscillatory axial inertial force when the actual mass was specified for vertical
translational degrees of freedom. This large vertical acceleration was believed to be
an artifact of the fiber-section beam-column model due to shifting of the neutral axis
for bending after cracking occurrs. As a result, the mass for each vertical degree of
freedom was set to a negligibly small value. P-Delta effects were accounted for

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-13

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

using the co-rotational transformation in the beam-column elements, but this

influence was found to be insignificant for the in-plane response of the walls.
3.5.2 Nonlinear Material Models for Reinforced Masonry

With appropriate material models selected for the fibers, a fiber-section element can
simulate the axial load-moment interaction phenomenon and the nonlinear moment-
curvature relation of a wall section. In all archetype models, the cross section of a
wall element was divided into 400 fiber layers, and a uniaxial stress-strain material
relation was adopted to describe the behavior of each fiber. Given the axial
deformation and curvature at an element section, the strain in each fiber was
calculated based on the assumption that plane sections remain plane, and the stresses
determined from the assigned stress-strain relation. Based on the cross-sectional area
of each fiber and its position in the element cross section, the resultant internal forces
(axial force and bending moment) at the section were calculated by numerical
integration. Finally, the element nodal axial forces and moments were determined by
Gauss integration using two Gauss points for each element. The nodal shear forces
were determined from the nodal moments using the equilibrium condition. Shear
failure was assumed to occur when the shear force in a wall element reached the
shear strength calculated using the formula in the MSJC code without the strength
factor.

Two uniaxial stress-strain relations were needed to model the flexural behavior of the
reinforced masonry walls: one for the masonry, and another for the reinforcing steel.
A reference stress-strain relation, considered as the true material property, is
determined for each material, based on the expected strengths of the materials.

It should be mentioned that even though the analytical models developed for
reinforced masonry and concrete shear walls are similar, there are major differences
in modeling assumptions and material model calibration, mainly due to the
differences in design details for the two types of wall systems. For example,
reinforced masonry walls normally do not have special boundary elements, and,
therefore, the flexural reinforcement near the extreme compression fibers in these
walls is more vulnerable to buckling than in reinforced concrete walls. Furthermore,
masonry walls tend to have larger spacing between shear reinforcement, so post-peak
shear behavior can be more brittle.

The Kent-Park model for concrete (Kent and Park, 1971), available in OpenSees, was
adopted to model the compression behavior of masonry. The model assumes zero
tensile strength, and exhibits stiffness degradation in compressive unloading and
reloading. The expected masonry compressive strength, f m′ , was assumed to be 1.25
times the nominal strength chosen for design. This was deduced from prism test data
provided in the Commentary of the MSJC code. Figure 3-5 shows the reference
stress-strain curve selected for masonry with the stress value normalized by the
expected compressive strength.

3-14 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Figure 3-5 Normalized reference stress-strain curves used for compressive

behavior of masonry: backbone curve (top); and cyclic loading and
unloading curves (bottom).

In Figure 3-5, the strain εp, corresponding to the peak stress, was taken as 0.003.
This is based on the prism test data of Atkinson and Kingsley (1985). The strain εr,
marking the end of the descending branch, was taken as 0.01, which is about two
times the strain level shown by most prism test data. This value was chosen because
it provides a good match between numerical results and wall test data. It can be
expected that the post-peak compression behavior of a masonry prism may not be the
same as that in a wall because of differences in geometry (such as aspect ratio) and
boundary conditions. According to the Kent-Park model, the initial modulus of
elasticity of masonry is equal to 2 f m′ / ε p . Hence, with εp equal to 0.003, the initial
modulus of elasticity is assumed to be 667 f m′ , which is less the elastic modulus of

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-15

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

900 f m′ calculated according to the MSJC code. However, the shear modulus of
masonry used to determine the stiffness of the shear spring was based on the MSJC
specification, i.e., G = 0.4 × 900 × f m′ .

The reference stress-strain relations selected for reinforcing steel are shown in Figure
3-6. Grade 60 reinforcing steel was chosen for design of the archetypes. Expected
yield and tensile strengths were taken as 1.13 times the nominal strengths, based on
data provided by Nowak et al. (2008), resulting in an expected yield strength of 68
ksi and an expected tensile strength of 102 ksi for the reinforcing steel.

100

80

60

40
stress (ksi)

20
εy εu εo
0
-0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
-20

-40

-60

-80
strain

100

80

60

40
stress (ksi)

20

0
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
-20

-40

-60

-80
strain

Figure 3-6 Reference stress-strain relations used for reinforcing steel: backbone
curve (top); cyclic loading and unloading curves (bottom).

3-16 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

The steel model in OpenSees cannot simulate buckling or rupture, which is important
for assessing the collapse capacity of a reinforced masonry shear wall archetype.
Hence, the stress-strain relation used in this study was modified based on user-
defined material limit states. It was assumed that tensile rupture of a steel reinforcing
bar would occur at a strain of 0.05, which is about one half of the strain at which a
bar reaches its tensile strength. This accounts for low-cycle fatigue phenomena,
which could happen under cyclic load reversals. After this limit is reached, the
tensile strength of the bar was assumed to decrease linearly, reaching zero at a tensile
strain of 0.10.

A bar will buckle when the masonry around the bar spalls significantly. This was
simulated in the user-defined model by introducing compressive strain softening,
which started at a compressive strain of 0.0083 in the reference material model. At
this strain level the masonry compressive strength drops to 40% of the peak value,
intended to signify the occurrence of severe spalling. After buckling, it was assumed
that the compressive strength of a bar drops to 10% of the yield strength at a strain of
0.016, after which the residual strength was assumed to remain constant.
3.5.3 Non-Simulated Collapse Criteria

Although the flexure-dominated yielding mechanisms of reinforced masonry shear

walls were calibrated with test data and explicitly simulated in the analytical models,
additional criteria were needed to establish the collapse of flexure-critical walls.
Based on results observed in pushover analyses, collapse of a flexure-critical wall
was assumed to occur when either of the following conditions was met:
• Excessive crushing in the wall cross section, defined as the condition when 30%
of the cross section has reached the end of the softening branch of the masonry
stress-strain relation.
• Rupture or buckling of a large portion of the flexural reinforcement, defined as
the condition when 30% or more of the bars in a wall cross section have lost their
tensile resistance due to rupture, or reached their residual compressive resistance
due to buckling.

These criteria were consistently observed in conjunction with a sudden and

significant drop in lateral strength of the system. Even though extensive bar rupture
was observed to cause a significant drop in lateral strength, this condition alone may
not induce collapse of low-rise shear wall archetypes. In contrast with high-rise
walls, low-rise walls have a greater potential to rock or slide along the base without
collapse. Though potentially overconservative in the case of 1- and 2-story shear
walls, the bar rupture criterion was used in evaluating these archetypes due to a lack
of experimental evidence to the contrary.

The curvature at which either of these conditions was first reached was established
for each archetype using static pushover analysis. In the nonlinear dynamic analyses,

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-17

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

flexural collapse was considered to occur when the maximum wall curvature
exceeded the established curvature limits. The use of these criteria in lieu of a full
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), in which collapse is often signified by
excessive story drift or lateral dynamic instability, had several advantages. First, the
reliability of a nonlinear model in capturing the post-peak response of a structure at
large drift levels is often questionable, and use of non-simulated criteria avoids this.
Second, these criteria can be applied in an objective manner without relying on a
visual estimation of instability. Third, the use of these criteria can significantly
reduce the number of incremental dynamic analyses needed to identify the collapse
capacity of an archetype, and is easily implementable with the simplified IDA
procedure suggested as part of the Methodology.

Similarly, since nonlinear shear behavior was not explicitly simulated in the
analytical models, additional criteria were needed to establish the collapse of shear-
critical walls. Collapse due to shear-controlled behavior was considered to occur
when the shear force in a wall exceeded the nominal shear strength calculated based
on MSJC code formulas. This assumption is appropriate considering that shear
behavior is often brittle in reinforced masonry shear walls, and that post-peak shear
resistance is not reliable, as indicated by test data from Shing et al. (1991).
3.5.4 Model Calibration and Validation

When using displacement-based beam-column elements with distributed plasticity

and strain-softening material laws to model a shear wall, plastic deformation tends to
concentrate in a single element closest to the base of the wall, while rest of the model
remains elastic. This phenomenon, termed strain localization, leads to numerical
results that are sensitive to the length of the element in which the plastic strain is
localized. To circumvent this problem, the reference material stress-strain relations
should be modified, based on element size, to obtain realistic total fracture-energy
dissipation. This modification is called regularization, which ensures that the
numerical solution will be objective and not sensitive to element size.

The regularization method adopted in this study is described in Appendix A. It is

based on the premise that the reference stress-strain relations shown in Figure 3-5 and
Figure 3-6 will result in a numerical solution that represents the true behavior of a
wall, provided that the length of the beam-column element where plastic strain will
be localized is equal to the effective plastic-hinge length, Lp, of the wall. As the
length, Le, of the element is varied, the plastic strain will be localized over the new
length, and the value of εr in the masonry material model must be varied to obtain the
same total compressive fracture energy, Gmf , that would have been dissipated in a unit
area of a fiber over the effective plastic-hinge length.

A good estimation of the effective plastic-hinge length is crucial to the accuracy of

such an analysis. Paulay and Priestley (1993) have suggested a formula to estimate
the effective plastic-hinge length in reinforced concrete walls. However, this formula

3-18 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

has not provided good results for some of the masonry wall tests considered here.
Experimental data from Shing et al. (1991) have shown a large scatter of plastic-
hinge lengths among the single-story specimens, all of which had an aspect ratio of
one. However, the average effective plastic-hinge length identified for masonry wall
specimens is about 20% of the wall height. This ratio has been found to be a good
estimate of the effective plastic-hinge length of the more slender walls tested by
Merryman et al. (1990), and Shedid et al. (2008). Hence, this ratio has been used in
the development of archetype models.

A set of model validation studies was conducted using Specimens 1 and 12 tested by
Shing et al. (1991). These walls are are fully-grouted, single-story walls with the
design and loading scheme shown in Figure 3-7. The two specimens had the same
reinforcing, but Specimen 1 had an axial load ratio ( P / An f m′ ) of 0.08, while
Specimen 12 had an axial load ratio of 0.04.

In the models, each wall was represented by two elements. The bottom element was
sized to match the plastic hinge length, equal to 20% of the wall height, so that the
reference stress-strain relations shown in Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6 are used without
modification. Analytical results were compared to the experimental results for the
two specimens in Figures 3-8 and 3-9. It can be seen that the strength, ductility, and
hysteretic behavior of the walls are captured well by the analytical models. Results
from additional model validation studies are provided in Appendix A.

Figure 3-7 Single-story walls tested by Shing et al. (1991).

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-19

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft
100

80

60

40

lateral force (kips)

20

0
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
displacement (in)

(a) (b)
Figure 3-8 Lateral load versus lateral displacement hysteretic curves for Specimen 1 tested by
Shing et al. (1991); (a) experimental results; (b) analytical model.
100

80

60

40

lateral force (kips)

20

0
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
displacement (in)

(a) (b)
Figure 3-9 Lateral load versus lateral displacement hysteretic curves for Specimen 12 tested by
Shing et al. (1991); (a) experimental results; (b) analytical model.

3.5.5 Quality Rating of Analytical Models

Model calibration and validation studies have demonstrated that the flexural behavior
of fully-grouted and partially-grouted walls can be reasonably simulated with the
adopted modeling approach. Shear failure, however, must be treated as a non-
simulated collapse mode, which has been assumed to occur when the maximum shear
force in a wall reaches the shear strength calculated based on MSJC code formulas.
In addition, the influence of flexural deformation on shear resistance is not
considered.

The effective plastic-hinge length is assumed to be 20% of the total wall height,
which has a major influence on the ductility of a wall. While reasonable, this value is
based on limited experimental data. While models are able to simulate flexural
behavior reasonably well, in consideration of the limitations noted above, analytical

3-20 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

models for reinforced masonry shear wall archetypes were assigned a quality rating
of B (Good).

3.6 Nonlinear Analyses

Nonlinear static pushover analyses and simplified incremental dynamic analyses

(IDAs) were used to evaluate system overstrength, period-based ductility, and the
collapse capacity of reinforced masonry shear wall archetypes.
3.6.1 Static Pushover Analyses

For each archetype, a pushover analysis was conducted with a lateral load
distribution corresponding to the fundamental mode shape and mass distribution of
the structure. An eigenvalue analysis was performed for each archetype to determine
the fundamental period, T1, and modal shape. The base shear obtained from the
pushover analysis was then plotted against the roof drift ratio. From this plot, the
maximum base shear Vmax was identified, and the overstrength factor calculated as
Ω = Vmax V , where V is the design base shear. The fundamental period, T1,
obtained from the eigenvalue analysis was compared to the code-based period, T, and
the larger of the two used to compute the effective yield drift δ y ,eff at the roof. The
roof drift, δ u , corresponding to a 20% drop in base shear was identified, and the
period-based ductility was calculated as µT = δ u δ y ,eff . A plot of base shear versus
roof drift (pushover curve) for the 2-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax archetype is
shown in Figure 3-10. The effective yield drift, δ y ,eff , calculated for this archetype
was 0.00155hr, and the drift δ u identified from the plot was 0.0125hr, where hr is the
roof height. The resulting period-based ductility, µT , was 8.1.
600

500

400
Collapse
Collapse
lateral force (kips)

300

200

100

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
drift ratio

Figure 3-10 Pushover curve for the 2-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype.

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-21

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

The pushover curve for the 12-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax archetype is shown in
Figure 3-11. The effective yield drift δ y ,eff calculated for this archetype was
0.00205hr, and the drift δ u identified from the plot was 0.0299hr. This resulted in a
period-based ductility, µT , of 14.6.
450

400

350

300
lateral force (kips)

250
Collapse
200

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
drift ratio

Figure 3-11 Pushover curve for the 12-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype.

Figure 3-12 shows the result for the 12-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax archetype.
This wall exhibited very ductile behavior. For this case, δy,eff = 0.00187hr.
400

350

300
lateral force (kips)

250

200 Collapse

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
drift ratio

Figure 3-12 Pushover curve for the 12-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype.

Figure 3-13 shows the pushover curve for the 12-story, high axial load, SDC Cmax
archetype. The behavior exhibited by this partially-grouted wall is relatively ductile
in comparison with the response of most partially-grouted walls subjected to high
axial load. This can be attributed to a larger number (in a relative sense) of grouted

3-22 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

cells in the wall. The pushover curve for the 4-story, high axial load, SDC Cmax
archetype is shown in Figure 3-14. This behavior is more representative of the
expected behavior of partially-grouted walls subjected to high axial load.

350

300

Collapse
250
lateral force (kips)

200

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
drift ratio

Figure 3-13 Pushover curve for the 12-story, high axial load, SDC Cmax
archetype.

350

300 Collapse

250
lateral force (kips)

200

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
drift ratio

Figure 3-14 Pushover curve for the 4-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype.

The sudden drop in lateral resistance for the 2-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype shown in Figure 3-13 was caused by the rupture of a large portion of
flexural reinforcement. This condition controlled for all 1- and 2-story fully-grouted
archetypes, as well as the 4-story fully-grouted archetypes with low axial loads. For
all other archetypes, including the taller 8- and 12-story configurations with partially
grouted walls, the drop in lateral strength was caused by excessive masonry crushing.

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-23

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

In general, it was observed that walls subjected to higher axial loads were less ductile
(based on severe toe crushing), and that low-rise walls were less ductile than high-
rise walls. The latter can be partially attributed to the fact that for low-rise walls, the
code-based periods were much longer than the fundamental periods calculated by
eigenvalue analysis, leading to effective yield drifts that were higher than would have
been calculated based on the physical properties of the system. Furthermore, the
low-rise walls designed for SDC Dmin appeared to be more ductile than those for SDC
Dmax.

A number of low-rise partially-grouted walls have shear strengths that are lower than
the flexural strengths exhibited in the pushover curves. Since shear failure is a non-
simulated mode, the ductility of these walls is assumed to be 1.5 based on
experimental observations (e.g., Shing et al., 1991). In general, partially-grouted
walls were observed to be less ductile, as expected.
3.6.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses

Each archetype was subjected to nonlinear dynamic (response history) analysis with
the set of 44 far-field ground motion records provided as part of the Methodology. In
accordance with the simplified IDA procedure suggested in the Methodology, all the
records in the set were scaled up gradually by the same factor in each increment until
collapse was obtained for 50% of the record set. The median collapse spectral
intensity, SCT , was taken as the median spectral acceleration at the code-based
structural period, T.

Care was taken to ensure that the damping model used in the analyses did not
introduce too much damping into the system when the structural elements became
nonlinear. When Rayleigh damping is used, the damping matrix can be constructed
using the initial stiffness or the tangent stiffness of the structure. In either case, if the
damping properties are determined based on the fundamental frequency and a higher-
mode frequency, the damping effect can increase when the structure softens, and the
fundamental frequency decreases. On the other hand, the effect of Rayleigh
damping, in general, is much less significant than that of hysteretic damping in an
inelastic system.

Most of the archetype models exhibited severe strain softening with negative
stiffness, as exemplified in the moment-curvature relation. In these cases, use of
tangent stiffness-proportional Rayleigh damping can lead to numerical problems. For
this reason, initial stiffness-proportional Rayleigh damping, with 5% damping in the
first and third modes, was used for 4-story and taller archetypes. Initial stiffness for
this purpose was based on uncracked section properties.

For the one-story and two-story archetypes, which can develop significant rocking
under severe seismic loads, the Rayleigh damping model was observed to introduce
an unrealistically large oscillatory axial damping forces. Hence, for these cases, the

3-24 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Rayleigh damping matrix was determined so that very small damping was introduced
into the higher modes, which are not important for the response of low-rise
archetypes. This was achieved by using a very small coefficient for the stiffness-
proportional term.

Values of overstrength, Ω, from the pushover analyses, and collapse margin ratio,
CMR, calculated as SCT/SMT from the simplified incremental dynamic analyses, are
summarized in Table 3-7 for special RMSWs and Table 3-8 for ordinary RMSWs.

Table 3-7 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Reinforced Masonry

Shear Wall Archetype Designs
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic SMT [T] SCT [T]
Number Static Ω CMR
Stories Loads SDC (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1S

S1 1 High Dmax 1.84 1.50 0.78 0.52
S2 2 High Dmax 2.28 1.50 1.71 1.14
S3 4 High Dmax 1.87 1.50 2.33 1.55
Performance Group No. PG-2S
S4 8 High Dmax 1.89 1.20 1.57 1.31
S5 12 High Dmax 1.61 0.89 1.72 1.94
Performance Group No. PG-3S
S6 1 High Dmin 1.62 0.75 0.78 1.04
S7 2 High Dmin 2.61 0.75 1.44 1.92
Performance Group No. PG-4S
S8 4 High Dmin 1.65 0.63 1.04 1.65
S9 8 High Dmin 1.93 0.37 0.60 1.63
S10 12 High Dmin 1.68 0.28 0.58 2.07
Performance Group No. PG-5S
S11 1 Low Dmax 1.84 1.50 0.78 0.52
S12 2 Low Dmax 1.82 1.50 2.57 1.71
S13 4 Low Dmax 1.73 1.50 2.48 1.65
Performance Group No. PG-6S
S14 8 Low Dmax 1.59 1.20 1.57 1.31
S15 12 Low Dmax 1.47 0.89 1.72 1.94
Performance Group No. PG-7S
S16 1 Low Dmin 1.62 0.75 0.78 1.04
S17 2 Low Dmin 1.80 0.75 1.79 2.38
Performance Group No. PG-8S
S18 4 Low Dmin 1.41 0.63 1.04 1.65
S19 8 Low Dmin 1.64 0.37 0.61 1.63
S20 12 Low Dmin 1.46 0.28 0.59 2.13

In some cases, incremental dynamic analyses were stopped before the median
collapse condition was attained because the performance group was observed to pass
the performance evaluation criteria. In the 8-story and 12-story special RMSW

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-25

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

archetypes with low axial loads, shear collapse was observed to occur in a number of
cases due to higher-mode effects. Shear collapse was also observed in the low-rise
ordinary RMSWs due to the absence of capacity design requirements for these walls.

Table 3-8 Summary of Collapse Results for Ordinary Reinforced Masonry

Shear Wall Archetype Designs
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic SMT [T] SCT [T]
Number Static Ω CMR
Stories Loads SDC (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1O

O1 1 High Cmax 2.33 0.75 1.33 1.77
O2 2 High Cmax 1.44 0.75 0.80 1.06
Performance Group No. PG-2O
O3 4 High Cmax 1.94 0.63 0.74 1.18
O4 8 High Cmax 2.21 0.37 0.54 1.45
O5 12 High Cmax 2.09 0.28 0.39 1.42
Performance Group No. PG-3O
O6 1 High Cmin 1.36 0.45 0.70 1.56
O7 2 High Cmin 1.46 0.45 0.55 1.23
Performance Group No. PG-4O
O8 4 High Cmin 1.63 0.38 0.56 1.48
O9 8 High Cmin 2.07 0.23 0.41 1.79
O10 12 High Cmin 2.26 0.17 0.30 1.81
Performance Group No. PG-5O
O11 1 Low Cmax 2.33 0.75 1.33 1.77
O12 2 Low Cmax 1.49 0.75 1.48 1.97
Performance Group No. PG-6O
O13 4 Low Cmax 1.68 0.63 1.04 1.65
O14 8 Low Cmax 1.70 0.37 0.81 2.17
O15 12 Low Cmax 1.63 0.28 0.81 2.95
Performance Group No. PG-7O
O16 1 Low Cmin 1.36 0.45 0.70 1.56
O17 2 Low Cmin 1.37 0.45 0.97 2.15
Performance Group No. PG-8O
O18 4 Low Cmin 1.45 0.38 0.71 1.85
O19 8 Low Cmin 1.65 0.23 0.73 3.21
O20 12 Low Cmin 1.82 0.17 0.49 2.89

3.7 Performance Evaluation

Adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMRs) are obtained by multiplying the CMRs
obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis results by the spectral shape factor, SSF.
The acceptable average value of ACMR for each performance group is denoted by
ACMR10%. The acceptable value of ACMR for individual archetypes within a
performance group is denoted by ACMR20%.

3-26 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Values of ACMR10% and ACMR20% are determined based on total system collapse
uncertainty, βTOT. Collapse uncertainty is a function of the quality ratings associated
with the design requirements, test data, and nonlinear models, as well as record-to-
record uncertainty. Quality ratings assigned to design requirements, test data, and
nonlinear models for reinforced masonry shear walls are summarized in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9 Summary of Quality Ratings for Reinforced Masonry

Shear Wall Systems
Design Nonlinear
System Test Data
Requirements Modeling
Special RMSWs B B B
Ordinary RMSWs C C B

3.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results

To pass the performance evaluation criteria, individual archetypes must have adjusted
collapse margin ratios exceeding ACMR20%. Performance evaluation results for
individual special RMSW archetypes are summarized in Table 3-10, and results for
individual ordinary RMSW archetypes are summarized in Table 3-11. For special
RMSWs, all 2-, 4-, 8-, and 12-story archetypes passed this criterion, with only one
exception (2-story archetype ID S2). All 1-story special RMSW archetypes,
however, failed this criterion.

In the case of ordinary RMSWs, results were mixed. While all 8- and 12-story
ordinary RMSW archetypes passed this criterion, many of the shorter period
archetypes did not. In general, 1-, 2-, and 4-story ordinary RMSW archetypes
subjected to low axial load passed the criterion, while archetypes of the same height
subjected to high axial load did not.

The relatively poor performance of low-rise special RMSW archetypes can be

attributed to two factors. One is the high ductility demand that earthquake ground
motions placed on short-period archetypes, which is a well-documented and expected
result in the case of short-period structures. The other is the lower ductility capacity
of shorter walls, as observed in the pushover curves of Figures 3-13 through 3-17.
This had the combined effect of producing a lower collapse margin ratio, CMR, as a
starting point, a lower spectral shape factor, SSF, and ultimately a lower adjusted
collapse margin ratio, ACMR, for comparison.

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-27

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Table 3-10 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Special

Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes
Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Design Configuration
Arch. Collapse Margin Parameters Check
Design
ID No. No. of Gravity SDC
Static
CMR µT SSF ACMR
Accept. Pass/
Stories Loads Ω ACMR Fail

Performance Group No. PG-1S

S1 1 High Dmax 1.84 0.52 5.2 1.26 0.66 1.56 Fail
S2 2 High Dmax 2.28 1.14 8.1 1.33 1.52 1.56 Fail
S3 4 High Dmax 1.87 1.55 11.8 1.33 2.06 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.00 1.41 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-2S
S4 8 High Dmax 1.89 1.31 6.4 1.35 1.76 1.56 Pass
S5 12 High Dmax 1.61 1.94 14.6 1.47 2.84 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.75 2.30 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-3S
S6 1 High Dmin 1.62 1.04 13.3 1.14 1.19 1.56 Fail
S7 2 High Dmin 2.61 1.92 14.4 1.14 2.18 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.12 1.69 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-4S
S8 4 High Dmin 1.65 1.65 28.4 1.14 1.88 1.56 Pass
S9 8 High Dmin 1.93 1.63 7.1 1.25 2.03 1.56 Pass
S10 12 High Dmin 1.68 2.07 16.0 1.37 2.84 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.75 2.25 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-5S
S11 1 Low Dmax 1.84 0.52 5.2 1.26 0.66 1.56 Fail
S12 2 Low Dmax 1.82 1.71 8.3 1.33 2.27 1.56 Pass
S13 4 Low Dmax 1.73 1.65 11.3 1.33 2.19 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.80 1.71 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-6S
S14 8 Low Dmax 1.59 1.31 13.6 1.40 1.82 1.56 Pass
S15 12 Low Dmax 1.47 1.94 42.8 1.47 2.84 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.53 2.33 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-7S
S16 1 Low Dmin 1.62 1.04 13.3 1.14 1.19 1.56 Fail
S17 2 Low Dmin 1.80 2.38 14.4 1.14 2.71 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.71 1.95 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-8S
S18 4 Low Dmin 1.41 1.65 29.0 1.14 1.88 1.56 Pass
S19 8 Low Dmin 1.64 1.63 17.7 1.26 2.05 1.56 Pass
S20 12 Low Dmin 1.46 2.13 20.7 1.37 2.92 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.50 2.28 1.96 Pass

3-28 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Table 3-11 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Ordinary

Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Archetypes
Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Design Configuration
Arch. Collapse Margin Parameters Check
Design
ID No. No. of Gravity SDC Static
CMR µT SSF ACMR
Accept. Pass/
Stories Loads Ω ACMR Fail

Performance Group No. PG-1O

O1 1 High Cmax 2.33 1.77 2.7 1.08 1.91 1.69 Pass
O2 2 High Cmax 1.44 1.06 1.5 1.04 1.10 1.66 Fail
Mean of Performance Group: 1.89 1.51 2.23 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-2O
O3 4 High Cmax 1.94 1.18 2.4 1.07 1.26 1.69 Fail
O4 8 High Cmax 2.21 1.45 3.8 1.09 1.57 1.76 Fail
O5 12 High Cmax 2.09 1.42 9.4 1.27 1.80 1.76 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.08 1.54 2.38 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-3O
O6 1 High Cmin 1.36 1.56 1.5 1.04 1.63 1.66 Fail
O7 2 High Cmin 1.46 1.23 1.5 1.04 1.28 1.66 Fail
Mean of Performance Group: 1.41 1.46 2.16 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-4O
O8 4 High Cmin 1.63 1.48 1.5 1.04 1.54 1.66 Fail
O9 8 High Cmin 2.07 1.79 5.3 1.17 2.09 1.76 Pass
O10 12 High Cmin 2.26 1.81 5.6 1.24 2.24 1.76 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.99 1.96 2.38 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-5O
O11 1 Low Cmax 2.33 1.77 2.7 1.08 1.91 1.69 Pass
O12 2 Low Cmax 1.49 1.97 1.5 1.04 2.05 1.66 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.91 1.98 2.23 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-6O
O13 4 Low Cmax 1.68 1.65 1.5 1.04 1.72 1.66 Pass
O14 8 Low Cmax 1.70 2.17 10.2 1.20 2.60 1.76 Pass
O15 12 Low Cmax 1.63 2.95 10.6 1.27 3.74 1.76 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.67 2.69 2.38 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-7O
O16 1 Low Cmin 1.36 1.56 1.5 1.04 1.63 1.66 Fail
O17 2 Low Cmin 1.37 2.15 1.5 1.04 2.24 1.66 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.37 1.94 2.16 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-8O
O18 4 Low Cmin 1.45 1.85 9.8 1.04 1.92 1.76 Pass
O19 8 Low Cmin 1.65 3.21 17.4 1.21 3.90 1.76 Pass
O20 12 Low Cmin 1.82 2.89 24.6 1.29 3.74 1.76 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.64 3.19 2.38 Pass

The mixed performance of ordinary RMSW archetypes can also be attributed to two
factors. One is lower quality ratings, as compared to special RMSW archetypes,
caused by additional uncertainty in design requirements and test data for ordinary
walls. The other is lower ductility capacity of ordinary walls, which was the

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-29

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

controlling factor affecting the values of ACMR for ordinary RMSW archetypes. For
the 1- and 2-story archetypes, collapse was signaled by diagonal shear failure, while
in the 4-, 8-, and 12-story archetypes, collapse was signaled by excessive crushing of
the masonry.

Performance evaluation results by performance group are summarized in Table 3-12

for special RMSW archetypes, and Table 3-13 for ordinary RMSW archetypes. To
pass the performance evaluation criteria, the adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR)
averaged across all archetypes in a performance group must exceed ACMR10%.

Table 3-12 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special

Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
PG-1S Short Fail
SDC Dmax
PG-2S Long Pass
High
PG-3S Short Fail
SDC Dmin
PG-4S Long Pass
Cantilever
PG-5S Short Fail
SDC Dmax
PG-6S Long Pass
Low
PG-7S Short Fail
SDC Dmin
PG-8S Long Pass

Table 3-13 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Ordinary

Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1O Short Fail

SDC Cmax
PG-2O Long Fail
High
PG-3O Short Fail
SDC Cmin
PG-4O Long Fail
Cantilever
PG-5O Short Fail
SDC Cmax
PG-6O Long Pass
Low
PG-7O Short Fail
SDC Cmin
PG-8O Long Pass

For special RMSWs, long-period performance groups passed this criterion, while
short-period performance groups did not. In the case of ordinary RMSWs, long-
period, low axial load performance groups passed this criterion, while the long-

3-30 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

period, high axial load performance groups did not. Additionally all short-period
ordinary RMSW performance groups failed the criterion.

3.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength

The system overstrength factor, Ω0, is taken as the largest average value of the
overstrength factor, Ω, computed for each performance group. Values of
overstrength for individual archetypes and average values for each performance
group are shown in Table 3-10 and Table 3-11. Calculated values of Ω0 were 2.12
for special RMSWs and 2.08 for ordinary RMSWs. These values are smaller, but on
the same order of magnitude as the value of 2.5 provided for both systems in
ASCE/SEI 7-05.

Reinforced masonry shear wall archetypes were deliberately configured to minimize

the potential for overstrength. The close agreement between calculated and code-
specified values of Ω0 is likely related to this design objective.

3.9 Observations and Recommendations

3.9.1 Observations on System Performance

Neither the special RMSW archetypes, nor the ordinary RMSW archetypes evaluated
in this trial application fully met the acceptance criteria of the Methodology. System
overstrength factors obtained in this study, however, are comparable to values
provided for both systems in ASCE/SEI 7-05. Differences in observed performance
for the two systems can be largely attributed to full versus partial grouting of the
masonry cells. If special RMSW archetypes were partially-grouted, which is
permitted by the code but uncommon in practice, their assessed performance would
have been less favorable.

Although the individual pass/fail statistics were different between the special and
ordinary systems, taller archetypes, in general, were observed to pass the acceptance
criteria, while shorter archetypes, in general, were observed to fail the criteria. This
result was not entirely unexpected, as differences in seismic response characteristics
between short-period and long-period systems are not specific to reinforced masonry
shear wall systems, and have been well-documented in the literature. This raises a
question as to whether or not low-rise RMSW buildings should have the same
seismic performance factors (e.g., R factor) as high-rise RMSW buildings.
Additionally, these differences in performance also raise questions as to whether or
not the same collapse criteria are appropriate.

Observed results were sensitive to assumptions made about the collapse behavior of
reinforced masonry shear walls and decisions made in nonlinear modeling. Because
of difficulties in quantifying collapse for low-rise walls, it was decided that collapse
would be defined as excessive crushing of the masonry cross section or rupture of a
significant percentage of the vertical reinforcement. Neither of these conditions

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-31

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

would necessarily lead to collapse in a low-rise shear wall system. Rather, collapse
would more likely be expected to occur when drifts are so large that other gravity-
load carrying elements lose their ability to carry vertical loads.

Additionally, the fixed-base modeling assumption likely increased ductility demands

on low-rise walls. Because of the stiffness of low-rise shear wall systems, demands
on these structures can be more significantly influenced (i.e., lowered) through
consideration of soil-structure interaction effects, which were not accounted for in the
analyses. If the non-simulated collapse criteria were less conservative, and if soil-
structure interaction was considered in assessing the ductility demands on low-rise
walls, the performance of special RMSW archetypes would have likely been
significantly improved.

In the design of some archetypes, it was found that the special boundary element
requirements in the strength design provisions of the MSJC code do not adequately
control the maximum compressive strain induced by combined flexure and axial
load. The ductility of some high-rise ordinary RMSW archetypes would have been
further reduced if the maximum stress limit specified in the allowable stress design
provisions of the code were not imposed. To improve the performance of ordinary
shear wall systems, partial grouting should be avoided unless more experimental data
are obtained to demonstrate that partially-grouted walls have sufficient ductility
capacity to perform satisfactorily.

While some archetype designs were initially controlled by drift, the story drift limit
in ASCE/SEI 7-05 did not seem to be closely related to the performance of a
cantilever wall system. In such systems, a large portion of the drift in an upper story
could be caused by rigid-body rotation of the wall about a plastic hinge formed at the
base.
3.9.2 Observations on the Methodology

The Methodology provides a systematic and rational procedure to determine the

seismic performance factors for structural systems. However, it relies on the ability
of an analytical model to simulate the collapse state of a structural system with
reasonable accuracy. In the case of low-rise shear wall systems, total collapse is rare
and difficult to define. A sudden drop in strength caused by rupture of flexural
reinforcement might not necessarily lead to collapse in such systems. Additionally,
the reliability of an analytical model in simulating the response of a low-rise shear
wall system close to collapse requires special attention because of numerical issues
related to softening of a very stiff structural system and the importance of modeling
assumptions.

Values of the period-based ductility, µT , calculated for some of the special RMSWs
are very large. In many cases, this is due to the very small effective yield drifts, δ y ,eff ,
calculated using the equation provided in the Methodology. This equation utilizes

3-32 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

the structural period (taken as the larger of the code-based period and the
fundamental period determined by eigenvalue analysis) divided by the total weight.
When the code-based period controls the effective period, then the calculated value
of period-based ductility is insensitive to the weight of the archetype, and structures
with different weights have the same calculated effective yield point and values of
period-based ductility. The code based-period controls for most of the archetypes.
This results in a situation where a structure with a larger weight tends to have a
lower δ y ,eff , implying a higher equivalent stiffness, which is counter-intuitive. Large
values of µT , however, do not have a major impact on the spectral shape factor, SSF,
because there is a low saturation point in the relation between µT and SSF.

The Methodology requires consideration of the performance of structures subjected

to earthquake ground motions exceeding the maximum considered earthquake
(MCE). While stringent criteria can be justified for assuring a uniform risk of
collapse, this is especially demanding on less ductile systems that are not
appropriately detailed for severe seismic loading. This might be a contributing factor
as to why the ordinary RMSW archetypes generally failed the performance
evaluation criteria.
3.9.3 Recommendations for Further Investigation

This study focused on rectangular cantilever wall systems, but masonry buildings can
have many different wall configurations, including flanged walls and coupled walls.
Many masonry buildings are low-rise box systems with perforated shear walls of
many different, and irregular, opening sizes and arrangements. All these system
variations would need to be studied in order to fully characterize the seismic
performance of reinforced masonry structures and identify appropriate seismic
performance factors.

Additional experimental data are needed to calibrate analytical models for different
wall systems. The modeling of perforated wall systems presents a major challenge,
and experimental data for wall components in such systems are extremely limited.
This study has indicated that even for cantilever walls, the current analytical
modeling capabilities with beam-column elements leave much room for
improvement. The reliability of an analytical model depends on a good estimation of
the effective plastic-hinge length in a flexure-dominated wall. Furthermore, reliable
analytical models are needed to simulate the shear failure of a wall system.
Experimental data on this are limited, especially for walls with height to length ratios
greater than one.

Current code provisions do not adequately distinguish between the wide range of
performance characteristics of different masonry wall systems for which the use of
the same R factor might not be appropriate. In particular, current codes do not
account for the fact that the ductility demands induced by an earthquake ground
motion on low-rise walls and high-rise walls can be very different. Their ductility

GCR 10-917-8 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry 3-33

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

capacities can be very different as well, so that different R factors may be needed for
low-rise and high-rise walls. Furthermore, the assessment of the ductility demands
and the collapse condition for low-rise walls requires additional information. Further
research is needed to clarify these issues and to provide general and consistent
guidelines for modeling of reinforced masonry shear walls.

3-34 3: Trial Application - Reinforced Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Chapter 4
Trial Application - Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall Structures

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a trial application of the FEMA P-695 Methodology on special
reinforced concrete shear wall (special RCSW) and ordinary reinforced concrete
shear wall (ordinary RCSW) structures. It summarizes design requirements and
available test data for reinforced concrete shear walls, explains the development of
concrete shear wall archetype configurations, documents the nonlinear modeling
approach, presents the results of a performance evaluation, and summarizes
observations on the Methodology specific to reinforced concrete shear wall systems.

4.2 Overview and Approach

In this trial application, special and ordinary reinforced concrete shear wall systems,
as defined in ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI, 2008a), are considered as if they were new systems proposed for inclusion in
ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE,
2006). Although the intent is to treat special and ordinary concrete shear wall
systems as if they were new systems, the purpose is not to re-derive or validate
seismic performance factors (R, Ω0, and Cd) for these systems. Rather it is to
examine whether concrete shear wall systems would satisfy the acceptance criteria of
the FEMA P-695 Methodology, test the application of the Methodology with respect
to these systems, and identify possible improvements to the Methodology or current
concrete shear wall design provisions.

The system design requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-05, including minimum base shear
and story drift limits, are used as the basis for design, with the exception that Cd is
taken equal to R, as specified in the FEMA P-695 Methodology. Values of R for
non-load-bearing special RCSW and ordinary RCSW systems are 6 and 5,
respectively.

Reinforced concrete shear wall systems can have many different configurations,
including pier-spandrel systems with regular or irregularly-shaped openings,
cantilever or coupled wall systems, and walls with rectangular or flanged cross
sections. For practical reasons, the scope of the beta testing effort on reinforced
concrete shear walls was necessarily limited. A single wall configuration, cantilever
with rectangular cross section, was used to investigate results for a range of building

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-1

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

heights and design parameters. The selection of this configuration, and the
development of corresponding index archetype designs for concrete shear wall
buildings, is described below.

4.3 Structural System Information

4.3.1 Design Requirements

Proportioning and detailing of reinforced concrete walls was based on ACI 318-08
requirements, subject to ASCE/SEI 7-05 Chapter 14 amendments. For special
RCSWs, the requirements of ACI 318-08 Chapter 21 were applied, whereas for
ordinary RCSWs, the requirements of Chapter 14 were applied.

Shear and anchorage requirements for web reinforcement in special RCSWs were
based on ACI 318-08 Chapter 21 for special RCSWs, and Chapter 14 (including
Chapter 11 for shear design) for ordinary RCSWs.
4.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements

The quality of design requirements for special and ordinary walls varies significantly
depending on the design action. Determination of wall yield and nominal moment
strengths in the presence of relatively low levels of axial load (i.e., P < 0.15 Ag f c′ ) are
generally within 10% of values determined from experimental tests on walls
governed by flexure. Test results for higher levels of axial load are not available.

Code provisions for shear strength are generally quite conservative, and may
significantly underestimate actual shear strength. ACI 318-08 provisions for shear
strength of special RCSWs have been shown to provide essentially a lower-bound
estimate of shear strength (Wood, 1990; Orakcal et al., 2009), with mean shear
strength on the order of 1.5 times the code nominal strength. The ACI 318-08
equation for shear strength of special RCSWs does not account for the effects of axial
compression or well-confined boundary zones on shear strength. Test results
(Wallace, 1996; Orakcal et al., 2009) have shown that both of these factors can
measurably increase shear strength.

Recommendations for effective bending, shear, and axial stiffness generally specify a
single value to reflect the cracked stiffness of a wall section (e.g., Ec Ieff = 0.5Ec Ig ).
It has been well-documented in the literature (e.g., Wallace, 2007) that bending
stiffness varies with moment yield strength and axial load, and that a single value is
not appropriate in all cases. In consideration of the above limitations, a quality rating
of (B) Good was assigned to the design requirements for special and ordinary
RCSWs.
4.3.3 Test Data

Comparisons between test data and model results were used to help determine
appropriate modeling parameters for material relations and failure modes (e.g.,

4-2 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

crushing, buckling). Modeling parameters associated with axial-bending behavior

were based primarily on test data reported by, or summarized in, references by
Orakcal et al. (2004), Orakcal and Wallace (2006), and Wallace (2007). Additional
information for relatively slender walls was taken from Corley et al. (1981), Oesterle
et al. (1976, 1979), Shiu et al. (1981), Aktan et al. (1985), Goodsir (1985), Wallace
(1996), Thomsen and Wallace (1995, 2004), and Waugh et al. (2008). Test data for
low-rise walls were taken from Wood (1990), Massone et al. (2006), Massone
(2006), Wallace (2007), Orakcal et al. (2009), and Massone et al. (2009).

The tests conducted by Corley et al. (1981), Oesterle et al. (1976, 1979), and Shiu et
al. (1981), address the influence of shear on the behavior of relatively slender walls
(most with aspect ratio of 2.4), including the impact of shear stress level on wall
deformation capacity and web crushing failures. The upper-bound ACI 318-08 wall
design shear stress limit of 10 f c′ is based on these tests.

The results reported by Thomsen and Wallace (2004), Orakcal and Wallace (2006),
Wallace (2007), and Waugh et al. (2008) were used to define modeling and material
parameters for axial-bending behavior, such as uniaxial material stress-strain
relations for concrete and reinforcement. Where uniaxial material relations are used,
the bending stiffness and yield moment vary with axial load per the defined material
relations. Modeling of confined concrete behavior, tension-stiffening, and the impact
of surrounding concrete on the yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement are based
on well-established research results. Comparisons between experimental and
analytical results based on these material parameters indicate that overall load versus
deformation response of walls dominated by nonlinear flexural responses is well-
captured (Orakcal and Wallace 2006); however, additional comparisons were
performed to assess how best to define modeling parameters within the analysis
platform used in this study (OpenSees, 2007).
4.3.4 Quality Rating of Design Requirements

Although available test results provide useful data to help define modeling and
material parameters for axial-bending behavior and shear strength, the number of
tests that have been conducted is generally insufficient to assess uncertainty and the
range of variability in design limits. They do not enable determination of lateral
strength degradation or collapse as influenced by, for example, concrete crushing,
rebar buckling, and rebar fracture. Nor are they sufficient for characterizing behavior
of walls loaded with significant axial stress. In general, tests were stopped after only
modest to moderate levels of lateral strength degradation was observed, so they do
not provide data for determining residual strength or collapse (e.g., loss of axial load
capacity). In consideration of the above limitations, a quality rating of (B) Good was
assigned to the test data for special and ordinary RCSWs.

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-3

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

4.4 Archetype Configurations

The design space for reinforced concrete shear wall systems includes many different
configurations. Possible configurations include cantilever walls, coupled walls, core
walls, and perimeter walls. For each of these configurations, various wall cross
sections are possible, including rectangular, T-shaped, C-shaped, and barbell. Each
of these can be perforated wall systems, with regular or irregular openings, and can
be strongly or weakly coupled with adjacent walls in the system.

In coupled wall systems, the degree of coupling can vary substantially. For example,
slabs typically provide only minor coupling. Coupling beams with aspect ratios
ratios between 2.0 and 4.0 provide substantial coupling, whereas horizontal wall
segments with aspect ratios less than 1.0 provide strong or full coupling. Overall
system behavior is also impacted by foundation behavior, since large overturning
forces at the foundation can produce significant rigid body rotations in the system if
the soil-structure interface is flexible, or increase plastic deformation demands in the
walls if the foundation is stiff.

Given the large design space for reinforced concrete shear wall systems, the scope of
the investigation was necessarily limited. Many subsets were considered, including
cantilever walls with non-rectangular cross sections and coupled walls with
rectangular or non-rectangular cross sections. Due to the range of possible design
variables for non-rectangular, coupled wall sections, including flange length,
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and coupling beam aspect ratio, more potential
archetypes existed than could be meaningfully considered within this limited study.

A single wall configuration, cantilever with rectangular cross section, was selected to
investigate results for a range of building heights and design parameters. This subset
was selected because the vast majority of test data and comparisons between
experimental and analytical results reported in the literature are focused on this
subset, and the design space could be limited to a sufficient number of cases within
each sub-group to enable meaningful determination of performance group data.

Within ASCE/SEI 7-05, reinforced concrete shear walls are permitted in both bearing
wall systems and building frame systems. To further limit the design space,
archetypes were configured as shear walls within a building frame system, because it
was difficult to vary key design parameters and maintain archetype configurations
that remotely resembled a bearing wall system. Other key design variables that were
considered included special versus ordinary detailing, building height, wall aspect
ratio (height/length), axial load level, shear stress level, and the amount of transverse
reinforcement provided at the wall boundary.

The plan configuration selected for reinforced concrete shear wall archetypes is
shown in Figure 4-1. Both special RCSW and ordinary RCSW archetypes were
considered. Special RCSWs were designed for Seismic Design Category (SDC) Dmax

4-4 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

and SDC Dmin, while ordinary RCSWs were designed for SDC Cmax and SDC Cmin.
To produce lower-bound designs without excessive overstrength, the plan dimensions
and length of walls in each direction were varied in each archetype to optimize
strength relative to the level of seismic design loading. Archetypes were configured
to maximize the shear stress and adjust the axial load levels to control other
important behaviors.
Lw

Lb

Bb

Figure 4-1 Plan configuration for reinforced concrete shear wall archetypes.

For the purpose of estimating design gravity loads, the floor and roof systems were
assumed to consist of cast-in-place concrete slabs. While the absolute magnitude of
axial load on a wall will depend on the height of the building, two levels of axial load
were included to address the potential impact of axial load on collapse behavior.

Building heights of one, two, four, eight, and twelve stories were considered. Above
twelve stories, use of cantilever walls is not economical (i.e., in practical
applications, a coupled wall would be used), so taller archetypes were not considered.
Story heights were selected to be 13 feet in the first story and 12 feet in the remaining
stories, although story height was not a critical design parameter. Wall aspect ratios
were selected for a given story height to produce wall behaviors ranging from shear-
controlled, to flexure-shear, to flexural-controlled. Variation in axial stress was
considered for each aspect ratio.

Archetypes were grouped into performance groups containing a set of common

features or behavioral characteristics, including seismic design category, gravity load
level, and code-based period of the structure. Considering the design variables listed
above, a total of 40 archetypes were developed. These were divided into 16
performance groups, eight attributed to special RCSWs and eight attributed to
ordinary RCSWs, as shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Performance groups with
less than three archetypes did not meet the minimum number of archetypes per
performance group required in a full application of the Methodology.

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-5

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Table 4-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Reinforced

Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1S Short 3
SDC Dmax 2
PG-2S Long 2
High 3
PG-3S Short 2
SDC Dmin 4
PG-4S Long 3
A 1
PG-5S Short 3
SDC Dmax 2
PG-6S Long 2
Low 3
PG-7S Short 2
SDC Dmin 4
PG-8S Long 3
1 Short-period, SDC Dmax, performance groups, PG-1 and PG-5, include 1-
story, 2-story and 4-story archetypes.
2 Long-period, SDC Dmax, performance groups, PG-2 and PG-6, include 8-story
and 12-story archetypes.
3 Short-period, SDC Dmin, performance groups, PG-3 and PG-7, include 1-story
and 2-story archetypes.
4 Long-period, SDC Dmin, performance groups, PG-4 and PG-8, include 4-
story, 8-story, and 12-story archetypes.

Table 4-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Ordinary Reinforced

Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1O Short 2
SDC Cmax 2
PG-2O Long 3
High 1
PG-3O Short 2
SDC Cmin 2
PG-4O Long 3
A 1
PG-5O Short 2
SDC Cmax 2
PG-6O Long 3
Low 1
PG-7O Short 2
SDC Cmin 2
PG-8O Long 3
1 Short-period performance groups, PG-1, PG-3, PG-5 and PG-7, include 1-
story and 2-story archetypes.
2 Long-period performance groups, PG-2, PG-4, PG-6 and PG-8, include 4-
story, 8-story, and 12-story archetypes.

Values of the seismic base shear coefficient, V/W, and the MCE-level spectral
acceleration, SMT, for SDC Dmax, Dmin, Cmax, and Cmin were determined using the code-
based structural period, T = CuTa, and the spectral values given in Table 5-1 of
FEMA P-695. Design forces were determined using the equivalent lateral force

4-6 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

(ELF) procedure defined in ASCE/SEI 7-05 and the code-based period; however, a
lower-bound of 0.25 seconds was used for T in accordance with the Methodology.

Archetypes were assumed to be fixed at the base, so the potential effects of soil-
structure interaction were not considered. Vertical story forces were determined
using the computed period T1, and torsional response was not considered. Key
seismic design parameters for the special RMSW and ordinary RMSW archetypes are
summarized in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4.

Table 4-3 Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Design

Properties
Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype
No. of Seismic Design Criteria
Design ID Gravity SMT(T)
Stories
Number Loads T T1 V/W (g)
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1S
1 1 High Dmax 6 0.25 0.26 0.17 1.50
2 2 High Dmax 6 0.31 0.50 0.17 1.50
3 4 High Dmax 6 0.52 0.55 0.17 1.50
Performance Group No. PG-2S
4 8 High Dmax 6 0.87 0.76 0.12 1.03
5 12 High Dmax 6 1.17 0.99 0.09 0.77
Performance Group No. PG-3S
6 1 High Dmin 6 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.75
7 2 High Dmin 6 0.31 0.38 0.08 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-4S
8 4 High Dmin 6 0.52 0.53 0.06 0.58
9 8 High Dmin 6 0.87 0.71 0.04 0.34
10 12 High Dmin 6 1.17 0.94 0.03 0.26
Performance Group No. PG-5S
11 1 Low Dmax 6 0.25 0.26 0.17 1.50
12 2 Low Dmax 6 0.31 0.50 0.17 1.50
13 4 Low Dmax 6 0.52 0.66 0.17 1.50
Performance Group No. PG-6S
14 8 Low Dmax 6 0.87 0.73 0.12 1.03
15 12 Low Dmax 6 1.17 1.23 0.09 0.77
Performance Group No. PG-7S
16 1 Low Dmin 6 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.75
17 2 Low Dmin 6 0.31 0.38 0.08 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-8S
18 4 Low Dmin 6 0.52 0.53 0.06 0.58
19 8 Low Dmin 6 0.87 0.74 0.04 0.34
20 12 Low Dmin 6 1.17 0.92 0.03 0.26

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-7

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Table 4-4 Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Design

Properties
Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype
No. of Seismic Design Criteria
Design ID Gravity SMT(T)
Stories
Number Loads T T1 V/W (g)
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1O
21 1 High Cmax 5 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.75
22 2 High Cmax 5 0.31 0.37 0.10 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-2O
23 4 High Cmax 5 0.52 0.54 0.08 0.58
24 8 High Cmax 5 0.87 0.62 0.05 0.34
25 12 High Cmax 5 1.17 0.82 0.03 0.26
Performance Group No. PG-3O
26 1 High Cmin 5 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.5
27 2 High Cmin 5 0.31 0.37 0.07 0.5
Performance Group No. PG-4O
28 4 High Cmin 5 0.52 0.54 0.05 0.38
29 8 High Cmin 5 0.87 0.62 0.03 0.23
30 12 High Cmin 5 1.17 0.82 0.02 0.17
Performance Group No. PG-5O
31 1 Low Cmax 5 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.75
32 2 Low Cmax 5 0.31 0.37 0.10 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-6O
33 4 Low Cmax 5 0.52 0.54 0.08 0.58
34 8 Low Cmax 5 0.87 0.66 0.05 0.34
35 12 Low Cmax 5 1.17 0.87 0.03 0.26
Performance Group No. PG-7O
36 1 Low Cmin 5 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.5
37 2 Low C min 5 0.31 0.37 0.07 0.5
Performance Group No. PG-8O
38 4 Low Cmin 5 0.52 0.54 0.05 0.38
39 8 Low Cmin 5 0.87 0.66 0.03 0.23
40 12 Low Cmin 5 1.17 0.87 0.02 0.17

For the 1- and 2-story archetypes, wall aspect ratios were set at 0.5 and 1.0,
respectively, to produce walls that were likely governed by shear behavior. For the
taller (i.e., 4-, 8-, and 12-story) archetypes, aspect ratios were set at approximately
2.0, 3.0, and 3.5, respectively. In the 4- and 8-story archetypes, nonlinear responses
tended to be dominated by flexural deformations, although failure could be defined
by shear (e.g., web crushing). In the 12-story archetypes, the relatively high-aspect
ratio walls were more likely to be governed by flexural failure modes such as rebar
buckling or fracture at wall boundaries.

Both low ( 0.075 Ag f c′ ) and high ( 0.2 Ag f c′ ) axial stress levels were considered,
except in the case of 1- and 2-story buildings, in which only the 0.075 Ag f c′ axial

4-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

load level was used. In the 1- and 2-story archetypes, wall thickness was selected to
produce the maximum shear stress ( 8 f c′ ) allowed per ACI 318-08, since flexural
yielding was not expected to occur prior to shear failure.

In the taller (4-, 8-, and 12-story) archetypes, it was not possible to design walls near
the 8 f c′ shear stress limit without using unrealistically large quantities of boundary
reinforcement or unrealistically narrow web thicknesses. In these cases, walls were
designed to produce as high a shear stress as possible, while still resulting in a wall
section that was deemed to be reasonably constructible. Over the height of multi-
story archetypes, quantities of reinforcing steel were varied at every two floor levels
to account for changes in design forces.

The need for boundary elements was checked using both the displacement-based and
stress-based approaches contained in ACI 318-08. Transverse reinforcement at the
wall boundaries was based on the minimum required using the two approaches to
ensure that the design satisfied minimum requirements. In all cases, the
displacement-based approach produced less overall required transverse
reinforcement, which is common in the case of planar, cantilever walls.

In general, strength requirements governed proportioning of the wall cross sections;

however, in some cases (e.g., 8- and 12-story archetypes), drift limits governed.
Detailed information used in design, and additional details for the resulting
reinforced concrete shear wall designs, including plan configurations and wall
reinforcing patterns for each archetype, are provided in Appendix B.

4.5 Nonlinear Model Development

4.5.1 Modeling Approach

For nonlinear analysis, each archetype was idealized as an uncoupled cantilever wall,
with appropriate gravity load and seismic mass determined based on tributary area.
The base of each wall was assumed to be perfectly fixed, without consideration of
soil-structure interaction effects.

Displacement-based beam-column elements were used to model the inelastic flexural

behavior of the walls, and zero-length translational shear springs were used to model
shear deformation. All models included a leaning column with no lateral stiffness to
account for P-Delta effects for the gravity load that was not directly tributary to the
wall elements. The number of elements and number of integration points used in the
models were optimized based on the results of sensitivity studies reported in
Appendix B.
4.5.2 Nonlinear Material Model for Concrete

Various concrete material models are available in OpenSees, including: a simplified

version of the Chang and Mander (1994) model, designated C07; and a cyclic version
of the modified Kent-Park model (Scott et al., 1982) developed by Yassin (1994),

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-9

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

designated C02. Sensitivity studies presented by Orakcal et al. (2006) indicate that
analytical results produced using the C07 model match experimental results modestly
better than the C02 model; however, numerous convergence problems were
encountered with the C07 model.

As a result, the OpenSees C02 model shown in Figure 4-2 was used for both confined
and unconfined concrete. For unconfined concrete, the peak strength parameter, fpc,
was selected as 6.1 ksi, and the strain at peak strength, epsc0, was selected to be
0.0027, which yields an initial modulus (E0 = 2fpc/epsc0) of around 4500 ksi. Stress
and strain values used to define the post-peak descending branch of the unconfined
stress-strain relation (fpcU and epsU) were selected to be 1.4 ksi and 0.01, respectively.

For confined concrete, the parameters (fpc, epsc0, epsU, fpcU) were determined based on
the Razvi and Saatcioglu (1999) model, which uses the unconfined concrete
parameters (fpc and epsc0) and the boundary reinforcement details to determine the
confined concrete peak stress and strain (fpc and epsc) and to define the post-peak
behavior parameters (epsU and fpcU).

In this study, concrete crushing was taken as the point where the post-peak linear
descending branch reaches the residual concrete stress (defined as 20% of the peak
confined concrete stress). Confined concrete model parameters were varied over the
wall height at locations where transverse reinforcement changed.

Concrete tensile strength, ft, concrete tensile modulus, Et, and unloading parameter, λ,
which defines the unloading slope in terms of the initial concrete modulus (i.e.,
unloading slope = λE0), were selected to be 0.586 ksi, 410 ksi, and 0.1, respectively,
based on the information provided by Orakcal and Wallace (2006).

Figure 4-2 Concrete stress-strain behavior model (C02) contained in

OpenSees.

4-10 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft
4.5.3 Nonlinear Material Model for Reinforcing Steel

Reinforcing steel was modeled as a hysteretic material in OpenSees, as shown in

Figure 4-3. Expected values of yield and ultimate strength were taken as 68 ksi and
100 ksi, respectively, based on results reported by Mirza et al. (1979) and
Bournonville et al. (2004). Studies of walls with rectangular cross sections, tested by
Thomsen and Wallace (1995, 2004), indicate that strength loss at a strain of 0.03 to
0.035 produced good comparisons between modeled and tested results.

-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08

100 100
fy = 68 ksi
fu = 100 ksi
50 €u = 0.05 50
Es = 29,000 ksi
Stress (ksi)

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100
-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08
Strain
Figure 4-3 Hysteretic material model for reinforcing steel.

Pantazopoulou (1998) investigated the relationship between transverse reinforcement

(quantity, spacing), longitudinal bar diameter, and concrete compressive strain on
rebar buckling. Findings showed that the concrete compressive strain at buckling
increases with an increase in the effective confinement (quantity and effectiveness of
the transverse reinforcement), and as the ratio of hoop/tie spacing to longitudinal bar
diameter (s/db) decreases. Rodriguez et al. (1999) reported reverse cyclic test results
of rebar (in air) and relate rebar bucking to the magnitude of the strain reversal.

Based on these results, a tensile strain value of 0.05 was selected to correspond to
failure associated with rebar buckling and subsequent rebar fracture. In the model,
the stress capacity of the reinforcing steel is assumed to be near zero once a strain of
0.05 is reached. Use of a more complex model was not justified given the
uncertainty associated with existing test results and models.
4.5.4 Extension and Slip of Reinforcing Steel

The potential impact of reinforcing steel extension and slip was included in the
models through the addition of rotational springs at the base of the walls to account
for softening of the load-versus-deformation response (Figure 4-4). The model

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-11

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

assumes that a crack forms along the entire length of the base of the wall, and reduces
the flexural rigidity of the wall, leading to a softer moment-rotation response.

Figure 4-4 Rotational spring model for reinforcing steel extension and slip
(Massone et al., 2009).

Moment-curvature relations were computed at the base of all walls for all archetypes
to determine the yield moment, My, considering actual material properties,
confinement effects, and steel hardening together with the applied axial load. As
illustrated in the figure, a linear strain distribution was assumed along the
development length, ld, of the longitudinal bars, with maximum strains developing at
the wall-foundation interface. Cumulative displacements (bar extensions) were then
obtained by integrating the strains along ld, and were divided by the neutral axis
depth to achieve the wall base rotation (θy). Rotational springs that were
implemented in OpenSees consisted of elastic materials having moment-rotation
stiffness values of My/θy.
4.5.5 Shear Model

In most structural analysis programs, limited options exist to model nonlinear shear
behavior. These include multi-linear segments used to define key points associated at
cracking, yielding, and degradation of strength. In some cases, additional points are
included to model residual strength and loss of vertical-load-carrying capacity. On
such generalized model for shear backbone behavior is provided in ASCE/SEI 41-06,
Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2007).

Test results indicate that nonlinear shear deformations occur due to coupling between
axial-bending and shear behavior (Massone and Wallace, 2004), and available cyclic
material models in OpenSees do not include this coupled behavior. A sensitivity
study was conducted where the cracking force (stress) level and the post-cracking
slope were varied. This study is presented in Appendix B, and results showed that
the shear modulus should be reduced to account for nonlinear shear deformations.

The model used in this study for slender walls, where flexural yielding limits the wall
shear demands, is shown in Figure 4-5. This relation is similar to that given in
ASCE/SEI 41-06, except the cracking level is taken as 0.5 times the shear force
required to reach the yield moment at the wall base, where V=Mpr/heff, Mpr=1.25Mn,

4-12 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

heff is the effective height of the resultant lateral force for the code prescribed
distribution of lateral forces, and the shear strain at yield is taken as 0.0015. This
relationship was used for the 4-, 8-, and 12-story walls with aspect ratios of 2.0, 3.0,
and 3.5, respectively.

vu
vy
Shear stress (ksi)

vy = 1.5vn,ACI
vu = 1.03(1.5vn)
vcr vcr = GÝcr = 0.4EÝcr
vcr = min(0.5vn,ACI, 3√f'c)

Ýcr 0.0015 0.015

Shear strain
Figure 4-5 Generalized shear model adapted from ASCE/SEI 41-06.

For walls that were expected to be controlled by shear (i.e., 1- and 2-story walls with
aspect ratios of 0.5 and 1.0, respectively), the relation used in ASCE/SEI 41-06 was
modified slightly to consider the level of axial stress used in this study ( 0.075 Ag f c′ ).
Test results reported by Massone (2006) indicate that a shear strain of approximately
0.0015 at shear yield for axial load levels of between 0.05 Ag f c′ and 0.10 Ag f c′ .
Cracking was assumed to occur at 3 f c' , but not greater than 0.5Vn (which is slightly
less than the value of 0.6Vn used in ASCE/SEI 41-06, to be consistent with the
relation developed for walls controlled by flexure). Strength degradation was
assumed to occur at a strain of 0.015, which is 50% more than allowed in ASCE/SEI
41-06, because the values in ASCE/SEI 41-06 are based on lightly-reinforced and
poorly detailed walls, and new walls with code-conforming details were assumed to
be capable of achieving more rotation at strength degradation.
4.5.6 Damping

ASCE/SEI 7-05 specifies that periods of 0.2T1 and 1.5T1 be used to determine
Rayleigh damping coefficients for nonlinear analysis. Consistent with
recommendations contained in the PEER/ATC 72-1 report (PEER/ATC, 2010), a
damping ratio of 2.5% was used. It is noted that 0.2T1 is approximately equal to the
third mode period of a frame building, i.e., T3 = T1/5, but in shear wall buildings, the
third mode period is closer to T1/7, or approximately 0.15T1. The difference between
0.2T1 and 0.15T1 was not considered significant, and a value of 0.2T1 was used for
consistency with common practice. The Rayleigh damping model is plotted in Figure
4-6.

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-13

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

5
4.5 Rayleigh Damping
4 a0/(2wn)

Damping Ratio (%)

a1*wn/2
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.2T1 = 0.06 T1 = 0.29
Period (sec)
Figure 4-6 Plot of Rayleigh damping model, ζ = 2.5%, at T1 and 0.2T1, for
archetype ID 8.

4.5.7 Model Validation

The modeling approach described herein has been validated with experimental data
in the literature. Parameters for uniaxial material models for concrete and
reinforcement were developed based on the results reported by Orakcal and
Wallace (2006) and Orakcal et al. (2006), which also included test and model
comparisons indicating that similar material models could reproduce the measured
force versus flexural deformation behavior well.

Comparisons between test and model results have also been performed to assess how
well models capture measured load versus top displacement behavior. Wall
specimen RW2, a relatively slender (hw/lw = 3) cantilever wall with rectangular cross
section tested by Thomsen and Wallace (1995, 2004) was used for this purpose.
Comparisons showing good agreement between test results and model predictions are
presented in Orakcal and Wallace (2006) and Waugh et al. (2008).
4.5.8 Non-Simulated Failure Criteria

Due to analytical limitations, several failure modes important to shear wall behavior
were not explicitly simulated. Criteria for non-simulated failure modes are
summarized in the sections that follow.
4.5.8.1 Reinforcing Steel Buckling and Fracture

A strain of 0.05 was used to define buckling (and fracture) of a single reinforcing bar.
Failure of a single bar, however, was not considered sufficient to cause collapse of a
shear wall archetype. This conclusion is supported by tests in the literature (e.g.
Thomsen and Wallace, 1995). Failure indicative of collapse was assumed to occur
when the reinforcing steel within one-quarter of the wall length fractures or buckles

4-14 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

(Figure 4-7). This condition would be expected to produce a substantial drop in

lateral strength and stiffness, and a substantial increase in the potential for both side-
sway collapse due to P-Delta effects, and loss of axial-load-carrying capacity.

Figure 4-7 Non-simulated criteria for buckling and fracture of reinforcing steel.

Failure strains, εfailure, were taken as 0.05 for all special RCSW archetypes, 0.05 for
ordinary RCSW archetypes under low axial loading, and 0.02 for ordinary RCSW
archetypes under high axial loading. Results of pushover analyses were used to
assess whether or not these values were reasonable. Results for the 4-story, low axial
load, SDC Cmax archetype (ID 33) are shown in Figure 4-8, and results for the
4-story, high axial load, SDC Cmax archetype (ID 23) are shown in Figure 4-9.
0.2
4-story, Cmax
εs = 0.02 @ 0.25Lw
low axial loading εs = 0.03 @ 0.25Lw
Vmax/W = 0.154 (P=0.075f'cAg)
Base shear/Building weight

steel fracturing failure

0.15 (εs= 0.05 @ 0.25Lw)
µ = 56.0
Ω = 2.0 εs = - 0.02 @ 0.25Lw
εs = - 0.03 @ 0.25Lw
(V/W)

0.1 steel buckling failure

V/W = 0.077 (εs= - 0.05 @ 0.25Lw)
concrete crushing failure
(εc = - 0.01 @ 0.25Lw)
0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Roof drift ratio, %
Figure 4-8 Pushover analysis results for 4-story, low axial load, SDC Cmax
archetype (ID 33).

In the case of walls subjected to low axial load levels (Figure 4-8), when reinforcing
steel located at 0.25Lw reached strain values of 0.02, 0.03, and 0.05, the wall section
was observed to lose 2%, 20%, and 60% of its lateral strength, respectively. Since
losses of 2% and 20% would not be expected to cause failure, a steel strain of 0.05 at
fracture was considered reasonable. In the case of walls subjected to high axial load
levels (Figure 4-9), steel strains of 0.02 and 0.05 at 0.25Lw produced reductions of
70% and 93% in peak lateral strength, so a lower criterion for steel strain at fracture
was justified.

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-15

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

0.2
Vmax/W = 0.185
steel fracturing failure
(εs = 0.02 @ 0.25Lw)

Base shear/Building weight

4-story, Cmax
0.15 high axial loading
εs = 0.03 @ 0.25Lw
(P = 0.2f'cAg) εs= 0.05 @ 0.25Lw
steel buckling failure
µ = 40.0 (εs = - 0.02 @ 0.25Lw)

(V/W)
0.1 Ω = 2.4
V/W = 0.077 εs = - 0.03 @ 0.25Lw
εs= - 0.05 @ 0.25Lw
concrete crushing failure
0.05 (εc = - 0.01 @ 0.25Lw)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Roof drift ratio, %
Figure 4-9 Pushover analysis results for 4-story, high axial load, SDC Cmax
archetype (ID 23).

4.5.8.2 Concrete Crushing

The criteria established for concrete crushing were based on a specified wall length
reaching a critical compressive strain, as illustrated in Figure 4-10.

(a) Special RCSW archetypes

(b) Ordinary RCSW archetypes

Figure 4-10 Non-simulated criteria for crushing and spalling of concrete
in: (a) special RCSW archetypes; and (b) ordinary RCSW
archetypes.

Different criteria were established for special RCSWs and for ordinary RCSWs.
Concrete crushing for well-confined walls (special RCSWs) was taken as the point
where the post-peak linear descending branch in concrete stress-strain relation

4-16 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

reached the residual concrete stress (defined as 20% of the peak confined concrete
stress). For unconfined walls (ordinary RCSWs), the crushing strain was taken as the
strain value when the stress in the post-peak, linear descending branch reached zero.
4.5.8.3 Shear Failure

For walls controlled by shear, the shear force versus deformation relation shown in
Figure 4-5 was used. Within OpenSees, however, only three points are available to
define shear behavior. Given the need to model uncracked and cracked stiffness, the
strength-degrading portion of the relation could not be modeled, so non-simulated
criteria were needed to assess this failure mode.

For walls controlled by flexure, the potential for shear failure also exists, similar to
columns. However, unlike columns, specific recommendations do not exist for
relatively slender walls, which are likely to yield in flexure, but will still be subjected
to modest shear stress levels. Test data for low-rise and relatively slender walls with
aspect ratios between 1.5 and 2.4 were reviewed to develop a relation that could be
used for this study.

A review of test data indicates that a good estimate of the median shear strength is
1.5 times the nominal shear strength predicted using the equations in ACI 318-08
(Orakcal et al., 2009; Wood, 1990; Wallace, 1996). However, for walls that yield in
flexure, the expected shear strength at failure is reduced from this value, depending
on the level of flexural deformation. Data available to assess this relationship are
plotted in Figure 4-11, for both low-rise and moderately slender walls.

3
PCA
HSC - SP1 Wallace test data
Wallace, Massone, Orakcal - 2006

2
Vtest/Vn,ACI

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement Ductility
Figure 4-11 Approximate shear failure criterion used to account for the effects of
flexural demand on shear behavior.

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-17

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Insufficient data exist to do a detailed statistical assessment, but a simple trend was
fitted to the data, as indicated in the figure. This trend is anchored at a shear strength
of 1.5Vn for displacement ductility values less than 2.0, degrades linearly to a
strength of 0.7Vn at a displacement ductility of 8.0, and then remains constant at
0.7Vn for larger ductility values. It is noted that this relationship can be modified to
relate shear strength to either curvature or strain ductility using various assumptions
(Paulay, 1986).
4.5.8.4 Axial Failure

A model developed to predict axial load failure for lightly reinforced wall piers
(Wallace et al., 2008) was used to establish a basis to assess axial failure of the
archetypes. Based on results presented in Appendix B, very high drift values could
be obtained from the axial failure model, especially for the 1- and 2-story archetypes.
Because no test data were available to justify the use of large predicted values, lower
values were selected based on judgement. Axial failure was assumed to occur if the
drift ratio reached 3% in the 1- and 2-story archetypes, and 5% in the 4-, 8-, and 12-
story archetypes.
4.5.9 Quality Rating of Analytical Models

Overall, the modeling approach in this study is detailed and comprehensive.

Comparisons between models and test results for relatively slender cantilever walls
indicate that overall load-displacement relations in flexure can be captured quite well.
However, the models are known to be less accurate in predicting local strains, and
several of the failure modes considered are based on local strain estimates. Also, the
criteria used to assess some failure modes (e.g., rebar buckling and concrete
crushing) are somewhat subjective, due to a lack of data to develop more
comprehensive models.

Extension and slip of reinforcing steel was not directly modeled, and the interaction
between flexure and shear was accounted for in an approximate way. In
consideration of the above limitations, a quality rating of B (Good) was assigned to
the analytical models used in this study.

4.6 Nonlinear Analyses

Nonlinear static pushover analyses and simplified incremental dynamic analyses

(IDAs) were used to evaluate system overstrength, period-based ductility, and the
collapse capacity of reinforced concrete shear wall archetypes. Selected pushover
results are shown in Figures 4-12 through 4-16.

4-18 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft
0.5
1-story, Dmax
Vmax/W = 0.4 low axial loading
0.4 (P = 0.075f'cAg)
Base shear/Building weight

µ = 9.0
0.3 Ω = 2.4
(V/W)

0.2 V/W = 0.167

0.1
δy,eff = 0.00164hw δu = 0.015hw

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Roof drift ratio, %

Figure 4-12 Pushover results for the 1-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 11).

Vmax/W = 0.30 2-story, Dmax

0.3 low axial loading
(P = 0.075f'cAg)
Base shear/Building weight

µ = 22.0
0.2
(V/W)

Ω = 1.8
V/W = 0.167

0.1

δy,eff = 0.0016hw δu = 0.035hw

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Roof drift ratio, %

Figure 4-13 Pushover results for the 2-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 12).

0.4
4-story, Dmax
Vmax/W = 0.34
low axial loading
(P = 0.075f'cAg)
Base shear/Building weight

0.3
µ = 31.0
Ω = 2.0
(V/W)

0.2
V/W = 0.167

0.1

δy,eff = 0.0012hw δu = 0.036hw

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof drift ratio, %

Figure 4-14 Pushover results for the 4-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 13).

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-19

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

0.25 8-story, Dmax

Vmax/W = 0.22 low axial loading
(P = 0.075f' Ag)

Base shear/Building weight

c

0.2
µ = 39.0
Ω = 1.9

(V/W)
0.15
V/W = 0.116

0.1

0.05
δy,eff = 0.0011hw δu = 0.043hw

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof drift ratio, %

Figure 4-15 Pushover results for the 8-story, low axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 14).

12-story, Dmax
high axial loading
0.15 Vmax/W = 0.14 (P = 0.2f' Ag)
Base shear/Building weight

0.1
(V/W)

V/W = 0.086 µ = 29.0

Ω = 1.6

0.05

δy,eff = 0.001hw δu = 0.029hw

0
0 1 2 3 4
Roof drift ratio, %

Figure 4-16 Pushover results for the 12-story, high axial load, SDC Dmax
archetype (ID 5).

For each archetype, pushover analyses were used to compute the system
overstrength factor, Ω0, and period-based ductility, μT, and to assess the validity or
consistency of the results. The ultimate roof drift in the above figures was governed
by shear failure in the 1-story, low axial load SDC Dmax archetype (Figure 4-12), and
by fracture of the reinforcing steel in the other archetypes.

Each archetype was analyzed using the simplified incremental dynamic analysis
(IDA) procedure suggested by the Methodology, in conjunction with the set of 44
far-field ground motion records provided as part of the Methodology. The median
collapse spectral intensity, SCT, was taken as the median spectral acceleration at the
code-based structural period, T, and the analyses were discontinued as soon as half of
the records were observed to result in collapse.

4-20 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Values of overstrength, Ω, from the pushover analyses, and collapse margin ratio,
CMR, from the simplified incremental dynamic analyses, are summarized in Table
4-5 for special RCSWs and Table 4-6 for ordinary RCSWs.

Table 4-5 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Reinforced Concrete

Shear Wall Archetype Designs
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic Static SMT [T] SCT [T]
Number CMR
Stories Loads SDC Ω (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1S

1 1 High Dmax 2.39 1.5 1.18 0.79
2 2 High Dmax 1.82 1.5 1.69 1.13
3 4 High Dmax 1.72 1.5 2.20 1.47
Performance Group No. PG-2S
4 8 High Dmax 1.45 1.03 1.93 1.87
5 12 High Dmax 1.63 0.77 1.88 2.44
Performance Group No. PG-3S
6 1 High Dmin 2.98 0.75 1.05 1.40
7 2 High Dmin 1.83 0.75 0.92 1.23
Performance Group No. PG-4S
8 4 High Dmin 2.91 0.58 1.74 3
9 8 High Dmin 4.44 0.34 1.59 4.68
10 12 High Dmin 4.93 0.26 1.61 6.19
Performance Group No. PG-5S
11 1 Low Dmax 2.39 1.5 1.18 0.79
12 2 Low Dmax 1.82 1.5 1.69 1.13
13 4 Low Dmax 2.03 1.5 3.05 2.03
Performance Group No. PG-6S
14 8 Low Dmax 1.89 1.03 2.32 2.25
15 12 Low Dmax 1.50 0.77 1.62 2.10
Performance Group No. PG-7S
16 1 Low Dmin 2.98 0.75 1.05 1.40
17 2 Low Dmin 1.83 0.75 0.92 1.23
Performance Group No. PG-8S
18 4 Low Dmin 1.85 0.58 1.74 3.00
19 8 Low Dmin 5.64 0.34 1.81 5.32
20 12 Low Dmin 3.08 0.26 1.68 6.46

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-21

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Table 4-6 Summary of Collapse Results for Ordinary Reinforced Concrete

Shear Wall Archetype Designs
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic Static SMT SCT [T]
Number CMR
Stories Loads SDC Ω [T] (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1O

21 1 High Cmax 3.71 0.75 1.25 1.67
22 2 High Cmax 1.98 0.75 1.07 1.43
Performance Group No. PG-2O
23 4 High Cmax 2.40 0.58 1.57 2.71
24 8 High Cmax 3.64 0.34 1.74 5.12
25 12 High Cmax 4.26 0.26 1.68 6.46
Performance Group No. PG-3O
26 1 High Cmin 4.26 0.5 1.1 2.2
27 2 High Cmin 2.15 0.5 0.90 1.8
Performance Group No. PG-4O
28 4 High Cmin 3.7 0.38 1.57 2.71
29 8 High Cmin 3.64 0.23 1.74 7.57
30 12 High Cmin 6.44 0.17 1.68 9.88
Performance Group No. PG-5O
31 1 Low Cmax 3.71 0.75 1.25 1.25
32 2 Low Cmax 1.98 0.75 1.07 1.07
Performance Group No. PG-6O
33 4 Low Cmax 1.99 0.58 1.90 3.28
34 8 Low Cmax 2.37 0.34 2.05 6.03
35 12 Low Cmax 2.71 0.26 1.66 6.38
Performance Group No. PG-7O
36 1 Low Cmin 4.26 0.5 1.10 2.2
37 2 Low Cmin 2.15 0.5 0.90 1.8
Performance Group No. PG-8O
38 4 Low Cmin 2.35 0.38 1.59 4.18
39 8 Low Cmin 2.37 0.23 2.05 8.91
40 12 Low Cmin 4.10 0.17 1.66 9.76

4.7 Performance Evaluation

Adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMRs) are obtained by multiplying the CMRs,
computed from nonlinear dynamic analysis results, by the spectral shape factor, SSF.
The acceptable average value of ACMR for each performance group is denoted by
ACMR10%. The acceptable value of ACMR for individual archetypes within a
performance group is denoted by ACMR20%.

4-22 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Values of ACMR10% and ACMR20% are determined based on total system collapse
uncertainty, βTOT. Collapse uncertainty is a function of the quality ratings associated
with the design requirements, test data, and nonlinear models, as well as record-to-
record uncertainty. Quality ratings assigned to design requirements, test data, and
nonlinear models for reinforced concrete shear wall systems are summarized in Table
4-7.

Table 4-7 Summary of Quality Ratings for Reinforced Concrete

Shear Wall Systems
Design Nonlinear
System Test Data
Requirements Modeling
Special RCSWs B B B
Ordinary RCSWs B B B

4.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results

To pass the performance evaluation criteria, individual archetypes must have adjusted
collapse margin ratios exceeding ACMR20%. Performance evaluation results for
individual special RCSW archetypes are summarized in Table 4-8, and results for
individual ordinary RCSW archetypes are summarized in Table 4-9.

For special RCSWs, all 4-, 8-, and 12-story archetypes passed this criterion, while 1-
and 2-story, short-period archetypes failed the criterion. In the case of ordinary
RCSWs, all short-period and long-period archetypes passed this criterion.

Performance evaluation results by performance group are summarized in Table 4-10

for special RCSW archetypes, and Table 4-11 for ordinary RCSW archetypes. To
pass the performance evaluation criteria, the adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR)
averaged across all archetypes in a performance group must exceed ACMR10%.

For special RCSWs, all long-period performance groups passed this criterion. In the
case of ordinary RCSWs, short-period, SDC Cmin performance groups and all long-
period performance groups passed this criterion.

4.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength

The system overstrength factor, Ω0, is taken as the largest average value of the
overstrength, Ω, computed for each performance group. Values of overstrength for
individual archetypes and average values for each performance group are shown in
Table 4-10 and Table 4-11. For special RCSWs, average values of overstrength
varied between 1.54 and 3.88. The resulting value of Ω0 equal to 3.88 is larger than
the value of 2.5 provided for special RCSW systems in ASCE/SEI 7-05.

For ordinary RCSWs, average values of overstrength varied between 2.37 and 5.2.
The resulting value of Ω0 equal to 5.2 is significantly larger than the value of 2.5
provided for special RCSW systems in ASCE/SEI 7-05. Per the Methodology,
however, values of Ω0 need not be taken larger than 3.0, as a practical limit.

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-23

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Table 4-8 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Special Reinforced

Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes
Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Design Configuration
Arch. Collapse Margin Parameters Check
Design
ID No. No. of Gravity Static Accept. Pass/
SDC CMR µT SSF ACMR
Stories Loads Ω ACMR Fail

Performance Group No. PG-1S

1 1 High Dmax 2.39 0.79 9 1.33 1.05 1.56 Fail
2 2 High Dmax 1.82 1.13 12 1.33 1.50 1.56 Fail
3 4 High Dmax 1.72 1.47 23 1.34 1.96 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.98 1.5 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-2S
4 8 High Dmax 1.45 1.87 22 1.43 2.68 1.56 Pass
5 12 High Dmax 1.63 2.44 19 1.51 3.68 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.54 3.18 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-3S
6 1 High Dmin 2.98 1.40 25 1.14 1.60 1.56 Pass
7 2 High Dmin 1.83 1.23 17 1.14 1.40 1.56 Fail
Mean of Performance Group: 2.41 1.50 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-4S
8 4 High Dmin 2.91 3.0 35 1.14 3.42 1.56 Pass
9 8 High Dmin 4.44 4.68 21 1.22 5.71 1.56 Pass
10 12 High Dmin 4.30 6.29 18 1.29 7.99 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.88 5.71 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-5S
11 1 Low Dmax 2.39 0.79 9 1.33 1.05 1.56 Fail
12 2 Low Dmax 1.82 1.13 12 1.33 1.50 1.56 Fail
13 4 Low Dmax 2.03 2.03 13 1.33 2.70 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.08 1.75 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-6S
14 8 Low Dmax 1.89 2.25 21 1.43 3.22 1.56 Pass
15 12 Low Dmax 1.50 2.10 38 1.51 3.17 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.70 3.20 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-7S
16 1 Low Dmin 2.98 1.40 25 1.14 1.60 1.56 Pass
17 2 Low Dmin 1.83 1.23 17 1.14 1.40 1.56 Fail
Mean of Performance Group: 2.41 1.50 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-8S
18 4 Low Dmin 1.85 3.0 50 1.14 3.42 1.56 Pass
19 8 Low Dmin 5.64 1.81 30 1.22 2.21 1.56 Pass
20 12 Low Dmin 3.08 6.46 24 1.29 8.33 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.52 4.65 1.96 Pass

4-24 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Table 4-9 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Ordinary Reinforced

Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes
Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Design Configuration
Arch. Collapse Margin Parameters Check
Design
ID No. No. of Gravity Static CM Accept. Pass/
SDC µT SSF ACMR
Stories Loads Ω R ACMR Fail
Performance Group No. PG-1O
21 1 High Cmax 3.7 1.67 10 1.14 1.90 1.56 Pass
22 2 High Cmax 2.0 1.43 14 1.14 1.63 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.85 1.77 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-2O
23 4 High Cmax 2.4 2.71 11 1.14 3.09 1.56 Pass
24 8 High Cmax 3.6 5.12 8 1.21 6.22 1.56 Pass
25 12 High Cmax 4.3 6.46 6.3 1.25 8.08 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.43 5.80 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-3O
26 1 High Cmin 4.3 2.2 13 1.14 2.51 1.56 Pass
27 2 High Cmin 2.2 1.8 19 1.14 2.05 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.25 2.28 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-4O
28 4 High Cmin 3.7 2.71 13 1.14 3.09 1.56 Pass
29 8 High Cmin 5.5 7.57 8 1.21 9.19 1.56 Pass
30 12 High Cmin 6.4 9.88 6.3 1.25 12.4 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 5.2 8.23 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-5O
31 1 Low Cmax 3.7 1.67 10 1.14 1.90 1.56 Pass
32 2 Low Cmax 2.0 1.43 14 1.14 1.63 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.85 1.77 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-6O
33 4 Low Cmax 2.0 3.28 30 1.14 3.74 1.56 Pass
34 8 Low Cmax 2.4 6.03 30 1.21 7.30 1.56 Pass
35 12 Low Cmax 2.7 6.38 23 1.29 8.23 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.37 6.42 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-7O
36 1 Low Cmin 4.3 2.2 13 1.14 2.51 1.56 Pass
37 2 Low Cmin 2.2 1.8 19 1.14 2.05 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.25 2.28 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-8O
38 4 Low Cmin 2.4 4.18 47 1.14 4.77 1.56 Pass
39 8 Low Cmin 3.6 8.91 35 1.21 10.78 1.56 Pass
40 12 Low Cmin 4.1 9.76 23 1.29 12.59 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.37 9.38 1.96 Pass

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-25

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

Table 4-10 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special

Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1S Short Fail

SDC Dmax
PG-2S Long Pass
High
PG-3S Short Fail
SDC Dmin
PG-4S Long Pass
A
PG-5S Short Fail
SDC Dmax
PG-6S Long Pass
Low
PG-7S Short Fail
SDC Dmin
PG-8S Long Pass

Table 4-11 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Ordinary

Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1O Short Fail

SDC Cmax
PG-2O Long Pass
High
PG-3O Short Pass
SDC Cmin
PG-4O Long Pass
A
PG-5O Short Fail
SDC Cmax
PG-6O Long Pass
Low
PG-7O Short Pass
SDC Cmin
PG-8O Long Pass

4.9 Observations and Recommendations

4.9.1 Observations on System Performance

With the exception of short-period performance groups, special RCSW and ordinary
RCSW archetypes met the acceptance criteria of the Methodology. In addition,
ordinary RCSW, short-period, SDC Cmin archetypes also met the acceptance criteria.
Calculated values of system overstrength factor, Ω0, for both special and ordinary
RCSW archetypes exceeded values provided for these systems in ASCE/SEI 7-05.

In general, results indicated that archetypes with high seismic demands, SDC Dmax
and SDC Cmax, had lower collapse margin ratios than archetypes with low seismic
demands, SDC Dmin and SDC Cmin. Similarly, archetypes subjected to high axial

4-26 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

loads had lower collapse margin ratios than archetypes subjected to low axial loads.
These trends were apparent in both special and ordinary shear wall systems.

For the 1- and 2-story archetypes, flexural yielding followed by shear failure was the
most common collapse mode, followed by buckling and fracture of longitudinal
reinforcing steel. In taller (4-, 8-, and 12-story) archetypes, buckling and fracture of
longitudinal reinforcing steel was the most common collapse mode, followed by
shear failure (after flexural yielding).

One- and 2-story archetypes failed to achieve acceptable collapse margin ratios
primarily because shear failures used as a proxy for collapse occurred at relatively
low drift levels (e.g., 1.5%). In general, collapse of low-rise shear wall buildings has
not been observed in earthquakes (Wallace et al., 2008), except in cases where the
floor system failed (e.g., precast parking structures). This suggests that findings
related to low-rise walls were biased by the modeling assumptions and potentially
conservative criteria used to assess collapse. At this time, however, insufficient
information exists to establish more liberal failure criteria.

Archetypes with low seismic demands, SDC Dmin and SDC Cmin , had higher
calculated overstrength than archetypes with high seismic demands, SDC Dmax and
SDC Cmax. Furthermore, calculated overstrength for ordinary RCSWs was, in
general, larger than for special RCSWs. This result was likely due to bias caused by
conservatism in the archetype designs. In general, it was more difficult to design
ordinary RCSW archetypes to just meet the limits of code-permitted flexure, shear,
and axial strengths, than it was for special RCSW archetypes. As a result, ordinary
RCSW archetypes had more inherent conservatism built into their designs.
4.9.2 Observations on the Methodology

Nonlinear response history analyses to collapse are inherently difficult for a non-
redundant system, such as a cantilever shear wall, because yielding at a single
location (e.g., base of a wall element) can produce instabilities that make modeling
convergence difficult. Specific recommendations related to modeling various failure
modes that could lead to collapse generally do not exist. Assumptions regarding non-
simulated collapse behaviors on the part of the analyst can substantially impact the
performance evaluation results.

The potential impact of soil-structure interaction is not considered in the process. In

the case of stiff systems, such as shear wall buildings, the added flexibility associated
with foundation rotation could significantly alter the response, likely enabling many
short-period archetypes to achieve acceptable collapse margin ratios. However, it is
noted that by neglecting such effects, minimum design requirements were evaluated.

GCR 10-917-8 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete 4-27

Shear Wall Structures
100% Draft

4.9.3 Recommendations for Further Investigation

This study focused on rectangular cantilever wall systems, but reinforced concrete
shear wall buildings can have many different wall configurations, including flanged
walls, core walls, coupled walls, and non-rectangular wall systems. All these
variations would need to be studied in order to fully characterize the seismic
performance of reinforced concrete shear wall structures and identify appropriate
seismic performance factors.

Results appear to be generally consistent with expectations. Relatively slender

cantilever walls with rectangular cross sections and low shear stresses are expected to
perform well. Recently, ACI Committee 318-H has been balloting material to define
a shear wall governed by flexure. Results related to taller shear wall archetypes
would appear to support this effort. However, this study would need to be extended
to the full range of possible wall configurations used in practice (coupled walls, core
walls, walls with non-rectangular cross sections) in order to comprehensively
contribute to the ACI Committee 318-H effort.

Results for 1- and 2-story archetypes were sensitive to the axial failure criteria that
were used to measure loss of vertical-load-carrying capacity. Investigation of an
axial failure model was presented in Appendix B. These studies highlight the need
for more research and improved criteria to define loss of vertical-load-carrying
capacity and collapse of shear wall components.

The equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure was used in the design of special and
ordinary RCSW archetypes. Results for other systems have shown that use of the
Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) procedure produces designs that perform
differently. Depending on how minimum code requirements impact the design (e.g.,
minimum reinforcement requirements, drift limits), use of the RSA procedure may or
may not be significant in the case of reinforced concrete shear wall systems. The
potential impact of using the RSA procedure on reinforced concrete shear wall
systems should be investigated.

In this study, a fairly significant body of research was synthesized to assess and
support the modeling assumptions. Despite this effort, our ability to model the
influence of certain failure modes on collapse is limited due to lack of information,
lack of large-scale test data, and lack of data from actual buildings subjected to strong
ground shaking. Sensitivity of the results to variations in modeling assumptions, and
identification of which assumptions have the greatest impact on the performance
evaluation, should be investigated.

4-28 4: Trial Application - Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Structures
 100% Draft

Chapter 5
Trial Application - Steel Braced
Frame Structures

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a trial application of the FEMA P-695 Methodology on steel
braced frame structures consisting of special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs)
or buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs). It summarizes design requirements
and available test data for steel braced frames, explains the development of braced
frame archetype configurations, documents the nonlinear modeling approach,
presents the results of a performance evaluation, and summarizes observations on the
Methodology specific to steel braced frame systems. Results are investigated for a
range of building heights and design parameters.

5.2 Overview and Approach

In this trial application, special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) and buckling-
restrained braced frame (BRBF) systems, as defined in AISC 341-05, Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2005a), were considered as if they
were new systems proposed for inclusion in ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2006). Although the intent was to treat
SCBF and BRBF systems as if they were new systems, the purpose was not to re-
derive or validate seismic performance factors (R, Ω0, and Cd) for these systems.
Rather, it was to examine whether SCBF and BRBF systems would satisfy the
acceptance criteria of the FEMA P-695 Methodology, test the application of the
Methodology with respect to these systems, and identify possible improvements to
the Methodology or current SCBF and BRBF design provisions.

The system design requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-05, including minimum base shear
and story drift limits, were used as the basis for design, with the exception that Cd
was taken equal to R, as specified in the FEMA P-695 Methodology. Values of R for
special SCBF and BRBF systems are 6 and 8, respectively.

Special SCBFs have been widely used for many types of steel buildings due to their
efficiency in resisting lateral forces. Under severe lateral loading, the braces will
buckle, first laterally and then locally, eventually leading to deterioration of the
strength and stiffness of the system. Under repeated cycles of inelastic deformation,
braces can fracture, transferring the burden of lateral force-resistance to the
remaining braces and the beam-column framing system.

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-1

100% Draft

During the past decade, buckling-restrained braced frames have been increasingly
used. The braces in these systems provide more ductile behavior, exhibit fuller
hysteretic loops, and generally exhibit considerably more energy dissipation capacity
before rupture. In recognition of this improved ductility, BRBFs have higher R
factors, and are designed for lower lateral forces, than SCBFs.

Concentrically braced frame systems can have many different configurations,

including single-diagonal, X-braced, chevron, and other arrangements, and these
configurations can occur over one or more stories. Also, braces can also be
constructed with different types of cross sections, including singly-symmetric,
doubly-symmetric, closed, or open sections. For practical reasons, the scope of the
beta testing effort on concentrically braced frames was necessarily limited.

The evaluations presented herein do not constitute a complete study of the full range
of braced frame behaviors, as only a subset of structural configurations, proportions,
and detailing options could be considered. Recent research and design practice has
favored the use of two-story X-brace configurations. Two-story X-bracing helps to
avoid large unbalanced beam loads that can occur when braces in chevron (or
inverted chevron) configurations buckle. Current code requirements result in very
large beam sizes to resist this unbalanced loading, even when buckling-restrained
braces are used. For these reasons, the two-story X-brace configuration was selected
for investigation of special SCBF and BRBF systems over a range of building heights
and design parameters.

Many aspects of component, connection and system behavior of both SCBF and
BRBF systems are still uncertain, and numerous studies are underway to improve
understanding of their inelastic response. While the hysteretic and failure modes of
braces dominate the behavior of concentrically braced frame systems, previous
analytical studies have shown that the moment frame behavior of beams and columns
in a braced frame structure play an important role in determining the ultimate
behavior of the system after the braces buckle or fail.

Global buckling of braces, possible rupture of braces, and beam-column framing

action were explicitly considered in the computational models. The beam-column
connections and brace-to-framing connections were assumed to have adequate
stiffness, strength, and detailing to avoid failure before brace rupture. As such, they
were not designed or analyzed in detail. Critical failure modes for beams, columns,
and other components that were not explicitly included in the analytical models were
indirectly accounted for using non-simulated failure criteria based on available test
data.

5-2 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
5.3 Structural System Information
5.3.1 Design Requirements

Concentrically braced frame systems were designed and detailed in accordance with
the strength design requirements in AISC 341-05 and the seismic design
requirements in ASCE/SEI 7-05. These requirements focus mainly on the
proportioning of braces, beams, and columns. While the provisions control certain
aspects of connection design, there is considerable flexibility in how beam-column
connections, gusset-to-framing connections, and brace-to-gusset connections are
made.
5.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements

Flexibility in design assumptions and acceptable connection configurations can lead

to designs that can have significantly different overall system behavior and variability
in system performance. As a consequence, a quality rating of (B) Good was assigned
to the design requirements for special SCBF and BRBF systems.
5.3.3 Test Data

There are many studies in the literature that have included testing of braces, braced
frame components, and braced frame assemblies (e.g., Black et al., 1980 and 2004;
Zayas et al., 1980; Tremblay, 2002 and 2008; Powell et al., 2008; and Yoo et al.,
2008). Material properties have been known to vary by the date and location of the
test, and many of these tests were conducted some time ago.

Data from recent tests (Yang and Mahin, 2005; Uriz, 2005) were used to calibrate the
analytical models used in this trial application. These data include the cyclic
responses of tube braces, pipe braces, buckling-restrained braces, chevron frames
with conventional braces, and chevron frames with buckling-restrained braces.
Considerable data are available, but the following important limitations should be
considered:
• Variations in Member Sizes. Test specimens used in the calibration all had
similar beam, column, and brace member sizes. Conventional braces in the test
specimens measured about six inches across the section. The archetypical
designs, however, resulted in considerably heavier, or in some cases lighter,
sections. Sections of a different size could have different local and global low-
cycle fatigue response characteristics.
• Variations in Loading Conditions. Due to limitations in laboratory test setups,
cyclic loading was applied only at the roof level, and test specimens were not
subjected to gravity loading during the tests. The idealized load pattern reduces
the complexity for examining component response during the tests, but may or
may not be representative of seismic loading.

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-3

100% Draft

• Variations in Slab Details. Concrete slabs were not included in the test
specimens. As such, changes in stiffness and strength because of composite
behavior were not reflected in the frame tests.
• Variations in Drift Range. Test specimens were subjected to cyclic loading
with increasing amplitudes of story drift until significant damage occurred in the
critical elements. For the safety and protection of experimental facilities,
however, tests were stopped before the specimens collapsed. Information on
how the specimens behaved between the stages of significant damage and total
collapse is therefore, not available.
5.3.4 Quality Rating of Test Data

Although considerable test data are available on concentrically braced frame systems,
these data have limitations that reduce confidence in certain modeling parameters and
failure criteria. As a consequence, a quality rating of (B) Good was assigned to the
test data for special SCBF and BRBF systems.

5.4 Archetype Configurations

A two-story X-brace configuration was selected for investigation of special SCBF

and BRBF systems over a range of building heights and design parameters. Recent
research and design practice has favored the use of this type of bracing configuration.
It also has additional advantages, including: (1) a more straightforward load path for
transfer of seismic forces throughout the system; (2) avoidance of large unbalanced
beam forces when braces buckle; and (3) avoidance of possible failure modes at
intersecting brace connections located at mid-story.

Focus on a single brace configuration allowed consideration of the following

additional design variables: conventional versus buckling-restrained brace types,
level of seismic design loading, level of gravity load, number of stories, and period.
A rectangular plan configuration (Figure 5-1) was selected as representative of
realistic braced frame structures encompassing these design variables. Building
heights of two, three, six, twelve, and sixteen stories were considered (Figure 5-2).
In order to produce lower-bound designs without excessive overstrength, the plan
dimensions and number of braced bays were varied to optimize strength relative to
the level of seismic design loading.

The height limit for steel braced frame archetypes was taken as 240 feet, which is
extended from the basic limit of 160 feet prescribed in ASCE/SEI 7-05, assuming
that there are no extreme torsional irregularities, and that braced frames in any one
plane take less than 60% of the total seismic force in each direction, neglecting
torsional effects. Archetypes were assumed to have no horizontal irregularities, so
they could be idealized as rigid in-plane. They were also assumed to be regular in
plan, with braced frames located at the building perimeter. The redundancy factor (ρ)
was determined to be equal to 1.0.

5-4 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

For the purpose of estimating design gravity loads, floor and roof systems were
assumed to consist of metal deck with concrete fill. The potential for variation in
design gravity loads was considered not relevant to the design of brace elements, and
insignificant in comparison with column axial forces due to brace component forces
and overturning effects, so a typical level of gravity load was assumed in the design
of all archetypes.

Figure 5-1 Typical plan configuration of special SCBF and BRBF archetypes
(design for 3-story and 6-story configurations shown).

Figure 5-2 Elevation of 2-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 16-story braced frame archetypes

Archetypes were grouped into performance groups containing a set of common

features or behavioral characteristics, including seismic design category, gravity load

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-5

100% Draft

level, and code-based period of the structure. Considering the design variables listed
above, a total of 20 archetypes were developed. These were divided into eight
performance groups, four attributed to special SCBFs and four attributed to BRBFs,
as shown in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. Performance groups with less than three
archetypes did not meet the minimum number of archetypes per performance group
required in a full application of the Methodology.
Table 5-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Steel
Concentrically Braced Frame Archetypes
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1SCB Short 2
SDC Dmax
PG-2SCB Double Long 3
2

Story Typical 1
PG-3SCB X-Braces Short 2
SDC Dmin 2
PG-4SCB Long 3
1. Short-period performance groups, PG-1 and PG-3, include 2-story and 3-
story archetypes.
2. Long-period performance groups, PG-2 and PG-4, include 6-story, 12-story
and 16-story archetypes.

Table 5-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Buckling-Restrained

Brace Frame Archetypes
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1BRB Short 2
SDC Dmax
PG-2BRB Double Long 3
2

Story Typical 1
PG-3BRB X-Braces Short 2
SDC Dmin 2
PG-4BRB Long 3
1. Short-period performance groups, PG-1 and PG-2, include 2-story and 3-
story archetypes.
2. Long-period performance groups, PG-2 and PG-4 include 6-story, 12-story
and 16-story archetypes.

Conventional brace cross sections consisted of hollow structural sections (HSS) and
wide-flange sections, while beam and column framing consisted of wide-flange
sections. Buckling-restrained brace sections were sized based on the area of the
yielding core. Overstrength factors in ASCE/SEI 7-05 were used to determine design
axial forces on the columns.

Key seismic design parameters for the special SCBF and BRBF archetypes are
summarized in Table 5-3 and Table 5-4. These include the code-based period, T, and

5-6 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

fundamental period, T1 (calculated from eigenvalue analysis), the seismic base shear
coefficient, V/W, and the MCE-level spectral acceleration, SMT.

Table 5-3 Special Steel Concentrically Braced Frame Archetype Design

Properties
Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype
No. of Seismic Design Criteria
Design ID Analysis SMT(T)
Stories
Number Procedure (g)
T T1 V/W
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1SCB
2SCBFDmax 2 ELF Dmax 6 0.26 0.40 0.167 1.50
3SCBFDmax 3 ELF Dmax 6 0.49 0.58 0.167 1.50
Performance Group No. PG-2SCB
6SCBFDmax 6 ELF Dmax 6 0.82 1.05 0.122 1.10
12SCBFDmax 12 ELF Dmax 6 1.38 1.91 0.073 0.65
16SCBFDmax 16 RSA Dmax 6 1.71 3.16 0.059 0.53
Performance Group No. PG-3SCB
2SCBFDmin 2 ELF Dmin 6 0.28 0.55 0.083 0.75
3SCBFDmin 3 ELF Dmin 6 0.52 0.80 0.064 0.58
Performance Group No. PG-4SCB
6SCBFDmin 6 ELF Dmin 6 0.88 1.51 0.038 0.34
12SCBFDmin 12 ELF Dmin 6 1.47 3.04 0.023 0.20
16SCBFDmin 16 RSA Dmin 6 1.83 4.67 0.022 0.16

Table 5-4 Buckling-Restrained Brace Frame Archetype Design Properties

Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype
No. of Seismic Design Criteria
Design ID Analysis SMT(T)
Stories
Number Procedure (g)
T T1 V/W
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1BRB
2BRBFDmax 2 ELF Dmax 8 0.40 0.50 0.125 1.50
3BRBFDmax 3 ELF Dmax 8 0.73 0.80 0.103 1.23
Performance Group No. PG-2BRB
6BRBFDmax 6 ELF Dmax 8 1.23 1.35 0.061 0.73
12BRBFDmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 2.06 2.82 0.044 0.44
16BRBFDmax 16 RSA Dmax 8 2.56 3.73 0.044 0.35
Performance Group No. PG-3BRB
2BRBFDmin 2 ELF Dmin 8 0.43 0.68 0.059 0.70
3BRBFDmin 3 ELF Dmin 8 0.78 1.25 0.032 0.38
Performance Group No. PG-4BRB
6BRBFDmin 6 ELF Dmin 8 1.31 2.34 0.022 0.23
12BRBFDmin 12 RSA Dmin 8 2.21 3.49 0.022 0.14
16BRBFDmin 16 RSA Dmin 8 2.74 4.83 0.022 0.11

In certain taller (e.g., 12-, and 16-story) configurations, use of the equivalent lateral
force (ELF) procedure was found to result in a design that was overly conservative.
In these cases, the response spectrum analysis (RSA) procedure was used to avoid a
conservative bias in the results. P-Delta effects were not observed to govern any of

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-7

100% Draft

the archetype designs. More detailed information on the design of all special SCBF
and BRBF archetypes is provided in Appendix C.

5.5 Nonlinear Model Development

5.5.1 Modeling Approach

For nonlinear analysis, each archetype was idealized using two-dimensional plane
frame models, as shown in Figure 5-3. Models were implemented in OpenSees,
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees, 2007). To model
inelastic behavior, nonlinear beam-columns elements were used. Critical locations
where yielding might occur were modeled using fiber elements.

Braces were assumed to have pinned end connections to the framing. Beam-column
connections at the braces were assumed to be fully-restrained because gusset plated
connections provide considerable fixity. To simplify design and analysis, all other
beam-column connections were also assumed to be fully-restrained. Beams were
assumed to be laterally supported at quarter points along the span, and columns were
assumed to be fixed at the base, orientated to resist lateral forces through strong-axis
bending.

3@ 15’-0” = 45’-0”

Figure 5-3 Two-dimensional plane frame model with a leaning column (3-story
archetype shown).

Rigid offsets were assumed at the beam-column connections and brace-to-framing

connections to represent the physical size and stiffening effect of the gusset plates.
The assumed effective length of the braces was 70% of the work-point-to-work-point
length. The effective stiffness of the buckling-restrained braces was modified to 1.4
times the stiffness of the steel core to account for added stiffness contributions from
tapered end zones and typical connection configurations. Analytical models of
BRBF archetypes were essentially the same as SCBF archetypes, except for the
modeling of buckling-restrained braces, which were assumed not to buckle.

The gravity framing system was idealized as a leaning column, which was assumed
to be axially rigid, but without any lateral strength so that the lateral stiffness and

5-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

strength of the gravity framing system was not considered. Axial load on a leaning
column was taken as the total dead load of the system tributary to a braced bay, and a
co-rotational formulation was used to simulate large deformations and P-Delta
effects.

The vertical floor mass tributary to the beam in the braced frame was modeled, as
recommended by Khatib et al. (1988). Any rotation of the floor diaphragms about a
vertical axis was ignored. As such, torsional effects due to mass and stiffness
eccentricities, or premature deterioration of bracing on one side of the building, were
not accounted for in the analyses.
5.5.2 Nonlinear Models of Braces

The hysteretic characteristics of conventional braces were modeled using an

approach developed by Uriz (2005). In this approach, each brace is subdivided into
10 nonlinear beam-column elements, with fibers used to model the shape and
hysteretic characteristics of the brace at 3 integration points along each element. A
Menegotto-Pinto material model with isotropic strain hardening is used to simulate
the mechanical properties of the steel material, and a co-rotational formulation is
used to model the braces so the effects of buckling and large deformation could be
taken into account.

To model buckling and low-cycle fatigue rupture of braces, the strain history in each
fiber was tracked, and a rainflow counting algorithm was used to determine the
amplitude of each inelastic cycle. A Manson-Coffin relation calibrated to multiple
brace tests was used to characterize low-cycle fatigue damage to each fiber during
each cycle, and Miner’s rule was then used to determine whether the fatigue life had
been exceeded. For simplicity in two-dimensional modeling, brace buckling was
modeled to occur in-plane, rather than out-of-plane.

The analytical model shown in Figure 5-4 illustrates the geometric parameters of the
buckling brace elements. A small initial camber was imposed in the middle of the
brace to induce the buckling phenomenon. To better capture the behavior, more
elements are used in the middle of the brace where inelastic behavior often
concentrates.

Parameters such as initial camber, number of non-linear sub-elements, number of

integration points, and number of fibers affect the global and local response of a
brace under cyclic loading. Results from Uriz (2005) suggest an initial camber
between 0.05% and 0.1% of the brace length, a minimum of 3 integration points in
each element, and 10 to 15 fibers across the depth of the cross section are sufficient
to accurately estimate the inelastic strains at critical sections of the braces.

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-9

100% Draft
4d,4 elements
camber

L/2 L/2

Figure 5-4 Initial camber used to model buckling behavior of brace elements.

The modeling of buckling-restrained braces was more straightforward since buckling

behavior was not considered for these elements. Buckling-restrained braces were
assumed to conform to the code-required ductility capacity for testing of these braces,
and were considered to have the ability to achieve a cumulative inelastic axial
deformation of 200 times the yield deformation before fracture.
5.5.3 Non-Simulated Failure Modes

Failure modes due to damage in the braces have been calibrated with test data and
explicitly simulated in the analytical models. Although brace failure is a critical
response parameter related to potential collapse, there are other important
deterioration modes that should be accounted for in the performance evaluation of
steel braced frame systems. Not all of these modes were included in the models.
Table 5-5 lists critical deterioration modes for steel braced frame structures, and
identifies their modeling status.

Most of the failure modes that have been neglected in the analyses were assumed to
be prevented through adequate design, detailing, or quality control during
construction. One such example is connection failure. Beam-column connections
and brace-to-framing connections were assumed to have adequate stiffness, strength,
and detailing to avoid failure before brace rupture. Similarly, possible net-section
failures at the brace-to-gusset-plate connections were assumed to be adequately
reinforced per AISC 341-05, and members were assumed to be adequately braced to
prevent out-of-plane buckling and lateral torsional buckling.

Non-simulated deterioration modes were incorporated in the performance evaluation

process through post-processing of results and comparison of force or deformation
response quantities to pre-determined criteria outside of the analysis. Based on
available test data, a drift-related failure criterion was used as a measure for column
fracture. This was necessary due to the absence of calibrated low-cycle fatigue
criteria for the columns used in the archetype designs.

5-10 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 5-5 Modeling Status of Critical Deterioration Modes in Steel Braced

Frame Structures
1
Modeling Status
Critical Deterioration Mode Non-
Explicitly
Simulated Neglected
Modeled
Criteria
Braces
Global buckling 
Low-cycle fatigue 
Local buckling 
Net-section failure 
Beams
Global beam buckling 
Lateral torsional buckling 
Columns
Fracture 
Splice/ base plate failure (tension) 
Global column buckling 
Torsion 
Connections
Failure 

Earlier tests on wide flange columns by Newell and Uang (2006) showed that
columns begin to lose capacity after 7% to 9% story drift under cyclic axial and
lateral load interactions. Accounting for differences between the boundary
conditions in the test specimens and those of the archetypes, a story drift capacity of
10% was selected for the non-simulated failure criteria of the columns. Additionally,
since global buckling of columns was not explicitly modeled, force and deformation
demands in columns were tracked to see if column geometric instability was initiated.
5.5.4 Model Validation

The ability to simulate brace fracture is especially important for braced frames, since
this behavior was expected to dominate frame response near collapse. The design of
the two-story, special SCBF, SDC Dmax archetype coincides with the specimen tested
by Uriz (2005). A comparison of experimental data and nonlinear simulation is
shown in Figure 5-5. The model satisfactorily captures the strength of the specimen
and the time when the brace fractures. The analytical parameters were well-
calibrated for this specimen so high confidence was placed in the ability of the
computational model to capture the cyclic response of the two-story archetypes.

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-11

100% Draft

Figure 5-5 Comparison of experimental data and nonlinear simulation for the
two-story SCBF archetype.

5.5.5 Quality Rating of Analytical Models

Brace elements were calibrated with test data, and braced frame archetype models
have been shown to coincide with data from braced frame subassembly tests. There
are, however, non-simulated failure modes that were not explicitly included in the
analytical models. Also, fiber-based elements have limited ability to simulate local
buckling behavior, and many three-dimensional response characteristics have not
been explicitly modeled. Recognizing that the modeling approach is able to directly
simulate structural response up to collapse, but that some limitations still exist, a
quality rating of (B) Good was assigned to the analytical models for special SCBF
and BRBF systems.

5.6 Nonlinear Analyses

Nonlinear static pushover analyses and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were
used to evaluate system overstrength, period-based ductility, and the collapse
capacity of steel braced frame archetypes.

For each archetype, a pushover analysis was conducted with a lateral load
distribution corresponding to the fundamental mode shape and mass distribution of
the structure. Figure 5-6 shows examples of pushover curves for the set of 3-story
special SCBF and BRBF archetypes.

For the 3-story, special SCBF, SDC Dmax archetype (3SCBFDmax), brace buckling
occurred at a roof drift ratio of about 0.002 radians, which corresponds to the drift
ratio at maximum strength. The strength then degraded rapidly as the braces lost
compression capacity with increasing lateral displacement. P-Delta effects added to
the negative tangent stiffness until complete collapse occurred. The overstrength
factor for this archetype was computed as Ω = 730k/519k = 1.41, and the period-
based ductility capacity was computed as μT = 0.012/0.002 = 6.01.

5-12 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Figure 5-6 Pushover curves for the set of 3-story special SCBF and BRBF
archetypes.

For the 3-story, BRBF, SDC Dmin archetype (3BRBFDmin), the system yielded at a
roof drift ratio of about 0.003 radians. The maximum strength of 210 kips occurred
at a roof drift ratio of about 0.01 radians. The negative tangent stiffness was
primarily caused by P-Delta effects.

Each archetype was analyzed using an incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) approach
and the set of 44 far-field ground motion records provided as part of the
Methodology. Figure 5-7 shows IDA results for the 3-story, special SCBF, SDC
Dmax archetype (3SCBFDmax). The spectral acceleration at collapse, SCT, was
computed for each of the 44 ground motion records, and the median collapse level,
ŜCT, was determined to be 2.4 g. The collapse margin ratio, CMR, was calculated as
the ratio of ŜCT to the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motion
spectral demand, SMT, equal to 1.60 for this archetype.

Figure 5-7 IDA results for 3-story special SCBF SCD Dmax archetypes

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-13

100% Draft

Values of overstrength, Ω, from the pushover analyses, and collapse margin ratio,
CMR, from the incremental dynamic analyses, are summarized in Table 5-6 for
special SCBFs and Table 5-7 for BRBFs.

Table 5-6 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Steel Concentrically

Braced Frame Archetype Designs
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic Static SMT [T] SCT [T]
Number CMR
Stories Loads SDC Ω (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1SCB

2SCBFDmax 2 Typical Dmax 1.44 1.50 1.5 1.00
3SCBFDmax 3 Typical Dmax 1.41 1.50 2.4 1.60
Performance Group No. PG-2SCB
6SCBFDmax 6 Typical Dmax 1.28 1.10 2.4 2.18
12SCBFDmax 12 Typical Dmax 1.60 0.65 2.1 3.23
16SCBFDmax 16 Typical Dmax 2.11 0.53 1.4 2.64
Performance Group No. PG-3SCB
2SCBFDmin 2 Typical Dmin 1.38 0.75 1.3 1.73
3SCBFDmin 3 Typical Dmin 2.41 0.58 2.1 3.62
Performance Group No. PG-4SCB
6SCBFDmin 6 Typical Dmin 1.86 0.34 1.2 3.53
12SCBFDmin 12 Typical Dmin 2.18 0.20 1.0 5.00
16SCBFDmin 16 Typical Dmin 1.56 0.16 0.7 4.38

Table 5-7 Summary of Collapse Results for Buckling-Restrained Braced

Frame Archetype Designs
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic Static SMT [T] SCT [T]
Number CMR
Stories Loads SDC Ω (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1BRB

2BRBFDmax 2 Typical Dmax 1.31 1.50 2.6 1.73
3BRBFDmax 3 Typical Dmax 1.48 1.23 3.5 2.85
Performance Group No. PG-2BRB
6BRBFDmax 6 Typical Dmax 1.47 0.73 2.4 3.29
12BRBFDmax 12 Typical Dmax 1.17 0.44 1.0 2.27
16BRBFDmax 16 Typical Dmax 1.00 0.35 1.1 3.14
Performance Group No. PG-3BRB
2BRBFDmin 2 Typical Dmin 1.44 0.70 1.2 1.71
3BRBFDmin 3 Typical Dmin 2.11 0.38 1.2 3.16
Performance Group No. PG-4BRB
6BRBFDmin 6 Typical Dmin 1.28 0.23 0.7 3.04
12BRBFDmin 12 Typical Dmin 1.44 0.14 0.4 2.86
16BRBFDmin 16 Typical Dmin 1.15 0.11 0.5 4.55

Results indicate that short-period archetypes (i.e., 2- and 3-story archetypes) have
lower collapse margin ratios than longer-period archetypes. Results also indicate that

5-14 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

special SCBF archetypes designed for lower seismic demands have higher collapse
margin ratios. These trends are not as apparent in the results for BRBF archetypes.

5.7 Performance Evaluation

Adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMRs) are obtained by multiplying the CMRs
computed from nonlinear dynamic analysis results by the spectral shape factor, SSF.
The acceptable average value of ACMR for each performance group is denoted by
ACMR10%. The acceptable value of ACMR for individual archetypes within a
performance group is denoted by ACMR20%.

Values of ACMR10% and ACMR20% are determined based on total system collapse
uncertainty, βTOT. Collapse uncertainty is a function of the quality ratings associated
with the design requirements, test data, and nonlinear models, as well as record-to-
record uncertainty. Quality ratings assigned to design requirements, test data, and
nonlinear models for steel concentrically braced frame systems are summarized in
Table 5-8.

Table 5-8 Summary of Quality Ratings for Steel Braced Frame

Systems
Design Nonlinear
System Test Data
Requirements Modeling
Special SCBFs B B B
BRBFs B B B

5.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results

To pass the performance evaluation criteria, individual archetypes must have adjusted
collapse margin ratios exceeding ACMR20%. Performance evaluation results for
individual special SCBF archetypes are summarized in Table 5-9, and results for
individual BRBF archetypes are summarized in Table 5-10.

For special SCBFs, all long-period (i.e., 6-, 12-, and 16-story) archetypes passed this
criterion regardless of seismic design level, and short-period (i.e., 2- and 3-story)
archetypes designed for SDC Dmin also passed. Short-period special SCBF
archetypes designed for SDC Dmax failed this criterion. In the case of BRBFs, all
archetypes passed this criterion.

Trends in the ACMR values mirrored trends observed in the incremental dynamic
analyses and the resulting CMR values. Special SCBF archetypes with short periods
generally had lower ACMR values than longer period archetypes. Similarly,
archetypes designed for high seismic demands (SDC Dmax) tended to have lower
ACMR values than those designed for low seismic demands (SDC Dmin).

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-15

100% Draft

Table 5-9 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Special Steel

Concentrically Braced Frame Archetypes
Design Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Arch. Design Configuration Collapse Margin Parameters Check
ID No. No. of Static Accept. Pass/
SDC CMR µT SSF ACMR
Stories Ω ACMR Fail
Performance Group No. PG-1SCB
2SCBFDmax 2 Dmax 1.44 1.00 4.3 1.22 1.22 1.56 Fail
3SCBFDmax 3 Dmax 1.41 1.60 6.1 1.28 2.05 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.42 1.63 1.96 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-2SCB
6SCBFDmax 6 Dmax 1.28 2.18 2.4 1.21 2.64 1.56 Pass
12SCBFDmax 12 Dmax 1.60 3.23 3.2 1.32 4.26 1.56 Pass
16SCBFDmax 16 Dmax 2.11 2.64 1.8 1.21 3.20 1.46 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.67 3.37 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-3SCB
2SCBFDmin 2 Dmin 1.38 1.73 5.8 1.12 1.94 1.56 Pass
3SCBFDmin 3 Dmin 2.41 3.62 3.0 1.08 3.91 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.90 2.93 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-4SCB
6SCBFDmin 6 Dmin 1.86 3.53 3.9 1.15 4.06 1.56 Pass
12SCBFDmin 12 Dmin 2.18 5.00 1.4 1.10 5.50 1.56 Pass
16SCBFDmin 16 Dmin 1.56 4.38 1.2 1.06 4.64 1.40 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.87 4.73 1.96 Pass

Table 5-10 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Buckling-

Restrained Braced Frame Archetypes
Design Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Arch. Design Configuration Collapse Margin Parameters Check
ID No. No. of Static Accept. Pass/
Stories
SDC CMR µT SSF ACMR
Ω ACMR Fail
Performance Group No. PG-1BRB
2BRBFDmax 2 Dmax 1.31 1.73 11.9 1.33 2.31 1.56 Pass
3BRBFDmax 3 Dmax 1.48 2.85 22.7 1.39 3.96 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.40 3.13 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-2BRB
6BRBFDmax 6 Dmax 1.47 3.29 15.5 1.53 5.03 1.56 Pass
12BRBFDmax 12 Dmax 1.17 2.27 4.0 1.4 3.18 1.56 Pass
16BRBFDmax 16 Dmax 1.00 3.14 3.1 1.32 4.15 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.21 4.12 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-3BRB
2BRBFDmin 2 Dmin 1.44 1.71 6.6 1.13 1.94 1.56 Pass
3BRBFDmin 3 Dmin 2.11 3.16 10.5 1.2 3.79 1.56 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.77 2.86 1.96 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-4BRB
6BRBFDmin 6 Dmin 1.28 3.04 6.4 1.28 3.90 1.56 Pass
12BRBFDmin 12 Dmin 1.44 2.86 3.1 1.21 3.46 1.56 Pass
16BRBFDmin 16 Dmin 1.15 4.55 2.0 1.15 5.23 1.46 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 1.29 4.19 1.96 Pass

5-16 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

In the case of BRBF archetypes, observed trends were less pronounced. Results
showed more variation, but short-period BRBF archetypes generally had lower
ACMR values, and the 2-story BRBF archetypes had especially low ACMR values in
comparison with other BRBF archetypes. Results for 2-story and 6-story archetypes
indicate that, for BRBF systems, archetypes designed for high seismic demands
(SDC Dmax) did not necessarily have lower ACMR values than archetypes designed
for low seismic demands (SDC Dmin).

The selection of analysis procedure used for design affected the performance
evaluation. Taller archetypes designed using the RSA procedure had lower ACMR
values than would have been expected given the apparent trend between short-period
and long-period systems.

Performance evaluation results by performance group are summarized in Table 5-11

for special SCBF archetypes, and Table 5-12 for BRBF archetypes. To pass the
performance evaluation criteria, the adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR) averaged
across all archetypes in a performance group must exceed ACMR10%. For special
SCBFs, the short-period SDC Dmin performance group and all long-period
performance groups passed this criterion. The short-period SDC Dmax performance
group did not. In the case of BRBFs, all performance groups passed this criterion.

Table 5-11 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special Steel

Concentrically Braced Frames
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1SCB Short Fail

SDC Dmax
PG-2SCB Double Long Pass
Story Typical
PG-3SCB X-Braces Short Pass
SDC Dmin
PG-4SCB Long Pass

Table 5-12 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Buckling-

Restrained Brace Frames
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1BRB Short Pass

SDC Dmax
PG-2BRB Double Long Pass
Story Typical
PG-3BRB X-Braces Short Pass
SDC Dmin
PG-4BRB Long Pass

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-17

100% Draft
5.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength

The system overstrength factor, Ω0, is taken as the largest average value of the
overstrength factor, Ω, computed for each performance group. Values of
overstrength for individual archetypes and average values for each performance
group are shown in Table 5-9 and Table 5-10. For special SCBFs, average values of
overstrength varied between 1.3 and 2.4. Values did not show a specific trend among
the performance groups, and did not appear to be related to seismic design level. The
resulting value of Ω0 equal to 2.4 is larger, but on the same order of magnitude as the
value of 2.0 provided for special SCBF systems in ASCE/SEI 7-05.

For BRBFs, average values of overstrength varied between 1.0 and 2.1. The
resulting value of Ω0 equal to 2.1 is smaller, but on the same order of magnitude as
the value of 2.5 provided for BRBF systems in ASCE/SEI 7-05. Steel braced frame
archetypes were deliberately configured to minimize the potential for overstrength.
Close agreement between calculated and code-specified values of Ω0 is likely to be
related to this design objective.

5.9 Observations and Recommendations

5.9.1 Observations on System Performance

With the exception of special SCBF, short-period, SDC Dmax performance group, all
special SCBF and BRBF archetypes met the acceptance criteria of the Methodology.
System overstrength factors obtained in this study are comparable to values provided
for both systems in ASCE/SEI 7-05.

In general, special SCBF archetypes had smaller values of ACMR than BRBF
archetypes, and short-period archetypes had smaller values of ACMR than long-
period archetypes. In some cases, archetypes designed for lower seismic demands
had higher values of ACMR than archetypes designed for higher seismic demands.
For the taller (i.e., long-period) archetypes, drift controlled the design in many cases,
and member sizes were larger than would have otherwise been required considering
the R-factor alone. This was likely a contributing factor in the observed trends in
ACMR values between short-period and long-period archetypes. Observed trends
were less pronounced in the case of BRBF archetypes.

Most of the special SCBF and BRBF archetypes passed the evaluation criteria,
although some passed with greater margins than others. Archetypes that barely
passed the criteria might possibly fail if the uncertainty were to increase, or if effects
that were neglected (e.g., three-dimensional or torsional responses) were found to be
significant.

The Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) and Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA)
procedures resulted in significantly different member sizes for tall and mid-rise
braced frame archetypes. For the 16-story, special SCBF, SDC Dmax archetype,

5-18 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

member forces determined by ELF and RSA differed by as much as 50%. This
difference was not as pronounced in low-rise archetypes. For the 6-story, special
SCBF, SDC Dmax archetype, member forces determined by both procedures were
within 10%. When structures were controlled by drift, and member sizes became
controlled by member stiffnesses needed to satisfy code drift requirements, the RSA
procedure for computing drift resulted in much smaller member sizes.

Braced frame systems tend to concentrate damage at certain levels rather than
distributing yield deformations uniformly over the height of a structure.
Concentration of damage is related to the selection of member sizes. Due to
limitations in the availability of member sizes, and the need to change member sizes
to control drift and higher mode effects, the ratio of demand to capacity at each level
is not uniform over height.

Figure 5-8 depicts demand and capacity profiles for the 16-story, BRBF, SDC Dmax
archetype. The demand profile is based on a pushover analysis, and the capacity is
based on the strength of the braces at each level. As the lateral load increases,
demand first meets the capacity at mid- height of the building, and the full capacity
of the building at the base is never realized.

Figure 5-8 Demand profile of pushover analysis and approximate capacity of

archetype 16BRBFDmax(RSA)

When deformations are more uniformly distributed over the height of the building,
overstrength is more likely to be large. When damage is concentrated in the lower
levels, the impact on overstrength is relatively small because the capacity in the
lower levels is more likely to be on the order of the design base shear. When damage
is concentrated in the higher levels, however, the overall strength of the system is
dominated by a level that is likely to be weaker, and overstrength could be 1.0, or
less.

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-19

100% Draft

Pushover curves for SCBF archetypes showed a sudden drop in global strength upon
brace buckling. This resulted in small estimated ductilities, but could also result in
an over-estimation of system overstrength. In the numerical models, peak strength
and drift at brace buckling are affected by the initial imperfection applied to the brace
elements. A constant initial imperfection was assumed in the models, which implies
that all of the braces were fabricated identically. In reality, the initial imperfection in
each brace could vary, and the pushover responses may or may not be the same.
While overall collapse response of a frame with different initial imperfections would
be expected to be similar under large deformations or after many cycles, values of
peak strength and drift at brace buckling predicted by pushover analysis depend on
the initial imperfection, and should be used with caution.

In some analyses, archetypes did not collapse, even after all of the braces at a given
level ruptured and lost all capacity in tension and compression. This was because the
full-restrained beam-column connections in the model provided moment frame
resistance to collapse. While the models included possible rupture due to low cycle
fatigue, elements were not modeled to capture all of the substantial deterioration
modes associated with beam plastic hinging.

Results suggest that R factors applied to short-period archetypes do not provide an

acceptable margin against collapse. Structures with short fundamental periods are in
the energy-preserved region of the spectrum. Using a simple R-µ-T relation, the
response modification factor, R, can be related to the ductility factor, μ:

R2 + 1
=R 2 µ − 1 or µ = (5-1)
2

For the short-period, 2-story, SCBF archetypes, an R factor of 6 would suggest a

ductility factor of 18.5, which is much larger than a conventional buckling brace can
develop. Smaller R factors for buildings with short periods might improve collapse
resistance in the performance evaluation. For instance, if a target ductility of 6.0 is
desired in this period range, the above equation would suggest that an R factor of 3.3
should be used. This effect might explain the failure of short-period archetypes in
this, and other trial applications.
5.9.2 Observations on the Methodology

The spectral shape factor, SSF, depends on the value of period-based ductility
computed from a nonlinear static pushover analysis. In the case of special SCBF
archetypes, pushover curves depended on assumptions of initial camber in the braces.
Also, the negative post-yield tangent stiffness exhibited by special SCBF (and some
BRBF) archetypes led to relatively small values of period-based ductility, resulting in
possible underestimation of the SSF. As such, ductility estimates based on pushover
analyses may be less accurate for determining values of SSF and ACMR for buckling
braces than for other systems.

5-20 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Quality ratings are determined on the basis of subjective judgment. These ratings
should be reviewed across all systems on a consistent basis to have more confidence
in the ratings. It is noted, however, that for most special SCBF and BRBF archetypes
evaluated here, results were relatively insensitive to the quality ratings assumed.

Although all archetypes were designed to be in compliance with current code

requirements, these same requirements could have been satisfied with different
assumptions regarding structural layout, member size, proportions, and connection
detailing. Variations in mechanical and dynamic properties would likely exist
between the results obtained by different designers, or different sets of assumptions,
and the potential for such differences should be considered in the performance
evaluation of a proposed system.
5.9.4 Recommendations for Further Investigation

This study focused on a limited number of braced frame configurations, but steel
braced frame buildings can have many different brace types and bracing
configurations. In addition, code compliance can be achieved with many different
sets of design assumptions. All these system variations would need to be studied in
order to fully characterize the seismic performance of steel braced frame structures
and identify appropriate seismic performance factors.

The SCBF archetypes designed herein utilized brace sizes that are larger than
commonly considered in test programs. The local and global behavior of large
braces is believed to be different from smaller braces, especially in the case of low-
cycle fatigue. Ultimate behavior is also likely controlled by factors such as fracture
of beams and columns near gusset plates, and lateral torsional response of members.
Additional testing is underway, but more data are needed to improve the ability of
available analytical models to simulate all important deterioration behaviors for steel
braced frame systems.

For practical reasons, analytical models were limited in their complexity. Additional
studies with three-dimensional models are recommended to account for related
failure modes at the local and global levels. Interaction of orthogonally oriented
braced bays having shared columns should be addressed. The effect of in-plane
torsional response due to braces buckling (or rupturing) on one side of a building
before the other should be investigated considering two horizontal components of
ground shaking. Use of finite element models, which can simulate yielding, local
buckling and low-cycle fatigue would also be desirable. Such models could account
for the deterioration of beams and columns due to local buckling, and rupture of
various members and connections not considered herein.

GCR 10-917-8 5: Trial Application - Steel Braced Frame Structures 5-21

 100% Draft

Chapter 6
Trial Application - Steel Moment
Frame Structures

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a trial application of the FEMA P-695 Methodology on special
steel moment frame (special SMF) structures. It summarizes design requirements
and available test data for steel moment frames, explains the development of moment
frame archetype configurations, documents the nonlinear modeling approach,
presents the results of a performance evaluation, and summarizes observations on the
Methodology specific to steel moment frame systems. Results are investigated for a
range of building heights and design parameters.

6.2 Overview and Approach

In this trial application, a special steel moment frame (special SMF) system, as
defined in AISC 341-05, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC,
2005a), and AISC 358-05, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate
Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications (AISC, 2005b), is considered as if it
was a new system proposed for inclusion in ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2006). Although the intent is to treat
special steel moment frame systems as a new system, the purpose is not to re-derive
or validate seismic performance factors (R, Ω0, and Cd) for this system. Rather, it
was to examine whether steel moment frame systems would satisfy the acceptance
criteria of the FEMA P-695 Methodology, test the application of the Methodology
with respect to these systems, and identify possible improvements to the
Methodology or current steel moment frame design provisions.

The system design requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-05, including minimum base shear
and story drift limits, were used as the basis for design, with the exception that Cd
was taken equal to R, as specified in the FEMA P-695 Methodology. The value of R
for special SMF systems is 5.5.

Steel moment frame systems can have many different configurations, and connection
details can vary significantly. For practical reasons, the scope of the beta testing
effort was necessarily limited, and only beams with reduced beam section (RBS)
connections were investigated.

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-1

100% Draft
6.3 Structural System Information
6.3.1 Design Requirements

Special steel moment frame systems were designed and detailed in accordance with
the strength design requirements in AISC 341-05 and the seismic design
requirements in ASCE/SEI 7-05. The criteria given in AISC 358-05 are followed for
the design of RBS connections.
6.3.2 Quality Rating of Design Requirements

Design requirements and connection design criteria for special SMF systems
represent many years of development, and include lessons learned from a number of
major earthquakes. As a consequence, a quality rating of (A) Superior was assigned
to the design requirements for special SMF systems.
6.3.3 Test Data

A large number of cyclic-load tests of beams and beam-to-column connections have

been performed over the last 40 years. These tests form the basis of present code
requirements for design and detailing of structural components and connections, and
for the component analytical model used for collapse prediction. The metadata and
results of many of these tests are carefully documented in a database by Lignos and
Krawinkler (2007).

Many tests have been performed in response to connection problems observed after
the 1994 Northridge earthquake. These tests have been evaluated carefully and have
resulted in detailed criteria for a set of pre-qualified connections published in AISC
358-05.

Considerable data are available, but a shortage of available test data is noted on the
inelastic behavior of deep columns subjected to high axial forces and cyclic bending
moments. More beam-to-column subassembly tests are needed to fully assess the
effects of a composite slab on component strength and stiffness, and more
substructure tests are needed to assess the restraining effects of the floor system on
the deterioration characteristics of beams.
6.3.4 Quality Rating of Test Data

Although considerable test data are available on special steel moment frame systems,
these data have limitations that reduce confidence in certain modeling parameters and
failure criteria. As a consequence, a quality rating of (B) Good was assigned to the
test data for special SMF systems.

6.4 Archetype Configurations

A rectangular plan configuration consisting of a three-bay perimeter frame on each

side was selected for investigation of special SMF systems over a range of building
heights and design parameters. The representative building plan, which was the same

6-2 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

for all archetypes, is shown in Figure 6-1. In the design process it was assumed that
the moment frames resist all the seismic loading, but only receive tributary gravity
loads as indicated in the shaded portion of figure. In addition to building height, the
following additional design variables were also considered: period, analysis
procedure, and level of seismic design loading in terms of Seismic Design Category
(SDC).

140’

3@20’
100’

3@20’

Figure 6-1 Typical plan configuration of special SMF archetypes.

Archetypes were grouped into performance groups containing a set of common

features or behavioral characteristics, including seismic design category, gravity load
level, and code-based period of the structure. Considering the design variables listed
above, a total of 20 archetypes were developed. These were divided into eight
performance groups, four attributed to design with the Equivalent Lateral Force
(ELF) procedure and four attributed to design with the Response Spectrum Analysis
(RSA) procedure, as shown in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2. Performance groups with
less than three archetypes did not meet the minimum number of archetypes per
performance group required in a full application of the Methodology.

Building heights equal to one, two, four, eight, 12, and 20 stories were considered. In
the ELF category it was decided to focus on the numbers of stories for which the ELF
procedure is widely applied in practice (from 1 to 4 stories). An upper limit of 20
stories was also investigated in order to evaluate a range of ELF designs and
performance. This decision resulted in three ELF performance groups with less than
three archetypes, and one performance group with significant variation in number of
stories (i.e., 2, 4, and 20 stories). In general, this is not an acceptable distribution of
the number of stories within a performance group.

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-3

100% Draft

Table 6-1 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Steel Moment

Frame Archetypes Designed by ELF Method
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1ELF Short 2
RBS SDC Dmax 2
PG-2ELF Perimeter Long 2
Typical
PG-3ELF Frame Short 1
3

20-ft Bays SDC Dmin 4

PG-4ELF Long 3
1. Short-period, SDC Dmax, PG-1, includes 1-story and 2-story archetypes.
2. Long-period, SDC Dmax, PG-2, includes 4-story and 20-story archetypes.
3. Short-period, SDC Dmin, PG-3, includes a single, 1-story archetype.
4. Long-period, SDC Dmin, PG-4, includes 2-story, 4-story, and 20-story
archetypes.

Table 6-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Special Steel Moment

Frame Archetypes Designed by RSA Method
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain
1
PG-1RSA Short 2
RBS SDC Dmax 2
PG-2RSA Perimeter Long 4
Typical
PG-3RSA Frame Short 1
3

20-ft Bays SDC Dmin 4

PG-4RSA Long 5
1. Short-period, SDC Dmax, PG-1, includes 1-story and 2-story archetypes.
2. Long-period, SDC Dmax, PG-2, includes 4-story, 8-story, 12-story and 20-story
archetypes.
3. Short-period, SDC Dmin, PG-3, includes a single, 1-story archetype.
4. Long-period, SDC Dmin, PG-4, includes 2-story, 4-story, 8-story, 12-story and
20-story archetypes.

Key seismic design parameters for the special SMF archetypes are summarized in
Table 6-3 and Table 6-4. These include the code-based period, T, and fundamental
period, T1 (calculated from eigenvalue analysis), the seismic base shear coefficient,
V/W, and the MCE-level spectral acceleration, SMT.

Each archetype configuration was fully designed in accordance with the governing
design requirements, based on strength criteria, drift criteria, and P-Delta criteria.
More detailed information on the design of all special SMF archetypes is provided in
Appendix D.

6-4 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 6-3 Special Steel Moment Frame Archetype Design Properties - ELF
Design Basis
Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype Seismic Design Criteria
No. of
Design ID Gravity SMT(T)
Stories
Number Loads T T1 V/W (g)
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1ELF
1ELF 1 Typical Dmax 8 0.34 0.71 0.125 1.50
2ELF 2 Typical Dmax 8 0.56 0.87 0.125 1.50
Performance Group No. PG-2ELF
3ELF 4 Typical Dmax 8 0.95 1.30 0.079 0.95
4ELF 20 Typical Dmax 8 3.37 2.48 0.044 0.32
Performance Group No. PG-3ELF
5ELF 1 Typical Dmin 8 0.37 1.62 0.062 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-4ELF
6ELF 2 Typical Dmin 8 0.60 1.74 0.042 0.50
7ELF 4 Typical Dmin 8 1.02 1.94 0.024 0.29
8ELF 20 Typical Dmin 8 3.61 3.44 0.022 0.08

Table 6-4 Special Steel Moment Frame Archetype Design Properties - RSA
Design Basis
Key Archetype Design Parameters
Archetype Seismic Design Criteria
No. of
Design ID Gravity SMT(T)
Stories
Number Loads T T1 V/W (g)
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group No. PG-1RSA
1RSA 1 Typical Dmax 8 0.34 0.71 0.106 1.50
2RSA 2 Typical Dmax 8 0.56 0.91 0.106 1.50
Performance Group No. PG-2RSA
3RSA 4 Typical Dmax 8 0.95 1.62 0.067 0.95
4RSA 8 Typical Dmax 8 1.64 2.29 0.039 0.55
5RSA 12 Typical Dmax 8 2.25 3.12 0.037 0.40
6RSA 20 Typical Dmax 8 3.37 4.47 0.037 0.27
Performance Group No. PG-3RSA
7RSA 1 Typical Dmin 8 0.37 1.66 0.053 0.75
Performance Group No. PG-4RSA
8RSA 2 Typical Dmin 8 0.60 1.83 0.035 0.50
9RSA 4 Typical Dmin 8 1.02 2.62 0.021 0.29
10RSA 8 Typical Dmin 8 1.75 3.55 0.019 0.17
11RSA 12 Typical Dmin 8 2.41 4.48 0.019 0.12
12RSA 20 Typical Dmin 8 3.61 5.74 0.019 0.08

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-5

100% Draft
6.4.1 Summary of Pertinent Design Observations

Member sizes were dominated by different phenomena, depending on the level of

seismic design loading (SDC Dmax versus SDC Dmin) and on the number of stories.
Detailed information on the design of special SMF archetypes is provided in
Appendix D. Observations on the archetype design process are summarized below.
• Many of the beam sizes were not controlled by strength criteria, but were mostly
controlled by stiffness considerations (either story drift limitation or P-Delta
design requirements). In the sections that follow, archetypes controlled by drift
requirements are identified with a “D”, and the archetypes controlled by P-Delta
considerations are identified with a “P”.
• Sizes of interior columns were usually controlled by beam sizes because of
strong column-weak beam considerations. Sizes of end columns were often
controlled by P-M interaction or by overstrength considerations. For taller SMF
archetypes, the ASCE/SEI 7-05 P-Delta stability check often required an increase
in the member sizes, particularly for the more flexible archetypes designed for
SDC Dmin seismic loading.
• Since the archetype designs are based on Cd = R, a value of 8.0 was used, rather
than the code required 5.5. Because drift considerations controlled many of the
member sizes, the archetypes were often stiffer and stronger than required by
ASCE/SEI 7-05 design requirements.
• For low-rise frames story drift was governed by the shear mode of drift (caused
by flexural and shear deformations in beams and columns and by shear
deformations in the joint panel zone). For taller frames (above 4 stories) the
flexural mode of drift, caused primarily by axial deformations in the end
columns, becomes important. This necessitated a further increase in beam sizes
in order to reduce the shear mode of drift so that the sum of shear and flexural
displacements did not exceed the allowable values of drift. In taller SMF
archetypes the maximum beam size occurred several stories above the base.
Also, in order to reduce the flexural mode of drift, it was necessary to increase
the size of the end columns in the lower stories in some cases.
• Because of the inherent flexibility of special SMF systems, P-Delta
considerations often controlled the member sizes in lower stories of tall frames.
In fact, the member sizes in the lower stories of all SDC Dmin archetypes, except
for the 1-story SDC Dmin-ELF structure, are controlled by P-Delta considerations.
Explicit consideration of this is discussed in Appendix D.
• The differences in member size between ELF and RSA designs are relatively
small for low-rise archetypes, with the RSA member sizes being somewhat
smaller. Differences become large for the high-rise 20-story SDC Dmax and SDC
Dmin archetypes. The reason is that when the RSA procedure is employed, the
minimum base shear requirements are explicitly excluded from consideration in

6-6 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

drift calculation. This is not the case when the ELF procedure is employed.
Thus, when the ELF procedure is used, the minimum base shear requirements
also apply to the story drift determination. The consequence is that for long
period structures the difference in the lateral loads under which the story drifts
are calculated is significant. For the 20-story SDC Dmax archetypes, the ELF base
shear for drift calculation is about 3.0 times the RSA base shear for drift
calculation. This is reflected in a factor of three difference in the elastic stiffness
of the ELF and RSA archetypes.
• The large stiffness requirement for the 20-story, SDC Dmax ELF design could
only be satisfied using very large beam and column sections. Heavy W36
sections were used for columns, and heavy W30 and W40 sections were used for
beams. The beam sections are much heavier than the maximum of 300 lb/ft
permitted by AISC 358-05, but were, nevertheless, used.

6.5 Nonlinear Model Development

6.5.1 Modeling Approach

For nonlinear analysis, each archetype was idealized using two-dimensional models.
Models were implemented in a modified version of the Drain-2DX analysis program
(Prakash et al., 1993). P-Delta effects are modeled with a leaning column with zero
flexural stiffness placed in parallel to the frame. This leaning column is loaded with
a vertical load at each floor level that represents 1.05D + 0.25L of half of the
structure.

Components were modeled as elastic elements, with all inelastic behavior

concentrated in plastic hinge regions at the member ends. A typical floor model is
shown in Figure 6-2. It consists of three elastic beam elements spanning between
points of RBS connections, six elastic beams between the RBS connections and the
column faces, four rigid parallelogram models representing the joint panel zone, and
elastic column elements framing into the parallelograms. The elements are
connected with rotational springs that represent inelastic behavior in a concentrated
plasticity mode. Details of the spring models are presented below.

Figure 6-2 Typical floor model used for special SMF archetypes.

Nonlinear analysis models were based on concentrated plastic hinge concepts. The
moment-rotation properties of plastic hinges were obtained from regression equations
derived from experimental data of about 300 test specimens. Only the perimeter

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-7

100% Draft

SMFs were assumed to provide lateral strength and stiffness. All contributions of the
gravity system to lateral strength and stiffness were neglected. The effects of the
composite floor slab were not considered because of the lack of information available
to model these effects with confidence. Fracture at beam-to-column connection
welds was not considered. It was assumed that such fractures were adequately
controlled by special SMF design requirements and the RBS connection
configuration.

The only collapse mode that was considered in the analysis was sidesway collapse.
In sidesway collapse, a structure loses its lateral load-resisting capability, in either a
single story or a series of stories, due to a combination of P-Delta effects and
deterioration in the properties of structural components. Vertical collapse, due to
column buckling or connection failure, was not considered. Both failure modes can
be represented, as needed, as non-simulated collapse modes. But connection fracture
is an unlikely failure mode for RBS connections, and column buckling was spot-
checked in the analytical results and found not to be critical.

For the column base boundary condition, the base of 1- and 2-story SMF columns
were hinged, and the base of all other (taller) SMF columns structures were assumed
to be fixed. The analyses showed that plastic rotation demands at these locations are
large. It was assumed that deterioration at these plastic hinge locations can be
modeled the same way as in beams. Actual plastic rotation capacities will depend
strongly on the design details at these locations. This aspect was not considered in
the collapse analyses, although it might have an effect on the collapse capacity of
special SMFs.
6.5.2 Joint Panel Zone Model

The panel zone is modeled with eight rigid elements connected with hinges at three
corners and with two bilinear rotational springs at the fourth corner as shown in
Figure 6-3a. The rotational springs represent the panel zone shear force-shear
deformation behavior with a tri-linear model of the type shown in Figure 6-3b.
Details of this model and strength and stiffness properties are given in the
PEER/ATC 72-1 report, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and
Analysis of Tall Buildings (PEER/ATC, 2010). Deterioration in the properties of the
panel zone was not considered.

6-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
SHEAR FORCE - SHEAR DISTORTION RESPONSE
FOR TYPICAL PANEL ZONE
800
Column
2 Rotational

Panel Zone Shear Force (kips)

Springs
Rotational 400
Spring
Beam
0
db
Rigid
Element
-400

-800
dc -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Panel Zone Distortion (radians)

(a) Parallelogram model (b) Panel zone shear force – shear distortion
Figure 6-3 Joint panel zone model (PEER/ATC, 2010).

6.5.3 Beam Plastic Hinge Model

The inelastic behavior at plastic hinge regions in beams was represented by rotational
springs with appropriate strength, stiffness, and deterioration properties. These
properties are determined in accordance with the guidelines for beam deterioration
modeling given in PEER/ATC 72-1. The basis for the deterioration properties was as
follows:
• A monotonic backbone curve of the type shown in Figure 6-5. Since all springs
are rotational, the force quantity is moment, M, and the deformation quantity is
rotation, θ.
F

Fc
Fy

Fr

Ke

δy δc δr δu δ

δp δpc

• Effective yield strength and deformation (Fy and δy)

• Effective elastic stiffness, Ke = Fy/δy
• Strength cap and associated def. for monotonic loading (Fc and δc)
• Pre-capping plastic deformation for monotonic loading, δp
• Effective post-yield tangent stiffness, Kp = (Fc-Fy)/ δp
• Post-capping deformation range, δpc
• Effective post-capping tangent stiffness, Kpc = Fc/ δpc
• Residual strength, Fr = κFy
• Ultimate deformation, δu
Figure 6-4 Parameters of the initial (monotonic) backbone curve of the Ibarra-
Krawinkler model (PEER/ATC, 2010).

• A basic hysteresis model. A simple bilinear model is used to simulate the basic
cyclic characteristics of plastic hinges in steel beams.

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-9

100% Draft

• A set of cyclic deterioration rules developed by Ibarra et al. (2005) and modified
by Lignos and Krawinkler (2009). These rules are summarized in PEER/ATC
72-1. The rate of cyclic deterioration depends on the deterioration parameter Λ,
which defines a reference energy dissipation capacity for the component
expressed as Et = ΛMy, with Λ = λθp denoting the cumulative plastic rotation
capacity. Utilization of these cyclic deterioration rules permitted modeling of
basic and post-capping strength deterioration as illustrated in Figure 6-5, as well
as unloading stiffness deterioration.
F Ks,0 2 Fref,0+ F
Fy+
F 1 Fref,1+ 2
F1+ Ks,1+ 1
8 Fy+
Ke 7
8
δc0- Ke
δc1-
δc1- 6 3
7 0 3 δco+ δc1+ δc0-
δ 0 δc1+ δc0+
δ
Krel

Ks,1- 4 F1- Fy-

5 Original 4
6 Fy- Fref,1-
Ks,0 Envelope Fref,0-

Figure 6-5 Basic and post-capping strength deterioration.

Parameters of this deterioration model have been calibrated against experimentally

obtained moment rotation relationships assembled in a database of about 300
component or assembly tests (Lignos and Krawinkler, 2007 and 2009). A typical
calibration result is shown in Figure 6-6. Examples of backbone curves (ignoring the
elastic range) are shown in Figure 6-7.

4 Lee-Specimen-DB700-SW
3 xK 10
= 2000000
e
+
M = 18000
y
-
M y = -18000
2 θ+ = 0.035
p
-
θ = 0.035
p
+
θ = 0.280
1
Moment (k-in)

pc
-
θ = 0.280
pc
Λ = 2.0
s
0 Λc = 1.8
Λ = 1.8
a
Λ = 1.8
k
+
-1 M c/M -y = 1.12
M c/M = 1.12
y
k = 0.00
-2

-3
-0.05 0 0.05
Chord Rotation (rad)

Figure 6-6 Match between deterioration model and experimental results (data
from Lee et al., 2005).

6-10 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

20000

W21x111
15000
Moment [kips-in]

W27x102 (RBS)
10000
W18x46 (RBS)

5000

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Plastic θ [rad]

Figure 6-7 Example of moment-rotation backbone curves.

6.5.4 Column Plastic Hinge Model

Experimental data on plastic hinging in columns with relatively high axial loads are
rare. The study by Newell and Uang (2008) demonstrated that: (a) the plastic
rotation capacity of heavy W14 sections is large, and (b) reduced bending strength in
the presence of an axial load is well represented by the column P-M interaction
equations given in AISC/ANSI 360-05, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
(AISC, 2005c). But the Newell and Uang tests were concerned only with heavy W14
sections and do not permit extrapolation to deeper sections. For this reason the beam
modeling parameters obtained from the Lignos and Krawinkler (2009) regression
equations for “other than RBS” beams have also been used for columns. All other
parameters are defined in the same manner as for the beam plastic hinge model.

In order to account, approximately, for the effect of axial force on column bending
strength, the following approach was taken. A representative axial force was
estimated from the pushover analysis as Pgrav + 0.5PE,max, where PE,max is the
maximum axial force due to lateral loading. The reduced bending strength was then
determined from this axial force using the AISC P-M interaction equation, and this
reduced bending strength was used in the response history analysis. It is recognized
that the bending strength will vary as a function of axial force, but this compromise is
necessary because the presently employed deterioration models cannot account for
the effect of a variable axial force on bending strength.
6.5.5 Quality Rating of Analytical Models

Special SMF buildings are controlled by many detailing and capacity design
requirements, which limit possible failure modes. The modeling approach can
simulate the primary expected failure mode, flexural hinging leading to sidesway
collapse, reasonably well by capturing post-peak degrading response under both
monotonic and cyclic loading. In addition, the modeling approach is able to directly
simulate structural response up to collapse (simulating common modes of
deterioration that could lead to collapse), and is well calibrated to large amounts of

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-11

100% Draft

data. However, there are limitations in the model, particularly with regard to
modeling of plastic hinging in columns. Moreover, the beam plastic hinge model
does not account for slab effects. Recognizing that the modeling approach is able to
directly simulate structural response up to collapse, but that some limitations still
exist, a quality rating of (B) Good was assigned to the analytical models for special
SMF systems.

6.6 Nonlinear Analyses

Nonlinear static pushover analyses were used to evaluate system overstrength,

period-based ductility, and help verify the structural model. For each archetype, a
pushover analysis was conducted with a lateral load distribution corresponding to the
fundamental mode shape and mass distribution of the structure. Figure 6-8 shows an
example pushover curve for the set of 4-story special SMF archetypes.

For the 4-story, SDC Dmax ELF archetype, global yielding occurred at a roof drift of
about 0.85%. The overstrength factor for this archetype was computed as Ω = 2.88,
and the period-based ductility capacity was computed as μT = 5.3.
Global Pushover Curve, 4-story – Dmax – ELF
0.40

0.35

0.30

(V/W)max 0.25
V/W

0.20
0.8(V/W)max
0.15

0.10
(V/W)design
0.05

0.00
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Roof Drift Ratio ∆/H δu/H

Figure 6-8 Example pushover curve and illustration of how to compute

archetype overstrength factor, Ω, and ultimate displacement, δu.

The archetype was analyzed using Rayleigh damping of 2.5% at the first mode period
T1 and at T = 0.2T1. Complete incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) were not
performed, instead, target scale factors for the 44 ground motion records provided as
part of the Methodology were selected and varied until 22 collapses were obtained.
The spectral acceleration at collapse, SCT, was computed for each of the 44 ground
motion records, and the median collapse level, ŜCT, was determined to be 1.72 g. The
collapse margin ratio, CMR, calculated as the ratio of ŜCT to the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motion spectral demand, SMT, was equal to
1.81 for this archetype.

6-12 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Values of overstrength, Ω, from pushover analysis, and the collapse margin ratio
(CMR) from incremental dynamic analysis, are summarized in Table 6-5 for ELF
designs, and Table 6-6 for RSA designs.

Table 6-5 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Steel Moment Frame
Archetypes - ELF Design Basis
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic Static SMT [T] SCT [T]
Number CMR
Stories Loads SDC Ω (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1ELF

1ELF 1 Typical Dmax 4.63 1.50 3.81 2.54
2ELF 2 Typical Dmax 3.69 1.50 3.42 2.28

3ELF 4 Typical Dmax 2.88 0.95 1.72 1.81

4ELF 20 Typical Dmax 4.45 0.27 0.35 1.33

5ELF 1 Typical Dmin 2.55 0.75 1.63 2.18

6ELF 2 Typical Dmin 3.44 0.50 1.15 2.31

7ELF 4 Typical Dmin 4.71 0.29 0.95 3.24
8ELF 20 Typical Dmin 4.67 0.08 0.18 2.14

Table 6-6 Summary of Collapse Results for Special Steel Moment Frame
Archetypes - RSA Design Basis
Design Configuration Pushover and IDA Results
Archetype
Design ID No. of Gravity Seismic Static SMT [T] SCT [T]
Number CMR
Stories Loads SDC Ω (g) (g)

Performance Group No. PG-1RSA

1RSA 1 Typical Dmax 5.46 1.50 3.81 2.54
2RSA 2 Typical Dmax 3.94 1.50 3.33 2.22
Performance Group No. PG-2RSA
3RSA 4 Typical Dmax 2.21 0.95 1.38 1.46
4RSA 8 Typical Dmax 3.27 0.55 0.78 1.42
5RSA 12 Typical Dmax 2.68 0.40 0.55 1.38
6RSA 20 Typical Dmax 2.27 0.27 0.32 1.21
Performance Group No. PG-3RSA
7RSA 1 Typical Dmin 2.84 0.75 1.77 2.36
Performance Group No. PG-4RSA
8RSA 2 Typical Dmin 3.59 0.50 1.49 2.97
9RSA 4 Typical Dmin 3.27 0.29 0.62 2.10
10RSA 8 Typical Dmin 2.71 0.17 0.43 2.52
11RSA 12 Typical Dmin 2.48 0.12 0.37 2.99
12RSA 20 Typical Dmin 2.61 0.08 0.20 2.40

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-13

100% Draft

6.7 Performance Evaluation

Adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMRs) are obtained by multiplying the CMRs,
computed from nonlinear dynamic analysis results by the spectral shape factor, SSF.
The acceptable average value of ACMR for each performance group is denoted by
ACMR10%. The acceptable value of ACMR for individual archetypes within a
performance group is denoted by ACMR20%.

Values of ACMR10% and ACMR20% are determined based on total system collapse
uncertainty, βTOT. Collapse uncertainty is a function of the quality ratings associated
with the design requirements, test data, and nonlinear models, as well as record-to-
record uncertainty. Quality ratings assigned to design requirements, test data, and
nonlinear models for steel concentrically braced frame systems are summarized in
Table 6-7.

Table 6-7 Summary of Quality Ratings for Special Steel Moment

Frame Systems
Design Nonlinear
System Test Data
Requirements Modeling
Special SMFs A B B

6.7.1 Summary of Performance Evaluation Results

To pass the performance evaluation criteria, individual archetypes must have adjusted
collapse margin ratios exceeding ACMR20%. Performance evaluation results for
individual special SMF archetypes are summarized in Tables 6-8 and 6-9 for ELF
and RSA designs, respectively.

All individual archetypes and almost all performance groups pass the acceptability
check. The exception is the long-period, SDC Dmax, RSA performance group
(PH-2RSA), in which relatively poor performance is dominated by the low ACMRs
of the 12- and 20-story archetypes.

Performance evaluation results by performance group are summarized in Tables 6-10

and Table 6-11. To pass the performance evaluation criteria, the adjusted collapse
margin ratio (ACMR) averaged across all archetypes in a performance group must
exceed ACMR10%. For special SMFs designed using the ELF procedure, all
performance groups passed this criterion. In the case of special SMFs designed using
the RSA procedure, the long-period SDC Dmin performance group and all short-
period performance groups passed this criterion. The long-period SDC Dmax
performance group did not.

6-14 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 6-8 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Special Steel

Moment Frame Archetypes - ELF Design Basis
Design Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Arch. Configuration Collapse Margin Parameters Check
Design
ID No. No. of Gravity SDC Static
CMR µT SSF ACMR
Accept. Pass/
Stories Loads Ω ACMR Fail

Performance Group No. PG-1ELF

1ELF 1 Typ. Dmax 4.63 2.54 3.76 1.21 3.08 1.52 Pass
2ELF 2 Typ. Dmax 3.69 2.28 4.72 1.26 2.86 1.52 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 4.16 2.97 1.90 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-2ELF
3ELF 4 Typ. Dmax 2.88 1.81 5.3 1.35 2.45 1.52 Pass
4ELF 20 Typ. Dmax 4.45 1.33 1.09 1.08 1.43 1.36 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 3.67 1.94 1.75 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-3ELF
5ELF 1 Typ. Dmin 2.55 2.18 2.50 1.16 2.53 1.47 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.55 2.53 1.81 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-4ELF
6ELF 2 Typ. Dmin 3.44 2.31 2.17 1.15 2.66 1.44 Pass
7ELF 4 Typ. Dmin 4.71 3.24 3.98 1.31 4.23 1.52 Pass
8ELF 20 Typ. Dmin 4.67 2.14 1.50 1.17 2.51 1.39 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 4.27 3.13 1.77 Pass

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-15

100% Draft

Table 6-9 Summary of Collapse Performance Evaluations of Special Steel

Moment Frame Archetypes - RSA Design Basis
Design Computed Overstrength and Acceptance
Arch. Configuration Collapse Margin Parameters Check
Design
ID No. No. of Gravity SDC Static
CMR µT SSF ACMR
Accept. Pass/
Stories Loads Ω ACMR Fail

Performance Group No. PG-1RSA

1RSA 1 Typ. Dmax 5.46 2.54 3.76 1.21 3.08 1.52 Pass
2RSA 2 Typ. Dmax 3.94 2.22 4.02 1.23 2.73 1.52 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 4.70 2.91 1.90 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-2RSA
3RSA 4 Typ. Dmax 2.21 1.46 4.84 1.33 1.95 1.52 Pass
4RSA 8 Typ. Dmax 3.27 1.42 2.74 1.30 1.85 1.50 Pass
5RSA 12 Typ. Dmax 2.68 1.38 2.35 1.27 1.75 1.46 Pass
6RSA 20 Typ. Dmax 2.27 1.21 1.91 1.22 1.49 1.42 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.61 1.76 1.81 Fail
Performance Group No. PG-3RSA
7RSA 1 Typ. Dmin 2.84 2.36 2.34 1.15 2.72 1.46 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.84 2.72 1.78 Pass
Performance Group No. PG-4RSA
8RSA 2 Typ. Dmin 3.59 2.97 2.90 1.19 3.55 1.51 Pass
9RSA 4 Typ. Dmin 3.27 2.10 2.69 1.24 2.60 1.49 Pass
10RSA 8 Typ. Dmin 2.71 2.52 3.55 1.29 3.24 1.48 Pass
11RSA 12 Typ. Dmin 2.48 2.99 3.03 1.33 3.97 1.52 Pass
12RSA 20 Typ. Dmin 2.61 2.40 2.32 1.27 3.04 1.46 Pass
Mean of Performance Group: 2.93 3.28 1.84 Pass

Table 6-10 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special Steel

Moment Frames Designed by ELF Method
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1ELF Short Pass

RBS SDC Dmax
PG-2ELF Perimeter Long Pass
Typical
PG-3ELF Frame Short Pass
20-ft Bays SDC Dmin
PG-4ELF Long Pass

6-16 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 6-11 Summary of Results by Performance Group for Special Steel

Moment Frames Designed by RSA Method
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Performance
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Result
Config. Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1RSA Short Pass

RBS SDC Dmax
PG-2RSA Perimeter Long Fail
Typical
PG-3RSA Frame Short Pass
20-ft Bays SDC Dmin
PG-4RSA Long Pass

Computed ACMRs are presented graphically in Figure 6-9. For each archetype, the
criterion that dominated member design identified. The letter “D” implies that drift
design controlled, and the letter “P” implies that P-Delta design controlled most of
the beam sizes in the lower stories. It is seen that P-Delta considerations governed
most of the SDC Dmin archetypes. None of the structures are strength controlled,
except for some members near the top of some of the structures.
ELF - Dmax ELF - Dmin
5 5
PG-1 ELF PG-2 ELF PG-3 PG-4 ELF
4 4 P
ELF
3 3
ACMR

ACMR

D D
2 D 2 D P P
1 D 1

0 0
1 2 4 8 12 20 1 2 4 8 12 20

Number of Stories Number of Stories

RSA - Dmax RSA - Dmin

5 5
PG-1 RSA PG-2 RSA PG-3 PG-4 RSA
4 4
RSA P
3 3 P
ACMR

P
ACMR

D D P
2 2
P P
D D D
1 P 1

0 0
1 2 4 8 12 20 1 2 4 8 12 20

Number of Stories Number of Stories

Figure 6-9 Graphical representation of ACMRs for all archetypes.

Calculated ACMRs did not follow predictable patterns. For SDC Dmax archetypes,
values of ACMR usually decreased with the number of stories, but for SDC Dmin
archetypes, values of ACMR often increased with the number of stories. The reasons
are many, but include dominance of different design criteria for different structures.
Member sizes of SDC Dmax archetypes were usually drift-controlled, whereas lower
story member sizes of SDC Dmin archetypes were mostly P-Delta controlled. These
variations in controlling design conditions have a dominant effect on the collapse
capacity of individual archetypes.

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-17

100% Draft
6.8 Evaluation of System Overstrength

The system overstrength factor, Ω0, is taken as the largest average value of the
overstrength factor, Ω, computed for each performance group. Values of
overstrength for individual archetypes and average values for each performance
group are shown in Table 6-8 and Table 6-9, and presented graphically in Figure
6-10. Values vary between 2.2 and 5.5. The patterns are not consistent because
overstrength is controlled mostly by allowable drift or P-Delta stiffness criteria. The
patterns observed for overstrengh did not follow the trends observed for computed
values of ACMR, which demonstrates that strength by itself is not necessarily a
controlling consideration for collapse capacity. For most special SMF archetypes,
strength design had little to do with the actual strength of the archetype.
ELF - Dmax ELF - Dmin
PG-1 ELF PG-2 ELF PG-3 PG-4 ELF
D D ELF P P
D
D P
D

RSA - Dmax RSA - Dmin

6
PG-1 RSA PG-2 RSA PG-3 PG-4 RSA
Overstrength factor W
Ω

5 D
4 RSA
D P
3
D P P
2 D P P P
D P
1
0
1 2 4 8 12 20

Number of Stories

Figure 6-10 Graphical representation of overstrength factor for all archetypes.

Considering the dominance of drift and P-Delta considerations in member sizes, it is

noteworthy that in many cases the overstrength factor is relatively small (between 2
and 3). The implication is that the overstrength factor could be very small if strength
were indeed the controlling design condition. Gravity moments in typical perimeter
frame structures are rather small, and rarely require an increase in beam size. This
demonstrates that the collapse margin analysis for most special SMF archetypes is
not a test of the adequacy of the assigned R factor, but is more a test of auxiliary
design considerations, such as drift and P-Delta control, which depend only indirectly
on the R factor.

6-18 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
6.9 Observations and Recommendations
6.9.1 Observations on System Performance

With the exception of the long-period, SDC Dmax performance group designed with
RSA, all special SMF archetypes met the acceptance criteria of the Methodology.

In general, special SMFs studied had relatively large overstrength factors compared
to special SMFs designed based on strength design alone. This is due drift
limitations and P-Delta considerations. For tall SMFs the difference was much
larger. Since interior column sizes are controlled by beam sizes because of the strong
column-weak beam concept, these columns followed the same pattern as the beams.

P-Delta controlled the nonlinear dynamic response of special SMFs. It led to

amplification of story drifts in the lower stories, and in most cases triggered a partial
(single- or multiple-story) mechanism. Formation of this partial mechanism in
addition to the strength deterioration in beams (and columns if the latter are made of
slender deep sections) leads to collapse. This phenomenon was observed in most
archetypes and in all archetypes with more than 4 stories.

The increase in lateral strength due to stiffness requirements (drift limitations and
P-Delta control) varied greatly, depending on the number of stories, the design
procedure (ELF versus RSA), and the seismic design category. This is reflected in
the large variations of the overstrength factor (Figure 6-10), which was mostly
attributed to stiffness control issues. This increase was as small as 20% (4-story
Dmax-RSA) and as large as 200% (1-story Dmax-RSA).

This stiffness-based increase in overstrength factor does not cause a proportional

increase in the adjusted collapse margin ratio, ACMR. This was most evident in the
global pushover curves for all 1-, 2-, 4-, and 20-story archetypes, as presented in
Figure 6-11. These curves tell much about the effects of the analysis procedure (ELF
versus RSA), the anticipated behavior under nonlinear dynamic analysis, and the
collapse potential of the archetypes. The impact of analysis procedure selection can
be evaluated from the differences in strength and elastic stiffness between ELF and
RSA designs. It can be seen that these differences increase rapidly with the number
of stories, and become dominant for the 20-story archetypes. For these archetypes,
the overstrength differs drastically, but the ACMR does not.

Possible explanations for this include more rapid strength deterioration in structural
components (particularly in the W36 columns) of the ELF frame, and differences in
P-Delta dominated collapse mechanisms (which vary from ground motion to ground
motion). The upshot is that a large increase in strength (which could come also from
a decrease in the R-factor) does not guarantee a proportional increase in the collapse
margin. It is noted that the overstrength factor for long period ELF designs is much
larger than that for long period RSA designs, which is due mostly to the ASCE/SEI
7-05 design requirement that the code minimum base shear has to be considered in

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-19

100% Draft

ELF designs but can be ignored in RSA designs. These differences need to be
rectified (by seismic code committees). Similarly, the observation that the Dmax RSA
design for the 20-story archetype barely passes the 20% probability of collapse
criterion deserves further consideration (by seismic code committees).
Comparison of Pushover Curves: 1-Story Frames Comparison of Pushover Curves: 2-Story Frames
0.8 0.8
1-Story-ELF-Dmax 2-Story-ELF-Dmax
0.7 1-Story-ELF-Dmin 0.7 2-Story-ELF-Dmin
1-Story-RSA-Dmax 2-Story-RSA-Dmax
0.6 1-Story-RSA-Dmin 0.6 2-Story-RSA-Dmin

0.5 0.5
Vy/W

Vy/W
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Roof Drift ∆/H Roof Drift ∆/H

Pushover Curves: 4-Story Frames Pushover Curves: 20-Story Frames

0.4 0.4
4-Story-ELF-Dmax 20-Story-ELF-Dmax
4-Story-ELF-Dmin 20-Story-ELF-Dmin
0.3 4-Story-RSA-Dmax 0.3 20-Story-RSA-Dmax
4-Story-RSA-Dmin 20-Story-RSA-Dmin

Vy/W
Vy/W

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Roof Drift ∆/H Roof Drift ∆/H

Figure 6-11 Global pushover curves for 1-, 2-, 4-, and 20-story SMFs.

The global pushover curves in Figure 6-11 indicate that SMF archetypes become less
“ductile” as the number of stories increases. A word of caution is necessary
regarding the potential misuse of pushover analysis results for quantification of
engineering demand parameters for tall SMF archetypes. The concept of applying an
invariant load pattern is a reasonable approach for first mode dominated structures,
but is not representative of the dynamic response of structures in which higher modes
become important or significant inelastic redistribution takes place. For tall SMFs
pushover analyses serve to provide a qualitative representation of response, but
should not be used to draw quantitative conclusions on seismic demands.

Qualitative representation of response implies that the pushover indicates a lack of

global “ductility” for tall SMF archetypes (20-stories in particular). The observed
lack of global ductility comes from the fact that for tall SMFs, the P-Delta effect
often causes the forming of partial mechanisms, usually in the lowest stories, leading
to an amplification of story drifts in these stories where P is large and the elastic story
drift is comparable to that in upper stories. The consequence is that in the inelastic
range the drift in the lower stories gets amplified much more than that in the upper
stories, which often results in a drastic change in the deflected shape of the structure,
as illustrated in Figure 6-12.

6-20 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Floor Deformation Profile

20-story, RSA, Dmax, First mode load pattern
300.0

250.0
Floor Height (ft.)

200.0

150.0
Roof Drift = 0.1%
Roof Drift = 0.25%
100.0 Roof Drift = 0.5%
Roof Drift = 0.75%
Roof Drift = 1.0%
50.0
Roof Drift = 1.25%
Roof Drift = 1.5%
0.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Floor Displacement / Roof Height

Figure 6-12 Deformation profile of the 20-story, RSA, Dmax archetype showing the
change in deflected shape with increasing roof displacement.

This increase in P-Delta effects is responsible for the relatively low collapse margin
ratios obtained for some of the taller structures. But the pattern is not very consistent
because collapse depends on many parameters in addition to P-Delta effects,
including component deterioration properties, higher mode effects, and relative value
of maximum structure strength to ground motion intensity.

The 20-story, RSA, Dmax archetype (6RSA) is used to illustrate potential problems
with the collapse capacity of tall special SMFs. The global pushover of this structure
is shown in Figure 6-11(d), and deflected shapes at various roof drift levels are
illustrated in Figure 6-12. Amplification of story drifts in the lower stories dominates
response in the highly inelastic range, and leads to a mechanism that involves the
bottom stories only. Typical plots of roof drift, first story drift, and moment-rotation
responses in a bottom story beam and at the base of the exterior column are shown in
Figures 6-13 and 6-14. The increase in ground motion intensity from Figure 6-13 to
6-14 is small (7%), but the increase in deformation demands in the first story is
sufficient to cause collapse.

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-21

100% Draft
Roof Drift History for 20-Story-RSA-Dmax
0.05
0.04
0.03

Roof Drift
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
First Story Drift History for 20-Story-RSA-Dmax
0.05
0.04
0.03
SDR1 (rad)

0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
4 Floor 1: Ext.Beam 4 Ext.Column at Base
3 x 10 6 x 10

2 4
Moment (kips-in)

Moment (kips-in)

1 2

0 0

-1 -2

-2 -4

-3 -6
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0
θ (rad) θ (rad)
Figure 6-13 Response characteristics of 20-story RSA Dmax archetype at scale
factor of 4.1 of ground motion record no. 1207214.

It was also observed that increasing the pre-capping plastic rotation, θp, of all
components by 50% increased the median collapse capacity by only 5%. It is
believed that increasing the stiffness of the structure would be more effective, and
that increasing the strength of the columns relative to the strength of the beams (in
order to delay or prevent lower story collapse mechanisms) would be most effective
in improving collapse capacity. These effects should be explored in more detail.

6-22 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
Roof Drift History for 20-Story-RSA-Dmax
0.05
0.04
0.03
Roof Drift

0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
First Story Drift History for 20-Story-RSA-Dmax
0.1

0.075
SDR1 (rad)

0.05

0.025

0
-0.01
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
4 Floor 1: Ext.Beam 4 Ext.Column at Base
3 x 10 6 x 10

2 4
Moment (kips-in)

Moment (kips-in)

1 2

0 0

-1 -2

-2 -4

-3 -6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
θ (rad) θ (rad)
Figure 6-14 Response characteristics of 20-story RSA Dmax archetype at scale
factor of 4.4 of ground motion record no. 120721 (structure
collapses).

The FEMA P-695 requirement to ignore all contributions of the gravity system to
lateral strength and stiffness penalizes special SMFs perhaps more than any other
system. Most special SMF structures consist of relatively flexible perimeter moment
frames. A large portion of gravity loads is supported by gravity framing consisting of
beams and columns connected to each other with so-called shear connections. These
shear connections have some moment resistance, and the gravity columns provide
additional lateral resistance because they have to follow the deformed shape of the
SMFs. Considering the flexibility of the primary lateral load resisting system,
contributions of the gravity system to lateral strength and stiffness may have a large
effect on collapse safety because of their effectiveness in reducing the effects of

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-23

100% Draft

deterioration and P-Delta in the range in which the SMFs alone exhibit a negative
tangent stiffness.
6.9.2 Observations on the Methodology

This study has demonstrated that the Methodology can be implemented for special
SMFs, provided that the strength, stiffness, and deterioration properties of all
important structural components are modeled appropriately. For special SMFs the
response of the structure can be traced all the way to collapse (total loss of lateral
load resistance) so there is no need to define collapse in terms of strain or curvature
or drift limit.

Archetypes that are drift controlled are stronger than required by present code design.
This strength increase will have an effect on the collapse margin. This effect cannot
be quantified without a direct comparison of ACMRs for code designs, but it is
judged that this effect is not necessarily dominant.

The caveat to any general conclusion about acceptable level of collapse safety and
the adequacy of presently employed R factors is that most member sizes are
controlled by stiffness requirements (drift limitations and P-Delta considerations) and
not by strength requirements directly related to an R factor. Thus, the ACMRs
obtained in this study are also a consequence of stiffness and P-Delta requirements.
The outcome of this study is not a test of the adequacy of an R-factor, but a test of
designs based on stiffness.
6.9.3 Recommendations for Further Investigation

This study focused on a single configuration, but special SMF archetypes with
different number of bays, bay width, story height, tributary floor area, types of beam-
column connection, and site classes are possible. All these system variations would
need to be studied in order to fully characterize the seismic performance of special
SMF structures and identify appropriate seismic performance factors.

Considering that tall SMFs exhibit susceptibility to P-Delta effects that cause large
amplifications of drifts in lower stories, the need exists to develop design concepts
that prevent (or at least delay) formation of partial mechanisms in lower stories.

More experimental and analytical work is needed to quantify with confidence the
moment-rotation deterioration characteristics in columns in the presence of a varying
axial force, and to incorporate the effects of composite floor slab on the moment-
rotation characteristics of beams.

The effect of the FEMA P-695 criterion of Cd = R, which affects component stiffness
and strength, on the collapse margin should be evaluated.

The analysis models of the 20-story SMF archetypes have a first mode elastic period
as long as 5.74 seconds. Considering period elongation, the effective first mode

6-24 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

period may be even longer. Further study is required to investigate whether the
ground motion record set used for collapse assessment has frequency domain
characteristics that adequately represent the seismic demands in the neighborhood of
periods around 5 seconds and longer.

Specific guidance is needed for how to compute an acceptable value of ACMR for a
performance group in cases where individual archetypes have different βTOT values.

GCR 10-917-8 6: Trial Application - Steel Moment Frame Structures 6-25

 100% Draft

Chapter 7
Trial Application – Full Archetype
Design Space

7.1 Introduction

This chapter illustrates a trial application of the FEMA P-695 Methodology on the
buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) system. In contrast to the limited selection
of BRBF configurations in Chapter 5, a broad range of bracing configurations were
used to explore the level of design work associated with archetype development for a
full application of the Methodology. This chapter first considers the full design space
of the BRBF system, and then presents a systematic process for identifying and
eliminating archetype configurations, and associated performance groups, that are
shown to not control collapse performance evaluation. Nonlinear models of
archetypes were not developed or evaluated in this trial application, but the analytical
work would be similar in nature and scope to that of the BRBF trial application
described in Chapter 5.

7.2 Overview and Approach

In this trial application, buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) systems with

moment-resisting beam-column connections, permitted as Seismic Force-Resisting
System No. 26 in ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE, 2006), were studied. This is one of two BRBF systems permitted
by ASCE/SEI 7-05, the second of which does not require moment-resisting beam-
column connections. While archetype configurations would be the same in both
BRBF systems, the seismic performance factors (SPFs) and related seismic design
criteria are not the same, and thus nonlinear modeling and evaluation criteria of
beam-column connections would not necessarily be the same.

The Methodology requires that a sufficient number of archetype configurations and

associated performance groups be developed to adequately represent the archetype
design space, which defines the overall range of permissible configurations,
structural design parameters, and other properties that limit application of the seismic
force-resisting system. However, the Methodology permits excluding configurations
that are shown not to control the collapse performance evaluation of the seismic
force-resisting system. The systematic process of identifying and eliminating
archetype configurations that do not control performance is fully described in this
trial application. The remaining archetype configurations belong to the controlling
performance groups, and represent the minimum number of archetypes sufficient for

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-1

100% Draft

collapse performance evaluation of the BRBF system. Since this trial application
does not include actual evaluation of archetype performance, archetype
configurations that control performance have been selected using engineering
judgment and knowledge of system behavior in order to prepare designs and populate
controlling performance groups.

In an actual application, archetype configurations of controlling performance groups

would be determined based on results of nonlinear analysis as well as engineering
judgment. If such analyses were performed, it is possible that the results would
indicate that a different set of archetype configurations than the set assumed in this
trial application actually controlled performance. Also, it is possible that other
development teams could select archetypes with somewhat different configurations
that could equally bound the performance of the design space. However, the level of
the design work and the number of archetype configurations and controlling
performance groups would be expected to be on the same order of magnitude.

Peer review is a required element of the Methodology, and concurrence with the
selected design space, archetype configurations, and associated performance groups
is essential. This trial application is intended to represent the final product of a
development team that engaged a peer review panel during the process of
determining the design space, archetype configurations and associated performance
groups of the BRBF system.

7.3 Structural System Information

7.3.1 Design Requirements

Buckling-restrained brace frame systems were designed and detailed in accordance

with the design requirements in AISC 341-05, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings (AISC, 2005a) and ASCE/SEI 7-05.
7.3.2 Test Data

This trial application does not evaluate analytical models of the archetype designs
and therefore does not require test data. In an actual application, data from tests of
BRBFs would be required to develop nonlinear, inelastic properties of the analytical
models.

There are a large number of component data from tests performed by BRBF
manufacturers, such as Nippon, Star Seismic and CoreBrace, although typically these
tests are not to failure. Data are also available from limited research testing of BRBF
assemblies and components (Merritt et al., 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Fahnestock et al.,
2006).

7-2 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
7.4 Archetype Configurations

A broad range of bracing configurations, design parameters, and related physical

parameters are possible in a full application of the Methodology to BRBF systems.
These parameters include structural component type (type of brace configuration and
end-connection), building height, bay size, brace size, bracing configuration (in plan
and elevation), seismic design level (Seismic Design Category), variation in gravity
load levels, and building occupancy and use.

The following sections summarize behavior and performance-related issues for each
BRBF system parameter, and describe the specific selections made to represent the
design space and quantify the expected behavior.
7.4.1 Brace Configuration

Buckling-restrained braced frames can be configured in a number ways. The type of

bracing that controls collapse performance is not known in advance, and different
archetypes must be developed to broadly represent the variety of bracing types that
could be used in a BRBF system.

In this study, four brace configurations were selected to represent the range of
possible BRBF system applications, including: (1) single diagonal per bay - "zigzag"
pattern over height (designated as ZZ diagonal bracing), (2) single diagonal per bay -
"lightening bolt" pattern over height (designated as LB diagonal bracing), (3) chevron
brace configuration, and (4) two-story, X-bracing. These brace configurations are
illustrated in Figure 7-1 for two-story, single-bay archetypes.

Figure 7-1 BRBF brace configurations considered in the trial application

(illustrated for two-story, single-bay archetypes).

Another possible configuration is a two-story X-brace with a column in the middle

(i.e., back-to-back, adjacent bays of ZZ diagonal bracing). This bracing
configuration was judged less critical than the X-brace and single bay ZZ diagonal
brace configurations, described above, and was not investigated further.

Each brace configuration has a different impact on beam behavior. Beams act as
struts in the ZZ diagonal and X-brace configurations; the struts are heavily loaded in
the LB diagonal brace configuration; and the beams are heavily loaded flexural
members in the chevron brace configuration.

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-3

100% Draft
7.4.2 Brace End Connections

The connection of a BRBF brace to the gusset plate assembly can be fixed or free to
rotate (pinned). Providing restraint, or not, at the end of the BRBF will affect
behavior of the brace, and ANSI/AISC 341-05 requires testing to verify that the
connection does not adversely affect brace behavior for design loads. Whether or not
adequate behavior continues to the point of failure of the brace is generally not
known, and could possibly be different for different connection types.

While the brace end connection could affect brace behavior (beyond design loads),
the fixed case was judged unlikely in this application, and the same pinned-end
modeling assumptions as that of Chapter 5 were used to model the BRBFs in this
study. This assumption should be verified by comparing performance of pinned-end
archetypes with performance of fixed-end archetypes which have the same basic
configuration and design loads, but which are modeled with fixed-end connections.
7.4.3 Building Height

Archetype configurations should reflect typical story heights and represent the range
of building heights (number of stories) permitted for the BRBF system. The
Methodology requires at least three short-period archetypes and at least three long-
period archetypes, ideally with different building heights. In the case of a BRBF
system designed for moderate or low seismic loads, the increased flexibility of the
system and the lower value of the transition period, Ts, effectively limit short-period
archetypes to single-story buildings.

For all archetype configurations, the story height was selected to be 13 feet. While a
slightly taller height is not uncommon in the first story of multi-story buildings, this
was not judged to be critical to the behavior of the system. In addition, a uniform
story height permits consistent variation of brace angle based on variation of bay
size.

Archetype configurations with one, two, three, four, six, nine, 12, and 18 stories were
selected to represent the range of possible building heights and building periods. The
number of stories and corresponding building heights and building periods are
summarized in Table 7-1. Periods were calculated in accordance with the
Methodology, and are shown for each of the four seismic design levels (SDC Dmax,
Dmin/ Cmax, Cmin/Bmax, and Bmin).

Archetypes with 1-, 2-, and 3-story configurations met the minimum of 3 archetypes
per performance group for short-period, SDC Dmax seismic designs (recognizing that
the 3-story archetype period of 0.66 seconds is slightly longer than the SDC Dmax
transition period of 0.6 seconds). For other (lower) seismic design levels, the
transition period was 0.4 seconds, and only 1-story configurations have periods low
enough to be considered short-period archetypes. For SDC Dmin and lower seismic

7-4 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

design levels, the minimum requirement for 3 configurations was met by varying
brace type and/or bay spacing of 1-story archetypes.

Table 7-1 Building Height and Building Period of Buckling-Restrained

Brace Frame Archetypes
Height Seismic Design Level (SDC)
Stories hn (ft.) Dmax Dmin/Cmax Cmin/Bmax Bmin
1 13 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35
2 26 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59
3 39 0.66 0.70 0.76 0.80
4 52 0.81 0.87 0.95 0.99
6 78 1.10 1.18 1.28 1.34
9 117 1.49 1.60 1.74 1.81
12 156 1.85 1.99 2.16 2.25
18 234 2.51 2.69 2.93 3.05

While only three archetypes (with different heights) are required by the
Methodology, additional archetypes were used in this trial application to populate
long-period performance groups (i.e., 5 to 7 archetypes with different building
heights per group). This period range is, by far, the most common period range for
this type of seismic force-resisting system, and the range is quite large. Building
periods ranged from 0.52 seconds (2-story archetypes) to 2.69 seconds (18-story
archetypes) for SDC Dmin seismic loading. Addition of these archetypes provided a
better understanding of the trends in performance by height of building. Figure 7-2
shows the archetype heights considered in the trial application for chevron brace
configuration with SDC Dmax seismic loading.
7.4.4 Bay Size

Archetype configurations should reflect the range of bay sizes typically used in a
BRBF system. Bay size determines brace angle, and brace angle is important to
BRBF system stiffness, the geometry of the end connection gusset plates and their
effect on connection restraint, and ultimately, the propensity of the frame to buckle
and fracture.

In this trial application, bay sizes ranged from 15 feet to 25 feet for ZZ and LB brace
configurations, and 20 feet to 30 feet for chevron and X-brace configurations, as
shown in Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4.

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-5

100% Draft

2 x 13’ = 26’

3 x 13’ = 39’
13’
a. Short-period archetype heights (SDC Dmax)

18 x 13’ = 234’
12 x 13’ = 156’
9 x 13’ = 117’
6 x 13’ = 78’
4 x 13’ = 52’

b. Long-period archetype heights (SDC Dmax)

Figure 7-2 Archetype heights considered for single-bay, chevron archetype

configurations designed for SDC Dmax seismic loading.

7-6 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

13’ 13’
15’

4 x 30’ = 120’

13’ 13’
15’

4 x 30’ = 120’

13’ 13’
25’
5 x 25’ = 125’

13’ 13’

25’

5 x 25’ = 125’

Figure 7-3 Plan configurations considered for ZZ- and LB-brace configurations;
illustrated for single-bay, 2-story archetypes with bay widths of 15
feet and 25 feet.

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-7

100% Draft

13’ 13’
20’

3 x 40’ = 120’

13’ 13’
20’

3 x 40’ = 120’

13’ 13’
30’

4 x 30’ = 120’

13’ 13’
30’

4 x 30’ = 120’

Figure 7-4 Plan configurations considered for chevron and X-brace

configurations; illustrated for single-bay, 2-story archetypes with bay
widths of 20 feet and 30 feet.

7.4.5 Brace Size

Archetype configurations should reflect the range of brace sizes typically used in
BRBF systems. For this trial application, member sizes were determined by design
for a variety of load levels and building heights, typically using one bay of bracing
per side. Member sizes based on this design approach tended to challenge the upper
limit of practical brace sizes in the taller archetypes, which is judged to be more
critical in terms of BRBF system performance.
7.4.6 Plan and Elevation Configuration

Archetype configurations should represent brace locations in plan and elevation over
the height of the building that are typical in BRBF system applications. Consistent
with the requirements of the Methodology, two-dimensional models were envisioned

7-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

for the evaluation of the BRBF system, and thus, a symmetric (square) plan
configuration with one-bay of bracing per side was selected for all archetype
configurations. This typical configuration was used for each archetype, unless
practical limits on brace size necessitated two bays of bracing per side.

Floor plan dimensions were either 120 feet or 125 feet, as shown in Figure 7-3 and
Figure 7-4. The size of the archetype in plan influences building weight and
magnitude of seismic design forces. The size of the archetype in plan also influences
gravity loads on beams and columns, although these effects are of secondary
importance to the BRBF system.

The same floor plan and brace layout are used for each floor of the given archetype.
When practical limits on brace size require two bays of bracing per side (e.g., 18-
story archetypes), then two bays of bracing are used at all floor levels in the
archetype.
7.4.7 Seismic Design Category

The Methodology requires archetype configurations to be designed (and evaluated)

for the range of seismic loading in each seismic design category (SDC) for which the
BRBF system is permitted for use, unless some can be shown to not govern
performance. While the system is permitted for use in all Seismic Design Categories
(subject to building height limits), applications typically occur in regions of high or
very high seismicity (e.g., SDC D).

For this trial application, the two highest seismic design levels (SDC Dmax and SDC
Dmin) were selected for design of all archetypes. SDC Bmax was selected for design of
a limited number of archetypes to verify that archetypes designed for SDC Dmax and
SDC Dmin governed system performance.

Previous studies have shown that archetypes designed for SDC Dmax seismic loads
will likely control the value of the R factor and that archetypes designed for SDC
Dmin seismic loads will likely control the value of overstrength factor.
7.4.8 Gravity Design Load

The Methodology requires archetype configurations to be designed for a range of

gravity loads, unless gravity loads do not affect performance of the seismic force-
resisting system of interest. In the case of the BRBF system, gravity loads were
judged to have little influence on the design and performance of BRBs, and a single
(typical) level of gravity design load, based on (typical) plan configuration, was used
for the design of all archetypes.
7.4.9 Occupancy and Use

The BRBF system has been used primarily for larger, multi-story structures for
important government and institutional buildings, including university facilities and

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-9

100% Draft

hospitals. However, there are also many examples of low-rise structures using BRBF
systems.

7.5 Determination of Performance Groups

In accordance with the requirements of the Methodology, BRBF archetypes were

organized into performance groups considering basic structural configuration, gravity
loads, seismic loads (SDC), and period domain.

In this trial application, a total of 32 performance groups were required to represent

the full design space of the BRBF system, as summarized in Table 7-2. These 32
performance groups are a product of 2 bay sizes, 4 brace configurations (although
single-story archetypes only have 2 brace configurations), 2 period ranges (short-
period and long-period), 2 seismic design levels (SDC Dmax and SDC Dmin), and one
gravity load level.

7.6 Determination of Controlling Performance Groups

While nothing precludes evaluation of all archetypes and associated performance

groups for the full design space, the Methodology permits eliminating archetypes and
associated performance groups that can be shown to not govern performance of the
seismic force-resisting of interest. This section presents a systematic process for
identifying the performance groups that control the evaluation of the BRBF system.

Since this trial application did not include development of analytical models,
judgment (rather than analysis) was used to select controlling archetypes and
associated performance groups. If nonlinear analysis methods were used, it is
expected that the process would result in the same number of controlling
performance groups, but possibly not the same sets of performance groups or
archetypes as those identified in this trial application.

7-10 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 7-2 Performance Groups for Evaluation of Buckling-Restrained

Braced Frame Archetypes
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Number of
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Archetypes
Configuration Gravity Seismic Domain

PG-1 Short 3
ZZ Diagonal SDC Dmax
PG-2 Long 5
Bracing Typical
PG-3 15-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-4 Long 7
PG-5 Short 3
ZZ Diagonal SDC Dmax
PG-6 Long 5
Bracing Typical
PG-7 25-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-8 Long 7
PG-9 Short 3
LB Diagonal SDC Dmax
PG-10 Long 5
Bracing Typical
PG-11 15-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-12 Long 7
PG-13 Short 3
LB Diagonal SDC Dmax
PG-14 Long 5
Bracing Typical
PG-15 25-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-16 Long 7
PG-17 Short 3
Chevron SDC Dmax
PG-18 Long 5
Bracing Typical
PG-19 20-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-20 Long 7
PG-21 Short 3
Chevron SDC Dmax
PG-22 Long 5
Bracing Typical
PG-23 30-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-24 Long 7
PG-25 Short 3
SDC Dmax
PG-26 2X Bracing Long 5
Typical
PG-27 20-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-28 Long 7
PG-29 Short 3
SDC Dmax
PG-30 2X Bracing Long 5
Typical
PG-31 30-Foot Bays Short 1 (+2)
SDC Dmin
PG-32 Long 7

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-11

100% Draft

7.6.1 Sensitivity Studies

The identification process involves using sensitivity studies to determine the

controlling value of each parameter of interest (e.g., type of bracing controlling
performance) when evaluating collapse performance as a function of key
performance parameters (e.g., basic configuration). The sensitivity studies
investigated following three parameters to determine the controlling value(s) of each
parameter:(1) Seismic Design Category; (2) bay size, and (3) brace configuration.

Each of these parameters was investigated using both short-period and long-period
archetype configurations, since different values of the parameter of interest could
govern short-period and long-period archetype performance. Two-story archetypes
were used to investigate short-period performance, and 12-story archetypes were
used to investigate long-period performance. Each sensitivity study established a set
of archetype configurations by holding values of performance parameters constant,
other than the parameter of interest, which is varied over the range of values in the
design space. A design was prepared for each archetype in the parameter set of
interest and used for evaluation.

Sensitivity studies require establishing a set of baseline values that are held constant,
while the parameter of interest is varied. Ultimately, baseline values should be the
same as the controlling value of the parameters of interest. If initial values of
baseline properties are found not to control performance, then those initial values
would require updating, and re-design and re-evaluation of associated archetypes to
validate findings of the sensitivity studies.

The following sections describe sensitivity studies and define baseline properties and
associated archetype configurations used to determine (or verify) controlling values
of archetype configuration parameters.

Study 1 – Determine Controlling Seismic Design Level. This study investigated

the collapse performance of the same archetype configuration designed for SDC
Dmax, SDC Dmin and SDC Bmax seismic loads, to confirm that SDC Dmax controls the R
factor and that SDC Dmin (or the limit of 3.0) controls the overstrength factor, Ω, of
the BRBF system. Properties of Study 1 archetypes are listed in Table 7-3.

The baseline seismic design level was assumed to be Seismic Design Category
(SDC) Dmax. Previous studies have consistently shown that SDC Dmax controls value
of the R factor. However, the overstrength factor, Ω, is typically governed by lower
levels of seismic design loads, or the maximum value of 3.0 specified in the
Methodology.

Study 2 – Determine Controlling Bay Size. This study investigated collapse

performance of archetypes that are the same except for bay size to confirm that the

7-12 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

25-foot bay size controls short-period archetype performance and that 15-foot bay
size controls long-period archetype performance of the BRBF system. Properties of
Study 2 archetypes are listed in Table 7-3.

Baseline bay sizes were assumed to be 25-feet for short-period archetype

configurations and 15-feet for long-period archetype configurations. The largest bay
size of 25 feet was selected for short-period archetypes, since wider bays correspond
to stiffer archetypes that have relatively shorter periods. Previous studies have shown
that collapse performance tends to worsen for archetypes with very short periods, all
else equal.

The least bay size of 15 feet was selected for long-period archetypes, since more
narrow bays correspond to more flexible systems with relatively longer periods.
Previous studies have shown that collapse performance tends to worsen for
archetypes with larger lateral displacements associated with longer periods, all else
equal.

Study 3 – Determine Controlling Brace Configuration. This study investigated

collapse performance of archetypes that are the same except for brace configuration,
and confirmed that the LB diagonal brace configuration controls BRBF system
performance. Properties of Study 3 archetypes are listed in Table 7-3.

The baseline brace type was assumed to be the LB diagonal for both short-period and
long-period archetype configurations. Systems with diagonal bracing are considered
more vulnerable to collapse than either chevron or X-brace configurations, and multi-
story systems with the LB diagonal brace configuration are considered more
vulnerable than those with ZZ diagonal bracing configuration. While previous
studies support the choice of baseline values for other parameters, selection of the LB
diagonal brace is purely judgmental and actual analyses of archetypes might find that
another type of brace controls performance of the BRBF system.

For each archetype configuration in Table 7-3, a design was prepared. To evaluate
controlling configurations, an analysis model would be developed to evaluate
collapse performance in accordance with the Methodology. Controlling archetype
configurations would be those configurations that have the least value of the ACMR
in the archetype set of interest. Note that in this trial application designs were
prepared for each of the fourteen unique archetype configurations in Table 7-3
(referred to as Phase I designs), but the corresponding analysis models were not
developed, nor were the values of ACMR calculated to evaluate collapse
performance.

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-13

100% Draft

Table 7-3 Summary of Archetype Configurations used in Sensitivity Studies

of the BRBF System

Bay Seismic Archetype

No. of Bracing
Size Design
Stories Type Controls? ID Number
(feet) Level
Study 1. Determine Controlling Seismic Design Level
SDC Dmax Yes (R) 2S-LB-25B-Dmax
2 LB 25 SDC Dmin Yes (Ω) 2S-LB-25B-Dmin
SDC Bmax No 2S-LB-25B-Bmax
SDC Dmax Yes (R) 12S-LB-15B-Dmax

12 LB 15 SDC Dmin Yes (Ω) 12S-LB-15B-Dmin

SDC Bmax No 12S-LB-15B-Bmax
Study 2. Determine Controlling Bay Size
25 Yes 2S-LB-25B-Dmax
2 LB SDC Dmax
15 No 2S-LB-15B-Dmax
25 No 12S-LB-25B-Dmax
12 LB SDC Dmax
15 Yes 12S-LB-15B-Dmax
Study 3. Determine Controlling Brace Type
LB Yes 2S-LB-25B-Dmax
25
ZZ No 2S-ZZ-25B-Dmax
2 SDC Dmax
CV No 2S-CV-30B-Dmax
30
2X No 2S-2X-30B-Dmax
LB Yes 12S-LB-15B-Dmax
15
ZZ No 12S-ZZ-15B-Dmax
12 SDC Dmax
CV No 12S-CV-20B-Dmax
20
2X No 12S-2X-20B-Dmax

7.6.2 Controlling Performance Groups

Controlling performance groups for the BRBF system, based on the results of the
sensitivity studies, are shown in Table 7-4. After elimination of non-controlling
archetype configurations, the trial application found that only six performance groups
with a total of eighteen (18) archetype configurations are required to adequately
evaluate performance of the BRBF system, noting also that three of the original
performance groups (PG-15, PG-11 and PG-23) with one archetype each are now
combined to meet the minimum requirement of 3 archetypes per group.

For each archetype configuration in Table 7-4, a design was prepared and an analysis
model developed to evaluate collapse performance in accordance with the
Methodology.

7-14 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 7-4 Controlling Performance Groups for the Buckling-Restrained Braced

Frame System (used for Phase II Performance Evaluation)
Performance Group Summary
Grouping Criteria
Group Archetype ID
Basic Design Load Level Period
No. Number
Configuration Gravity Seismic Domain

4S-LB-15B-Dmax
6S-LB-15B-Dmax
SDC
PG-10 Long 9S-LB-15B-Dmax
Dmax
12S-LB-15B-Dmax
18S-LB-15B-Dmax
LB Diagonal 2S-LB-15B-Dmin
Bracing Typical
15-Foot Bays 3S-LB-15B-Dmin
4S-LB-15B-Dmin
PG-12 SDC Dmin Long 6S-LB-15B-Dmin
9S-LB-15B-Dmin
12S-LB-15B-Dmin
18S-LB-15B-Dmin
1S-LB-25B-Dmax
LB Diagonal
SDC
PG-13 Bracing Typical Short 2S-LB-25B-Dmax
Dmax
25-Foot Bays
3S-LB-25B-Dmax

PG-15 1S-LB-25B-Dmin
PG-11 Varies Typical SDC Dmin Short 1S-LB-15B-Dmin
PG-23 1S-CV-30B-Dmin

7.7 Archetype Design

7.7.1 Archetype Design Criteria

The archetype designs were based on the design requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-05 and
AISC 341-05 (with the exception that the values of Ct and x used to determine the
fundamental period are based on Appendix R of AISC 341-05). The height limit for
archetypes was taken as 240 feet, which is extended from the basic limit of 160 feet
prescribed in ASCE/SEI 7-05.

Response spectrum analysis (RSA) was used for the design of all archetypes.
Because of the scaling of RSA base shears, this typically results in a design that is
15% weaker than using the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure for force-
governed designs, and somewhat lighter for drift-governed designs.

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-15

100% Draft

All designs were checked for strength and for a drift limit of 0.02%. ASCE/SEI 7-05
limits on second-order effects were also observed. ASCE/SEI 7-05 load
combinations were used for the design of the frame, with the following exceptions:
• Braces were designed for seismic forces only. The effects of gravity load were
ignored, as is typical practice.
• Seismic forces in columns and beams were computed based on the maximum
forces that braces can impose, including strain hardening. All braces are
considered to yield simultaneously in tension or compression in a first-mode
displacement as required by AISC 341-05.
• Flexural forces in columns were not considered in combination with this
maximum force as is permitted by AISC 341.

All frames were designed using the following parameters: R = 8, Cd = R, and ρ = 1.

A number of alternative beam-column-brace connection details are possible. AISC
341-05 prescribes the required strength of connections but permits the designer some
latitude in determining the connection details. Furthermore, each buckling-restrained
brace manufacturer specifies proprietary details for attachment of the brace elements
to the connection plates, but these attachment details must be qualified by tests in
accordance with AISC 341-05. For this study, the beam-column connections and
brace-to-framing connections of the archetypes were not designed in detail. It was
assumed that these connections have adequate stiffness, strength, and detailing to
avoid failure before the braces rupture, which is the basic requirement in AISC
341-05.

This trial application prepared designs for a total of 29 archetype configurations as

required for sensitivity studies (Phase I design of 14 unique configurations) and as
required for collapse performance evaluation of the BRBF system (Phase II design of
15 new configurations, plus 3 Phase I configurations).
7.7.2 Phase I Design

In this phase, designs were prepared for 14 unique configurations as required for
sensitivity studies to determine controlling performance groups and archetype
configurations. Additional Phase I designs would be required for sensitivity studies
if archetype configurations were not optimally selected for these studies.

The following parameters were studied:

• Seismic design category (studied for both 2-story and 12-story frames)
• Bay size (both 15-foot and 25-foot frames)
• Brace configuration

Design properties are summarized in Table 7-5. Detailed member sizes are provided
in Appendix E.

7-16 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 7-5 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Phase I Archetype Design Properties

Key Archetype Design Parameters

Archetype ID No. of Seismic Design Criteria

Number Stories Analysis SMT(T)
Method T T1 V/W (g)
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Study 1. Archetypes Used to Determine Controlling Seismic Design Level
2S-LB-25B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.58 0.112 1.50
2S-LB-25B-Dmin 2 RSA Dmin 8 0.52 0.94 0.041 0.579
2S-LB-25B-Bmax 2 RSA Bmax 8 0.56 1.46 0.025 0.355
12S-LB-15B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 2.83 0.037 0.485
12S-LB-15B-Dmin 12 RSA Dmin 8 1.99 5.38 0.019 0.151
12S-LB-15B-Bmax 12 RSA Bmax 8 2.16 6.28 0.013 0.093
Study 2. Archetypes Used to Determine Controlling Bay Size
2S-LB-25B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.58 0.112 1.50
2S-LB-15B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.67 0.106 1.50
12S-LB-25B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 3.19 0.038 0.485
12S-LB-15B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 3.47 0.044 0.485
Study 3. Archetypes Used to Determine Controlling Brace Type
2S-LB-25B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.58 0.112 1.50
2S-ZZ-25B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.70 0.106 1.50
2S-CV-30B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.59 0.114 1.50
2S-2X-30B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.57 0.114 1.50
12S-LB-15B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 2.83 0.037 0.485
12S-ZZ-15B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 2.75 0.037 0.485
12S-CV-20B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 2.76 0.037 0.485
12S-2X-20B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 2.80 0.037 0.485

7.7.3 Phase II Design

In this phase, designs were prepared for 15 configurations in addition to 3 Phase I

configurations as required for collapse performance evaluation of the BRBF system

The following parameters were studied:

• Period range (short and long)
• Seismic design category (SDC Dmax and Dmin)

Phase II design properties are summarized in Table 7-6. Detailed member sizes are
provided in Appendix E.

GCR 10-917-8 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space 7-17

100% Draft

Table 7-6 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Phase II Archetype Design Properties

Key Archetype Design Parameters

Archetype ID No. of Seismic Design Criteria

Number Stories Analysis SMT(T)
Method T T1 V/W (g)
SDC R
(sec) (sec) (g)
Performance Group PG-10. SDC Dmax/ Long-Period Archetypes
4S-LB-15BDmax 4 RSA Dmax 8 0.81 1.15 0.078 1.11
6S-LB-15B-Dmax 6 RSA Dmax 8 1.10 1.68 0.058 0.816
9S-LB-15B-Dmax 9 RSA Dmax 8 1.49 2.35 0.047 0.602
12S-LB-15B-Dmax 12 RSA Dmax 8 1.85 2.83 0.037 0.485
18S-LB-15B-Dmax 18 RSA Dmax 8 2.51 3.96 0.037 0.358
Performance Group PG-12. SDC Dmin/ Long-Period Archetypes
2S-LB-15B-Dmin 2 RSA Dmin 8 0.52 0.86 0.063 0.579
3S-LB-15B-Dmin 3 RSA Dmin 8 0.70 1.25 0.063 0.427
4S-LB-15B-Dmin 4 RSA Dmin 8 0.87 1.71 0.063 0.344
6S-LB-15B-Dmin 6 RSA Dmin 8 1.18 2.61 0.019 0.254
9S-LB-15B-Dmin 9 RSA Dmin 8 1.60 3.93 0.019 0.187
12S-LB-15B-Dmin 12 RSA Dmin 8 1.99 5.38 0.019 0.151
18S-LB-15B-Dmin 18 RSA Dmin 8 2.69 9.07 0.019 0.111
Performance Group PG-13. SDC Dmax/Short-Period Archetypes
1S-LB-25B-Dmax 1 RSA Dmax 8 0.29 0.47 0.125 1.50
2S-LB-25B-Dmax 2 RSA Dmax 8 0.48 0.58 0.112 1.50
3S-LB-25B-Dmax 3 RSA Dmax 8 0.66 0.89 0.097 1.37
Performance Groups PG-15/PG-11/PG-20 SDC Dmin/ Short-Period Archetypes
1S-LB-25B-Dmin 1 RSA Dmin 8 0.31 0.53 0.053 1.50
1S-LB-15B-Dmin 2 RSA Dmin 8 0.31 0.49 0.053 1.50
1S-CV-30B-Dmin 3 RSA Dmin 8 0.31 0.39 0.062 1.50

7.8 Observations

This trial application demonstrated how systematic identification of controlling

characteristics can be used to limit the number of archetypes needed for full
implementation of the Methodology. In the case of BRBF systems, it was found that
development of a full set of archetypes was reasonable and practical.

The approximate level of effort associated with this work was on the order of 240
hours of engineering time to identify appropriate sets of archetype configurations and
prepare the necessary designs. This did not include time to develop nonlinear models
of archetype configurations, perform nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of the
models, and evaluate system collapse performance in accordance with the
Methodology.

7-18 7: Trial Application – Full Archetype Design Space GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Chapter 8
Summary, Conclusions, and
Recommendations

This chapter summarizes trial applications (beta testing) of the FEMA P-695
Methodology, and provides recommendations for its possible improvement and
future use. General findings and recommendations are based on the collective
results of the trial applications of the Methodology for different seismic force-
resisting systems. Additional, more in-depth findings specific to the systems of
interest are contained in the relevant chapters for each system.

8.1 Summary of Beta Testing Work

A number of seismic force-resisting systems were investigated during development

of the Methodology as part of example applications or supporting studies. Such
investigations included special reinforced concrete moment frames, ordinary
reinforced concrete moment frames, and light-framed walls with wood structural
panel sheathing. Results from these investigations were used to test and refine the
Methodology as it was being developed. While this effort was considerable, it
covered only a small portion of the more than 75 individual systems contained in
ASCE/SEI 7-05.

The beta testing work documented in this report augments the original work by
applying the Methodology to additional seismic force-resisting systems. The scope
of the beta testing effort was structured to cover a broad range of system types with
different seismic response characteristics and detailing requirements. The following
systems were investigated:
• Special reinforced masonry shear walls (special RMSW)
• Ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls (ordinary RMSW)
• Special reinforced concrete shear walls (special RCSW)
• Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls (ordinary RCSW)
• Special steel concentrically braced frames (special SCBF)
• Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBF)
• Special steel moment frame (special SMF) systems designed using both the
equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure, and the response spectrum analysis
(RSA) procedure.

GCR 10-917-8 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 8-1

100% Draft

In general, archetypes were designed using ELF procedure. Certain archetypes were
designed using the RSA procedure when this procedure is more common in practice.
In the case of the special steel moment frame system, both ELF and RSA procedures
were used to explicitly investigate the significance of analysis procedure selection on
system performance.

The Methodology defines seismic loads in terms of the Seismic Design Category
(SDC) of interest. In general, the Methodology requires archetypes to be designed
and evaluated for each SDC for which the system of interest will be used. In
general, example applications that were part of the original Methodology
development showed that archetypes designed for seismic loads of the highest SDC
(e.g., SDC D for systems with unrestricted use) tended to govern collapse
performance and the resulting value of the R-factor (although archetypes designed
for lower seismic design categories tended to govern the value of overstrength).

To limit the number of archetypes investigated, each system was designed for
seismic loads corresponding to the highest SDC for which the system is permitted.
On this basis, systems with “special” seismic detailing were designed for SDC D
seismic loads, and systems with “ordinary” seismic detailing were designed for SDC
C seismic loads. The Methodology requires archetypes to be designed and evaluated
for bounding values of design loads for the SDC of interest (e.g., SDC Dmax and SDC
Dmin and SDC Cmax and SDC Cmin seismic loads).

Similar to seismic loading, the Methodology requires the use of bounding values of
gravity load for design of archetypes in which performance is influenced by gravity
load. Accordingly, “high” and “low” levels of gravity load were used for design of
reinforced masonry and reinforced concrete shear wall archetypes. A single
“typical” value of gravity load was used for design of steel braced frame and steel
moment frame archetypes in which performance was assumed to be essentially
independent of gravity load.

Finally, archetypes were configured to have a number of different building heights,

typically five different heights for each seismic force-resisting system, to investigate
potential effects of period on performance. Because of necessary limitations in
scope, the number of short- or long-period archetypes in some performance groups
was less than the prescribed minimum of three per performance group. Also, the
number of different system configurations (e.g., difference brace configurations for
braced frame systems or different wall configurations for shear wall systems) was
limited.

Although system performance has been evaluated using a large number of archetypes
(total of 120 archetypes for all seven systems), full implementation of the
Methodology would require an even larger number of archetypes and performance
groups. Additional archetypes would be needed to meet the minimum number of
three archetypes required per performance group, and additional performance groups

8-2 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

would be required to evaluate system performance for other configurations and

design variables that were not considered. For the purpose of beta testing the
Methodology, it was considered more useful to evaluate a larger number of systems
with a carefully selected, but limited, number of archetypes for each system, rather
than to evaluate fewer systems using a larger number of archetypes for each system.

8.2 General Findings

Trial applications of the Methodology on reinforced masonry shear wall structures

(Chapter 3), reinforced concrete shear wall structures (Chapter 4), steel braced frame
structures (Chapter 5), and steel moment frame structures (Chapter 6) provide insight
on the performance of these systems, and a basis for judging the appropriateness and
usefulness of the Methodology. Chapters outlining the results for each system
conclude with observations on system performance, observations on the
Methodology, and recommendations for further experimental or analytical
investigation.

8.2.1 Does the Methodology Meet Its Intended Purpose?

The purpose of the Methodology, as stated in the FEMA P-695 report, is to provide a
rational basis for determining building system performance and response parameters
(i.e., R, Cd and ΩO factors) that, when properly implemented in the seismic design
process, will result in “equivalent safety against collapse in an earthquake,
comparable to the inherent safety against collapse intended by current seismic
codes, for buildings with different seismic force-resisting systems,” (FEMA, 2009).

FEMA P-695 recommends the Methodology for use with model building codes and
resource documents to set minimum acceptable design criteria for standard code-
approved seismic force-resisting systems, and to provide guidance in the selection of
appropriate design criteria for other systems when linear design methods are applied.
FEMA P-695 notes that the Methodology also provides a basis for evaluation of
current code-approved systems for their ability to achieve intended seismic
performance objectives.

In the beta tests, existing seismic force-resisting systems were designed using “trial”
values of the R factor based on the current values contained in Table 12.2-1 of
ASCE/SEI 7-05. Thus, the trial applications tested the Methodology by evaluating
current code-approved systems for their ability to achieve intended seismic
performance objectives.

If current values of the R factor (and other factors influencing performance) conform
to the collapse objectives of the Methodology, then each system investigated would
(just barely) meet the acceptance criteria of the Methodology. It would be
unrealistic to expect that the current set of code-approved systems, in which values
of the R factor have been based primarily on judgment, would result in uniform
collapse performance for each system. However, it is expected that most code-

GCR 10-917-8 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 8-3

100% Draft

approved systems would generally meet the acceptance criteria of the Methodology.
The systems not meeting the acceptance criteria would not be expected to fail by a
large margin, although certain configurations or design characteristics of such a
system might be expected to have significantly inferior performance.

If all but a few individual archetypes (or performance groups) were found to
generally meet the acceptance criteria of the Methodology for a number of different
seismic force-resisting systems, then it may be concluded that the Methodology is
appropriately “calibrated” in terms of evaluating collapse performance. Further, if
those few archetypes (or performance groups) that do not meet the acceptance
criteria can be associated with a design characteristic or configuration that has been
shown to consistently affect collapse performance, then it may also be concluded
that the Methodology is capable of identifying potential design or configuration
shortcomings in a system of interest.

Table 8-1 is a summary of the results of collapse performance evaluations, indicating

the number of archetypes meeting the acceptance criteria of the Methodology. The
trial applications found that code-approved systems generally meet the acceptance
criteria of the Methodology, although for some systems, certain archetypes (and
performance groups) did not fully comply with the criteria.

Table 8-1 Number of Archetypes Passing the Acceptance Criteria for Collapse Performance
Evaluation
Seismic Force-Resisting Primary Short-Period Configurations Long-Period Configurations
System Analysis
No. Type Detailing Procedure High Gravity Low Gravity High Gravity Low Gravity
1 RMSW Special ELF 2 of 5 pass 3 of 5 pass All pass All pass
2 RMSW Ordinary ELF 1 of 4 pass 3 of 4 pass 3 of 6 pass All pass
3 RCSW Special ELF 2 of 5 pass 2 of 5 pass All pass All pass
4 RCSW Ordinary ELF All pass All pass All pass All pass
5 SCBF Special ELF 3 of 4 pass All pass
6 BRBF n/a ELF All pass All pass
7a SMF Special ELF All pass All pass
7b SMF Special RSA All pass All pass

Based on these results, it was concluded that the acceptance criteria of Methodology,
and its underlying collapse objectives, are reasonably well calibrated with the
inherent safety goals of ASCE/SEI 7-05. Furthermore, the Methodology was able to
identify design and configuration shortcomings that were indicative of potentially
inadequate collapse performance. These conclusions are consistent with findings of
previous example applications of the Methodology documented in the FEMA P-695
report.

8-4 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
8.2.2 Is the Methodology Practical to Implement?

In all cases, trial applications reported difficulty in capturing the full archetype
design space for an existing code-approved system. The range of permissible
configurations and possible variations in important design parameters led to more
archetypes and performance groups than could be evaluated given the level of
funding available for the beta testing effort. In each case, the scope of the
investigation was limited for practical reasons.

To investigate the feasibility of full implementation of the Methodology, the BRBF

system was selected for further study, and the process for developing a full set of
archetypes for evaluation of the complete design space was illustrated. While
nonlinear analyses and performance evaluations were not performed, the study
demonstrated how systematic identification of controlling characteristics can be used
to limit the number of archetypes needed for full implementation of the
Methodology. In the case of BRBF systems, it was found that development of a full
set of archetypes was reasonable and practical.

In the case of new systems, full application of the Methodology is expected to be

easier. The level of effort is intended to be scalable, and is at the discretion of the
system proponent. Archetype development and performance evaluation need only be
performed on those configurations and seismic design levels for which the new
system will be proposed for use. The design requirements and limits of application
can then be adjusted accordingly.

8.3 Findings Related to System Performance

Trial applications of the Methodology revealed the following findings related to the
behavior of the systems that were evaluated.

8.3.1 Short-Period Systems

Reinforced masonry shear wall, reinforced concrete shear wall, and steel braced
frame systems all exhibited a similar trend in that short-period archetypes had
smaller collapse margin ratios. This was observed in 1-story, 2-story, 3-story, and
selected 4-story archetypes. In many cases, short-period archetypes failed the
performance evaluation criteria. In cases where short-period archetypes passed the
criteria, they had smaller margins against collapse than corresponding long-period
archetypes.

The lone exception to this trend occurred in the special SMF system, in which lower
collapse margin ratios were not observed in the short-period archetypes. Due to the
flexibility of steel moment frame systems, the calculated fundamental period of
“short-period” archetypes is relatively large, and greater than the transition period,
Ts, which defines the boundary between the acceleration (short-period) and velocity
(long-period) domains of the design spectrum. Thus, the analytical models of “short-

GCR 10-917-8 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 8-5

100% Draft

period” special SMF archetypes that were used to evaluate collapse performance did
not respond dynamically as short-period systems, even though they were designed as
such.

This trend is not unexpected. It is consistent with previous findings during the
development of the Methodology, and consistent with prior research studies
demonstrating larger inelastic demands on short-period buildings, regardless of the
seismic force-resisting system. These findings suggest a possible need for period-
dependent seismic performance factors. In such a formulation, the R factor could be
reduced as a function of period, such that design strength increases as building
period decreases and a uniform margin against collapse is maintained.

8.3.2 Partially-Grouted Masonry Walls

Design of special RMSW archetypes assumed fully-grouted construction, while

design of ordinary RMSW archetypes assumed partially-grouted construction. This
is not a code requirement for design of masonry shear walls, but is generally
consistent with engineering practice. The trial application RMSW systems found the
performance of ordinary RMSW archetypes to be inferior to special RMSW
archetypes. This was largely attributed to the behavior of partially-grouted walls. If
special RMSW archetypes were partially-grouted, then their collapse performance
would have been adversely affected.

These results showed that the Methodology is capable of identifying design features
that systematically affect seismic performance. These results also showed that,
while not an R factor issue in itself, restricting the use of partially-grouted walls in
taller configurations of RMSW systems would seem to be an issue that should be
considered. Such an adjustment in the design requirements would appear necessary
for RMSW systems to comply with the collapse performance objectives of the
Methodology and inherent in the code.

8.3.3 Drift and Stability Design Requirements

The design of special SMF system archetypes was governed by code drift limits and
checks on stability, rather than strength. Some of the taller archetypes in other
systems were similarly affected. This was attributed to the inherent flexibility of
these systems, which necessitated adding stiffness to meet drift and stability criteria.
Since the addition of stiffness is often accompanied by a corresponding addition of
strength, this effectively reduces the value of the R factor. Hence, drift and stability
criteria are as important as the R factor in the design and collapse performance of
flexible systems.

For flexible systems, the Methodology effectively addresses drift and stability
criteria through the deflection amplification factor, Cd, which is taken as equal to the
R factor. There are many design requirements and other factors that influence
system performance, which are defined in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (or the governing code or

8-6 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

standard). These are in effect, unless otherwise defined in the design requirements
of a proposed system. The Methodology does not preclude use of different system-
specific values of drift limits or stability criteria, which may be appropriate for
flexible systems and taller configurations controlled by such criteria.

For evaluation of existing code-approved systems, results indicate that drift limits
and stability criteria should be re-evaluated, considering their effect on flexible,
drift-controlled systems. Furthermore, any further investigation of the adequacy of
the current R factor formulation should explicitly consider the interaction between
strength, drift, and stability criteria, particularly in taller, flexible systems and
configurations.

8.3.4 Design Assumptions

In all cases, trial applications noted that performance evaluation results were affected
by certain key assumptions made in the design process. While the code specifies
minimum strength and stiffness requirements, exactly how these requirements are
met is left to the discretion of the designer. As a result, design solutions are not
unique, and different design assumptions can affect system behavior.

In the trial applications, key design assumptions included: (1) the use of fully-
grouted or partially-grouted masonry walls in RMSW archetypes; (2) maximizing
shear stresses in the shear walls in RCSW archetypes; (3) the use of fully-restrained
beam-column connection in SCBF archetypes; and (4) the choice of steel beam and
column sections over the height of the building in SMF archetypes. Each of these
design choices were in compliance with the code, and the resulting assumptions had
a bearing on the collapse behavior of the system.

The Methodology recognizes the importance of design assumptions on archetype

development and performance evaluation. Control occurs through extensive and
detailed guidance regarding development of archetypes, and review and concurrence
through the peer review process. The Methodology does not (and cannot) define
prototypical configurations for archetypes of new systems whose characteristics are
not yet known. For evaluation of existing code-approved systems, however, it would
seem possible, and appropriate, to develop prototypical archetype configurations and
consensus design assumptions that reflect the collective wisdom of a broad range of
stakeholders.

8.3.5 Nonlinear Modeling Assumptions

In all cases, trial applications noted that performance evaluation results were
similarly affected by certain key assumptions made in nonlinear modeling.
Nonlinear modeling is a challenging and evolving science that relies heavily on the
expertise of the analyst and familiarity with current experimental data pertinent to
the system of interest. In the trial applications, key modeling assumptions centered
on limitations in the ability to simulate certain behaviors, and on decisions regarding

GCR 10-917-8 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 8-7

100% Draft

criteria for non-simulated failure modes that were used to define collapse where
limited or no data exist.

The Methodology recognizes the importance of modeling assumptions on

performance evaluation. Control occurs through the use of non-simulated collapse
modes, and review and concurrence through the peer review process.

8.4 Findings Related to the Methodology

Trial applications of the Methodology revealed the following findings related to

specific aspects of the Methodology and its procedures.

8.4.1 Selection of Analysis Procedure

The Methodology states that the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure of
ASCE/SEI 7-05 should be used for design of archetypes, in general, but that the
response spectrum analysis (RSA) procedure should be used when the ELF method
is not allowed. It further states that the RSA procedure is permitted for the design of
archetypes where RSA methods of analysis are commonly used in practice. The
underlying assumption is that either method would produce similar designs and
similar collapse performance.

In general, trial applications found significant differences in the stiffness (period),

strength, and collapse performance of archetypes designed using the RSA and ELF
methods of analysis. Performance of archetypes designed using the RSA procedure
was typically inferior to that of archetypes designed using the ELF procedure, for the
same configuration and level of seismic design loading.

The special SMF system was used to investigate the effect of analysis procedure
selection on collapse performance. Large differences were reflected in the
fundamental period (T1) and strength (Vmax) of special SMF archetypes designed
using the RSA and ELF procedures. Table 8-2 compares the fundamental period of
special SMF archetypes as a function of archetype height and level of seismic design
loading. Similarly, Table 8-3 compares the normalized strength, Vmax/W, of the same
set of archetypes.

Values of the fundamental period and normalized strength were nearly identical for
1-story archetypes, but diverged significantly with height. For 20-story archetypes,
normalized strength of archetypes with an RSA design basis was about 40-50% of
the strength of corresponding archetypes with an ELF design basis. Collapse
performance was found to be essentially the same for 1-story archetypes, but varied
in the taller archetypes. Trends in collapse performance were not as well-defined,
and the differences were less pronounced.

8-8 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table 8-2 Comparison of Fundamental Period, T1, of Special SMF

Archetypes Designed Using ELF and RSA Procedures
Fundamental Period, T1 (seconds)
Number of
ELF RSA
Stories
SDC Dmax SDC Dmin SDC Dmax SDC Dmin
1 0.71 1.62 0.71 1.66
2 0.87 1.74 0.91 1.83
4 1.30 1.94 1.62 2.62
8 n/a n/a 2.29 3.55
12 n/a n/a 3.12 4.48
20 2.48 3.44 4.47 5.74

Table 8-3 Comparison of Normalized Strength, Vmax/W, of Special SMF

Archetypes Designed Using ELF and RSA Procedures
Fundamental Period, T1 (seconds)
Number of
ELF RSA
Stories
SDC Dmax SDC Dmin SDC Dmax SDC Dmin
1 0.58 0.16 0.58 0.15
2 0.46 0.14 0.42 0.13
4 0.23 0.11 0.15 0.07
8 n/a n/a 0.13 0.05
12 n/a n/a 0.10 0.05
20 0.20 0.10 0.08 0.05

Results suggest that archetypes should be designed using the more critical of the ELF
or the RSA procedures if both are permitted for design even though the more critical
method of design is generally not known. Differences in stiffness, strength, and
performance suggest a need to revise seismic design requirements to achieve better
parity between ELF and RSA design methods.

8.4.2 Quality Ratings

Many of the trial applications noted the subjective nature of the quality ratings used
to define uncertainty associated with design requirements, test data, and nonlinear
modeling. Table 8-4 summarizes the quality ratings for all systems evaluated as part
of the beta testing effort or the original development of the Methodology.

GCR 10-917-8 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 8-9

100% Draft

Table 8-4 Summary of Quality Ratings for All Systems Evaluated

Seismic Force-Resisting
Quality Rating
System
Design Nonlinear
No. Type Detailing Test Data
Requirements Modeling
1 RMSW Special B B B
2 RMSW Ordinary C C B
3 RCSW Special B B B
4 RCSW Ordinary B B B
5 SCBF Special B B B
6 BRBF n/a B B B
7a SMF Special A B B
7b SMF Special A B B
1
RCMF Special A B B
RCMF1 Ordinary A B C
SMF1 Special A B B
1,2
WLFSW n/a A B B /D4
3

1. System evaluated as part of original Methodology development.

2. WLFSW = Wood Light-Frame Shear Wall system with wood structural panel
sheathing.
3. Quality rating associated with low-aspect ratio archetypes.
4. Quality rating associated with high-aspect ratio archetypes.

In general, trial applications found that collapse performance was relatively

insensitive to changes in quality ratings. Nonetheless, there is a need for a consistent
and reliable method for selection of quality ratings, and a fair assessment of the
quality of design requirements, test data, and nonlinear modeling capabilities across
all systems. The Methodology recognizes this need, and control occurs through
review and concurrence in the peer review process. For evaluation of existing code-
approved systems, it would seem possible and appropriate to develop a consensus set
of quality ratings that reflect the collective opinion of a broad range of stakeholders.

8.4.3 Period-Based Ductility

Trial applications showed a wide range in the calculated period-based ductility

factor, µT. Values ranged from 1.1 for a 20-story special steel moment frame (a tall,
flexible system), to about 50 for a 4-story special RCSW archetypes (a relatively
short, stiff system).

The period-based ductility factor is used for determining the value of the Spectral
Shape Factor (SSF). It is intended to be a measure of the elongation of the elastic
period of the building as a result of yielding in the structural system. The effect of

8-10 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

the SSF saturates at a period-based ductility factor of µT = 8, so larger values are of

no consequence to the collapse performance evaluation. Nonetheless, variations in
the calculated values of this parameter appear counterintuitive, and large values
appear unreasonable in systems that are not normally considered to be “ductile.”

Problems were attributed to the effective yield displacement of archetype, which is

based on the fundamental-mode period, T1, unless the code-based period, T, is larger.
It was suggested that changes in the estimation of the initial stiffness, effective yield
displacement, and effective ductility could be warranted.

Another problem was identified in the measurement of period-based ductility for

elements with extremely limited ductility. Evaluation of special SCBF archetypes
showed a potential problem with the calculation of period-based ductility when there
is a rapid loss of strength due to buckling of braces in compression. When buckling
occurs, strength drops rapidly (below the 80 percent of the maximum strength used
to define the ultimate displacement of the archetype) and the value of the period-
based ductility factor is very low. In addition, estimation of peak buckling strength
is quite sensitive to modeling assumptions, and is extremely variable.

Because the Methodology caps the effect of period-based ductility, there is no real
problem with the factor when it is used solely to determine the value of the SSF. It is
recognized, however, that there are other methods of defining effective yield strength
and ductility, which would result in different values of predicted ductility.
Regardless of the measure, the resulting effects would need to be calibrated for use
in defining the SSF, and the net result would be expected to be the same. There is a
need to better define maximum strength for elements like braces, which experience a
rapid loss in strength due to buckling behavior, for the purpose of calculating values
of ultimate displacement and period-based ductility.

8.4.4 Acceptance Criteria for Archetypes with Low Ductility

Trial applications on special SMF archetypes revealed a small, but important,

shortcoming for systems with very limited period-based ductility. The Methodology
is ambiguous with respect to acceptable values of adjusted collapse margin ratio,
ACMR, when archetypes have very small values of period-based ductility, and should
be clarified for use with such systems.

8.5 Recommendations for Improving the Methodology

Recommendations are divided into two groups: (1) recommendations directly

affecting the Methodology and its procedures, as applied to new systems; and (2)
recommendations for implementation of the Methodology in the evaluation of
existing code-approved systems.

GCR 10-917-8 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 8-11

100% Draft
8.5.1 Methodology Improvements

Based on the results of trial applications studied herein, recommendations for

improving the Methodology as it is applied to new systems include:
• Providing additional guidance on the appropriate use of the ELF or RSA
procedures in the design of archetypes.
• Providing additional guidance on determining acceptable values of adjusted
collapse margin ratio, ACMR, for systems with extremely low period-based
ductility, or systems with archetypes that have different values of β TOT.
• Verifying the applicability of the Far-Field ground motion set to long-period
systems with T > 4 seconds.

8.5.2 Methodology Implementation

Based on the results of trial applications studied herein, recommendations for

implementing the Methodology in the evaluation of existing code-approved systems
include:
• Investigation of an improved framework for seismic performance factors, in
terms of possible adjustments to the R factor formulation, considering
observations made in the trial applications and lessons learned regarding system
performance.
• Investigation of modified material-specific design requirements to improve
collapse behavior of selected systems, considering observations made in the trial
applications and lessons learned regarding system performance.
• Standardization of design configurations for each system, in terms of
representative index archetype configurations, and necessary variations in design
parameters (e.g., design assumptions, span lengths, story heights, member sizes,
and member shapes).
• Standardization of nonlinear modeling, in terms of guidelines on nonlinear
analysis techniques, and selection of non-simulated collapse criteria.
• Standardization of quality ratings, in terms of consensus opinions from a large
group of stakeholders on quality of design requirement and test data across all
systems.

8-12 8: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Appendix A
Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry
Shear Wall Archetypes

This appendix presents detailed design information for reinforced masonry shear wall
archetypes considered in Chapter 3. Seismic criteria, design loads, and other related
requirements that were used as a basis for design of special RMSW and ordinary
RMSW archetypes are described, and the resulting plan configurations, wall sections,
and reinforcing patterns at each floor level for each archetype are summarized.
Calibration of reinforced masonry shear wall models is explained, and results from
supplemental model validation studies are presented.

A.1 Introduction

Index archetypes for special RMSW and ordinary RMSW systems were designed in
accordance with design requirements contained within ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08/TMS
402-08, Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), Building Code Requirements
for Masonry Structures (ACI, 2008b), and ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2006). Test data were used to support the
designs, as necessary.

A.2 Material Properties and Gravity Loads

Material properties for masonry and reinforcing steel are summarized in Table A-1.
Masonry walls are constructed of hollow concrete masonry blocks with nominal
thicknesses varying from 8 inches to 16 inches. The unit weight of masonry was
taken as 120 pcf, and the weight of partially-grouted walls was determined
considering the volumetric void ratio. Floor and roof systems were assumed to
consist of cast-in-place concrete slabs in the corridors, and precast hollow core planks
with a cast-in-place concrete topping slab elsewhere. Gravity load assumptions for
floor and roof dead load and live load are summarized in Table A-2.

Table A-1 Material Properties for Special RMSW and Ordinary RMSW
Archetypes
Material Properties
Concrete Masonry
f’m=1.5 ksi (minimum); 3.0 ksi (maximum)
Units

Steel Reinforcing ASTM A615 Grade 60 ksi

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-1

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table A-2 Gravity Load Assumptions for Special RMSW and

Ordinary RMSW Archetypes
Load Value
Roof Loading
Typical Dead Load (single-story) 30 psf
Typical Dead Load (multi-story) 85 psf
Typical Live Load 20 psf
Floor Loading
Typical Dead Load 100 psf
Typical Live Load 28 psf
Corridor Dead Load 73 psf
Corridor Live Load 60 psf
Masonry Walls
Fully-Grouted 120 pcf
Determined by
Partially-Grouted
volumetric void ratio

A.3 Structural Configurations

Plan configurations for special RMSW and ordinary RMSW archetypes are shown in
Figure A-1 and Figure A-2. Two plan configurations were selected as representative
of realistic reinforced masonry shear wall arrangements in single-story and multi-
story buildings. Story heights were 12 feet for the single-story archetypes and 10 feet
for the multi-story archetypes.

204 ft.

Column
Lines

204 ft.

24 ft.

Figure A-1 Single-story reinforced masonry shear wall building

configuration (design for SDC Dmax shown).

A-2 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft
8-in. Precast Hollow Core
Gravity frame
Planks with 2-in. Topping
A B C D E F G H I

1
32 ft.
2
5-in. Cast-in-Place Slab 10 ft.
3

32 ft.
4
8 @ 36 ft. = 288 ft.

N
(a) 2-story building (4 walls per direction, 8 bays)

8-in. Precast Hollow Core

Gravity frame
Planks with 2-in. Topping
A B C D E F G H

1
32 ft.
2
5-in. Cast-in-Place Slab 10 ft.
3

32 ft.
4
7 @ 36 ft. = 252 ft.

N
(b) 4-story building (8 walls per direction, 7 bays)

8-in. Precast Hollow Core 8-in. Precast Hollow Core Planks

Planks with 2-in. Topping with 2-in. Topping

A B C D E F A B C D E F

1 1

32 ft. 32 ft.

2 2
5-in. Cast-in-Place Slab 10 ft. 5-in. Cast-in-Place Slab 10 ft.
3 3

32 ft. 32 ft.

4 4
32 ft. 32 ft.
5 @ 36 ft. = 180 ft. 5 @ 36 ft. = 180 ft.

N N

(c) 8-story and 12-story buildings (12 walls per direction, 5 bays)
Figure A-2 Multi-story reinforced masonry shear wall building configurations (designs for
SDC Dmax shown).

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-3

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

To avoid biasing of performance evaluation results with excessive overstrength,

building size and number of shear walls in each direction were adjusted in each
archetype to suit the level of seismic design loading. Table A-3 summarizes the
number of stories, number of bays, number of walls in each direction, and wall aspect
ratio (height/length) for each archetype and seismic design category.

Table A-3 Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Building Archetype Configurations

No. of Story Height Length Width No. of Walls Wall Aspect Ratio
SDC
Stories (ft.) (bays) (bays) (each direct.) Height/Length (ft.)

Dmax 6 6 2
Dmin 10 10 2
1 12 12/24
Cmax 6 6 4
Cmin 10 10 4
Dmax 8 3 4
Dmin 14 3 4
2 10 20/32
Cmax 6 3 4
Cmin 10 3 4
Dmax 7 3 8
Dmin 10 3 4
4 10 40/32
Cmax 5 3 8
Cmin 5 3 4
Dmax 5 3 12
Dmin 6 3 4
8 10 80/32
Cmax 5 3 12
Cmin 6 3 8
Dmax 5 3 12
Dmin 6 3 4
12 10 120/32
Cmax 5 3 12
Cmin 5 3 8

A.4 Shear Wall Designs

Shear wall design parameters are summarized in Table A-4 through Table A-23 by
ductility classification (special versus ordinary) and Seismic Design Category (Dmax,
Dmin, Cmax, and Cmin). In the tables, the design story shear, Vu, is the larger of the
shear demand and the shear force corresponding to 1.25 times the nominal moment
capacity of the wall. In most cases the shear corresponding to the flexural strength
governed. Tables include minimum and maximum design axial load ratios
determined for each wall (based on the net cross-sectional area), nominal wall
thickness, nominal specified masonry compressive strength, shear and flexural
demands, nominal shear and flexural capacities, and horizontal and vertical
reinforcing steel quantities.

Plan sections showing wall reinforcing patterns at the base of each wall are provided
in Figures A-3 through A-6. When different bars sizes were necessary, larger bars

A-4 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

were placed closer to the ends of the wall. When the number of bars is reduced in the
upper stories, bars were placed to keep the bar spacing as uniform as possible.

Table A-4 1-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)

High/Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.008 - 0.022

1 8 1.5 1,551 0.00113 8#5 1,837 254 0.00085 #5@48" 272

Table A-5 2-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)

High Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.025 - 0.053

1, 2 8 2.5 3,685 0.00082 12#4 4,416 567 0.00180 #6@32" 569
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.007 - 0.014
1, 2 8 2.5 3,685 0.00127 12#5 3,755 382 0.00082 #4@32" 443

Table A-6 4-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)

High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.042 - 0.092

1, 2 8 3.0 6,342 0.00082 12#4 6,899 544 0.00127 #5@32" 543
3, 4 8 3.0 2,229 0.00082 12#4 4,460 367 0.00127 #5@32" 573
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.007 - 0.014
1, 2 8 2.0 6,342 0.00246 12#7 6,849 387 0.00180 #6@32" 421
3, 4 8 2.0 2,229 0.00127 12#5 3,708 261 0.00082 #4@32" 411

Table A-7 8-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)

High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.103 - 0.224

1, 2 8 2.5 10,579 0.00127 12#5 11,813 455 0.00082 #4@32" 468
3, 4 8 2.5 6,873 0.00127 12#5 9,860 421 0.00082 #4@32" 468
5, 6 8 1.5 3,562 0.00127 12#5 7,159 295 0.00082 #4@32" 407
7, 8 8 1.5 1,107 0.00127 12#5 5,180 163 0.00082 #4@32" 425
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.034 - 0.072
1, 2 8 2.0 10,579 0.00410 12#9 10,948 318 0.00082 #4@32" 378
3, 4 8 2.0 6,873 0.00246 12#7 7,405 294 0.00082 #4@32" 356
5, 6 8 1.5 3,562 0.00127 12#5 4,238 231 0.00082 #4@32" 333
7, 8 8 1.5 1,107 0.00127 12#5 3,641 128 0.00082 #4@32" 369

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-5

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table A-8 12-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.092 - 0.199
1, 2 12 3.0 20,462 0.00167 12x2#5 20,560 526 0.00107 2x#4@32" 782
3, 4 12 3.0 15,661 0.00108 12x2#4 16,691 512 0.00107 2x#4@32" 782
5, 6 12 2.0 11,046 0.00108 12x2#4 13,568 472 0.00107 2x#4@32" 639
7, 8 12 2.0 6,869 0.00108 12x2#4 11,395 400 0.00107 2x#4@32" 639
9, 10 12 2.0 3,422 0.00108 12x2#4 9,044 295 0.00107 2x#4@32" 707
11, 12 12 2.0 1,019 0.00108 12x2#4 6,523 154 0.00107 2x#4@32" 712
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.029 - 0.064
6x2#8
1, 2 12 3.0 20,462 0.00481 20,831 415 0.00072 2x#4@48" 688
10x2#7
4x2#7
3, 4 12 3.0 15,661 0.00344 16,076 404 0.00072 2x#4@48" 659
12x2#6
2x2#6
5, 6 12 2.0 11,046 0.00234 11,339 372 0.00072 2x#4@48" 549
14x2#5
7, 8 12 2.0 6,869 0.00143 16x2#4 7,704 316 0.00072 2x#4@48" 518
9, 10 12 2.0 3,422 0.00143 16x2#4 6,904 233 0.00072 2x#4@48" 550
11, 12 12 2.0 1,019 0.00143 16x2#4 6,088 121 0.00072 2x#4@48" 617

A-6 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

8#5 Vert.

1 STORY BUILDING

12#4 Vert.
2 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

12#5 Vert.
2 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

12#4 Vert.
4 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

12#7 Vert.
4 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

12#5 Vert.
8 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

12#9 Vert.
8 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

12x2#5 Vert.
12 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

6x2#8+10x2#7 Vert.
12 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

Figure A-3 Plan sections of fully-grouted special reinforced masonry shear

walls, SDC Dmax.

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-7

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table A-9 1-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High/Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.008 - 0.015
1 8 2.0 2,107 0.00137 4#6,4#5 2,214 290 0.00085 #5@48” 304

Table A-10 2-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.035 - 0.062
1,2 8 2.0 3,169 0.00082 12#4 4,674 486 0.00127 #5@32" 487
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.013 - 0.022
1,2 8 2.0 3,169 0.00105 6#5,6#4 3,235 320 0.00127 #5@32" 391

Table A-11 4-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.048 - 0.085
1, 2 8 3.0 7,198 0.00082 12#4 7,550 534 0.00127 #5@32" 542
3, 4 8 3.0 2,551 0.00082 12#4 4,793 363 0.00127 #5@32" 568
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.019 - 0.034
2#8
1, 2 8 2.0 7,198 0.00259 7,298 389 0.00180 #6@32" 418
10#7
3, 4 8 2.0 2,551 0.00106 12#5 3,797 265 0.00109 #4@24" 428

Table A-12 8-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.098 - 0.174
1, 2 8 3 10,357 0.00082 12#4 12,466 381 0.00127 #5@32" 513
3, 4 8 2 6,770 0.00082 12#4 9,488 353 0.00127 #5@32" 419
5, 6 8 1.5 3,549 0.00082 12#4 6,913 281 0.00127 #5@32" 471
7, 8 8 1.5 1,133 0.00082 12#4 4,554 159 0.00127 #5@32" 450
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.038 - 0.067
1, 2 8 2.0 10,357 0.00410 12#9 11,128 307 0.00082 #4@32" 372
3, 4 8 1.5 6,770 0.00246 12#7 7,316 284 0.00082 #4@32" 320
5, 6 8 1.5 3,549 0.00127 12#5 4,402 226 0.00082 #4@32" 328
7, 8 8 1.5 1,133 0.00127 12#5 3,728 128 0.00082 #4@32" 363

A-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table A-13 12-Story Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Dmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.106 - 0.186
1, 2 12 3.0 18,399 0.00108 12x2#4 20,697 482 0.00108 2#4@32" 782
3, 4 12 2.0 14,129 0.00108 12x2#4 16,887 439 0.00108 2#4@32" 639
5, 6 12 2.0 10,015 0.00108 12x2#4 14,714 406 0.00108 2#4@32" 639
7, 8 12 2.0 6,276 0.00108 12x2#4 12,322 346 0.00108 2#4@32" 639
9, 10 12 2.0 3,167 0.00108 12x2#4 9,710 258 0.00108 2#4@32" 691
11, 12 12 2.0 974 0.00108 12x2#4 6,871 138 0.00108 2#4@32" 703
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.050 - 0.090
1, 2 12 2.0 18,399 0.00430 16x2#7 18,439 343 0.00072 2#4@48" 596
3, 4 12 2.0 14,129 0.00315 16x2#6 14,801 335 0.00072 2#4@48" 569
5, 6 12 2.0 10,015 0.00222 16x2#5 11,360 309 0.00072 2#4@48" 542
7, 8 12 2.0 6,276 0.00143 16x2#4 8,043 264 0.00072 2#4@48" 513
9, 10 12 2.0 3,167 0.00143 16x2#4 7,134 197 0.00072 2#4@48" 542
11, 12 12 2.0 974 0.00143 16x2#4 6,206 106 0.00072 2#4@48" 612

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-9

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

4#6 + 4#5 Vert.

1 STORY BUILDING

12#4 Vert.
2 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

6#5 + 6#4 Vert.

2 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

12#4 Vert.
4 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

2#8 -10#7 Vert.

4 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

12#4 Vert.
8 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

12#9 Vert.
8 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

12x2#4 Vert.
12 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

16x2#7 Vert.
12 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

Figure A-4 Plan sections of fully-grouted special reinforced masonry shear

walls, SDC Dmin.

A-10 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table A-14 1-Story Ordinary Reinforced-Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High/Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.016 - 0.029
1 8 1.5 954 0.00057 4#5 1,064 80 0.000219 #4@120" 133

Table A-15 2-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.079 – 0.139
1, 2 8 1.5 3,382 0.00056 4#5,2#4 3,445 208 0.00021 #4@120" 208
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.012 - 0.023
1, 2 8 2.0 3,382 0.00136 2#8,4#7 3,642 208 0.00052 #4@48" 226

Table A-16 4-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.107 - 0.190
1, 2 10 2.0 4,592 0.00033 6#4 5,315 157 0.00017 #4@120" 255
3, 4 10 1.5 1,616 0.00033 6#4 3,281 106 0.00017 #4@120" 237
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.025 - 0.040
1, 2 8 2.0 4,515 0.00176 2#9,4#8 4,811 155 0.00021 #4@120" 170
3, 4 8 2.0 1,591 0.00049 2#5,4#4 1,756 105 0.00021 #4@120" 206

Table A-17 8-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.130 - 0.231
1, 2 12 3 7,633 0.00027 6#4 9,722 134 0.00014 #4@120" 371
3, 4 12 2.5 4,975 0.00027 6#4 7,674 125 0.00014 #4@120" 329
5, 6 12 2.0 2,590 0.00027 6#4 5,552 99 0.00014 #4@120" 291
7, 8 12 2.0 813 0.00027 6#4 3,553 55 0.00014 #4@120" 296
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.037 - 0.068
1, 2 10 2.5 7,506 0.00217 8#9 7,760 132 0.00017 #4@120" 226
3, 4 10 2.0 4,892 0.00130 8#7 5157 122 0.00017 #4@120" 199
5, 6 10 2.0 2,549 0.00067 8#5 3,169 97 0.00017 #4@120" 212
7, 8 10 2.0 801 0.00043 8#4 1,964 54 0.00017 #4@120" 247

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-11

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table A-18 12-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmax
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.124 – 0.219
1, 2 16 3.0 14,878 0.00053 16#4 16,700 174 0.00011 2#3@120" 636
3, 4 16 3.0 11,407 0.00053 16#4 15,011 170 0.00011 2#3@120" 600
5, 6 16 2.0 7,643 0.00027 8#4 9,745 148 0.00011 2#3@120" 434
7, 8 16 2.0 4,772 0.00027 8#4 8,310 126 0.00011 2#3@120" 391
9, 10 16 2.0 2,391 0.00027 8#4 6,432 94 0.00011 2#3@120" 385
11, 12 16 2.0 722 0.00027 8#4 4,078 49 0.00011 2#3@120" 406
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.036 - 0.065
1, 2 16 3.0 14,878 0.00320 16x2#7 17,286 174 0.00011 2#3@120" 452
3, 4 16 3.0 11,407 0.00235 16x2#6 14,047 170 0.00011 2#3@120" 439
5, 6 16 2.0 7,643 0.00117 8x2#6 7,835 146 0.00011 2#3@120" 307
7, 8 16 2.0 4,772 0.00083 8x2#5 5,945 126 0.00011 2#3@120" 296
9, 10 16 2.0 2,391 0.00053 8x2#4 4,143 94 0.00011 2#3@120" 323
11, 12 16 2.0 722 0.00053 8x2#4 3,458 49 0.00011 2#3@120" 376

A-12 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

#5 #5 #5 #5
1 STORY BUILDING

#5 #4 #4 #4 #4 #5
2 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

#8 #7 #7 #7 #7 #8
2 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

#4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4
4 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

#9 #8 #8 #8 #8 #9
4 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

#4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4
8 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

#9 #9 #9 #9 #9 #9 #9 #9

8 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

#4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4

12 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7

12 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

Figure A-5 Plan sections of partially-grouted ordinary reinforced masonry shear

walls, SDC Cmax.

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-13

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table A-19 1-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High/Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.017 - 0.029
1 8 1.5 1,571 0.00109 4#7 1,728 131 0.00021 #4@120" 133

Table A-20 2-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm = 0.082 - 0.135
1, 2 8 1.5 3,352 0.00048 2#5,4#4 3,412 206 0.00021 #4@120" 210
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.013 - 0.022
1, 2 8 2.0 3,352 0.00123 6#7 3,382 206 0.00021 #4@120" 226

Table A-21 4-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.103 – 0.169
1, 2 8 2.5 5,416 0.00041 6#4 5,690 184 0.00021 #4@120" 252
3, 4 8 1.5 1,927 0.00041 6#4 3,263 126 0.00021 #4@120" 213
Low Axial Load, Pu /Anf'm= 0.021 - 0.035
1, 2 8 2.5 5,416 0.00205 6#9 5,524 184 0.00021 #4@120" 186
3, 4 8 1.5 1,927 0.00064 6#5 2,080 126 0.00021 #4@120" 182

Table A-22 8-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.135 - 0.225
1, 2 12 3.0 8,042 0.00027 6#4 9,951 140 0.00014 #4@120" 371
3, 4 12 2.0 5,264 0.00027 6#4 7,165 131 0.00014 #4@120" 303
5, 6 12 1.5 2,762 0.00027 6#4 5,193 104 0.00014 #4@120" 267
7, 8 12 1.5 880 0.00027 6#4 3,455 59 0.00014 #4@120" 265
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.032 - 0.055
1, 2 10 3.0 7,963 0.00216 8#9 8,091 139 0.00017 #4@120" 245
3, 4 10 2.0 5,213 0.00130 8#7 5,215 129 0.00017 #4@120" 200
5, 6 10 2.0 2,731 0.00067 8#5 3,213 103 0.00017 #4@120" 212
7, 8 10 2.0 872 0.00043 8#4 1,989 58 0.00017 #4@120" 247

A-14 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table A-23 12-Story Ordinary Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Designs, SDC Cmin
t f'm Mu Vert. φMn Vu Horiz. φVn
Story ρv ρh
(in.) (ksi) (kip-ft) Reinf. (kip-ft) (kips) Reinf. (kips)
High Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.139 - 0.230
1, 2 16 3.0 12,444 0.00040 12#4 1,5909 144 0.00010 #4@120" 584
3, 4 16 3.0 9,567 0.00040 12#4 14,326 141 0.00010 #4@120" 575
5, 6 16 2.0 6,594 0.00020 6#4 9,195 127 0.00010 #4@120" 413
7, 8 16 2.0 4,138 0.00020 6#4 8,069 109 0.00010 #4@120" 382
9, 10 16 2.0 2,089 0.00020 6#4 6,205 81 0.00010 #4@120" 371
11, 12 16 2.0 640 0.00020 6#4 3,887 43 0.00010 #4@120" 388
Low Axial Load, Pu/Anf'm = 0.038 - 0.065
1, 2 16 3.0 12,444 0.00240 12x2#7 14,377 144 0.00011 2#3@120" 421
3, 4 16 3.0 9,567 0.00176 12x2#6 11,656 141 0.00011 2#3@120" 409
5, 6 16 2.0 6,594 0.00088 6x2#6 6,704 127 0.00011 2#3@120" 296
7, 8 16 2.0 4,138 0.00040 6x2#4 4,284 109 0.00011 2#3@120" 284
9, 10 16 2.0 2,089 0.00040 6x2#4 3,592 81 0.00011 2#3@120" 308
11, 12 16 2.0 640 0.00040 6x2#4 2,837 43 0.00011 2#3@120" 358

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-15

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

#7 #7 #7 #7
1 STORY BUILDING

#5 #4 #4 #4 #4 #5
2 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

#7 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7
2 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

#4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4
4 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

#9 #9 #9 #9 #9 #9
4 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

#4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4
8 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

#9 #9 #9 #9 #9 #9 #9 #9

8 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

#4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4

12 STORY BUILDING, HIGH AXIAL LOAD

2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7 2#7

12 STORY BUILDING, LOW AXIAL LOAD

Figure A-6 Plan sections of partially-grouted ordinary reinforced masonry shear
walls, SDC Cmin.

A.5 Calibration of Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Models

In displacement-based beam-column elements with distributed plasticity and strain-

softening material laws, there is a potential for strain localization to occur. This
phenomenon can lead to numerical results that are sensitive to the length of the
element in which the plastic strain is localized. To circumvent this problem, the
reference material stress-strain relations should be modified according to the element
size to obtain realistic total fracture-energy dissipation. This modification is called
regularization, which ensures that the numerical solution will be objective and not
sensitive to element size.

A-16 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Regularization can be achieved by determining εr according to the following formula

(Coleman and Spacone, 2001).
Gmf 0.8 f m′
ε r= − +εp (A-1)
0.6 f m′ Le Em

in which f m′ is the compressive strength of masonry, εp is the strain at the peak stress,
and Em is the modulus of elasticity, which is assumed to remain the same during
loading and unloading even though it is not exactly the case for the material model
used here. With the Kent-Park model, Em = 667 f m′ .

The fracture energy Gmf is to be determined from the effective plastic-hinge length Lp
of the wall and the reference material model shown in Figure 3-5 by means of the
following equation.
0.48 f m′2 L p
Gmf = 0.6(0.01 − ε p ) f m′ L p + (A-2)
Em

As to the steel stress-strain law, it is important to maintain the objectivity of the bar
fracture and buckling as a function of the total wall rotation in a plastic-hinge region.
To this end, the fracture strain, εu, and the strain, εo, at which the tensile strength
reaches zero, as shown in Figure 3-6a, are to be determined according to the ratio of
the element length to the effective plastic-hinge length as follows.
Lp
ε y + ( 0.05 − ε y )
εu = (A-3)
Le
0.05 L p
ε=
o εu + (A-4)
Le

The above equations retain the objectivity of the rate of tensile stress gain in the
strain hardening regime and the bar rupture point as the element size changes. When
the length ratio is one, the values shown in Figure 3-6a are recovered. Since the
compressive strain signifying the onset of bar buckling is set equal to the strain at
which the masonry compressive strength drops to 40% of the peak value, it will
change with the εr value for masonry as Le changes to maintain the objectivity of the
bar buckling point.

A.6 Supplemental Model Validation Studies

This section presents the results from additional validation studies on reinforced
masonry shear wall modes. Figure A-7 compares the experimental and numerical
results for a two-story coupled wall system (Specimen 2a) tested by Merryman et al.
(1990). The specimen consisted of two walls coupled by a reinforced concrete slab at
each level. The coupling slabs are modeled with beam-column elements with
concentrated plastic hinges at the two ends. The effective bending width of the slabs

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-17

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

is based on the value suggested in the report by Merryman et al. It can be seen from
the figure that the numerical result matches the test result well.

Another analysis has been conducted on a wall (Specimen 6) tested by Shedid et al.
(2008). It is a cantilever wall with a height/length ratio equal to 2 and an axial load
ratio of 0.10. Figure A-8 shows that both the strength and hysteretic behavior are
well captured by the model.

(a)

120

(b)
80

40
base shear (kip)

0
-2.50 -1.25 0.00 1.25 2.50

-40

-80

-120
top disp. (in)

Figure A-7 Lateral load vs. lateral displacement hysteretic curves for Specimen
2a tested by Merryman et al.; (a) experimental; (b) analytical model.

A-18 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

(a)

800

600

400
lateral force (kN)

200

0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-200

-400

(b) -600

-800
top displacement (mm)

Figure A-8 Lateral load-vs.-lateral displacement hysteretic curves for Specimen

6 tested by Shedid et al.; (a) experimental; (b) analytical model.

Figure A-9 shows the experimental and numerical results for a single-story, one-third
scale, partially-grouted, wall tested by Ghanem et al. (1992). The specimen was
subjected to a monotonically increasing lateral displacement, and exhibited a flexure-
dominated behavior. The analysis agrees with the test result well, especially in terms
of the initial stiffness and the softening behavior.

GCR 10-917-8 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry A-19

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

5
4.5
4
3.5

lateral force (kips)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1 analysis
test
0.5
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
top displacement (in)

Figure A-9 Lateral load-vs.-lateral displacement curves for a wall tested by

Ghanem et al.

A-20 A: Design Details of Reinforced-Masonry GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Appendix B
Design Details of Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall Archetypes

This appendix presents detailed design information for reinforced concrete shear wall
archetypes considered in Chapter 4. Design loads and other requirements that were
used as a basis for design of special RCSW and ordinary RCSW archetypes are
described, and the resulting plan configurations, wall sections, and reinforcing
patterns at each floor level for each archetype are summarized. Results of modeling
sensitivity studies and an investigation of axial failure criteria are presented.

B.1 Introduction

Index archetypes for special RCSW and ordinary RCSW systems were designed in
accordance with design requirements contained within ACI 318-08, Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI, 2008a), and ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2006). Test data were used
to support the designs, as necessary.

B.2 Material Properties and Gravity Loads

Material properties for concrete and reinforcing steel are summarized in Table B-1.
Concrete was assumed to be normal weight concrete (150 pcf), and wall thicknesses
varied between 10 inches and 16 inches. Floor and roof systems were assumed to
consist of cast-in-place concrete slabs on a building frame system. Gravity load
assumptions are summarized in Table B-2.

Table B-1 Material Properties for Special RCSW and Ordinary

RCSW Archetypes
Material Properties

Concrete f’c=5000 psi

Steel Reinforcing fy=60,000 psi

Table B-2 Gravity Load Assumptions for Special RCSW and

Ordinary RCSW Archetypes
Load Value
Typical Dead Load 150 psf
Typical Live Load 50 psf

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-1

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft
B.3 Structural Configurations

A rectangular configuration with two walls resisting lateral forces in each direction
was selected as representative of non-bearing shear walls in a building frame system.
Story heights were taken as 13 feet in the first story and 12 feet in other stories. To
avoid biasing of performance evaluation results with excessive overstrength, the size
of the floor plan and length of shear walls in each direction were adjusted in each
archetype to suit the level of seismic design loading, and to achieve certain design
objectives. Archetypes were configured to maximize the shear stress in the wall
sections and to investigate both shear-controlled and flexural-controlled behavior.

Configurations are summarized in Table B-3 for special RCSW archetypes and Table
B-4 for ordinary RCSW archetypes. For each archetype, the resulting design axial
load ratio, shear stress, and shear capacity to demand ratio are reported.

Table B-3 Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Configurations

Plan Axial Shear
Archetype No. of Lw tw
SDC Dimensions Load Stress φVn/Vu
ID Stories (ft) (in)
(ft x ft) (Agf’c) (√f’c)
1 1 Dmax 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 7.9 1.2
2 2 Dmax 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 7.9 1.2
3 4 Dmax 150 x 140 24 12 0.2 4.3 1.1
4 8 Dmax 110 x 100 32 14 0.2 2.0 1.65
5 12 Dmax 105 x 100 41 16 0.2 1.5 2.1
6 1 Dmin 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 4.0 1.03
7 2 Dmin 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 3.9 1.03
8 4 Dmin 150 x 140 24 12 0.2 1.7 2.0
9 8 Dmin 110 x 100 32 14 0.2 0.7 4.95
10 12 Dmin 105 x 100 41 16 0.2 0.5 6.4
11 1 Dmax 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 7.9 1.17
12 2 Dmax 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 7.9 1.17
13 4 Dmax 150 x 140 24 12 0.075 4.3 1.1
14 8 Dmax 110 x100 32 14 0.075 2.0 1.65
15 12 Dmax 105 x 100 41 16 0.075 1.5 2.13
16 1 Dmin 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 4.0 1.03
17 2 Dmin 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 3.9 1.03
18 4 Dmin 150 x 140 24 12 0.075 1.7 2.0
19 8 Dmin 110 x 100 32 14 0.075 0.7 4.95
20 12 Dmin 105 x 100 41 16 0.075 0.5 6.37

B-2 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft
Table B-4 Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Archetype Configurations
Plan Axial Shear
Archetype No. of Lw tw
SDC Dimensions Load Stress φVn/Vu
ID Stories (ft) (in)
(ft x ft) (Agf’c) (√f’c)
21 1 Cmax 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 4.7 1.15
22 2 Cmax 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 4.7 1.15
23 4 Cmax 150 x 140 41 16 0.2 2.0 1.05
24 8 Cmax 110 x 100 32 14 0.2 0.8 3.3
25 12 Cmax 105 x 100 32 14 0.2 0.6 4.25
26 1 Cmin 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 3.2 1.1
27 2 Cmin 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 3.2 1.0
28 4 Cmin 150 x 140 24 12 0.2 1.3 2.0
29 8 Cmin 110 x 100 32 14 0.2 0.8 3.3
30 12 Cmin 105 x 100 41 16 0.2 0.6 4.25
31 1 Cmax 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 4.7 1.15
32 2 Cmax 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 4.7 1.15
33 4 Cmax 150 x 140 24 12 0.075 2.0 1.3
34 8 Cmax 110 x 100 32 14 0.075 0.8 3.3
35 12 Cmax 105 x 100 41 16 0.075 0.6 4.25
36 1 Cmin 400 x 350 26 10 0.075 3.2 1.1
37 2 Cmin 280 x 240 25 10 0.075 3.2 1.0
38 4 Cmin 150 x 140 24 12 0.075 1.3 2.0
39 8 Cmin 110 x 100 32 14 0.075 0.5 5.0
40 12 Cmin 105 x 100 41 16 0.075 0.4 6.4

B.4 Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Shear wall design base shear and moment demands were calculated based on the
equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure. Axial loads were assumed to be the result
of the axial load combination that created the highest demand. Wall reinforcement
was determined through axial load-moment interaction, using the BIAX software
program (Wallace, 1989). An example P-M interaction diagram for Archetype 12 is
shown in Figure B-1.

A displacement-based approach was used to determine the need for special boundary
elements. The approach was based on the procedure in ACI 318-08, which requires
compression zones to be reinforced with special boundary elements when:
lw
c≥ (B-1)
600(δ u / hw )

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-3

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

where c is the largest neutral axis depth calculated for the factored axial force and
nominal moment strength consistent with the design displacement δu, calculated by
summing the roof deflections caused by lateral forces acting at each level.

20000
φ =1.0
0.65 ≤ φ ≤ 0.90
16000 1.2DL + 0.5LL + 1.0E
0.9DL + 1.0E
12000 1.2DL + 1.6LL
P (k)

8000

4000

-4000

0 15000 30000 45000 60000

M (k-ft)
Figure B-1 Axial load–moment (P-M) interaction diagram for Archetype 12.

An example shear wall section with boundary element reinforcing is shown in Figure
B-2. The figure shows the dimensions and resulting reinforcing for Archetype 12.
Shear wall design parameters for all archetypes are summarized in Table B-5 through
Table B-14 by Archetype ID, ductility classification (special versus ordinary), and
Seismic Design Category (Dmax, Dmin, Cmax, and Cmin). In the tables, typical web
reinforcing size and spacing are shown. Number and size of longitudinal boundary
element reinforcing are shown when boundary elements are required.

Figure B-2 Example shear wall section with boundary element reinforcing.

B-4 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table B-5 1-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement

1 Dmax 1 #6 @ 8” -
6 Dmin 1 #5 @ 14” -
11 Dmax 1 #6 @ 8” -
16 Dmin 1 #5 @ 14” -

Table B-6 2-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement

2 Dmax 1, 2 #6 @ 8” -
7 Dmin 1, 2 #4 @ 14” 10#6
12 Dmax 1, 2 #4 @ 10” 14#11
17 Dmin 1, 2 #4 @ 14” -

Table B-7 4-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement

1, 2 #5 @ 10” 12#9
3 Dmax
3, 4 #5 @ 18” -
1, 2 #5 @ 18” 8#5
8 Dmin
3, 4 #5 @ 18” -
1, 2 #5 @ 10” 14#11
13 Dmax
3, 4 #5 @ 18” -
1, 2 #5 @ 18” -
18 Dmin
3, 4 #5 @ 18” -

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-5

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table B-8 8-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement
1, 2 #4 @ 10" 16#4
3, 4 #4 @ 10" 16#4
4 Dmax
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
9 Dmin
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" 14#11
3, 4 #4 @ 10" 8#11
14 Dmax
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
19 Dmin
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐

Table B-9 12-Story Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement
1, 2 #4 @ 10" 20#4
3, 4 #4 @ 10" 16#4
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
5 Dmax
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11, 12 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
10 Dmin
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11, 12 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" 12#11
3, 4 #4 @ 10" 8#11
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
15 Dmax
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11, 12 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
20 Dmin
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11, 12 #4 @ 10" ‐

B-6 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table B-10 1-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement

21 Dmax 1 #6 @ 8" ‐
26 Dmin 1 #6 @ 14" ‐
31 Dmax 1 #6 @ 8" ‐
36 Dmin 1 #6 @ 14" ‐

Table B-11 2-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement

22 Dmax 1, 2 #6 @ 8" ‐
27 Dmin 1, 2 #6 @ 16" ‐
32 Dmax 1, 2 #6 @ 8" ‐
37 Dmin 1, 2 #6 @ 16" ‐

Table B-12 4-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement

1, 2 #4 @ 12" ‐
23 Dmax
3, 4 #4 @ 12" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 12" ‐
28 Dmin
3, 4 #4 @ 12" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 12" ‐
33 Dmax
3, 4 #4 @ 12" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 12" ‐
38 Dmin
3, 4 #4 @ 12" ‐

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-7

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table B-13 8-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
24 Dmax
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
29 Dmin
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
34 Dmax
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
39 Dmin
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐

Table B-14 12-Story Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Designs

Archetype Web Boundary
SDC Story
ID Reinforcement Reinforcement
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
25 Dmax
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11o 12 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3,4 #4 @ 10" ‐
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
30 Dmin
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11, 12 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
35 Dmax
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11, 12 #4 @ 10" ‐
1, 2 #4 @ 10" ‐
3, 4 #4 @ 10" ‐
5, 6 #4 @ 10" ‐
40 Dmin
7, 8 #4 @ 10" ‐
9, 10 #4 @ 10" ‐
11, 12 #4 @ 10" ‐

B-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft
B.5 Model Sensitivity Studies

Model sensitivity studies were conducted on each archetype to determine the most
reliable model configurations (i.e., the number of elements and integration points) to
minimize the impact of modeling parameters on the results. Pushover analyses using
different element configurations and number of integration points were conducted,
and the resulting curvatures and roof displacements were compared with estimates
obtained using commonly employed “rules” to ensure that predicted results did not
substantially deviate from expected results (within +/-15%), unless the variation
could be justified. Using one such rule, the displacement at the top of a wall can be
written as:
11 l
δu
= ϕ y hw 2 + (ϕu − ϕ y )l p (hw − p ) (B-2)
40 2

where δu is the ultimate displacement, φy and φu are the yield and ultimate curvatures,
hw is the wall height, and lp is the plastic hinge length. Estimated plastic hinge
lengths and number of elements per story are summarized in Table B-15.

Table B-15 Estimated Plastic Hinge Lengths and Number of Elements Per Story
Number of Plastic hinge length Number of Elements Element length
stories (inches) per Story (inches)
1 Lw/6 = 52 2 78
1 2
2 Lw/4 = 75 2 78 and 72
1 2
4 Lw/ 2 = 144 1 156 and 144
1 2
8 Lw/2 = 192 1 156 and 144
1 2
12 Lw/2 = 246 1 156 and 144
1 Element length in the first story
2 Element length in other stories

The most reliable results are obtained when element lengths (heights) are close to the
expected length of the plastic hinge. Based on this approach, two elements per story
were investigated for the 1- and 2-story walls, and one element per story was
investigated for the 4-, 8-, and 12-story walls. Curvature values obtained from the
analyses were compared with estimates based on an assumed plastic hinge length and
Equation B-2. Results for the one-story archetypes are provided in Table B-16.

Results show that increasing the number of integration points from 3 to 5 leads to an
increase in curvature at high drift ratios. Although the use of more elements led to
better curvature approximations at lower drift values, deviations from estimated
curvature values were observed at higher drift ratios, where failures occur, which was
considered more important for this study. Based on these results, two elements and
three integration points were used for the one-story archetypes.

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-9

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft
Table B-16 Results of Sensitivity Studies for 1-story Archetype

Drift Estimated Analysis Analysis Element

(%) Curvature (3 points) (5 points) Assembly

2 equal-length elements per story

0.32 7.41E-05 2.91E-05 2.91E-05
0.64 1.48E-04 8.48E-05 8.44E-05
0.80 1.85E-04 1.17E-04 1.17E-04
0.96 2.22E-04 1.52E-04 1.56E-04
1.28 2.96E-04 2.49E-04 2.82E-04
3 equal-length elements per story
0.32 7.41E-05 3.80E-05 3.78E-05
0.64 1.48E-04 1.11E-04 1.11E-04
0.80 1.85E-04 1.57E-04 1.59E-04
0.96 2.22E-04 2.26E-04 2.46E-04
1.28 2.96E-04 3.83E-04 4.40E-04
4 equal-length elements per story
0.32 7.41E-05 4.36E-05 4.36E-05
0.64 1.48E-04 1.37E-04 1.38E-04
0.80 1.85E-04 2.10E-04 2.28E-04
0.96 2.22E-04 3.26E-04 3.72E-04
1.28 2.96E-04 5.25E-04 6.21E-04

Similar results were observed for the 2-story archetypes, where the use of two
elements per story was necessary for capturing nonlinear behavior. One element per
story was used for the 4-, 8-, and 12-story archetypes, since estimated plastic hinge
lengths were large enough to justify this modeling assumption. Use of a Multiple-
Vertical-Line-Element (MVLE) model, which averages strain values over a specified
element length, would have been a preferred modeling approach; however, the
MVLE model implemented in OpenSees does not work for dynamic loading.

B.6 Axial Failure Model

An axial failure model was applied to all archetypes to estimate the drift ratio at axial
failure. According to the model, axial load capacity of a shear critical column can be
investigated using a shear friction model, where the axial load supported by a column
must be transferred across the diagonal crack plane through shear friction (Figure
B-3).

Axial load failure is assumed to result from sliding along the critical crack plane
when the shear friction demand exceeds the shear friction capacity. Equilibrium of
forces in horizontal and vertical directions in leads to the following equations:

dc
P = N cos θ + Vsf sin θ + Ps , web (B-3)
sh

B-10 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft
h
N sin θ = Vsf cos θ + Ast f st − Vr (B-4)
sv

where, θ is the critical crack angle relative to the horizontal, sh = horizontal spacing of
the vertical web bars, sv = vertical spacing of the horizontal web bars, dc = depth of
the core measured center line to center line of the ties, Ps,web = axial load supported by
a single vertical web bar, h = height of the wall, and Vr = residual shear force.

The shear friction force transferred across the crack, Vsf, is dependent upon the
normal force, N, and an effective coefficient of friction, μ as:

Vsf = µ N (B-5)

Figure B-3 Cracked pier free-body diagram (Wallace et al., 2008)

The critical crack angle, θ, is defined relative to the horizontal, based on the wall
geometry as indicated in Figure B-4.

Figure B-4 Wall pier geometry and critical crack angles (Wallace et al., 2008).

Substitution of Equation B-5 into Equations B-3 and B-4 yields Equation B-6, which
states that the total axial load, Pt, is the summation of the axial load carried by shear
friction and the axial load carried by the web reinforcement.

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-11

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

 As f yt h   1 + µ tan θ 
Pt =−
 Vr    + nbars , web Ps , web (B-6)
 sv   tan θ − µ 

It is likely that when the axial capacity due to shear friction is reached, the axial load
is transferred to the longitudinal reinforcement as sliding begins to occur on the shear
failure plane. Elwood and Moehle (2005) referred to this as the maximum capacity
model as in Equation B-7, which was used to produce a lower estimate of the axial
load capacity.

 As f yt h   1 + µ tan θ  
=Pm max  − Vr    , nbars , web Ps , web  (B-7)
 sv   tan θ − µ  

Elwood and Moehle (2005) developed the following relationship between the
coefficient of friction and drift at axial failure based on column tests:

∆
µ=
C1 − C2   ≥ 0 (B-8)
 h  axial

where shear friction at zero drift, C1, was taken as 2.14, and C2 was taken as 25 to
achieve a close approximation to the data. Due to a lack of available test data, values
of C1 = 2.14 and C2 = 25 were used for the walls in this study. Substitution of
Equation B-8 into Equation B-7 results in the following general expression:

∆ (1 + C1 tan θ ) + ( P / C3 )(C1 − tan θ )

= (B-9)
L C2 ( P / C3 + tan θ )

where,

=C3 ( Ast f yt h / sv − Vr ) (B-10)

A graph of pier lateral drift ratio (Δ/L) versus pier properties, (Astfyth/sv)/P0, was
plotted for different critical crack angle values and axial load levels (Figure B-5), and
the corresponding drift ratios for each archetype were obtained. Since drift values
obtained from the plot were higher than deemed reasonable, lower drift values at
axial failure were selected based on judgment for each archetype. Drift ratios
obtained from the axial failure model and those selected by judgment are summarized
in Tables B-17 and B-18. Axial failure was assumed to occur if the lateral drift ratio
reached 3% in the 1- and 2-story archetypes, and 5% in the 4-, 8-, and 12-story
archetypes.

B-12 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft
0.12
µm=2.15-25(∆/h)

θ=65 P/P0=0.20
θ=45 P/P0=0.20
(Astfyth/sv)/P0

0.08 θ=25 P/P0=0.20

θ=65 P/P0=0.075
θ=45 P/P0=0.075
θ=25 P/P0=0.075

0.04

0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Pier Drift Ratio
Figure B-5 Drift ratio at axial failure for different critical crack angles and axial
load levels.

Table B-17 Modeled and Assumed Drift at Axial Failure for Special Reinforced Concrete
Shear Wall Archetypes
Drift at Axial
Archetype No. of Axial Load Drift at Axial Failure
SDC Failure - Judgment
ID Stories (Agf’c) - Model (%)
(%)
1 1 Dmax 0.075 9.6 3
2 2 Dmax 0.075 9.5 3
3 4 Dmax 0.2 5.9 5
4 8 Dmax 0.2 5.4 5
5 12 Dmax 0.2 5.4 5
6 1 Dmin 0.075 7.9 3
7 2 Dmin 0.075 6.9 3
8 4 Dmin 0.2 4.5 5
9 8 Dmin 0.2 5.4 5
10 12 Dmin 0.2 5.4 5
11 1 Dmax 0.075 9.6 3
12 2 Dmax 0.075 9.5 3
13 4 Dmax 0.075 8.1 5
14 8 Dmax 0.075 7.7 5
15 12 Dmax 0.075 7.7 5
16 1 Dmin 0.075 7.9 3
17 2 Dmin 0.075 6.9 3
18 4 Dmin 0.075 7 5
19 8 Dmin 0.075 7.7 5
20 12 Dmin 0.075 7.7 5

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-13

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

Table B-18 Modeled and Assumed Drift at Axial Failure for Ordinary Reinforced Concrete
Shear Wall Archetypes
Archetyp No. of Axial Load Drift at Axial Drift at Axial
SDC
e ID Stories (Agf’c) Failure - Model (%) Failure – Judgment (%)

21 1 Cmax 0.075 9.6 3

22 2 Cmax 0.075 9.5 3
23 4 Cmax 0.2 4.1 5
24 8 Cmax 0.2 5.4 5
25 12 Cmax 0.2 5.4 5
26 1 Cmin 0.075 8.8 3
27 2 Cmin 0.075 8.1 3
28 4 Cmin 0.2 4.1 5
29 8 Cmin 0.2 5.4 5
30 12 Cmin 0.2 5.4 5
31 1 Cmax 0.075 9.6 3
32 2 Cmax 0.075 9.5 3
33 4 Cmax 0.075 6.6 5
34 8 Cmax 0.075 7.7 5
35 12 Cmax 0.075 7.7 5
36 1 Cmin 0.075 8.8 3
37 2 Cmin 0.075 8.1 3
38 4 Cmin 0.075 6.6 5
39 8 Cmin 0.075 7.7 5
40 12 Cmin 0.075 7.7 5

Given the uncertainty associated with axial failure, two sets of analyses were
conducted on selected archetypes, and two separate ACMR values were obtained.
One set of results was generated including all failure modes (e.g., steel fracture,
concrete crushing, shear failure) along with axial failure, and the other set was
generated excluding axial failure.

Adjusted collapse margin ratio values obtained based on the axial failure criteria are
compared to the ACMR values obtained considering other failure modes in Table
B-19. The axial failure criteria generally yielded higher ACMR values for the 1- and
2-story archetypes, since the drift at axial failure (3%) is higher than the drift at shear
failure (1.5%), which was the governing failure mode for low-rise archetypes. The
axial failure criteria resulted in lower ACMR values for the 4- and 12-story
archetypes studied.

B-14 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft
Table B-19 Comparison of ACMR Values Considering All Failure Modes
and Axial Failure Modes
Archetype Axial load ACMR – all ACMR - axial
SDC
ID level modes failure

1-story Archetypes

1, 11 Dmax low/high 1.05 1.28

6, 16 Dmin low/high 1.60 1.03

21, 31 Cmax low/high 1.90 2.19

26, 36 Cmin low/high 2.51 3.03

2-story Archetypes

2, 12 Dmax low/high 1.50 2.03

7, 17 Dmin low/high 1.40 1.84

22, 32 Cmax low/high 1.63 1.88

27, 37 Cmin low/high 2.05 2.55

4- story Archetypes

13 Dmax low 2.7 2.35

12-story Archetypes

15 Dmax low 2.92

B.7 Shear Model Sensitivity Studies

Tests on lightly-reinforced wall piers by Massone (2006) indicate that diagonal

cracking occurs at roughly 2.5 to 3 f c′ , and that the uncracked shear modulus is
reasonably approximated by Gc = Ec 2(1+ν ) = 0.4Ec. Tests on cantilever walls with
rectangular cross sections by Thomsen and Wallace (1995, 2004), however, indicate
that the peak shear stress is limited by flexural yielding to only 2.3 f c′ , which is well
below the pure shear diagonal cracking shear stress value observed by Massone
(2006). Results indicate that nonlinear shear deformations occur due to coupling
between axial-bending and shear behavior, and available cyclic material models in
OpenSees do not include this coupled behavior.

A sensitivity study using tests on cantilever walls with rectangular cross sections
performed by Thomsen and Wallace (1995, 2004), was conducted to determine the
most appropriate shear backbone behavior. In this study, the cracking force (stress)
level was varied between 8 and 20 kips, and the post-crack slope was set at 0.1Ec,
0.05Ec, and 0.01Ec. Results obtained from this study are shown in Figures B-6 to B-8
for a cracking load of 12 kips. Results for post-crack stiffness of 0.1Ec and 0.05Ec
were too stiff, whereas the results for a post-crack slope 0.01Ec closely matched the
test results. These results indicate that reducing the shear modulus as shown in
Figure B-9 is necessary to account for nonlinear shear deformations.

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-15

Shear Wall Archetypes
100% Draft

-4 -2 0 2 4

40 40
Test
model
Lateral force (k) 20 Geff = 0.25Guncr= 0.1E 20

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-4 -2 0 2 4
Lateral displacement (in)
Figure B-6 Model results with an effective shear modulus of 0.1E.
-4 -2 0 2 4

40 40
Test
model
20 Geff = 0.125Guncr= 0.05E 20
Lateral force (k)

0 0

-20 -20

-40 -40

-4 -2 0 2 4
Lateral displacement (in)
Figure B-7 Model results with an effective shear modulus of 0.05E.

B-16 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete GCR 10-917-8

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
40 40
test
30 30
model
20 Geff = 0.01E = 0.025G 20
Lateral Force (k)

10 10
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Lateral Displacement (in)
Figure B-8 Model results with an effective shear modulus of 0.01E.

v@My
Shear stress (ksi)

Gcr = 0.01E
vcr

Guncr = 0.4E

γcr γy = 0.0015
Shear strain
Figure B-9 Shear model with reduced shear modulus for calibration with
specimen RW2.

GCR 10-917-8 B: Design Details of Reinforced Concrete B-17

Shear Wall Archetypes
 100% Draft

Appendix C
Design Details of Steel Braced
Frame Archetypes

This appendix presents detailed design information for steel braced frame archetypes
considered in Chapter 5. Seismic criteria, design loads, load combinations, and
related requirements that were used as a basis for design of special SCBF and BRBF
archetypes are described, and the resulting beam, column, and brace member sizes at
each floor level for each archetype are summarized.

C.1 Introduction

Index archetypes for special SCBF and BRBF systems were designed in accordance
with design requirements contained within AISC 341-05, Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, 2005a), and ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2006). Test data were used to
support the designs, as necessary. Beams, columns, and brace components were
designed in strict compliance with code requirements to avoid undue overstrength in
the system.

C.2 Material Properties and Gravity Loads

Material properties and gravity loads were based on modified values taken from Steel
TIPS reports, Design of Special Concentric Braced Frames (Cochran and Honeck,
2004) and Seismic Design of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (López and Sabelli,
2004) as well as building designs prepared for the SAC Project (Gupta and
Krawinkler, 1999).

Material properties for structural steel sections are summarized in Table C-1. Gravity
load assumptions for floor and roof dead load and live load are summarized in Table
C-2. In addition, gravity loads were determined including an average exterior curtain
wall weight of 15 psf, which includes an allowance for column and spandrel cladding.

C.3 Seismic Design Loading

Seismic Design Category (SDC) is a combination of ground motion intensity and

Occupancy Category. Occupancy Category II, with a corresponding importance
factor equal to unity was selected for the design of special SCBF and BRBF
archetypes in this study. Key seismic design parameters are summarized in Table
C-3.

GCR 10-917-8 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes C-1

100% Draft

Table C-1 Structural Materials for Special SCBF and BRBF Archetypes
Steel Section Material Properties
ASTM A992
W sections
Fy=50 ksi; Fu=65 ksi
ASTM A500 Grade B
HSS sections Fy=42 ksi; Fu=58 ksi for square tube sections
Fy=46 ksi; Fu=58 ksi for circular pipe sections
ASTM A36 or JIS G3136 SN 400B
BRB Steel Core
with supplemental yield requirements: Fysc=42 ksi
ASTM A572, Grade 50
Gusset plates
Fy=50 ksi; Fu=65 ksi
E70XX
Weld electrodes
notch toughness: 20 ft-lb at –20 degrees Fahrenheit

Table C-2 Gravity Loads for Special SCBF and BRBF Archetypes
Component Gravity Load (psf)
Roof Loading
Roofing and insulation 7
Metal deck and concrete fill 47
Steel framing and fireproofing 8
Ceiling 3
Mechanical/Electrical 2
Total Roof Loading: 67
Floor Loading
Metal deck and concrete fill 47
Steel framing and fireproofing 13
Partition walls 20
Ceiling 3
Mechanical/Electrical 2
Total Floor Loading: 85
Live Loads
Roof 20
Floor 50

C-2 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table C-3 Seismic Design Parameters for Special SCBF and BRBF
Archetypes
Parameter Value
Occupancy Category II (office)
Importance Factor 1.0
Design Spectral Acceleration at Dmax 1.0g
short periods, SDS Dmin 0.5g
Design Spectral Acceleration at Dmax 0.6g
1-second period, SD1 Dmin 0.2g
Fa 1.0
Fv 1.5
SCBF 6
R
BRBF 8
SCBF 6
Cd
BRBF 8
SCBF 2.0
Ω0
BRBF 2.5

Seismic design forces and displacements were calculated using Equivalent Lateral
Force (ELF) or the Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) procedures. The analysis
procedure was determined for each archetype per Section 12.6 in ASCE/SEI 7-05.
The ELF procedure was used in most cases, except for the 12- and 16-story
archetypes, for which the RSA procedure was used.

In ASCE/SEI 7-05 (as amended), calculation of the seismic response coefficient in

the ELF procedure is constrained by a lower bound equal to 0.044SDS, which
controlled in many of the long-period archetypes, especially the higher-rise BRBFs.

C.4 Story Drift and P-Delta Effects

The value for displacement and drift quantities were multiplied by Cd, which was
equal to R for the SCBF and BRBF archetype designs. In the RSA procedure, the
modal responses are combined using SRSS method. In accordance with ASCE/SEI
7-05, drift calculations are based on the modal base shear, Vt, for each archetype,
which can be less than 85 percent of the base shear, V, calculated using the ELF
procedure. For archetype designs that were controlled by drift, the demand was
dramatically reduced when the RSA procedure was used in lieu of the ELF procedure.

The design story drift calculated by the ELF or RSA procedure is limited by the
maximum allowable story drift in ASCE/SEI 7-05. The story drift was limited to
2.5% for 2- and 3-story archetypes, and 2.0% for 6-, 12-, and 16-story archetypes.

The P-delta effects, as evaluated per ASCE/SEI 7-05, were not expected to control
the design of braced frame archetypes for high seismic demands. In the case of

GCR 10-917-8 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes C-3

100% Draft

special SCBF and BRBF archetypes designed for SDC Dmax and SDC Dmin, low-rise
archetypes were controlled by strength, high-rise archetypes were controlled by drift,
and no archetypes were controlled by P-delta effects.

C.5 Load Combinations

The archetypes were designed in accordance with the load combinations of Section
12.4 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 and guidance provided in FEMA P-695. Archetype designs
ignored snow load, S, foundation loads, H, and wind loads, W. Where consideration
of overstrength is required to determine the seismic load effect for the design of some
structural components (e.g., columns) the overstrength factor Ω0 specified in
ASCE/SEI 7-05 was considered.

C.6 Structural Configurations

Plan configurations for special SCBF and BRBF archetypes are shown in Figures C-1
through C-3. A rectangular configuration with braced bays located around the
perimeter was chosen to minimize the potential for torsional effects. Structural
layouts of 3- and 6-story archetypes are similar to braced frames designed by others
(DASSE, 2009).

The typical floor plan is 180 feet by 120 feet. To avoid biasing of performance
evaluation results with excessive overstrength, the size and number of braced bays
were adjusted in each archetype to suit the level of seismic design loading. For 2-, 3-
and 6-story archetypes, one braced bay was used on each side of the building. For
12- and 16-story archetypes, two braced bays were used on each side of the building.
Column bay spacing was 30 feet in the typical case and 20 feet for the 2-story
archetypes.

Story heights were 15 feet in the typical case and 10 feet for the 2-story archetypes.
Bracing was arranged in a two-story X-configuration.

Figure C-1 Plan configuration of 2-story braced frame archetypes.

C-4 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Figure C-2 Plan configuration of 3-story and 6-story braced frame archetypes.

Figure C-3 Plan configuration of 12-story and 16-story braced frame archetypes.

C.7 Member Sizes

Braces were assumed to have pinned end connections, and fully-restrained

connections were assumed for the beam-column connection. The braces were
designed to resist more than 70% of the lateral forces. HSS round sections were used
in most cases for the special SCBF archetypes, except at locations where wide-flange
sections were needed because the demand were too large. Buckling-restrained braces
were sized based on the area of the steel core.

Beams were assumed to be laterally supported at quarter points along the span, and
were designed to carry the axial force from braces. For beams where the braces
intersected at mid-span, unbalanced forces due to differences in capacity of braces
above and below the beams were considered. The beams were also designed to carry
tributary gravity loads distributed along the span.

Columns were assumed to be fixed at the base and orientated to resist lateral forces in
strong-axis bending. Wide-flange (W14 and W12) sections were designed using
appropriate load combinations, including the overstrength factor, Ωo. Column sizes
were changed a maximum of every two stories, and the splices were assumed to be
above the floor level and outside any potential plastic hinge regions.

GCR 10-917-8 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes C-5

100% Draft

Column, brace, and beam member sizes at each floor for special SCBF and BRBF
archetypes are summarized in the Table C-4 through C-9.

Table C-4 Member Sizes for 2-Story Braced Frame Archetypes

Columns Braces Beams
Level
Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin
Special SCBF Archetypes
Roof W10x45 W10x30 HSS6x6x3/8 HSS6x0.25 W24x117 W18x35
2F W10x45 W10x30 HSS6x6x3/8 HSS6x0.25 W24x117 w18x50
BRBF Archetypes

Roof W10x39 W10x26 5 in2 2.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35

2F W10x39 W10x26 5 in2 2.5 in2 w18x50 W18x35

Table C-5 Member Sizes for 3-Story Braced Frame Archetypes

Columns Braces Beams
Level
Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin
Special SCBF Archetypes

Roof W12x120 W12x72 HSS8-3/4x0.312 HSS6-1/8x0.25 W30x173 W21x132

3F W12x120 W12x72 HSS8-3/4x0.5 HSS6-7/8x0.312 W21x111 W18x76

2F W12x120 W12x72 HSS9-5/8x0.5 HSS7-1/2x0.312 W18x65 W18x46

BRBF Archetypes

Roof W12x120 W14x82 3 in2 1 in2 W21x62 W21x62

3F W12x120 W14x82 5.5 in2 2 in2 W18x76 W21x55

2F W12x120 W14x82 6 in2 2 in2 W21x62 W21x62

C-6 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table C-6 Member Sizes for 6-Story Braced Frame Archetypes

Columns Braces Beams
Level
Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin
Special SCBF Archetypes
Roof W14x68 W12x53 HSS7-1/2x0.312 HSS6x0.25 W18x97 W18x76

6F W14x68 W12x53 HSS9x5/8x0.375 HSS6-5/8x0.25 W24x104 W18x76

5F W14x176 W12x106 HSS9x5/8x0.5 HSS7x0.312 W24x131 W18x76

4F W14x176 W12x106 HSS11-1/4x0.5 HSS7x0.375 W18x76 W21x68

3F W14x342 W14x159 HSS12-1/2x0.5 HSS8-3/4x0.312 W24x146 W18x86

2F W14x342 W14x159 HSS12-1/2x0.5 HSS8-3/4x0.312 W21x62 W21x62

BRBF Archetypes
Roof W14x90 W14x53 2.5 in2 1 in2 W18x76 W21x55

6F W14x90 W14x53 5 in2 1.5 in2 W21x62 W21x62

5F W14x193 W14x90 5.5 in2 1.5 in2 W18x76 W21x55

4F W14x193 W14x90 7 in2 2 in2 W21x62 W21x62

3F W14x342 W14x176 8 in2 2 in2 W18x76 W21x55

2F W14x342 W14x176 8 in2 2 in2 W21x62 W21x62

GCR 10-917-8 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes C-7

100% Draft

Table C-7 Member Sizes for 12-Story Braced Frame Archetypes

Columns Braces Beams
Level
Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin
Special SCBF Archetypes
Roof W12x45 W12x40 HSS6-5/8x0.312 HSS5x0.25 W18x55 W18x40

12F W12x45 W12x40 HSS6-5/8x0.312 HSS5x0.25 W18x35 W18x35

11F W14x99 W14x53 HSS8-3/4x0.312 HSS6-5/8x0.25 W18x60 W18x46

10F W14x99 W14x53 HSS8-3/4x0.312 HSS6-5/8x0.25 W18x35 W18x35

9F W14x193 W14x74 HSS10x0.375 HSS6-7/8x0.312 W18x65 W18x46

8F W14x193 W14x74 HSS10x0.375 HSS6-7/8x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

7F W14x283 W14x99 HSS10x0.375 HSS7x0.312 W18x65 W18x46

6F W14x283 W14x99 HSS10x0.375 HSS7x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

5F W14x398 W14x132 HSS9-5/8x0.5 HSS7x0.312 W18x71 W18x46

4F W14x398 W14x132 HSS9-5/8x0.5 HSS7x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

3F W14x550 W14x176 HSS9-5/8x0.5 HSS7x0.312 W18x71 W18x46

2F W14x550 W14x176 HSS9-5/8x0.5 HSS7x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

BRBF Archetypes
Roof W12x40 W12x40 3 in2 1.5 in2 W18x46 W18x35

12F W12x40 W12x40 3 in2 1.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35

11F W14x74 W14x61 3.5 in2 2 in2 W18x46 W18x35

10F W14x74 W14x61 3.5 in2 2 in2 W18x35 W18x35

9F W14x99 W14x74 4 in2 2.5 in2 W18x46 W18x35

8F W14x99 W14x74 4 in2 2.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35

7F W14x145 W14x90 4.5 in2 3 in2 W18x46 W18x35

6F W14x145 W14x90 4.5 in2 3 in2 W18x35 W18x35

5F W14x176 W14x120 5.5 in2 3.5 in2 W18x50 W18x35

4F W14x176 W14x120 5.5 in2 3.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35
3F W14x257 W14x176 6 in2 3.5 in2 W18x50 W18x35

2F W14x257 W14x176 6 in2 3.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35

C-8 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Table C-8 Member Sizes for 16-Story Special SCBF Archetypes

Columns Braces Beams
Level
Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin
Roof W12x45 W12x40 HSS9-5/8x0.375 HSS5x0.312 W18x65 W18x50

16F W12x45 W12x40 HSS9-5/8x0.375 HSS5x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

15F W14x82 W14x53 HSS8-5/8x0.5 HSS6x0.312 W18x71 W18x50

14F W14x82 W14x53 HSS8-5/8x0.5 HSS6x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

13F W14x120 W14x68 HSS11-1/4x0.5 HSS6x0.312 W18x86 W18x50

12F W14x120 W14x68 HSS11-1/4x0.5 HSS6x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

11F W14x176 W14x90 HSS10x0.625 HSS6x0.312 W18x86 W18x50

10F W14x176 W14x90 HSS10x0.625 HSS6x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

9F W14x233 W14x109 HSS11-1/4x0.625 HSS6-5/8x0.312 W18x97 W18x50

8F W14x233 W14x109 HSS11-1/4x0.625 HSS6-5/8x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

7F W14x283 W14x132 HSS11-1/4x0.625 HSS6-5/8x0.312 W18x97 W18x50

6F W14x283 W14x132 HSS11-1/4x0.625 HSS6-5/8x0.312 W18x35 W18x35

5F W14x342 W14x159 HSS11-1/4x0.625 HSS6-5/8x0.5 W21x93 W18x60

4F W14x342 W14x159 HSS11-1/4x0.625 HSS6-5/8x0.5 W18x35 W18x35

3F W14x370 W14x193 W12x96 HSS6-5/8x0.5 W24x146 W18x60

2F W14x370 W14x193 W12x96 HSS6-5/8x0.5 W18x35 W18x35

GCR 10-917-8 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes C-9

100% Draft

Table C-9 Member Sizes for 16-Story BRBF Archetypes

Columns Braces Beams
Level
Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin Dmax Dmin
Roof W12x40 W12x40 3 in2 1.5v W18x46 W18x35
16F W12x40 W12x40 3 in2 1.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35
15F W14x82 W14x61 3.5 in2 2.5 in2 W18x46 W18x35
14F W14x82 W14x61 3.5 in2 2.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35
13F W14x109 W14x82 4.5 in2 3 in2 W18x46 W18x35
12F W14x109 W14x82 4.5 in2 3 in2 W18x35 W18x35
11F W14x159 W14x99 4.5 in2 3 in2 W18x46 W18x35
10F W14x159 W14x99 4.5 in2 3 in2 W18x35 W18x35

9F W14x193 W14x120 5.5 in2 3.5 in2 W18x50 W18x40

8F W14x193 W14x120 5.5 in2 3.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35

7F W14x233 W14x145 6 in2 3.5 in2 W18x50 W18x40

6F W14x233 W14x145 6 in2 3.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35

5F W14x342 W14x176 6.5 in2 4 in2 W18x50 W18x40

4F W14x342 W14x176 6.5 in2 4 in2 W18x35 W18x35

3F W14x426 W14x233 7 in2 4.5 in2 W18x55 W18x40

2F W14x426 W14x233 7 in2 4.5 in2 W18x35 W18x35

C-10 C: Design Details of Steel Braced Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Appendix D
Design Details of Special Steel
Moment Frame Archetypes

This appendix presents detailed design information for special steel moment frame
(SMF) archetypes considered in Chapter 6. Seismic criteria, design loads, and other
related requirements that were used as a basis for design of special SMF archetypes
are described, and the member sizes for each archetype are summarized. In addition,
discussions regarding on P-Delta considerations and the relationship between design
and analytical models are presented.

D.1 Introduction

Index archetypes for special SMF systems were designed in accordance with design
requirements contained within AISC 341-05, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings (AISC, 2005a), AISC 358-05, Prequalified Connections for Special and
Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications (AISC, 2005b) and
ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE,
2006). Test data were used to support the designs, as necessary.

D.2 Structural Configuration

Plan configuration for special SMF archetypes is shown in Figure D-1. This plan
configuration was selected as representative of single-story and multi-story buildings.
Height of the first story is 15 feet, and height for all other stories is 13 feet. The bay
width, i.e., the centerline dimension between columns of each SMF is 20 feet.

D.3 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs

The following specific design decisions significantly affected member sizes:

• Members were designed using ASTM A992 steel, and fy = 50ksi
• The dead load is 90 psf uniformly distributed over each floor, and the cladding
load is applied as a perimeter load of 25 psf. Unreduced life load is 50 psf on all
floors and 20 psf on the roof. Wind loads were not considered.
• Whenever applicable, the minimum base shear is determined in accordance with
Supplement 2 of ASCE 7-05.
• Column splices were provided every two stories.
• End columns may be of different size than interior columns.

GCR 10-917-8 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes D-1
100% Draft

• Column size was never reduced as progressing downwards.

Tributary area for

gravity loading

Special moment frame

considered in design

Figure D-1 Typical plan view of buildings used for archetype selection.

• Unbraced column length equaled to clear story height.

• Preference was given to W24 column sections unless economic or
constructability constraints demanded a different nominal depth.
• The seismic non-compactness of several light W14 and W24 sections sometimes
caused considerable jumps in column sizes.
• All three beams at a floor level were of the same section.
• The shear design of joint panel zones was based on AISC-360 Equations J10-11
and J10-12. When doubler plates were required, the thickness is rounded up to
the nearest 1/16th of an inch.
• All connections are RBS connections designed in accordance with AISC 358-05,
using a = 0.625bf, b = 0.75db, and c = 0.250bf. Figure D-2 presents the definition
of these variables.

Figure D-2 Definition of terms for reduced beam section design.

D-2 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8
 100% Draft

The following tables summarize the special SMF designs utilized in the studies:

Table D-1 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax – ELF Design Basis (PG-1ELF)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

1-story
1 170.95 W27X102 W21X111 W21X111 4/16 1 2/16
2-story
1 164.65 W30X148 W24X131 W24X176 7/16 1 5/16
2 320.65 W16X31 W24X131 W24X176 0 0

Table D-2 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - ELF Design Basis (PG-2ELF)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

4-story
1 166.55 W24X103 W24X103 W24X131 1/16 10/16
2 322.55 W24X103 W24X103 W24X131 1/16 7/16
3 478.55 W24X76 W24X76 W24X84 1/16 8/16
4 634.55 W24X76 W24X76 W24X84 1/16 8/16
20-story
1 165.00 W40X183 W36X487 W36X652 0 0
2 321.00 W40X183 W36X487 W36X652 0 0
3 477.00 W40X362 W36X441 W36X652 0 7/16
4 633.00 W40X362 W36X441 W36X652 0 7/16
5 789.00 W40X397 W36X441 W36X652 1/16 11/16
6 945.00 W40X397 W36X441 W36X652 1/16 11/16
7 1101.00 W40X503 W36X441 W36X652 8/16 1 8/16
8 1257.00 W40X503 W36X441 W36X652 8/16 1 8/16
9 1413.00 W40X503 W36X441 W36X652 8/16 1 8/16
10 1569.00 W40X503 W36X441 W36X652 8/16 1 8/16
11 1725.00 W40X593 W36X441 W36X652 14/16 2 3/16
12 1881.00 W40X593 W36X441 W36X652 14/16 2 3/16
13 2037.00 W40X593 W36X441 W36X652 14/16 2 3/16
14 2193.00 W40X593 W36X441 W36X652 14/16 2 3/16
15 2349.00 W40X503 W36X441 W36X529 8/16 2 2/16
16 2505.00 W40X503 W36X441 W36X529 8/16 2 2/16
17 2661.00 W40X397 W36X441 W36X441 1/16 1 11/16
18 2817.00 W40X397 W36X441 W36X441 1/16 1 11/16
19 2973.00 W40X167 W36X330 W36X395 0 0
20 3129.00 W40X167 W36X330 W36X395 0 0

GCR 10-917-8 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes D-3
100% Draft

Table D-3 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - ELF Design Basis (PG-3ELF)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

1-story
1 170.95 W18X46 W14X68 W14X68 4/16 11/16

Table D-4 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - ELF Design Basis (PG-4ELF)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

2-story
1 168.05 W24X76 W18X55 W18X97 6/16 14/16
2 324.05 W12X19 W18X55 W18X97 0 0
4-story
1 166.55 W18X71 W18X86 W18X97 1/16 9/16
2 322.55 W18X86 W18X86 W18X97 3/16 8/16
3 478.55 W18X71 W18X65 W18X86 1/16 11/16
4 634.55 W18X71 W18X65 W18X86 1/16 11/16
20-story
1 165.00 W30X108 W36X302 W36X361 0 0
2 321.00 W40X183 W36X302 W36X361 0 4/16
3 477.00 W40X215 W36X247 W36X361 1/16 9/16
4 633.00 W40X215 W36X247 W36X361 1/16 9/16
5 789.00 W40X215 W36X231 W36X361 2/16 9/16
6 945.00 W40X215 W36X231 W36X361 2/16 9/16
7 1101.00 W40X277 W36X231 W36X361 6/16 1 1/16
8 1257.00 W40X277 W36X231 W36X361 6/16 1 1/16
9 1413.00 W40X277 W36X231 W36X361 6/16 1 1/16
10 1569.00 W40X277 W36X231 W36X361 6/16 1 1/16
11 1725.00 W40X297 W36X231 W36X361 8/16 1 4/16
12 1881.00 W40X297 W36X231 W36X361 8/16 1 4/16
13 2037.00 W40X297 W36X231 W36X361 8/16 1 4/16
14 2193.00 W40X297 W36X231 W36X361 8/16 1 4/16
15 2349.00 W40X264 W36X182 W36X302 8/16 1 2/16
16 2505.00 W40X264 W36X182 W36X302 8/16 1 2/16
17 2661.00 W40X211 W36X160 W36X231 4/16 1
18 2817.00 W40X211 W36X160 W36X231 4/16 1
19 2973.00 W30X108 W36X160 W36X182 0 3/16
20 3129.00 W30X108 W36X160 W36X182 0 3/16

D-4 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8
 100% Draft

Table D-5 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - RSA Design Basis (PG-1RSA)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

1-story
1 170.95 W27X102 W21X111 W21X111 4/16 1 2/16
2-story
1 164.65 W30X132 W24X131 W24X162 6/16 1 3/16
2 320.65 W16X31 W24X131 W24X162 0 0

Table D-6 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - RSA Design Basis (PG-2RSA)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

4-story
1 166.55 W21X73 W24X103 W24X103 0 5/16
2 322.55 W21X73 W24X103 W24X103 0 5/16
3 478.55 W21X57 W24X62 W24X62 0 5/16
4 634.55 W21X57 W24X62 W24X62 0 5/16
8-story
1 166.55 W30X108 W24X131 W24X162 1/16 9/16
2 322.55 W30X116 W24X131 W24X162 1/16 6/16
3 478.55 W30X116 W24X131 W24X162 1/16 11/16
4 634.55 W27X94 W24X131 W24X162 0 6/16
5 790.55 W27X94 W24X131 W24X131 0 9/16
6 946.55 W24X84 W24X131 W24X131 0 7/16
7 1102.55 W24X84 W24X94 W24X94 0 9/16
8 1258.55 W21X68 W24X94 W24X94 0 5/16
12-story
1 166.55 W30X124 W24X207 W24X207 0 8/16
2 322.55 W30X132 W24X207 W24X207 0 7/16
3 478.55 W30X132 W24X162 W24X207 1/16 10/16
4 634.55 W30X132 W24X162 W24X207 1/16 10/16
5 790.55 W30X116 W24X146 W24X176 0 10/16
6 946.55 W30X116 W24X146 W24X176 0 10/16
7 1102.55 W30X116 W24X131 W24X162 1/16 11/16
8 1258.55 W30X116 W24X131 W24X162 1/16 11/16
9 1414.55 W27X94 W24X131 W24X131 0 9/16
10 1570.55 W27X94 W24X131 W24X131 0 9/16
11 1726.55 W24X84 W24X84 W24X94 1/16 9/16
12 1882.55 W24X84 W24X84 W24X94 1/16 9/16

GCR 10-917-8 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes D-5
100% Draft

Table D-6 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmax - RSA Design Basis (PG-
2RSA) (continued)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

20-story
1 165.00 W33X169 W14X426 W24X335 0 4/16
2 321.00 W33X169 W14X426 W24X335 0 4/16
3 477.00 W33X169 W14X426 W24X335 0 4/16
4 633.00 W33X169 W14X426 W24X335 0 4/16
5 789.00 W33X169 W14X398 W24X335 0 4/16
6 945.00 W33X169 W14X398 W24X335 0 4/16
7 1101.00 W33X169 W14X370 W24X335 0 4/16
8 1257.00 W33X169 W14X370 W24X335 0 4/16
9 1413.00 W33X141 W14X311 W24X279 0 5/16
10 1569.00 W33X141 W14X311 W24X279 0 5/16
11 1725.00 W33X141 W14X283 W24X250 0 8/16
12 1881.00 W33X141 W14X283 W24X250 0 8/16
13 2037.00 W33X141 W14X233 W24X250 1/16 8/16
14 2193.00 W33X141 W14X233 W24X250 1/16 8/16
15 2349.00 W30X108 W14X159 W24X162 4/16 9/16
16 2505.00 W30X108 W14X159 W24X162 4/16 9/16
17 2661.00 W30X108 W14X132 W24X162 6/16 9/16
18 2817.00 W30X108 W14X132 W24X162 6/16 9/16
19 2973.00 W24X62 W14X132 W24X103 0 3/16
20 3129.00 W24X62 W14X132 W24X103 0 3/16

Table D-7 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - RSA Design Basis (PG-
3RSA)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

1-story
1 170.95 W18X40 W14X68 W14X68 0 8/16

D-6 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8
 100% Draft

Table D-8 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - RSA Design Basis (PG-4RSA)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

2-story
1 168.05 W24X62 W18X86 W18X86 1/16 11/16
2 324.05 W12X19 W18X86 W18X86 0 0
4-story
1 166.55 W16X57 W14X74 W14X82 2/16 11/16
2 322.55 W18X60 W14X74 W14X82 2/16 6/16
3 478.55 W18X60 W14X48 W14X74 5/16 13/16
4 634.55 W16X57 W14X48 W14X74 4/16 12/16
8-story
1 166.55 W24X55 W24X131 W24X94 0 3/16
2 322.55 W24X55 W24X131 W24X94 0 3/16
3 478.55 W24X62 W24X84 W24X94 0 4/16
4 634.55 W24X62 W24X84 W24X94 0 4/16
5 790.55 W21X50 W24X76 W24X76 0 2/16
6 946.55 W21X50 W24X76 W24X76 0 2/16
7 1102.55 W21X50 W24X62 W24X76 0 2/16
8 1258.55 W21X50 W24X62 W24X76 0 2/16
12-story
1 166.55 W24X94 W24X162 W24X162 0 6/16
2 322.55 W24X94 W24X162 W24X162 0 6/16
3 478.55 W24X94 W24X131 W24X146 0 7/16
4 634.55 W24X94 W24X131 W24X146 0 7/16
5 790.55 W24X76 W24X103 W24X131 0 5/16
6 946.55 W24X76 W24X103 W24X131 0 5/16
7 1102.55 W24X62 W24X84 W24X94 0 4/16
8 1258.55 W24X62 W24X84 W24X94 0 4/16
9 1414.55 W24X62 W24X76 W24X84 0 5/16
10 1570.55 W24X62 W24X76 W24X84 0 5/16
11 1726.55 W21X62 W24X76 W24X76 0 6/16
12 1882.55 W21X62 W24X76 W24X76 0 6/16

GCR 10-917-8 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes D-7
100% Draft

Table D-8 Special Steel Moment Frame Designs for SDC Dmin - RSA Design Basis (PG-4RSA)
(continued)

Elevation Exterior Interior Doubler Plate Size

Story Beam Size
(in.) Column Size Column Size Exterior Col. Interior Col.

20-story
1 166.55 W27X129 W24X335 W24X250 0 5/16
2 322.55 W27X129 W24X335 W24X250 0 5/16
3 478.55 W30X132 W24X229 W24X250 0 6/16
4 634.55 W30X132 W24X229 W24X250 0 6/16
5 790.55 W30X132 W24X207 W24X229 0 8/16
6 946.55 W30X132 W24X207 W24X229 0 8/16
7 1102.55 W27X129 W24X192 W24X207 0 9/16
8 1258.55 W27X129 W24X192 W24X207 0 9/16
9 1414.55 W27X129 W24X162 W24X207 0 9/16
10 1570.55 W27X102 W24X162 W24X207 0 4/16
11 1726.55 W27X102 W24X146 W24X192 0 5/16
12 1882.55 W27X102 W24X146 W24X192 0 5/16
13 2038.55 W27X102 W24X131 W24X176 0 7/16
14 2194.55 W27X94 W24X131 W24X176 0 5/16
15 2350.55 W27X94 W24X131 W24X131 0 9/16
16 2506.55 W24X94 W24X131 W24X131 0 9/16
17 2662.55 W24X94 W24X94 W24X131 1/16 9/16
18 2818.55 W24X94 W24X94 W24X131 1/16 9/16
19 2974.55 W21X44 W24X94 W24X62 0 2/16
20 3130.55 W21X44 W24X94 W24X62 0 2/16

D.4 Additional Modeling Considerations

For the studies in this report the following values for modeling parameters were used:
• Effective yield strength My = 1.1Mp, with Mp based on expected yield
strength of 55 ksi.
• Mc/My = 1.10
• Mr/My = 0.4
• θu = 0.2
• θp, θpc, and Λ as obtained for RBS connections from the regression equation
derived by Lignos and Krawinkler (2009) and presented in PEER/ATC 72-1
report (PEER/ATC, 2010).
• The effects of a composite floor slab on modeling parameters were not
considered.

D-8 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8
 100% Draft

D.5 P-Delta Considerations

Because of the flexibility of special SMFs, P-Delta considerations often control the
member sizes in lower stories of tall frames. ASCE/SEI 7-05 requires explicit
consideration of P-Delta effects in each story in which the elastic stability coefficient
θ = (P∆) / (VhCd) (ASCE/SEI 7-05, Equation 12.8.7) exceeds 0.1. In this equation, ∆
is the “design story drift,” which means it contains the deflection amplification factor
Cd, i.e., ∆ = ∆eCd. This implies that the elastic stability coefficient can be computed
under any level of lateral load, provided that the structure remains elastic and ∆e and
V come from the same lateral load condition. The load “P” is the total vertical design
load, including the load tributary to gravity framing. When computer analysis is
performed to predict elastic design forces and drifts, these P-Delta effects are usually
accounted for automatically in the analysis. But the following upper limit on θ is not
accounted for automatically in computer analysis and did control the member sizes in
lower stories of several of the tall SMFs.
Equation (12.8-17) in ASCE/SEI 7-05 places an upper limit of θmax = 0.5 / (β x Cd) ≤
0.25 on the permissible stability coefficient, where β is the ratio of shear demand to
shear capacity for the story under consideration. Shear demand is the story design
shear force for strength design, and shear capacity is the maximum shear force that
can be resisted by the story. This shear capacity cannot be defined uniquely because
the capacity in one story depends on the load pattern applied to the full structure. An
estimate of the story shear capacity can be obtained by dividing the average of the
“floor moment” capacities of the two floors bounding the story by the story height.
The “floor moment” capacity is the sum of the maximum beam or column moments
that can be developed at the intersection of all beam-to-column centerlines at the
floor level. For connections at which the strong column - weak beam concept is
followed, this amounts to the quantity ΣMpb* employed in AISC 341 – Equation 9-3,
divided by 1.1 to eliminate the strain hardening effect. For connections with weak
columns the quantity ΣMpc* from Equation 9-3 should be used. Results obtained
from such estimates are illustrated in Figure D-3(a) for the 4-story Dmax-RSA design.
The pushover curve shown in Figure D-3(b) indicates that these estimates are
reasonable.

In most cases the so estimated demand/capacity ratios (β values) led to θmax values
clearly smaller than 0.25, and in many cases the requirement θ ≤ θmax necessitated an
increase in story stiffness. The member sizes in the lower stories of all SDC Dmin
archetypes, except for the 1-story SDC Dmin-ELF structure, are controlled by P-Delta
considerations.

GCR 10-917-8 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes D-9
100% Draft
0.40

ESTIMATE OF STORY SHEAR CAPACITY OVER HEIGHT 0.35

5
Shear Capacity 0.30

Design Shear 0.25

4

V/W
0.20

Floor
3 0.15

0.10
2 Code Design Shear Force
0.05

1 0.00
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Story Shear / Seismic Weight Roof Drift Ratio ∆/H

(a) Story shear capacity estimate (b) Pushover overstrength

Figure D-3 Estimate of story shear capacity, 4-story Dmax-RSA.

D.6 Assessment of Relationship between Design and Analytical

Models for Special SMFs

This study is concerned with collapse prediction of special SMFs that are designed
according to recent criteria. The expectation is that there is a reasonably well
established relationship between design and analysis models. The following example
is intended to illustrate that such a relationship may be very difficult to establish.

The example is concerned with the 1-story archetype for the SDC Dmin seismic design
category. For a building height of 15 feet, the code design period T = CuTa is equal to
1.5*0.244 = 0.37 seconds, which is in the plateau (constant acceleration) region of
the design spectrum, i.e., the base shear design value is (0.5/8)W = 0.0625W. It turns
out that strength design results in small members, and that drift control governs
member sizes. The drift limitation under design forces is 0.025h/Cd = 0.025 x 180/8
= 0.56” (for Cd = R = 8). ELF design based on this drift limit results in a structure
with a calculated period, T1 = 1.62 sec. and a base shear strength of 0.16W (Ω =
2.55). [The only reason why the calculated period of this structure is not even longer
is that for ELF designs the minimum base shear of 0.022 has to be considered, which
controls the design loads for T > 1.14 seconds for seismic design category SDC Dmin
and R = 8.]

The upshot is that the designer has a stiff structure in mind (T = 0.37 sec.) with a base
shear strength equal to 100(0.16/0.50) = 32% of the design spectrum value of 0.5g at
the period of 0.37 sec. But what is being modeled in the collapse analysis is a
structure that is (1.62/0.37)2 = 19 times as flexible, and whose base shear strength is
100(0.16/(0.2/1.62)) = 130% of the design spectrum value at T = 1.62 sec. The
analysis model, when subjected to ground motions, does not care at all about the
design period of 0.37 sec.; what it experiences is the ground motion effects at a
period of 1.62 sec. and longer (because of period elongation). And in this period
range the structure has a strength that is almost as large as the elastic MCE demand.
The question is how the collapse capacity of this analytical model relates to the

D-10 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes GCR 10-917-8
 100% Draft

collapse safety of the actual single story archetype. This question needs to be
addressed.

At this time the transition back to the design archetype is made by computing the
collapse margin ratio (CMR = median collapse capacity over MCE demand) using the
spectral accelerations demand and capacity at the code period of 0.37 sec. and not the
analysis period of 1.62. The question is whether this indeed provides realistic results
for a structure whose actual period is probably somewhere between 0.37 and 1.62,
and whose response might be much affected by the stiffness and strength of non-
simulated structural and nonstructural components. This needs to be further
investigated.

GCR 10-917-8 D: Design Details of Special Steel Moment Frame Archetypes D-11
 100% Draft

Appendix E
Design Details of Buckling-Restrained
Braced Frame Archetypes

This appendix presents detailed design information for buckling-restrained braced

frame (BRBF) archetypes considered in the full archetype design space application in
Chapter 7. The member sizes for each archetype are summarized.

E.1 Introduction

Archetypes for buckling-restrained brace frame systems were designed in accordance

with design requirements contained within ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2006).

E.2 Buckling-Restrained Frame Designs

Members were designed using ASTM A992 steel with fy = 50ksi in the archetype
designs summarized below. The yield capacity ranged from 100 to 1,500 kip.

The following tables report the member designs for 29 archetype configurations
designated as required for sensitivity studies (Phase I design) and as required for
collapse performance evaluation of the BRBF system (Phase II design). The process
of elimination by which the full archetype design space was limited to these 29
configurations is described in detail in Chapter 7.

In the tables below, the beam size is given at the level above the designated story,
i.e., beam size at the third floor is given for a column size on the 2nd story level.

GCR 10-917-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained E-1

Braced Frame Archetypes
100% Draft

E.2.1 Buckling-Restrained Frame Designs for Phase I

Table E-1 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 1, 2-Story
Archetypes

Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-25B-Dmax

2 6.0 W14x82 W21x50

1 9.0 W14x82 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-25B-Dmin

2 2.0 W14x38 W21x44

1 3.0 W14x38 W21x62

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-25B-Bmax

2 1.0 W14x38 W18x35

1 1.0 W14x38 W18x35

E-2 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained GCR 10-917-8

Braced Frame Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table E-2 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 1, 12-Story
Archetypes
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-15B-Dmax

(2 bays of bracing per side)

12 3.0 W14x145 W21x50

11 4.0 W14x145 W21x50

10 5.0 W14x145 W21x62

9 6.0 W14x145 W21x62

8 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

7 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

6 7.0 W14x211 W21x62

5 7.0 W14x211 W21x62

4 8.0 W14x257 W21x62

3 8.0 W14x257 W21x73

2 9.0 W14x283 W21x73

1 9.0 W14x283 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-15B-Dmin

12 3.0 W14x82 W18x35

11 3.0 W14x82 W21x50

10 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

9 4.0 W14x132 W21x62

8 4.0 W14x132 W21x62

7 5.0 W14x132 W21x62

6 5.0 W14x159 W21x62

5 5.0 W14x159 W21x62

4 6.0 W14x193 W21x62

3 7.0 W14x193 W21x62

2 7.0 W14x257 W21x62

1 7.0 W14x257 W21x62

GCR 10-917-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained E-3

Braced Frame Archetypes
100% Draft

Table E-2 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 1, 12-Story
Archetypes (continued)
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-15B-Bmax

12 3.0 W14x74 W18x35

11 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

10 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

9 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

8 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

7 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

6 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

5 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

4 3.0 W14x145 W21x50

3 4.0 W14x145 W21x62

2 4.0 W14x176 W21x62

1 4.0 W14x176 W21x62

Table E-3 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 2, 2-Story
Archetypes
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-25B-Dmax

2 6.0 W14x82 W21x50

1 9.0 W14x82 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-15B-Dmax

2 5.0 W14x74 W21x44

1 6.0 W14x74 W21x62

E-4 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained GCR 10-917-8

Braced Frame Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table E-4 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 2, 12-Story
Archetypes
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-25B-Dmax

12 4.0 W14x211 W21x50

11 5.0 W14x211 W21x62

10 7.0 W14x257 W21x73

9 7.0 W14x257 W24x76

8 9.0 W14x311 W24x76

7 9.0 W14x311 W24x94

6 10.0 W14x370 W24x94

5 11.0 W14x370 W24x94

4 12.0 W14x455 W24x103

3 12.0 W14x455 W24x103

2 12.0 W14x500 W24x103

1 12.0 W14x500 W24x103

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-15B-Dmax

(2 bays of bracing per side)

12 3.0 W14x145 W21x50

11 4.0 W14x145 W21x50

10 5.0 W14x145 W21x62

9 6.0 W14x145 W21x62

8 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

7 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

6 7.0 W14x211 W21x62

5 7.0 W14x211 W21x62

4 8.0 W14x257 W21x62

3 8.0 W14x257 W21x73

2 9.0 W14x283 W21x73

1 9.0 W14x283 W21x73

GCR 10-917-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained E-5

Braced Frame Archetypes
100% Draft

Table E-5 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 3, 2-Story
Archetypes
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-25B-Dmax

2 6.0 W14x82 W21x50

1 9.0 W14x82 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 2S-ZZ-25B-Dmax

2 4.0 W14x53 W21x50

1 6.0 W14x53 W21x44

Archetype ID No. 2S-CV-30B-Dmax

2 3.0 W14x53 W24x55

1 4.0 W14x53 W24x55

Archetype ID No. 2S-2X-30B-Dmax

2 3.0 W14x53 W24x62

1 4.0 W14x53 W21x44

E-6 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained GCR 10-917-8

Braced Frame Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table E-6 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 3, 12-Story
Archetypes
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-15B-Dmax

(2 Bays of Bracing per Side)

12 3.0 W14x145 W21x50

11 4.0 W14x145 W21x50

10 5.0 W14x145 W21x62

9 6.0 W14x145 W21x62

8 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

7 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

6 7.0 W14x211 W21x62

5 7.0 W14x211 W21x62

4 8.0 W14x257 W21x62

3 8.0 W14x257 W21x73

2 9.0 W14x283 W21x73

1 9.0 W14x283 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 12S-ZZ-15B-Dmax

(2 Bays of Bracing per Side)

12 3.0 W14x159 W18x40

11 5.0 W14x159 W18x40

10 6.0 W14x159 W18x40

9 6.0 W14x159 W18x40

8 6.0 W14x176 W18x40

7 6.0 W14x176 W18x40

6 7.0 W14x211 W18x40

5 7.0 W14x211 W18x40

4 8.0 W14x257 W18x40

3 8.0 W14x257 W18x40

2 9.0 W14x311 W18x40

1 9.0 W14x311 W18x40

GCR 10-917-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained E-7

Braced Frame Archetypes
100% Draft

Table E-6 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for Sensitivity Study 3, 12-Story
Archetypes (continued)
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 12S-CV-20B-Dmax

12 5.0 W14x132 W24x62

11 8.0 W14x132 W24x76

10 8.0 W14x257 W24x76

9 9.0 W14x257 W24x76

8 9.0 W14x311 W24x76

7 10.0 W14x311 W24x76

6 10.0 W14x398 W24x76

5 10.0 W14x398 W24x76

4 11.0 W14x455 W24x76

3 11.0 W14x455 W24x76

2 12.0 W14x605 W24x76

1 12.0 W14x605 W24x76

Archetype ID No. 12S-2X-20B-Dmax

12 6.0 W14x132 W24x62

11 7.0 W14x132 W24x62

10 8.0 W14x257 W21x50

9 9.0 W14x257 W24x62

8 9.0 W14x311 W21x50

7 10.0 W14x311 W24x62

6 10.0 W14x398 W21x50

5 10.0 W14x398 W24x62

4 11.0 W14x455 W21x50

3 11.0 W14x455 W24x62

2 12.0 W14x605 W21x50

1 12.0 W14x605 W24x62

E-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained GCR 10-917-8

Braced Frame Archetypes
 100% Draft

E.2.2 Buckling-Restrained Frame Designs for Phase II

Table E-7 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for SDC Dmax, Long Period (PG-10)
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 4S-LB-15B-Dmax

4 5.0 W14x74 W21x50

3 7.0 W14x82 W21x62

2 9.0 W14x132 W21x73

1 10.0 W14x145 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 6S-LB-15B-Dmax

6 8.0 W14x132 W21x73

5 9.0 W14x159 W21x73

4 10.0 W14x159 W24x76

3 10.0 W14x193 W24x76

2 11.0 W14x211 W27x94

1 11.0 W14x233 W27x94

Archetype ID No. 9S-LB-15B-Dmax

9 9.0 W14x370 W21x62

8 9.0 W14x370 W24x76

7 10.0 W14x370 W24x76

6 10.0 W14x398 W24x76

5 11.0 W14x398 W27x94

4 11.0 W14x455 W27x94

3 11.0 W14x455 W27x94

2 12.0 W14x500 W27x94

1 12.0 W14x500 W27x94

GCR 10-917-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained E-9

Braced Frame Archetypes
100% Draft

Table E-7 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for SDC Dmax, Long Period (PG-10)
(continued)

Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-15B-Dmax

(2 Bays of Bracing per Side)

12 3.0 W14x145 W21x50

11 4.0 W14x145 W21x50
10 5.0 W14x145 W21x62
9 6.0 W14x145 W21x62
8 6.0 W14x211 W21x62
7 6.0 W14x211 W21x62
6 7.0 W14x211 W21x62
5 7.0 W14x211 W21x62
4 8.0 W14x257 W21x62
3 8.0 W14x257 W21x73
2 9.0 W14x283 W21x73
1 9.0 W14x283 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 18S-LB-15B-Dmax

(2 Bays of Bracing per Side)

18 4.0 W14x176 W21x50

17 5.0 W14x176 W21x62
16 5.0 W14x342 W21x62
15 5.0 W14x342 W21x62
14 6.0 W14x342 W21x62
13 6.0 W14x342 W21x62
12 8.0 W14x426 W21x62
11 8.0 W14x426 W24x76
10 8.0 W14x426 W24x76
9 8.0 W14x426 W24x76
8 8.0 W14x500 W24x76
7 10.0 W14x500 W24x76
6 10.0 W14x500 W24x76
5 10.0 W14x500 W24x76
4 10.0 W14x605 W24x76
3 12.0 W14x605 W24x94
2 12.0 W14x605 W24x94
1 12.0 W14x605 W24x94

E-10 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained GCR 10-917-8

Braced Frame Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table E-8 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for SDC Dmin Long Period (PG-12)
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-15B-Dmin

2 3.0 W14x38 W18x35

1 3.0 W14x53 W21x50

Archetype ID No. 3S-LB-15B-Dmin

3 3.0 W14x38 W18x35

2 3.0 W14x53 W21x50

1 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

Archetype ID No. 4S-LB-15B-Dmin

4 3.0 W14x74 W18x35

3 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

2 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

1 3.0 W14x82 W21x50

Archetype ID No. 6S-LB-15B-Dmin

6 3.0 W14x74 W18x35

5 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

4 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

3 3.0 W14x82 W21x50

2 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

1 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

Archetype ID No. 9S-LB-15B-Dmin

9 3.0 W14x74 W18x35

8 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

7 3.0 W14x74 W21x50

6 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

5 4.0 W14x132 W21x50

4 4.0 W14x132 W21x62

3 6.0 W14x159 W21x62

2 6.0 W14x159 W21x62

1 6.0 W14x176 W21x62

GCR 10-917-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained E-11

Braced Frame Archetypes
100% Draft

Table E-8 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for SDC Dmin Long Period (PG-12)
(continued)

Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 12S-LB-15B-Dmin

12 3.0 W14x82 W18x35

11 3.0 W14x82 W21x50

10 3.0 W14x132 W21x50

9 4.0 W14x132 W21x62

8 4.0 W14x132 W21x62

7 5.0 W14x132 W21x62

6 5.0 W14x159 W21x62

5 5.0 W14x159 W21x62

4 6.0 W14x193 W21x62

3 7.0 W14x193 W21x62

2 7.0 W14x257 W21x62

1 7.0 W14x257 W21x62

Archetype ID No. 18S-LB-15B-Dmin

18 3.0 W14x132 W18x35

17 4.0 W14x132 W21x62

16 4.0 W14x132 W21x62

15 5.0 W14x132 W21x62

14 5.0 W14x132 W21x62

13 5.0 W14x132 W21x62

12 5.0 W14x211 W21x62

11 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

10 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

9 6.0 W14x211 W21x62

8 6.0 W14x257 W21x62

7 7.0 W14x257 W21x62

6 8.0 W14x283 W21x73

5 8.0 W14x283 W21x73

4 9.0 W14x342 W21x73

3 10.0 W14x342 W24x76

2 11.0 W14x398 W24x94

1 11.0 W14x398 W24x94

E-12 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained GCR 10-917-8

Braced Frame Archetypes
 100% Draft

Table E-9 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for SDC Dmax Short Period (PG-13)
Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size
Archetype ID No. 1S-LB-25B-Dmax

1 4.0 W14x38 W21x62

Archetype ID No. 2S-LB-25B-Dmax

2 6.0 W14x82 W21x50

1 9.0 W14x82 W21x73

Archetype ID No. 3S-LB-25B-Dmax

3 5.0 W14x38 W21x62

2 7.0 W14x74 W21x73

1 8.0 W14x82 W24x76

Table E-10 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frame Archetype

Designs for SDC Dmin Short Period (PG-15,
PG-11, PG-20)

Story Brace Area (in2) Column Size Beam Size

Archetype ID No. 1S-LB-25B-Dmin

1 3.0 W14x38 W21x50

Archetype ID No. 1S-LB-15B-Dmin

1 3.0 W14x38 W18x35

Archetype ID No. 1S-CV-30B-Dmin

1 3.0 W14x38 W21x50

GCR 10-917-8 E: Design Details of Buckling-Restrained E-13

Braced Frame Archetypes
 100% Draft

References

ACI, 2008a, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-08,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ACI, 2008b, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI 530-
08/ASCE 5-08/TMS 402-08, Masonry Standards Joint Committee of the
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan; Structural
Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia; and The Masonry Society, Boulder, Colorado.
AISC, 2005a, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-05,
American Institute for Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC, 2005b, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment
Frames for Seismic Applications, ANSI/AISC 358-05, American Institute for
Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
AISC, 2005c, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC/ANSI 360-05,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.

Aktan A. E., Bertero V., and Sakino K., 1985, “Lateral stiffness characteristics of
reinforced concrete frame-wall structures,” Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 86,
No. 10, pp. 231-262.
ANSI/AF&PA, 2005, National Design Specification for Wood Construction,
ANSI/AF&PA NDS-2005, American National Standards Institute and
American Forest and Paper Association, Washington, D.C.
ANSI/AISC, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI Standard
ANSI/AISC 341-05, American Institute of Steel Construction Inc., Chicago,
Illinois.
ASCE, 2006, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI
7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 2007, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE Standard
ASCE/SEI 41-06, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ATC, 1978, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for
Buildings, Report No. ATC 3-06, Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City, California.
Atkinson, R.H. and Kingsley, G.R., 1985, A Comparison of the Behavior of Clay and
Concrete Masonry in Compression, Report No. 1.1-1, US-Japan Coordinated

GCR 10-917-8 References F-1

100% Draft

Program for Masonry Building Research, Atkinson-Noland & Associates,

Boulder, Colorado.
Black, R.G., Wenger, W.A., and Popov, E.P., 1980, Inelastic Buckling of Steel Struts
Under Cyclic Load Reversals, UCB/EERC-80/40, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Black, C., Makris, N., and Aiken, I.D., 2004, “Component testing, seismic evaluation
and characterization of buckling-restrained braces,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 6, pp. 880-894.
Bournonville, M., Dahnke, J., and Darwin, D., 2004, Statistical Analysis of the
Mechanical Properties and Weight of Reinforcing Bars, SL Report 04-1,
University of Kansas Structural Engineering and Engineering Materials, 198
pp.
Chang, G.A. and Mander, J.B., 1994, Seismic Energy Based Fatigue Damage
Analysis of Bridge Columns: Part I – Evaluation of Seismic Capacity,
NCEER Technical Report No. NCEER-94-0006; State University of New
York, Buffalo, New York.
Cochran, M. and Honeck, W., 2004, Design of Special Concentric Braced Frames,
Steel TIPS Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga, California.
Coleman, J. and Spacone, E., 2001, “Localization issues in forced-based frame
elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 11, pp.
1257-1265.
Corley, W.G., Fiorato, A.E., and Oesterle, R.G., 1981,“Structural walls,” Structural
Journal, ACI, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 77-131.
DASSE, 2009, Cost Advantages of Buckling Restrained Braced Frame Buildings,
prepared by DASSE Design Inc for Star Seismic, Park City, Utah. Available
at http://www.starseismic.net/pdf/Dasse_Cost_Study.pdf.
Elwood, K.J., 2002, Shake Table Tests and Analytical Studies on the Gravity Load
Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames, PhD Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Fahnestock, L.A., Ricles, J.M., and Sause, R., 2006, “Experimental study of a large-
scale buckling-restrained braced frame using the pseudo-dynamic testing
method,” Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, CA, April, 2006.
FEMA, 1998a, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall
Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual, FEMA 306, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.

F-2 References GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

FEMA, 1998b, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall

Buildings: Technical Resources, FEMA 307, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2004a, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1: Provisions, FEMA 450-1, 2003
Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2004b, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures, Part 2: Commentary, FEMA 450-2, 2003
Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 2009, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA
P-695, prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Ghanem, G.M., Essawy, A.S., and Hamid, A.A., 1992, “Effect of steel distribution
on the behavior of partially-grouted reinforced masonry shear walls,”
Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry Symposium, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Goodsir, W.J., 1985, The Design of Coupled Frame-Wall Structures for Seismic
Actions, Research Report 85-8, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Gulec, C., Whittaker, A.S., and Stojadinovic, B., 2008, “Shear strength of squat
rectangular reinforced concrete shear walls,” Structural Journal, ACI, Vol.
105, No 4, pp. 488-497.
Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H., 1999, Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation
of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Structures. Rep. No. 132, John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, California.
Hidalgo, P.A., Ledezma, C.A., and Jordan, R.M., 2002, “Seismic behavior of squat
reinforced concrete shear walls,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.
287-308.
Hirosawa, M., 1975, “Past experimental results on reinforced concrete shear walls
and analysis on them,” Building Research Institute, Ministry of
Construction, No. 6 (in Japanese).
Ingham, J.M., Davidson, B.J., Brammer, D.R., and Voon, K.C., 2001, “Testing and
codification of partially grout-filled nominally-reinforced concrete masonry
subjected to in-plane cyclic loads,” The Masonry Society Journal, Vol. 19,
No. 1, pp. 83-94.

GCR 10-917-8 References F-3

100% Draft

Kent, D.C. and Park, R., 1971, “Flexural members with confined concrete,” Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. 7, pp. 1969-1990.
Khatib, I.F., Mahin, S.A., and Pister, K.S., 1988, Seismic Behavior of Concentrically
Braced Steel Frames, UCB/EERC-88/01, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Kingsley, G.R., Seible, F., Priestley, M.J.N., and Hegemier, G.A., 1994, The U.S.-
TCCMAR Full-Scale Five-Story Reinforced Masonry Research Building
Test: Part II, Design, Construction, and Testing, Report No. 9.4-2, US-Japan
Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research, University of
California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Lignos, D.G. and Krawinkler, H., 2007, “A database in support of modeling of
component deterioration for collapse prediction of steel frame structures,”
ASCE Structures Congress, Long Beach, California.
Lignos, D.G. and Krawinkler, H., 2009, Sidesway Collapse of Deteriorating
Structural Systems under Seismic Excitations, Report No. TR-172, John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University, California.
López, W. and Sabelli, R., 2004, Seismic Design of Buckling-Restrained Braced
Frames, Steel TIPS Report, Structural Steel Educational Council, Moraga,
California.
López, W., 2008, "On designing with buckling-restrained braced frames," Structure,
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, July 2008.
Massone, L.M., 2006, RC Wall Shear – Flexure Interaction: Analytical and
Experimental Responses, PhD Dissertation, University of California,
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Los Angeles.
Massone, L.M. and Wallace, J.W., 2004, “Load – deformation responses of slender
reinforced concrete walls,” Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp.
103-113.
Massone, L.M., Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J.W., 2006, “Modeling flexural/shear
interaction in RC walls,” Special Publication 236, ACI, Paper 7, pp. 127-
150.
Massone, L.M., Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J.W., 2009, “Modeling of squat structural
walls controlled by shear,” Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 106, No 5, pp. 646-
655.
McKenna, F., 1997, Object Oriented Finite Element Programming: Frameworks for
Analysis, Algorithms and Parallel Computing, PhD Dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley.

F-4 References GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Merritt, S., Uang, C.M., and Benzoni, G., 2003a, Subassemblage Testing of
CoreBrace Buckling Restrained Braces, in Report No. TR-2003/01,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Merritt, S., Uang, C.M., and Benzoni, G., 2003b, Subassemblage Testing of Star
Seismic Buckling Restrained Braces, in Report No. TR-2003/04, University
of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Merritt, S., Uang, C.M., and Benzoni, G., 2003c, Uniaxial Testing of Associated
Bracing Buckling Restrained Braces, in Report No. TR-2003/05, University
of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Merryman, K.M., Leiva, G., Antrobus, N., and Klingner, R.E., 1990, In-plane
Seismic Resistance of Two-Story Concrete Masonry Coupled Shear Walls,
Report No. 3.1(c)-1, US-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry Building
Research, University of Texas at Austin.
Mirza, S.A. and MacGregor, J.G., 1979, “Variability of mechanical properties of
reinforcing bars,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. 5,
pp. 921-937.
Newell, J. and Uang, C.M., 2006, Cyclic Behavior of Steel Columns with Combined
High Axial Load and Drift Demand, Report No. SSRP-06/22, Structural
Systems Research Project, Department of Structural Engineering, University
of California, San Diego, California.
Nowak, A.S. and Szerszen, M.M., 2003, “Calibration of design code for buildings
(ACI 318): Part 1 – Statistical models for resistance,” Structural Journal,
ACI, Vol. 100, No 3, pp. 377-382.
Nowak, A.S., Szerszen, M.M., Szeliga, E.K., Szwed, A., and Podhorecki, P.J., 2008,
Reliability-Based Calibration for Structural Concrete, Phase 3, Serial No.
2849, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.
Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, J.E., Russle, H.E., and Corley,
W.G., 1976, Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls – Tests of Isolated Walls,
Report to the National Science Foundation, Construction Technology
Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 315 pp.
Oesterle, R.G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D., Fiorato, A.E., Russel, H.E., and Corley,
W.G., 1979, Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls – Tests of Isolated Walls
– Phase II, Report to the National Science Foundation, Construction
Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 325
pp.

GCR 10-917-8 References F-5

100% Draft

OpenSees, 2007, Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Pacific

Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California, online at http://opensees.berkeley.edu/.
Orakcal, K. and Wallace, J.W., 2006, "Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete
walls-Experimental verification," Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 103, No. 2,
pp. 196-206.
Orakcal, K., Conte, J.P., and Wallace, J.W., 2004, “Flexural modeling of reinforced
concrete walls – Model attributes,” Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 101, No. 5,
pp. 688-698.
Orakcal, K., Massone, L.M., and Wallace, J.W., 2006, Analytical Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Walls for Predicting Flexural and Coupled– Shear-
Flexural Responses, Report No. 2006/07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 228 pp.

Orakcal, K., Massone, L.M., and Wallace, J.W., 2009, “Shear strength of lightly
reinforced wall piers and spandrels,” Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 106, No.
4, pp. 455-465.
Pantazopoulou S.J., 1998, “Detailing for reinforcement stability in RC members,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 6, pp. 623-632.
Paulay, T., 1986, “The design of ductile reinforced concrete structural walls for
earthquake resistance,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 783-823.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N., 1993, “Stability of ductile structural walls,”
Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 385-392.
PEER, 2006, PEER Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) Database, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California. Available at http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/.
PEER/ATC, 2010, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and
Analysis of Tall Buildings, PEER/ATC 72-1 report, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council for the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Redwood City, California.
Powell, J., Clark, K., Tsai, K.C., Roeder, C., and Lehman, D., 2008, “Test of a full
scale concentrically braced frame with multi-story X-bracing,” ASCE 2008
Structures Congress, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Prakash, V., Powell, G.H., and Campbell, S., 1993, “DRAIN-2DX: Basic program
description and user guide,” Report No. UCB/SEMM-1993/17, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Razvi, S. and Saatcioglu, M., 1999, “Confinement model for high-strength concrete,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No.3, pp. 281-289.

F-6 References GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Rodriguez, M.E., Botero, J.C., and Villa, J., 1999, “Cyclic stress-strain behavior of
reinforcing steel including effect of buckling,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 6, pp 605-612.
Salas, M.C., 2008, Modeling of Tall Reinforced Concrete Wall Buildings, MSCE
Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Salonikios, T.N., 2002, “Shear strength and deformation patterns of R/C walls with
aspect ratio 1.0 and 1.5 designed to Eurocode 8 (EC8),” Engineering
Structures, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Salonikios, T.N., Kappos, A.J., Tegos, I.A., and Penelis, G.G., 1999, “Cyclic load
behavior of low-slenderness RC walls: design basis and test results,”
Structural Journal, ACI, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 649–660.
Scott, B.D., Park, R., and Priestley, M.J.N., 1982, ‘‘Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at high and low strain rates.’’ ACI
Journal Proceedings, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp.13–27.
Shedid, M.T., Drysdale, R.G., and El-Dakhakhni, W.W., 2008, “Behavior of fully-
grouted reinforced concrete masonry shear walls failing in flexure:
Experimental results,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134,
No, 11, pp. 1754-1767.
Shing, P.B., Noland, J.L., Spaeh, H.P., Klamerus, E.W., and Schuller, M.P., 1991,
Response of Single-Story Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls to In-Plane
Lateral Loads, Report No. 3.1(a)-2, US-Japan Coordinated Program for
Masonry Building Research, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Shiu, K.N., Daniel, J.I., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D., Fiorato, A.W., and Corley, W.G.,
1981, Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls – Tests of Walls with and
without Openings, Report to the National Science Foundation, Construction
Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.

Thomsen, J.H. and Wallace J.W., 1995, Displacement-Based Design of RC

Structural Walls: An Experimental Investigation of Walls with Rectangular
and T-Shaped Cross-Sections, Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Department of
Civil Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York, 353 pp.
Thomsen IV, J.H. and Wallace, J.W, 2004, “Displacement-based design of slender
reinforced concrete structural walls – Experimental verification,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 618-630.
Tremblay, R., 2002, “Inelastic seismic response of bracing members,” J. of Const.
Steel Research, Vol. 58, pp. 665-701.

GCR 10-917-8 References F-7

100% Draft

Tremblay, R., 2008, “Influence of brace slenderness on the fracture life of

rectangular tubular steel bracing members subjected to seismic inelastic
loading,” Proceedings, ASCE 2008 Structures Congress, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Uriz, P, 2005, Towards Earthquake Resistant Design of Concentrically Braced Steel
Structures, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Voon, K.C. and Ingham, J.M., 2006, “Experimental in-plane shear strength
investigation of reinforced concrete masonry walls,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 3, pp. 400-408.
Wallace, J.W., 1989, BIAX: Revision 1, A Computer Program for the Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Sections, Clarkson University, Department of Civil
Engineering, Potsdam, New York.
Wallace, J.W., 1996, “Evaluation of UBC-94 provisions for seismic design of RC
structural walls,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 327-348.
Wallace, J.W., 2007, ”Modeling issues for tall reinforced concrete core wall
buildings,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, Vol. 16,
No. 5, pp. 615-632.
Wallace, J.W., Elwood, K.J., and Massone L.M., 2008, “An axial load capacity
model for shear critical RC wall piers,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 9, pp. 1548-1557.
Waugh, J., Aaleti, S., Sritharan, S., and Zhao, J., 2008, Nonlinear Analysis of
Rectangular and T-Shaped Concrete Walls, ISU-ERI-Ames Report ERI-
09327, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering,
Iowa State University, 351 pp.
Wood, S.L., 1990, “Shear strength of low-rise reinforced concrete walls,” Structural
Journal, ACI, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 99-107.
Wood, S.L., 1991,“Observed behavior of slender RC walls subjected to cyclic
loadings,” Inelastic Response and Design of Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Structures, SP-127, S. K. Ghosh, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., pp. 334-344.
Yang, F. and Mahin, S.A., 2005, Limiting Net Section Fracture in Slotted Tube
Braces, Steel Tips Report, Structural Steel Education Council, Moraga,
California.
Yassin, M.H.M., 1994, Nonlinear Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Structures under
Monotonic and Cyclic Loads, PhD Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley, California.

F-8 References GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft

Yoo, J.H., Roeder, C.W., and Lehman, D.E., 2008, “Analytical performance
simulation of special concentrically braced frames,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 6, pp. 881-889.
Zayas, V.A., Popov, E.P., and Mahin, S.A., 1980, Cyclic Inelastic Buckling of
Tubular Steel Braces, UCB/EERC-80/16, University of California, Berkeley,
California.
Zong, Z. and Kunnath, S., 2008, “Buckling of reinforcing bars in concrete structures
under seismic loads,” Proceedings, 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.

GCR 10-917-8 References F-9

 100% Draft

Project Participants

National Institute of Standards and Technology

John (Jack) R. Hayes John (Jay) L. Harris III
Building and Fire Research Laboratory (MS8604) Building Fire and Research Laboratory (MS8603)
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive 100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL CONSORTIUM OF UNIVERSITIES FOR
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Redwood City, California 94065 1301 S. 46th Street, Building 420
www.ATCouncil.org Richmond, California 94804
www.CUREE.org

Joint Venture Management Committee

James R. Harris Christopher Rojahn
J.R. Harris & Company Applied Technology Council
1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1525 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Denver, Colorado 80203 Redwood City, California 94065

Robert Reitherman Andrew Whittaker

Consortium of Universities for Research in Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environ. Engin.
Earthquake Engineering 230 Ketter Hall
1301 S. 46th Street, Building 420 University at Buffalo
Richmond, California 94804 Buffalo, New York 14260
Joint Venture Program Committee
Jon A. Heintz (Program Manager) William T. Holmes
Applied Technology Council Rutherford and Chekene
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 55 Second Street, Suite 600
Redwood City, California 94065 San Francisco, California 94105

Michael Constantinou Jack Moehle

Dept. of Civil, Structural, and Environ. Engin. University of California Berkeley
University at Buffalo 325 Davis Hall – MC 1792
132 Ketter Hall Berkeley, California 94720
Buffalo, New York 14260
James R. Harris (ex-officio)
C.B. Crouse Andrew Whittaker (ex-officio)
URS Corporation
1501 4th Ave. Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98101

GCR 10-917-8 Project Participants G-1

100% Draft

Project Technical Committee

Charles Kircher (Technical Director) Steve Mahin
Kircher & Associates, Consulting Engineers University of California, Berkeley
1121 San Antonio Road, Suite D-202 Department of Civil Engineering
Palo Alto, California 94303 777 Davis Hall, MC 1710
Berkeley, California 94720
Gregory Deierlein
Stanford University Benson Shing
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, San Diego
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Dept of Structural Engineering
Stanford, California 94305 409 University Center
9500 Gilman Dr. MC 0085
John Hooper La Jolla, California 92093
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200 John Wallace
Seattle, Washington 98101 University of California, Los Angeles
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Helmut Krawinkler 5731 Boelter Hall,
Stanford University Los Angeles, California 90095
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
473 Via Ortega
Stanford, California 94305

Working Group Members

Chui-Hsin Chen Ioannis Koutromanos
University of California, Berkeley University of California at San Diego
1301 South 46th Street 409 University Center, Room 145
Richmond, California 94804 9500 Gilman Dr. MC 0085
La Jolla, California 92093
Brian Dean
Walter P. Moore Dimitrios Lignos
595 Market Street, Suite 950 Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics
San Francisco, California 94105 McGill University
Macdonald Engineering Building
Aysegul Gogus 817 Sherbrooke West, Room 488
University of California, Los Angeles Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2K6
5730 Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, California 90095 Farzin Zareian
University of California, Irvine
The Henry Samueli School of Engineering
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Irvine, California 92697

G-2 Project Participants GCR 10-917-8

 100% Draft
Project Review Panel
Ronald O. Hamburger Nicolas Luco
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger US Geological Survey
The Landmark @ One Market, Suite 600 Box 25046 – DFC – MS 966
San Francisco, California 94105 Denver, Colorado 80225

James R. Harris Bonnie E. Manley

J.R. Harris & Company AISI Regional Director
1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1525 41 Tucker Road
Denver, Colorado 80203 Norfolk, Massachusetts 02056

William T. Holmes Laurence Novak

Rutherford and Chekene Portland Cement Association
55 Second Street, Suite 600 5420 Old Orchard Road
San Francisco, California 94105 Skokie, Illinois 60077

Richard E. Klingner Rafael Sabelli

University of Texas at Austin Walter P. Moore
10100 Burnet Road 595 Market Street, Suite 950
Austin, Texas 78758 San Francisco, California 94105

Philip Line Kurt Stochlia

(American Forest and Paper Association International Code Council
representative) 5360 Workman Mill Road
URS Corporation Whittier, California 90601
200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878

FEMA Representatives
Michael Mahoney Robert D. Hanson
Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, SW 2926 Saklan Drive
Washington, D.C. 20472 Walnut Creek, California 94595

GCR 10-917-8 Project Participants G-3