Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Importance of shear assessment of concrete structures detailed to different
capacity design requirements
Aman Mwafy
a,
, Amr Elnashai
b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box. 17555, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Received 9 September 2006; received in revised form 6 July 2007; accepted 28 October 2007
Available online 20 February 2008
Abstract
Shear failure of RC structures signies rapid strength degradation and signicant loss of energy dissipation capacity. It is thus necessary
to avoid this failure mode by insuring that the shear supply exceeds the capacity corresponding to the maximum realistic exural strength. A
realistic and versatile approach is proposed in the current study and implemented in a general nonlinear dynamic analysis program to allow
for the prediction of shear failure in structural member. The shear demand-supply response is monitored through employing two shear strength
approaches. The rst is based on extensive experimental results and has proven to be effective in representing the reduction of shear supply with
the degradation in concrete strength. A design code shear strength model is also selected for comparison after eliminating the safety factors used
by the code. The analytical models are implemented in a time-step fashion to allow for shearaxial interaction and to account for the instantaneous
ductility demand imposed during the analysis. The investigated structures were realistically designed and detailed to different design ground
accelerations and capacity design requirements to represent a wide range of contemporary buildings with variations in longitudinal (exure) and
transverse (shear and connement) reinforcement. A series of inelastic response history analyses is conducted using a set of earthquake records
scaled to increasing intensities up to collapse. The signicance of including shear as a failure criterion in seismic assessment is conrmed in
this study. Variations of axial forces lead to high uctuation in shear supply and decrease the contribution of the concrete compression zone
to shear resistance. The improved response of structural members designed to the modern seismic provisions is conrmed. Shear failure may
be the controlling limit state in buildings designed for low-to-medium ductility capacity. This suggests improvements in the design provisions,
particularly those related to beam critical regions.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shear strength; Shear failure; Concrete structures; Nonlinear analysis; Earthquake damage; Seismic design
1. Introduction
Modeling the inelastic cyclic behavior of RC structural
members using the ber approach has proved its reliability
for the cases of uniaxial and biaxial exure with varying
axial load, e.g. [1]. The effectiveness and applicability of this
modeling technique increases signicantly when accounting for
shear. Modeling the shearbending interaction insures that non-
ductile modes of failure are inhibited and a favorable inelastic
exural response is achieved. Prediction of shear supply using
simple analytical approaches to compare with the anticipated

Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 3 7621694; fax: +971 3 7623154.

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

angle in determining the diagonal compression. This

is justied by the fact that this approach lead to conservative
0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.015
A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 1591
designs. In contrast, other design codes, e.g. [35], enable the
designer to use a atter angle for evaluating the contribution
of shear reinforcement to shear capacity. The remaining shear
resistance terms are based on experimental results and thus
treated in varies ways by design code.
Most of the codied shear strength models cannot be utilized
to predict shear failure in seismic assessment studies since they
are intended to provide a conservative and safe lower bound
to strength. Some of these models were also developed for
static loads, and hence do not account for important features
under earthquake loads such as the interaction between shear
strength and the instantaneous level of ductility. Considerable
experimental research has been therefore directed towards
better denition of shear in RC members and quantifying
the inuence of exural ductility in reducing shear transfer
across wide cracks in plastic hinge regions, e.g. [6,7]. These
simple and experimentally veried shear strength models can
be used along with the ber modeling approach to monitor the
shearbending interaction in RC members and the associated
non-ductile shear failure modes.
Comprehensive set of contemporary RC buildings designed
to modern seismic codes are assessed in the present study
against shear failure modes using rened modeling and state-
of-the-art analytical tools. The assessed structural systems
vary in their characteristics to represent common medium-rise
RC buildings in different seismicity regions. An ensemble of
code spectrum-compatible accelerograms and natural ground
motions are employed in the analysis. A brief description is
presented for the structural systems and their analytical models
as well as the comprehensive response criteria employed to
monitor the seismic response at both the member and the
structure level, particularly monitoring the shear capacity-
demand ratio during the multi-step analysis. Finally, sample
results fromthis comprehensive study are presented to highlight
the signicance of shear modeling in seismic assessment of RC
structures.
2. Selection of a realistic shear strength model
It has been conrmed in a recent study focused on the shear
strength of concrete members [8] that the approach of design
codes provides over-conservative estimates of shear capacity
compared with test results. The shear strength estimated using
different design provisions, e.g. [25], was compared with
test results to evaluate the relative conservatism of different
approaches. All resistance and strength reduction factors of
the design approaches were set to unity. A large experimental
database, consists of 878 RC and 481 prestressed concrete
members, was employed in the study. Table 1 shows sample
results from this comparison for RC members. It is observed
that EC2 [4] is less successful in predicting the shear capacity.
The ACI [2] approach is about 40% greater than the least
overall COV. JSCE [5] is somewhat better than EC2 and ACI,
while CSA [3] is the best approach. The comparison conrms
that different design approaches are unduly conservative and
inadequately correlate with test results. Furthermore, in another
study on RC columns, Priestley et al. [6] concluded that the
Table 1
Correlation of experimental results with the code shear strength models (after
NCHRP, 2005)
Member type (with or without
shear Rft)
Without
shear Rft
With
shear
Rft
Both
No. of test results 718 160 878
ACI [2] 1.54
(0.418)
1.35
(0.277)
1.51 (0.404)
CSA [3] 1.27
(0.282)
1.19
(0.218)
1.25 (0.274)
JSCE [5] 1.35
(0.293)
1.38
(0.216)
1.36 (0.280)
EC2 [4] 1.75
(0.328)
1.70
(0.373)
1.74 (0.336)
Rft: Denotes reinforcement.
Mean and coefcient of variation (COV, in brackets) are presented.
code approach does not provide a consistent estimate of the
shear strength. For low ductility levels, the code approach was
excessively conservative, while it was non-conservative at high
ductility levels.
Considerable experimental research has been therefore
directed towards better denition of shear deformation and
failure in RC members and quantifying the inuence of exural
ductility in reducing the shear transfer in plastic hinge regions.
Priestley et al. [6] suggested three independent components to
realistically predict the shear strength of rectangular columns.
These are:
V
c
= k

f
c
A
e
, (1)
V
s
= A
v
f
y
D

cot 30

/s (2)
and
V
p
= P tan = P(D c)/2a. (3)
The above mentioned equations represent the concrete
component, the truss mechanism component and the axial load
component, respectively; where k is a function of the member
ductility, f
c
is the concrete compressive strength, A
e
is the
effective shear area (0.8A
gross
), A
v
is the total transverse
reinforcement area per layer, f
y
is the steel yield stress, D

is
the distance between centers of the peripheral hoop, P is the
axial force, D is the overall section depth, c is the depth of the
compression zone and a is the shear span.
In the latter approach, the reduction in the concrete
contribution begins earlier when the element is subjected to
ductile response in two orthogonal axes, while it increases
considerably for low ductility levels. Since the member
curvature ductility is a more meaningful indicator of the
degradation in the aggregate interlock component of shear
resistance, the coefcient k is estimated in the present study
based on the curvature ductility [9] rather than the displacement
ductility formulation introduced in the original study of
Priestley et al. [6]. Moreover, since columns benet from the
uniform distribution of longitudinal reinforcement, the concrete
contribution in RC beams should be lower than columns.
Hence, an enhanced approach for estimating the coefcient
k was employed for assessment of RC beams [10]. In the
1592 A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604
Table 2
Correlation of test results and analytical shear strength approaches (after
Priestley et al. [6])
Shear model Circular
columns
Rectangular
columns
All data
ASCE-ACI
426 [11]
1.209 (0.226) 1.630 (0.306) 1.424 (0.342)
Wong et al. [12] 1.060 (0.202) 1.060 (0.202)
Priestleyet al. [6] 0.998 (0.113) 1.041 (0.132) 1.021 (0.124)
Mean and standard deviation (in brackets) are presented.
latter proposal, k depends on the ratio between the tension and
the compression reinforcement area. The concrete component
degrades to zero at a ductility level of 8 when the compression
reinforcement area is larger than the tension area since wide
exural cracks may develop within plastic hinge regions.
Clearly the truss mechanism component of the latter
approach is similar to the corresponding term in several design
codes, with a crack inclination angle of 30. This increases
the truss mechanism component signicantly (73%) compared
with the 45

adopted by some design codes. The strut and

tie term increases with the decrease in the member aspect
ratio. For an increasing axial load, and hence increasing the
depth of the exural compression zone, the effectiveness of
this term is also less signicant. Separation of this term
from the concrete term thus enables considering the possible
internal arch action with formation of an inclined strut. The
enhancement introduced in the concrete and the strut and tie
terms to account for the inuence of ductility and axial load
levels, results in a considerable enhancement in predicting
the shear strength. Comparison between the shear strength
estimated from the latter analytical mode with experimental
test results of rectangular and circular columns is presented in
Table 2 (after Priestley et al. [6]). It is clear that the margin
of error of the design code model is higher for rectangular
columns, which are mostly utilized in RC buildings.
Several other predictive approaches of shear strength have
been suggested in the literature. For instance, based on
extensive laboratory tests, a model for shear strength of lightly
reinforced rectangular columns has been recently suggested [7].
The model accounts for several parameters, including the
displacement ductility demand. However, it is commented in
the latter study that the model may be useful in applications to
columns having similar congurations and loadings (i.e. lightly
reinforced rectangular columns). The discussion presented
above and the enhancements introduced by Priestley et al. [9,
10] to predict the shear strength of various structural members
with different cross-sections renders the approach of Priestley
et al. [6] to be one of the most effective proposals amongst
the models classied as simple predictive approaches. This
model was therefore selected in the present study to predict
the ultimate shear strength of structural members in adequately
designed RC buildings. Eurocode 2 approach is also employed
after eliminating its safety factors to compare between a
code-based model and a simple and experimentally veried
alternative.
Table 3
Characteristics of the investigated structural systems
Group Design
ductility
Design
PGA
No. of
stories
T1
elastic
(s) T2
elastic
(s)
IF H & M 0.30 Eight 0.674 &
0.654
0.216 & 0.210
M & L 0.15 0.719 &
0.723
0.234 & 0.236
RF H & M 0.30 Twelve 0.857 &
0.893
0.277 & 0.288
M & L 0.15 0.920 &
0.913
0.295 & 0.294
FW H & M 0.30 Eight 0.538 &
0.533
0.150 & 0.148
M & L 0.15 0.592 &
0.588
0.165 & 0.164
IF: Irregular Frame, RF: Regular Frame and FW: Frame-Wall group of
buildings.
H: High, M: Medium and L: Low.
3. Structural systems, modeling and post-processing of
results
A representative sample of structural congurations was
selected in the present study to characterize the contemporary
medium-rise RC buildings designed to modern seismic codes.
Twelve RC buildings were selected and split into three sets
based on their structural system, as shown in Table 3. These are
the Irregular Frame (IF), Regular Frame (RF) and Frame-Wall
(FW) group of buildings. Within each group, combinations of
three design ductility classes (High, Medium and Low) and
two design ground accelerations (0.15g and 0.30g) lead to the
four investigated cases. This selection was motivated by the
desire to compare the shear response of structures designed to
different ductility and ground acceleration levels. Each building
was designed and detailed in accordance with Eurocode 2
and 8 [13]. Higher response modication factors, R, (behavior
factors q in Eurocode 8) are allowed by Eurocode 8 [14]
for higher ductility classes, while more rigorous standards on
member detailing requirements are imposed. The cross-section
capacities were computed by considering a characteristic
cylinder strength of 25 N/mm
2
for concrete and a characteristic
yield strength of 500 N/mm
2
for steel. The elastic fundamental
periods T
elastic
, obtained from elastic free vibration analyses
conrm that the uncracked periods of the selected buildings
(0.530.92) cover a wide range. Different building heights
(2436 m) and structural systems (moment-resisting frames and
frame-wall systems) as well as the structural system regularity
were taken into consideration. This insures that the assessment
sample represents the most common types of medium-rise
RC building. The geometric characteristics of the structures
are briey explained in Fig. 1, while Fig. 2 depicts sample
reinforcement details of an 8-story irregular building designed
to ductility Medium for a PGA of 0.30g.
Rened three-dimensional models of the entire buildings
employing the ber approach were assembled for inelastic anal-
ysis. The nite element analysis platform used in this study was
originally developed and thoroughly tested at Imperial College,
A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 1593
Fig. 1. Description of the investigated buildings.
Fig. 2. Sample reinforcement details of one of the twelve buildings investigated (8-story irregular building designed to ductility Medium and a PGA of 0.30g).
UK [15]. The further development and verication of the pro-
gram with full scale test results have continued at University
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, to deliver a state-of-the-
art inelastic analysis platform for static and dynamic simula-
tions [16]. The program and the adopted modeling approach
have been employed in several design and assessment studies
of high-rise buildings and bridges, e.g. [17,18].
In the detailed modeling approach adopted in the present
study, each structural member is assembled using a number of
cubic elasto-plastic elements capable of representing the spread
of inelasticity within the member cross-section and along the
member length via the ber modeling approach. The lengths
of the cubic elasto-plastic elements are determined on the
basis of the critical member lengths, which are controlled by
the Eurocode 8 provisions for different ductility classes. The
numerical integration for the cubic elasto-plastic elements is
performed over two Gauss sections, which have a xed position
within the element length. Reinforced concrete rectangular-
section and T-section are utilized for the modeling of structural
members. Both sections allow the geometric denition of the
steel, conned and unconned concrete regions within the
section. Connement factors are evaluated as described in
Eurocode 8, and varied along the member length according
to the arrangement of transverse reinforcements. The inelastic
response of the cross section is assembled from contributions
of different concrete and steel bers for which inelastic cyclic
material constitutive relationships are applied. A bilinear model
is used to idealize steel reinforcement. In this model, the
1594 A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604
Fig. 3. Description of the inelastic analysis post-processing procedure to monitor the seismic response and the shear supplydemand ratio.
loading and unloading in the elastic range follow a linear
function throughout various loading stages with constant
stiffness represented by the Youngs modulus of steel. In the
post-elastic range, a kinematic hardening rule for the yield
surface dened by a linear relationship is assumed [19]. A
uniaxial constant active connement concrete model [20],
which includes enhanced cyclic degradation rules, inelastic
strain and shape of unloading branches, is employed.
Based on the anticipated critical response, the analyses are
conducted along the global X-axis for the frame buildings
and along the Y-axis for the FW structures. The bidiagonal
reinforcements included in the design of several structural
members (refer to Fig. 2) are taken into consideration by adding
the horizontal and the vertical projection of the steel area to
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. This approach
is utilized to represent the bidiagonal shear reinforcement in
coupling beam and in the lower two stories of the core of the
FW-H030 and FW-M030 buildings.
Three main criteria are utilized in the current study to
dene global structural failure. These are: an upper limit of
the interstory drift (ID) ratio equal to 3%, formation of a
column hinging mechanism and a drop in the overall lateral
resistance by more than 10%. Two additional failure criteria
on the member level are employed: exceeding the ultimate
curvature or the shear strength. As discussed above, the latter
is mainly evaluated using the approach of Priestley et al. [6],
while the Eurocode 2 model is also included after eliminating
its safety factors to allow calibration with the code used in
design and as a second level check.
The adopted performance criteria are implemented in a
versatile post-processing program to systematically monitor
capacities and demands on the member and the structure
level. The developed algorithm traces the continuous variation
of forces and deformations in the assembly of elements
representing structural members during the multi-step analyses.
Fig. 3 summarizes the post-processing procedure by means
of a ow diagram. Inelastic pushover analysis results are rst
processed to evaluate the global response and yield curvature
(
y
) of critical sections. Yielding in the top and bottom
reinforcement of all critical regions should be achieved to
obtain
y
. This is carried out in the current study by applying
the incremental lateral forces in the inelastic pushover analysis
twice, in the positive and in the negative directions, up to
a high drift limit. Hence, two yield curvature values are
calculated for all critical sections, corresponding to yielding
of the top and bottom reinforcement. The calculated
y
values
are then employed to calculate the curvature ductility (

=
/
y
), which is required to evaluate the shear supply from
the model of Priestley et al. [6] during the response history
analyses. The post-processor also monitors satisfaction of other
limit state criteria adopted in the current study, including the
maximum curvature ductility demand in all structural members
to provide insight into the level of exural damage in structural
member.
A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 1595
Fig. 4. Shear demandsupply response in beams designed to different ductility classes (RF-buildings).
Inelastic response history analysis is performed using six
input excitations; four 10 s duration articially-generated
records compatible with the design code response spectrum
for medium soil class and two natural earthquake records
(Kobe KBU, Japan, 1995 and Loma Prieta SAR, US, 1989).
The records were scaled to possess equal velocity spectrum
intensity of the design spectrum. Further information regarding
the analytical modeling of the buildings and the assessment
methodology can be found elsewhere [2123].
4. Shear demandsupply response at the member level
Employing shear as a failure criterion in the present study
conrms its importance in assessing the seismic response of
RC buildings. Shear failure at low levels of PGA is frequently
recorded when employing the design code shear model. A clear
difference between the supply predicted by the code and that
estimated using the model of Priestley et al. [6] was observed.
The conservatism of the design approach and its inapplicability
for seismic assessment were conrmed. In frame structures, it
is observed that the most susceptible buildings to shear failure
are those designed to ductility level Low. For those buildings,
shear failure is the controlling failure criterion. Capacity design
rules are not required by EC8 when designing for this level of
ductility. Hence, the minimum transverse reinforcement, which
plays a signicant role in determining the shear strength, is
generally associated with those buildings.
Shear failure modes, detected using the realistic shear
strength model of Priestley el al. [6], are observed at PGA levels
notably higher than the design intensity. It is conrmed that
design ductility class Low frames are vulnerable to this type
of failure, particularly beams, but at higher PGA levels than
the design. It is observed in several cases that the distribution
of stirrups in structural members is determined according to
the maximum hoop spacing required by EC8 in critical regions
rather than the requirements of shear design. The requirements
of the maximum hoop spacing are mainly imposed by EC8
to enhance the ductility and energy dissipation in critical
regions of ductility High and Medium buildings. These
add an additional protection against shear failure. Moreover,
since inelastic shear deformations are associated with limited
ductility, strength reduction and signicant loss of energy
dissipation, EC8 imposes more stringent provisions to improve
the shear resistance and inhibit shear failure modes in critical
regions of ductility High and Medium buildings over those
required by EC2. Clearly, this leads to signicant differences
between the shear resistances of structural members designed
to the three levels of ductility. Fig. 4 compares between
the shear demandsupply observed in a rst story external
beam for the four regular frame buildings under an articial
record (Art-rec1) scaled to twice the design intensity (intensity
2.0). Comparison between each pair of buildings designed to
the same PGA shows the enhancement of shear strength for
higher ductility level buildings. It is also important to note
that not only the supply increases in higher ductility level
1596 A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604
Table 4
Maximum curvature ductility demand (MCDD) of the twelve buildings at twice the design intensity
Ref. Art-rec1 Art-rec2 Art-rec3 Art-rec4 Kobe Loma Prieta
MCDD Location
a
MCDD Location
a
MCDD Location
a
MCDD Location
a
MCDD Location
a
MCDD Location
a
MCDD in beams
IF-H030 4.40 B55R 5.84 B42R 3.95 B52R 4.88 B32R 5.73 B34L 4.04 B57L
IF-M030 4.95 B44L 4.61 B52R 4.34 B62R 4.35 B42R 5.64 B22R 3.05 B22R
IF-M015 2.66 B47R 3.01 B47L 2.49 B13L 3.10 B37L 3.49 B47R 1.98 B47L
IF-L015 2.24 B54L 2.10 B52R 1.93 B67R 3.16 B28L 3.18 B42R 1.38 B54L
RF-H030 5.69 B11L 6.28 B77R 5.23 B37L 4.66 B37R 3.26 B67R 5.52 B67R
RF-M030 6.27 B107R 8.95 B87R 5.98 B97L 6.55 B97R 3.51 B87L 6.31 B87R
RF-M015 3.15 B77L 3.46 B77L 5.09 B37L 2.35 B37R 1.23 B77R 3.64 B67L
RF-L015 2.08 B77L 3.54 B87L 3.05 B77L 2.89 B87R 1.34 B87L 3.77 B87R
FW-H030 12.98 B15L 15.28 B15L 6.49 B85R 11.52 B15L 4.75 B35L 8.45 B35L
FW-M030 13.46 B85L 9.94 B85L 9.79 B85L 7.64 B85L 1.91 B85L 6.66 B85L
FW-M015 4.76 B15R 10.24 B15R 4.64 B85R 6.49 B15R 1.67 B75R 2.98 B75R
FW-L015 5.30 B85L 5.26 B85L 4.63 B85L 5.01 B85L 1.11 B85L 4.41 B85L
MCDD in columns
IF-H030 3.50 C22B 4.50 C82T 4.17 C22B 5.07 C22B 4.49 C25B 4.66 C22B
IF-M030 4.09 C25B 4.90 C22B 2.85 C22B 4.68 C25B 6.79 C22B 3.61 C22B
IF-M015 2.10 C22B 2.05 C22B 2.20 C25B 2.59 C22B 2.37 C22B 1.82 C22B
IF-L015 1.92 C82T 2.51 C25B 1.96 C82T 3.49 C25B 2.90 C22B 1.88 C25B
RF-H030 2.81 C17B 1.12 C17B 2.39 C17B 2.12 C17B 1.18 C17B 1.78 C17B
RF-M030 1.99 C11B 1.12 C12B 1.84 C11B 1.72 C11B 1.06 C12B 1.94 C17B
RF-M015 1.00 C17B 1.47 C110B 1.10 C17B
RF-L015 1.05 C16B
FW-H030 3.84 C16B 5.00 C17B 3.06 C17B 3.61 C17B 2.72 C16B 3.16 C16B
FW-M030 4.22 C16B 3.56 C17T 3.70 C16T 3.69 C17T 3.38 C17T 3.80 C17T
FW-M015 5.44 C16T 5.19 C16T 4.99 C17T 4.94 C17T 4.65 C16T 4.83 C16T
FW-L015 1.75 C16B 2.03 C16T 1.54 C16T 2.36 C17B 1.50 C17T
Indicates no yielding yet of tensile reinforcement.
a
Refer to the index plan shown above.
buildings but the demand also decreases. Higher ductility class
structures generally attract lower base shear due to employing
higher reduction in the design seismic forces, which leads to
a reduction in the lateral strength. Hence, lower forces are
attracted to these buildings. It is shown from Fig. 4 that this
also applies to the member level.
An observable drop in the shear strength evaluated using the
Priestley et al. [6] shear model is shown in Fig. 4 for the 0.30g
buildings, particularly for the higher ductility level structure. It
is also interesting to record an increase in the shear strength
of the design code shear model at the same time-step. For the
RF-H030 building, the maximum shear and compressive axial
force demands (653 and 975 kN, respectively) are recorded
at 3.5 s. The increase in the compressive axial force results
in increasing the concrete contribution term and consequently
the total shear strength (659 kN) predicted using the design
code shear model. In contrast, the drop in the shear strength
of Priestley et al. model is mainly due to the high ductility
demand recorded in the beam shown in Fig. 4. Table 4 shows
the Maximum Curvature Ductility Demands (MCDD) observed
in the beams and columns of the twelve buildings investigated
at twice the design PGA. It is clear that MCDD in beams of
the RF-H030 building when subjected to Art-rec1 is observed
in the beam shown in Fig. 4 (

= 5.69). Contrary to the

A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 1597
Fig. 5. Shear demandsupply response in columns designed to different ductility classes (IF-buildings).
design code, the degradation of shear strength with increasing
inelastic deformation is effectively accounted for in the model
of Priestley et al. [6,9,10].
In comparing the shear strength of buildings designed to
the same PGA but for different ductility levels, it is observed
that the reduction in the shear strength when designing to
lower ductility level is higher in the 0.15g pair compared
with the 0.30g pair. On average, this reduction is 25% and
41%, respectively. This conrms the non-uniformsafety margin
of the code provisions when designing for different seismic
regions. It is noteworthy that the difference between the shear
strength when designing to ductility High and Medium is
less than that shown in Fig. 4. This is because the beam depth
of the RF-H030 building is 0.65 m, whilst it is 0.60 m for RF-
M030. The comparison shown in Fig. 4 conrms the low safety
margin against shear failure of ductility Low beams compared
with the ductility classes Medium and High.
Shear forces in columns designed to ductility class Low are
determined from the analysis for the seismic load combinations
required by EC8. For ductility levels Medium and High
the design shear forces are determined in accordance with
the capacity design criterion considering equilibrium of the
column under actual resisting end moments. Clearly the safety
factors added to the columns designed to ductility High
and Medium, through the shear magnication factor, lead
to signicantly higher shear resistance when compared with
columns of ductility class Low. Comparison between the
shear demand-supply response of columns designed to different
ductility levels is shown in Fig. 5 for the four IF buildings.
The higher margin of safety against shear failure for columns
compared with beams designed to ductility Low is conrmed
from this gure. It is clear that the difference between shear
strength of the two buildings designed to a PGA of 0.15g is not
signicant, contrary to that observed in beams (refer to Fig. 4).
Since lower ductility class buildings have higher stiffness, they
attract higher levels of axial force. This is the reason behind the
higher uctuation in shear supply in the right plots of Fig. 5.
This variation in supply is higher for the design code model
compared with Priestley et al.s approach. The effectiveness of
the axial force component of Priestley et al. [6] shear model
becomes less signicant with the increase in axial forces, which
leads to an increase in the depth of the compression zone.
Although the increase in axial forces causes some enhancement
in the concrete contribution, combining this term with the axial
force term in the EC2 shear model has the drawback of ignoring
the adverse effect of increasing the axial forces on the arch
mechanism contribution.
Comparison between structural walls designed to different
ductility classes leads to the same observation of the column
response. Generally, higher margins of safety are observed for
the higher ductility level buildings (FW-H030 and FW-M015),
as shown in Fig. 6. The highest safety margin is for the building
designed to ductility High, which attracts lower shear forces,
while provided with signicant enhancement in shear strength.
It should be noted that the wall of the FW-H030 building
is provided with bidiagonal reinforcement in the lower two
stories. This type of reinforcement is modeled by adding the
horizontal and the vertical projection of the bidiagonal steel
area to the longitudinal and the transverse reinforcements. The
shear resistance of the bidiagonal reinforcement should be more
1598 A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604
Fig. 6. Shear demandsupply response in walls designed to different ductility classes (FW-buildings).
Fig. 7. Axial force and shear demandsupply response of a rst story external column with and without the effect of vertical ground motion (RF-M30 building).
effective than the contribution of its equivalent steel areas added
to the longitudinal and the transverse reinforcements.
Fig. 7 depicts the axial force and shear demandsupply time-
histories for a ground story external column of the RF-M030
A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 1599
Table 5
Shear failure in structural members at twice the design intensity
Ref. Shear model Records Observed shear failure Failure pattern
Columns or walls Beams
IF-H030 EC2 All records First story cut-off columns Fig. 8 (1)
IF-M030 EC2 All records Several cut-off cols. and few other cols. Few external frame beams Fig. 8 (2)
IF-M015 EC2 All records Several internal beams Fig. 8 (4)
IF-L015 EC2 All records First story cut-off columns Almost all beams in 1st & 2nd stories Fig. 8 (1) and (6)
Priestley
a
Art-2, 4 & Kobe Few external beams Fig. 8 (7)
RF-H030
RF-M030 EC2 All records First oor external beams Fig. 9 (9)
RF-M015 EC2 All records Few internal frame beams Fig. 9 (10)
RF-L015 EC2 All records Many ext. & few Int. frame beams Fig. 9 (12)
Priestley
a
Art-3 Few external beams Fig. 9 (13)
FW-H030 EC2 All records Walls at different stories Coupled beams at several stories Fig. 10 (16)
FW-M030 EC2 All records Walls at almost all stories Coupled beams at several stories Fig. 10 (18)
FW-M015 EC2 All records Walls at different stories Fig. 10 (20) and
(21)
FW-L015 EC2 All records Walls at different stories Fig. 10 (23) and
(24)
a
Priestley et al. [6] shear strength model.
building when subjected to Loma Prieta (scaled to a PGA of
0.60g). The strong relationship between the variation in axial
force and shear supply is exemplied in this gure. It is clear
that the shear strength is adversely affected by the reduction
in compressive forces. Variations of axial forces lead to high
uctuation in shear supply and decrease the contribution of the
concrete compression zone to shear resistance.
On the other hand, the ratio of peak vertical to horizontal
acceleration (V/H) often exceeds the values adopted in design
codes in the vicinity of the source of moderate-to-strong
earthquakes [24]. This casts doubt regarding the adequacy
of the simplied approach adopted in seismic design codes
to account for vertical ground motion [25]. The effect of
vertical ground motion (VGM) on the seismic response and
force reduction factors supply of modern code-designed RC
buildings located in the vicinity of active faults was therefore
extensively investigated by Mwafy and Elnashai [26] using the
twelve structures presented in the present study. The response
of the buildings was monitored using a comprehensive set
of local and global response parameters under multi-axial
earthquake loading. Analyses under horizontal-only (H) and
horizontal plus vertical (H + V) motions were undertaken.
Sample results demonstrating the effect of including VGM
is presented in Fig. 7. In this gure, vertical ground motion
increases the maximum axial compressive forces by 16%.
Tensile forces also increase by 50% in the selected external
column when VGM is included. However, this has a marginal
effect on the shear response.
It is noteworthy that axial forces in low-rise buildings and
interior columns of taller structures at higher stories are more
inuenced by the vertical ground motion. This effect generally
increases when the contribution of the lateral seismic action is
relatively small. The situation is even more critical in irregular
structures. Mwafy and Elnashai [26] concluded that VGM has
a signicant effect on the seismic response on both the member
and the structure levels. This effect was more pronounced on
the member response compared with the global response. Axial
compressive forces in vertical structural members increased by
up to 45% and tensile forces were detected only when VGM is
included. The conservatism of the capacity design requirement
of columns designed to modern seismic codes is the underlying
reason behind the high margin of safety against shear failure
modes. For the sake of brevity, additional information regarding
the response of structures under the effect of vertical ground
motion is presented in the abovementioned references.
5. Shear demandsupply response at the structure level
Brief summary of the results from the extensive shear
demandsupply assessment study carried out on the twelve
buildings investigated here at increasing earthquake intensities
are presented in Figs. 810. The distribution of shear failure in
horizontal and vertical structural members is shown in the latter
gures for the three groups of buildings. Shear failure modes
observed in the rst and the second story beams are only shown
in the latter gures since the design indicated that these are the
most vulnerable beams to shear failure. Due to the signicance
of vertical structural members in resisting lateral forces, shear
failure modes of columns and walls are depicted for all stories.
This also applies to the coupling beams in the third group of
buildings, which have a signicant role in transferring shear
forces between the coupled walls. Table 5 also summarizes the
observed shear failure modes and their locations for the twelve
buildings at twice the design intensity.
In spite of the conclusions drawn above regarding the
conservatism of the design code shear model, it is still useful
to verify the design of the buildings using a shear model
representing the design code and to compare the response of
structures designed to different capacity design requirements.
It is clear from the results that higher ductility class buildings
are less vulnerable to shear failure. This is better exemplied by
the four irregular frame buildings shown in Fig. 8. In this group,
1600 A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604
Fig. 8. Mapping shear failure modes of the IF-buildings at the design and twice the design intensities.
shear failure occurs in IF-H030 only at the base of the cut-
off columns. For IF-M030, shear failure increases signicantly
in the cut-off columns at different story levels as well as in
some primary columns and external beams. Amongst the twelve
buildings investigated here, shear failure (employing the code
approach) in primary columns is only observed in IF-M030
at twice the design intensity. Comparison between the two
buildings designed to a PGA of 0.15g also shows a signicant
difference between IF-M015 and IF-L015. In the former, shear
failure is observed in few internal beams, which exhibit high
shear forces due to their low slenderness. For the building
designed to ductility Low, several shear failure modes are
observed in beams at intensity 1.0, whilst at twice the design
PGA this occurs in almost all rst and second oor beams.
Additionally, shear failure, detected using the realistic shear
model of Priestley et al. [6], is observed in several beams,
conrming the vulnerability of beams designed to ductility
Low.
Comparison between the two groups of frame buildings
shows clearly the deciency of irregular structures. In the
regular frame buildings (refer to Fig. 9), shear failure occurs
only in few rst and second oor beams. No shear failure is
observed in columns up to twice the design intensity even using
the conservative design model. However, the vulnerability of
beams designed to ductility Low is conrmed, whereas shear
failure, utilizing the model of Priestley et al. [6], is observed in
two beams. This also highlights advantages of regular structural
systems since shear failure modes according to the Priestley
et al. model are observed in several beams in the rst group
of buildings.
A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 1601
Fig. 9. Mapping shear failure modes of the RF-buildings at the design and twice the design intensities.
Results of the third group of buildings also conrm the
abovementioned conclusion. It is clear that shear failure
increases in lower ductility class buildings, particularly at the
ground story. In this group, all shear failure modes are observed
from the design model, while no indication of actual shear
failure from the more realistic model of Priestley et al. [6]
is observed up to twice the design intensity. The results
indicate that shear failure is not the controlling member failure
criterion for the four dual structures, contrary to frame buildings
particularly those designed to ductility Low. The results
clearly show that capacity design provisions of Eurocode 8
have succeeded in protecting the columns and walls from shear
failure. Although beam failure is less signicant, the observed
spread of shear failure in beams highlights their lower margin
of safety. The apparent vulnerability of beams designed to
ductility class Low and cut-off columns are conrmed from
this extensive analysis.
Sample results from the incremental collapse analysis at
the rst attainment of shear failure are presented in Fig. 11.
The shear supplydemand time-histories are presented at the
intensity levels that cause rst indication of member shear
failure. These are shown for the two frame structures designed
to ductility class Low. The results clearly conrms the
signicance of employing shear as a failure criterion in
seismic assessment of RCbuildings, particularly those designed
without additional seismic provisions, and the applicability of
tracing brittle shear failure modes using simple and realistic
predictive approaches.
1602 A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604
Fig. 10. Mapping shear failure modes of the FW-buildings at the design and twice the design intensities.
6. Conclusions
The shear response of RC buildings designed and detailed
to modern seismic provisions was assessed in the present
study. Implications of designing to increasing capacity design
requirements on the margin of safety against shear failure
were investigated. A wide range of buildings with various
characteristics were idealized using a rened modeling
approach and analyzed using distinct set of synthetic and
natural ground motions scaled to different PGA levels. A wide
range of failure criteria on the member and the structure levels,
including a ductility- and axial force-sensitive shear strength
model, were monitored using an effective approach to assess
the seismic response. The adopted shear strength model proved
its realism in accounting for the degradation of the concrete
contribution to shear strength with increasing inelasticity. It also
insures that the axial force contribution is realistically included
by separating it from the concrete contribution.
The signicance of including shear in seismic assessment
of concrete buildings was conrmed in the present study.
Buildings designed to high ductility levels exhibited higher
margins of safety against shear failure than their medium and
A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604 1603
Fig. 11. First observed member shear failure in frame buildings designed to ductility level Low.
low ductility counterparts. This is a result of the capacity design
requirements imposed to enhance ductility and shear strength
as well as since the former class attract lower shear demands.
The code provisions succeeded in protecting the columns from
shear failure even for those designed to ductility class Low.
Beams exhibited relatively lower safety margins. Those beams
designed to ductility class Low and cut-off (planted) columns
were vulnerable to shear failure, but at intensities higher than
the design PGA. In frame buildings designed to ductility Low,
shear failure was the controlling failure criterion.
The study conrmed the applicability of tracing brittle
shear failure modes in concrete structures using simple and
realistic approaches alongside state-of-the art analysis tools.
Old structures and those designed without seismic provisions,
particularly irregular buildings, are more susceptible to
shear failure mode than the adequately designed buildings
investigated in the present study. Monitoring the shear response
of the former class of structures is therefore inevitable for the
reliable seismic assessment of their response.
References
[1] Jeong S-H, Elnashai AS. Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame
for full-scale 3d pseudo-dynamic testing Part I: Analytical model
verication. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2005;9:95128.
[2] ACI (318-02). Building code requirements for structural concrete. Detroit
(MI): American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[3] CSA. Design of concrete structures. Rexdale (Ontario, Canada): CSA
committee A23.3-04; 2004.
[4] Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures Part 1: General rules and
rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization;
2004.
[5] JSCE. Specication for design and construction of concrete structures:
Design. JSCE Standard, Part 1. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers;
1986.
[6] Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of reinforced
concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 1994;120:231029.
[7] Sezen H, Moehle JP. Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete
columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130:1692703.
[8] NCHRP. Simplied shear design of structural concrete members. Report
549. Washington (DC): Transportation Research Board; 2005.
[9] Priestley MJN, Benzoni G, Ohtaki T, Seible F. Seismic performance of
circular reinforced concrete columns under varying axial load. Report-
SSRP-96/04. Division of Structural Engineering, University of California;
1996.
[10] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrot of bridges.
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[11] ASCE-ACI. Shear strength of reinforced concrete members. ASCE-ACI
joint task committee 426. Journal of Structural Engineering 1973; 99:
1091187.
[12] Wong Y-L, Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Response of circular reinforced
concrete columns to multi-directional seismic attack. ACI Structural
Journal 1993;90:18091.
[13] Fardis MN. Analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings
according to Eurocodes 2 and 8. Reports on Prenormative Research in
Support of Eurocode 8. Greece: University of Patras; 1994.
[14] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:
General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN. Brussels:
European Committee for Standardization; 2004.
[15] Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. ADAPTIC, A program for adaptive large
displacement elastoplastic dynamic analysis of steel, concrete and
composite frames. ESEE research report no. 89/7. Imperial College,
University of London; 1989.
[16] Elnashai AS, Papanikolaou V, Lee D. ZEUS-NL A system for inelastic
analysis of structures. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2006.
[17] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS, Sigbj ornsson R, Salama A. Signicance of
severe distant and moderate close earthquakes on design and behavior of
tall buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 2006;
15:391416.
[18] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS, Yen W-H. Implications of design assumptions
on capacity estimates and demand predictions of multi-span curved
bridges. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering 2007;12:71026.
[19] Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of material nonlinearities in
steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:50932.
[20] Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. Conned concrete model under cyclic
load. Materials and Structures 1997;30:13947.
[21] Elnashai AS, Mwafy AM. Overstrength and force reduction factors of
multistorey reinforced-concrete buildings. The Structural Design of Tall
Buildings 2002;11:32951.
[22] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Calibration of force reduction factors of RC
buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6:23973.
[23] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse
analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures 2001;23:40724.
[24] Papazouglou AJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical and eld evidence of the
damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996;25:110937.
1604 A. Mwafy, A. Elnashai / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 15901604
[25] Collier CJ, Elnashai AS. A procedure for combining vertical and
horizontal Seismic Action Effects. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
2001;5:52139.
[26] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Vulnerability of code-compliant RC buildings
under multi-axial earthquake loading. In: Proceedings of the 4th
international conference on earthquake engineering. 2006.