A Cyclic Backbone Curve for Shear-Critical

Reinforced Concrete Walls

Siamak Epackachi 1; Nikhil Sharma 2; Andrew Whittaker 3;
Ronald O. Hamburger 4; and Ayse Hortacsu 5

Abstract: Backbone curves are used in seismic design standards as the basis for developing component models for nonlinear static and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dynamic analysis. Herein, data from 240 tests of rectangular, barbell, and flanged shear-critical walls are assembled and analyzed to develop
an improved cyclic backbone curve for use in nonlinear response-history analysis. Values of drift ratio and normalized lateral force at the
control points on the cyclic backbone curve are identified. The effects of design parameters, including wall aspect ratio, axial load, day-of-test
concrete compressive strength, vertical and horizontal web reinforcement ratio, reinforcement ratio in the boundary elements, and yield
strength of reinforcement, on the coordinates of the control points are addressed. The accuracy of equations for peak shear strength is assessed
using the collected test data. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002277. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses are used to assess
the seismic behavior of existing and new buildings and other
structures. In the United States, the first actionable documents to
use nonlinear analysis were FEMA 273 (FEMA 1997b) and FEMA
274 (FEMA 1997a): the first generation of tools for performance-
based earthquake engineering. The emphasis in these documents
was on nonlinear static (pushover) analysis, which was deemed
by its authors as an interim step between (1) elastic analysis of
models of building frames for lateral (seismic) forces calculated
using a response reduction factor and (2) nonlinear dynamic analy-
sis, which was functionally challenging in the mid-1990s due to a
lack of commercially available software and the computational ex-
pense. Fig. 1 reproduces Figs. 2–5(a and b) of FEMA 273: an ideal-
ized component load versus deformation curve for depicting
component modeling and acceptability, now widely described
as a backbone curve. These figures were used “ : : : throughout
the Guidelines to specify acceptance criteria for deformation-
controlled component and element actions : : : Linear response
is depicted between point A (unloaded component) and an effective
yield point B. The slope from B to C is typically a small percentage
(0–10%) of the elastic slope, and is included to represent phenom-
ena such as strain hardening. C has an ordinate that represents the
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir Univ. of
Technology, 15875-4413 Tehran, Iran (corresponding author). Email:
epackachis@aut.ac.ir
2 no difference between the yield and nominal strengths : : : .”
Undergraduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382355, India. Email: nikhil.sharma@
iitgn.ac.in
3
SUNY Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Civil, Structural and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260. Email:
awhittak@buffalo.edu
4
Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz and Heger, San Francisco,
CA 94111. Email: rohamburger@sgh.com
5
Director of Projects, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
CA, 94065. Email: ayse@atcouncil.org
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 17, 2018; approved
on August 31, 2018; published online on January 24, 2019. Discussion
period open until June 24, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
strength of the component, and an abscissa value equal to the de-
formation at which significant strength degradation begins (line
CD). Beyond point D, the component responds with substantially
reduced strength to point E. At deformations greater than point E,
the component strength is essentially zero : : : ” (FEMA 1997b).
In this figure, QCE is mean expected strength. For evaluation of
force-controlled components, QCE was replaced by QCL : a mean-
minus-one standard-deviation estimate of strength.
The coordinates of the control points on the idealized normal-
ized force-displacement (deformation) relationship of Fig. 1 were
defined by analysis of data available through the mid-1990s by
domain experts. Generally, results of cyclic inelastic tests of com-
ponents were used to generate such relationships, and Fig. 1 was
subsequently described as a cyclic backbone curve. [This curve is
generally different from one obtained under unidirectional mono-
tonic loading (e.g., Deierlein et al. 2010).] Fig. 2 illustrates the con-
struction of a cyclic backbone curve from the reversed cyclic,
inelastic testing of a shear critical, reinforced concrete (RC) wall
(Luna et al. 2015, 2018).
Table 6-18 (modeling parameters and numerical acceptance
criteria for nonlinear procedures-members controlled by shear)
of FEMA 273 assigned values to the variables d, e, and c [as iden-
tified in Fig. 1(b)] for shear-critical walls carrying low axial gravity
load: 0.75%, 2.0%, and 0.40%, respectively. The nominal shear
strength of a shear-critical wall was to be calculated using
Section 21.6 of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-95 using
specified reinforcement yield strength, and there “ : : : should be
FEMA 273 and 274 were updated and merged in 2000 as FEMA
356 (FEMA 2000) and subsequently reissued as an ASCE standard
in 2006 (ASCE 2006) and 2013 (ASCE 2013). The control points
for the cyclic backbone curve for shear-critical walls in ASCE
41 were essentially identical to those described in FEMA 273.
ASCE 41 updated the cyclic backbone curve of FEMA 273,
FEMA 356, and ASCE 41. A trilinear lateral force–lateral defor-
mation relationship to peak strength (Fig. 3) was adopted for
shear-critical RC walls based on the work of Wallace (Elwood et al.
2007). A point on the curve (F in Fig. 3) was associated with the
onset of cracking.
In Fig. 3, shear resistance is normalized by peak shear
strength, and lateral deformation is normalized by story height h.

© ASCE 04019006-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

 Fig. 1. Idealized load versus deformation curves for component modeling: (a) deformation; and (b) deformation ratio. (Reprinted from FEMA
1997a.)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Hysteretic response of a low aspect ratio shear wall. (Data from
Luna et al. 2015, 2018.)
Fig. 3. Load-deformation relationship for members controlled by
shear. (Reprinted from ASCE 2013, © ASCE.)
Parameters g, d, and e in Fig. 3 represent yield drift ratio, drift ratio
corresponding to the onset of loss of shear strength, and ultimate
drift ratio, respectively, where drift ratio is defined as a relative
lateral displacement between the top and bottom of a story, divided
by story height. Parameters f and c are associated with the strength
at the onset of cracking and the residual strength, respectively.
© ASCE 04019006-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006
Table 1 reproduces the part of Table 10-20 of ASCE 41
relevant to the presentation here, namely, modeling parameters
for nonlinear analysis of shear-critical walls, an update to ASCE
41. Per Table 1, the normalized force at cracking, f, is 0.6 and
the yield drift ratio, g, is 0.4%: values that are assumed to be in-
dependent of axial load. Axial load is assumed to affect the drift at
peak strength, d, ultimate drift ratio, e, and residual force ratio, c.
The procedure used to calculate the drift ratio and shear force cor-
responding to first cracking is described in Section C10.7.2.2.2 of
ASCE 41: the drift ratio at first cracking is calculated using the
value of f (¼0.6 per Table 10-20 of ASCE 41) and the uncracked
elastic stiffness. Because the calculated elastic stiffness of each
wall in the database is different, there is no unique value in ASCE
41 for the drift ratio at cracking.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology funded
the Applied Technology Council to conduct a comprehensive re-
view of the generalized component models published in ASCE/SEI
Standard 41 and to recommend improvements, if any. The results of
that study were published in NIST GCR 17-917-45 (NIST 2017)
and Epackachi et al. (2018). One of the component models re-
viewed in the NIST GCR was shear-critical RC walls, which is
the subject of this paper. Herein, reported force–displacement re-
lationships in walls are studied to update the cyclic backbone curve
in ASCE 41 for shear-critical RC walls. The accuracy of widely
used empirical equations for peak shear strength is also investigated
because the force coordinates in the backbone curve are normalized
by peak shear strength.
Database Development
Gulec et al. (2008) and Gulec and Whittaker (2009, 2011) cata-
logued and processed data from tests of 434 low-aspect-ratio
RC walls to propose an empirical equation for peak shear strength.
Luna et al. (2015, 2018) assembled data published between 2010
and 2015. Only 240 of the datasets assembled by Gulec and Luna
included information useful for the evaluation of the coordinates of
control points on the cyclic backbone curve. Appendix B of NIST
GCR 17-917-45 identifies the original sources of the data, which
are not repeated here. All of these data were processed.
The influence of wall aspect ratio, vertical web reinforcement
ratio, horizontal web reinforcement ratio, vertical reinforcement ra-
tio in the boundary elements (i.e., portion along wall edge strength-
ened by longitudinal and transverse reinforcement), normalized
axial compressive load, and concrete uniaxial compressive strength
on the coordinates of the control points were investigated.
A drawing of a typical RC shear wall, including dimensions and
details of reinforcement, is presented in Fig. 4.
J. Struct. Eng.
 For barbells and Ver. Bars
Hor. Bars
flanged walls
tw
A Hor. Bars
tw

B B Hor. Bars
Ver. Bars hw
(b)
l be
Ver. Bars

tw
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A Section A-A Ver. Barsin BE

lw Hor. Bars Crossties in BE
(a) (c)

l ba
Ver. Bars

tw t ba tw

Ver. Bars in barbell

Hor. Bars Hor. Bars
Crossties in barbell
Wall Flange
(d)

(e)

Fig. 4. Schematic drawings of low-aspect-ratio shear walls: (a) elevation and cross-section; (b) section B-B for a rectangular wall without boundary
elements; (c) section B-B for a rectangular wall with boundary elements; (d) section B-B for a barbell wall; and (e) section B-B for a flanged wall.

Table 1. Modeling parameters for RC walls controlled by shear

Total drift ratio (%) Strength ratio
Axial load d e g c f
ðAs − As0 Þf y þ P
⩽ 0.05 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.6
tw lw f c0
ðAs − As0 Þf y þ P
> 0.05 0.75 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.6
tw lw f c0
Source: Data from ASCE (2013).

Fig. 5. Measured and idealized cyclic backbone curves. of the hysteresis loop) of the cyclic loops were collected and
processed.

The force–displacement relationship reported in the literature Cyclic Backbone Curve

for each of the 240 walls was digitized. Reported properties,
including dimensions, details of reinforcement, and material
properties were logged. The procedures used to establish the
coordinates of the control points on the backbone curve are ex-
plained in the following sections. Data from positive (first quad-
rant of the hysteresis loop) and negative loading (third quadrant
Per ASCE 41, the pre–peak-strength response of a low-aspect-
ratio RC wall was idealized as a trilinear force–displacement
relationship corresponding to regions of elastic (origin-A), post-
cracking (A-B), and postyielding (B-C) response, as presented
in Fig. 5. The displacements and forces at the point of cracking

© ASCE 04019006-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

 (δA and FA in Fig. 5) and at the point of peak strength (termed the
peak point hereafter) (δ C and FC in Fig. 5) were obtained directly
from the measured cyclic backbone curve. Because the drift ratio
and lateral force at the onset of visible cracking were generally not
reported, the point of cracking was associated herein with the onset
of nonlinearity in the force–displacement relationship. The dis-
placements and forces corresponding to point B were calculated
using an equal-energy method (Mahin and Bertero 1976), as illus-
trated in Fig. 5. The slope of the postpeak branch (C-D) was taken
to be the average of the slopes of the lines in the postpeak region,
as shown in quadrants 1 and 3 of Fig. 2.
The effects of the design variables on the values of drift ratio and
lateral force at the control points on the linearized backbone curve
are presented in Figs. 6–17. Linear least-squares fits were used for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
data analysis. The figures include the test data, a trend line based on
a least-squares fit, and lower and upper bounds for a confidence
level of 95%.
Drift at Cracking, δA
The effects of design variables on the drift ratio at cracking are pre-
sented in Figs. 6 and 7. Of the six design variables considered here,
f c0 has the greatest effect on rectangular (planar) walls: the greater
the value of fc0 , the greater the drift ratio at cracking. The effect
of f c0 on the response of walls with barbells and flanges is small.
Per the data. The drift ratio at cracking is also affected by aspect
(moment-to-shear) ratio, axial compressive force, and boundary
element reinforcement ratio. As expected, the drift ratio at cracking
increases with aspect ratio.
The trend lines in both Figs. 6 and 7 indicate that an increase in
axial compressive force leads to a decrease in the drift at the onset
of cracking, which is counterintuitive, calling into question (1) the
use of trend lines for widely scattered data, (2) the accuracy of the
reported data, and (3) the association here of cracking with the first
Fig. 6. Effect of design variables on δ A for rectangular walls.
© ASCE 04019006-4
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006
deviation from initial stiffness (or onset of nonlinear response). The
vertical reinforcement ratio in the boundary elements should have
no effect on the drift ratio at the onset of cracking because the
corresponding rebar strains will be very small.
Normalized Force at Cracking, V A =V C
Figs. 8 and 9 show the effects of design variables on the normalized
force at cracking, defined here as the ratio of the force at cracking
(as defined previously) to the peak lateral force: V A =V C . The
dashed line in Figs. 8 and 9 corresponds to a ratio of 0.6: the value
identified in ASCE 41. As seen in Figs. 8 and 9, f c0 affects
only the normalized force at cracking for flanged and barbell walls
(i.e., a wall with a column at each end). The vertical web reinforce-
ment, ρv f yv , has a significant effect on V A =V C . An increase in
ρv fyv leads to a decrease in V A =V C in both rectangular and flanged
walls because (1) the lateral strength of a low-aspect-ratio wall is
dependent on the vertical reinforcement ratio, and (2) the force at
cracking should be independent of ρv f yv . Increases in ρh f yh
and ρvb fyvb reduce V A =V C for rectangular walls, with a smaller
effect observed for flanged walls. Axial compression affects the
normalized force at cracking: as the axial force increases, V A =V C
decreases. A reduction in the normalized force at cracking, from
f ¼ 0.6 to f ¼ 0.5, is supported by the data.
Drift Ratio at Yield, δB
Figs. 10 and 11 present data for the drift ratio at yield δ B . The
dashed lines in Figs. 10 and 11 are the ASCE 41 value of 0.4%
(Table 1), which underestimates most of the recorded data for
rectangular walls. Wall aspect ratio affects the yield drift ratio,
although the effect on rectangular walls is small. Concrete uniaxial
compressive strength fc0 has a significant effect on the yield drift
ratio for both types of wall.
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Effect of design variables on δ A for barbell and flanged walls.

Fig. 8. Effect of design variables on V A =V C for rectangular walls.

Drift Ratio at Peak Strength, δC to a drift ratio of 1% (ASCE 41 value if the axial force ratio is
0.05 or smaller). The other corresponds to a drift ratio of 0.75%
Figs. 12 and 13 present data for the drift ratio at peak strength, δ C . (ASCE 41 value if the axial force ratio is greater than 0.05). Fig. 13
Two dashed lines are shown in the panels. One corresponds clearly shows that of the six design variables considered in this

© ASCE 04019006-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Effect of design variables on V A =V C for barbell and flanged walls.

Fig. 10. Effect of design variables on δ B for rectangular walls.

study, the drift ratio at peak strength is most affected by f c0 and
M=Vlw : the greatest slopes of the trend lines in the corresponding
panels. The drift ratio at peak strength decreases with increas-
ing axial force ratio: the values proposed in ASCE 41 are not
unreasonable.
Drift Ratio at Zero Residual Strength
Table 10-20 of ASCE 41 (Table 1) sets the residual strength ratio
and ultimate drift ratio (i.e., point E on the backbone curve of
Fig. 1) equal to 0 and 1.0%, respectively, if the axial force ratio
½ðAs − As0 Þf y þ P=ðtw lw fc0 Þ is greater than 0.05, and 0.2 and 2.0%

© ASCE 04019006-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Effect of design variables on δB for barbell and flanged walls.

Fig. 12. Effect of design variables on δ C for rectangular walls.

otherwise. The effects of design variables on the drift ratio at strength. The projected drift ratio at zero residual strength was
zero residual strength δ 0D are presented in Figs. 14 and 15, respec- calculated by extending the slope of the postpeak branch to zero
tively. The panels of Figs. 14 and 15 present the experimentally force. The dashed line corresponds to the ASCE 41 ultimate drift
measured or projected drift ratio at point D for zero residual ratio of 1.0% for values of the axial force ratio greater than 0.05,

© ASCE 04019006-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Effect of design variables on δ C for barbell and flanged walls.

Fig. 14. Effect of design variables on δ0D for rectangular walls.

for which the residual strength ratio is set equal to 0. For values of Normalized Peak Lateral Strength
the axial force ratio in the range from 0.05 to 0.10, 1.0% is a low
estimate of δ 0D . The value of δ 0D decreases as the axial force ratio Figs. 16 and 17 present the effects of design variables on normal-
increases. ized peak lateral strength, V C =lw tw , where the normalized peak

© ASCE 04019006-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Effect of design variables on δ 0D for barbell and flanged walls.

Fig. 16. Effect of design variables on V C =lw tw for rectangular walls.

strength is calculated as the average of the peak lateral strengths in
the first and third quadrants of loading, divided by the area of the
web lw tw. (The flanges contribute to shear resistance, as is clear
from the y-axis range on the reported data in Figs. 16 and 17. Sub-
stantially greater values of normalized peak strength are achieved in
the flanged walls because only the web area is used to normalize the
peak lateral strength.) The normalized peak lateral strengths of the
rectangular and flanged walls vary with f c0 , ρv f yv , and ρh f yh : as
these values increase, V C =lw tw increases. Aspect ratio also influen-
ces the normalized peak lateral strength of flanged walls, with an

© ASCE 04019006-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. Effect of design variables on V C =lw tw for barbell and flanged walls.

Fig. 18. Effect of design variables on K e =K t for rectangular walls.

increase in aspect ratio leading to a decrease in normalized strength. Normalized Initial Stiffness
Interestingly, this trend is not seen in rectangular walls. Axial com-
pressive force in the range considered here increases normalized Figs. 18 and 19 present the effects of some of the design var-
peak lateral strength, which is an expected result. iables on normalized initial stiffness, K e =K t . Here, the onset of

© ASCE 04019006-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 19. Effect of design variables on K e =K t for barbell and flanged walls.

Table 2. Influence of design variables on the cyclic backbone curve

Design variable
M=Vlw f c0 ρv f yv ρh fyh ρvb f yvb P=Ag fc0
Key parameters of
the backbone curve R B/F R B/F R B/F R B/F R B/F R B/F
δA SI SI LI SD N N N N SD SI SD SD
δB N LI LI SI N LI SI SI SD LI SD N
δC N LI SI LI SD N SD N N SI SD SD
δ 0D SD SI SI N LD SD SD SD SD SI SD LD
V A =V C SD SI SI SD LD LD LD SD LD SI SD LD
V C =lw tw N SD LI LI SI LI SI LI N SI SI LI
K e =K t LI LD LD SD N LI SI SI SI SD LI LI
Note: R = rectangular wall; B/F = barbell or flanged wall; SI = small influence with increasing trend; SD = small influence with decreasing trend; LI = large
influence with increasing trend; LD = large influence with decreasing trend; and N = negligible or no influence.

nonlinearity corresponds to point F in Fig. 1. The data of Peak Shear Strength

Figs. 18 and 19 make it clear the initial (assumed uncracked) stiff-
ness of low-aspect-ratio walls is generally a small fraction of In this section, the averages of the experimentally measured peak
lateral strengths in the first and third quadrants of loading of
the theoretical uncracked stiffness, with typical values of about
rectangular, barbell, and flanged walls are compared with predic-
0.25. The dependence of K e =K t on reinforcement ratios make clear
tions of nominal shear strength per Chapters 11 and 18 of ACI
the challenges associated with data interpretation: the secant stiff- 318 (ACI 2014) and Barda et al. (1977). The ACI equations are
ness to the onset of cracking should be independent of reinforce- applied to all walls. The Barda equation is only applied to the
ment ratio. Axial force ratio, as expected, influences K e =K t : an flanged walls because it was calibrated by those authors to a
increase in axial compressive stress increases the measured initial small set of data collected from the testing of flanged walls.
stiffness. The Barda et al. equation for peak shear strength, in US
The effects of all six design variables on the coordinates of the units, is
control points on the linearized backbone curve are summarized in
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi h 
Table 2. Information is presented separately for rectangular and P
V n ¼ 8 fc0 − 2.5 f c0 w þ þ ρv f yv dtw ð1Þ
barbell or flanged walls. lw 4lw tw

© ASCE 04019006-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

 15 15 15
With stress limit Without stress limit With stress limit Without stress limit With stress limit Without stress limit

Mean=0.98 Mean=1.14 Mean=0.66 Mean=0.80 Mean=1.06 Mean=1.35

St. Dev.=0.43 St. Dev.=0.58 St. Dev.=0.45 St. Dev.=0.50 St. Dev.=0.49 St. Dev.=0.72
COV=0.45 COV=0.51 COV=0.68 COV=0.62 COV=0.46 COV=0.53

Vpp /lw tw [MPa]

Vpp /lw tw [MPa]

Vpp /lw tw [MPa]

10 10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Vpt /lw tw [MPa] (b) Vpt /lw tw [MPa] (c) Vpt /lw tw [MPa]

15 15
With stress limit Without stress limit Mean=1.05
St. Dev.=0.49
Mean=0.72 Mean=0.92 COV=0.46
St. Dev.=0.56 St. Dev.=0.66
COV=0.77 COV=0.72
Vpp /lw tw [MPa]

Vpp /lw tw [MPa]

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(d) Vpt /lw tw [MPa] (e) Vpt /lw tw [MPa]

Fig. 20. Predicted and measured normalized lateral strengths of RC shear walls: (a) ACI 2014 (Chapter 11); rectangular walls; (b) ACI 2014
(Chapter 11); barbell and flanged walls; (c) ACI 2014 (Chapter 18); rectangular walls; (d) ACI 2014 (Chapter 18); barbell and flanged walls;
and (e) Barda et al. (1977); flanged walls.

The ACI equations are widely known and not repeated here. Analysis of the data of Fig. 20(a) indicates the equation proposed
Fig. 20 presents predicted normalized peak strength V pp =lw tw in Chapter 11 of ACI 318, which includes the upper shear stress
versus measured normalized peak strength V pt =lw tw , where V pp limit, reasonably predicts the peak lateral strength of rectangular
and V pt are the predicted and measured peak lateral strengths, re- RC walls and is the more accurate of the two ACI equations. The
spectively. The statistically estimated values of the average, stan- statistics of Fig. 20(c) indicate the best estimate of the peak lateral
dard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (COV) for each set strength of flanged walls is provided by the Barda equation,
of empirical predictive equations are presented in the figures. although the scatter in the data is large.
Each of the ACI equations imposes an upper limit on the pre-
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
dicted shear strength: 10 fc0 dtw ð¼ 8 fc0 lw tw ¼ 8Aw f c0 Þ for
pffiffiffiffiffi
the Chapter 11 equation, assuming d ¼ 0.8lw and 8Aw f c0 for the Summary and Recommended Changes to the ASCE
Chapter 18 equation, all in US units These limits on shear stresses 41 Cyclic Backbone Curve
are intended to avoid, albeit indirectly, failure in compression of
Backbone curves are used in seismic design standards as the basis
diagonal concrete struts. Two sets of results are presented in
for developing component models for nonlinear static and dynamic
Figs. 20(a and b): measured versus predicted shear strengths with
analysis. Herein, data from 240 tests of rectangular, barbell, and
the limit on shear stress (solid black circle) imposed and removed
flanged shear-critical walls, taken from catalogues assembled by
(open black square). Mean values greater than 1.00 (above the
Gulec and Luna, are assembled and analyzed to develop an im-
dashed line) indicate that the predictive equation for nominal
proved cyclic backbone curve (or idealized force–displacement
strength overestimates the measured strength (average of values
relationship) for use in nonlinear response-history analysis. The
in the first and third quadrant). For the rectangular walls, the pre-
pffiffiffiffiffi idealized force–displacement relationship is a piecewise linear
dicted maximum shear strength is limited by 8Aw fc0 in 67 of 136 curve defined by control points, where the coordinates of force
walls. For the barbell and flanged walls, the predicted maximum
pffiffiffiffiffi are normalized by peak shear strength.
shear strength is limited by 8Aw f c0 in 57 of 104 walls. The variability in the coordinates of the control points is great.
The mean values in the right-hand panels of Figs. 20(a and b) Ideally, the coordinates of the control points should be expressed in
are greater than their counterparts in the left-hand panels because a functional form, which accommodates all design variables that
flanges have been shown to resist significant shear in the plane of impact calculations. However, in keeping with the format of ASCE
the web (e.g., Gulec et al. 2008; Gulec and Whittaker 2009, 2011). 41, for shear walls and other framing systems, the recommended

© ASCE 04019006-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

 Table 3. Data bins for developing updated guidance for ASCE 41 forming the basis for this publication was conducted pursuant to
Design variables Bin 1 and 1a Bin 2 and 2a a contract with the National Institute of Standard and Technology.
The substance of such work is dedicated to the public.
Aspect ratio 0.25 ⩽ hw =lw ⩽ 1 1 < hw =lw ⩽ 2
Concrete compressive 10 ⩽ f c0 ⩽ 80 10 ⩽ fc0 ⩽ 80
strength (MPa)
Vertical web reinforcement 0 ⩽ ρv fyv ⩽ 16 0 ⩽ ρv f yv ⩽ 16 Disclaimer
(MPa)
Horizontal web 0 ⩽ ρh fyh ⩽ 10 0 ⩽ ρh f yh ⩽ 10 The authors are solely responsible for the accuracy of statements
reinforcement (MPa) or interpretations contained in this paper. The first and third authors
Boundary element 0 ⩽ ρvb fyvb ⩽ 40 0 ⩽ ρvb f yvb ⩽ 40 served as independent consultants to the Applied Technology
reinforcement (MPa) Council. No warranty is offered with regard to the results, findings,
Axial force ratio P=Ag fc0 ¼ 0 P=Ag f c0 ¼ 0 and recommendations contained herein, either by the National
(Bins 1 and 2) Institute of Standards and Technology, or the Applied Technical
Axial force ratio 0.05 ⩽ P=Ag f c0 ⩽ 0.20 0.05 ⩽ P=Ag f c0 ⩽ 0.20
Council, its directors, members, or employees. These organizations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Bins 1a and 2a)

Table 4. Coordinates for the cyclic backbone curve: drift ratios
Axial compressive δC
Wall geometry Aspect ratio force ratio (%)
Rectangular M=Vlw < 1 0 ⩽ P=Ag f c0 ⩽ 0.20 1.0
1 ⩽ M=Vlw ⩽ 2 0 ⩽ P=Ag f c0 ⩽ 0.20
Barbell and M=Vlw < 1 0 ⩽ P=Ag f c0 < 0.05 0.7
flanged 0.05 ⩽ P=Ag fc0 ⩽ 0.20
1 ⩽ M=Vlw ⩽ 2 0 ⩽ P=Ag f c0 < 0.05 0.9
0.05 ⩽ P=Ag fc0 ⩽ 0.20
values for the control points do not have a functional form, with the
exception of peak lateral strength.
The data presented previously for (1) rectangular and (2) flanged
and barbell walls are rebinned in Table 3, by aspect ratio, axial
compressive force ratio, and wall geometry (rectangular and barbell
or flanged) to calculate (1) drift ratios at cracking, yielding, peak
load, and zero residual strength; (2) forces at cracking and peak
load; and (3) initial stiffness, yield stiffness, and postpeak stiffness.
Peak lateral load is defined as the average of the maximum
strengths in the first and third quadrants of loading. Data from tests
with specimens that fell outside the domains are not included in the
analysis. A summary of the results by wall geometry and data bin
(1, 1a, 2, 2a), including mean (average) values, the standard
deviation of the natural logarithm, and percentiles, is available
in NIST GCR 17-917-45.
On the basis of the available test data, and recognizing the sig-
nificant variability and uncertainty (1) in the data and (2) intro-
duced by assigning discrete values and setting aside functional
forms, the following changes are proposed to the coordinates of
the ASCE/SEI 41 cyclic backbone curve for shear-critical walls,
using mean estimates of test data in each bin:
• f ¼ 0.5.
• Values of the drift ratios for δC and δ 0D per Table 4.
• Peak lateral strength per Eq. 11.5.4.4 of ACI 318-14 for rectan-
gular walls and the equation proposed by Barda et al. (1977) for
barbell and flanged walls.
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by the National Institute of Standard
and Technology under Grant No. SB1341-13-CQ-0009 to conduct
a comprehensive review of the generalized component models
published in the current ASCE/SEI standard and relevant re-
search, and develop recommendations for improvement (ATC-114
Project). This support is gratefully acknowledged. The work
and individuals do not assume any legal liability or responsibility
for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any of the infor-
mation included in this publication.
δ 0D
Notation
(%)
2.1 The following symbols are used in this paper:
2.5 Ag = gross area of concrete section;
1.8
Aw = gross area of concrete section bounded by web
1.4
2.6
thickness and length of section in direction of shear
1.6 force;
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid
of longitudinal tension reinforcement;
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, calculated per ACI
318-14;
FA = force at control point for cracking;
FC = force at control point for peak strength;
f c0 = uniaxial compressive strength of concrete;
fyb = yield strength of boundary element vertical
reinforcement;
fyh = yield strength of horizontal reinforcement;
f yv = yield strength of vertical reinforcement;
Gc = shear modulus of concrete;
hw = height of wall, measured from top of foundation to
centerline of loading;
I g = moment of inertia (second moment of area);
K e = secant stiffness from origin to control point for
cracking;
K t = theoretical uncracked stiffness = ðk−1 −1 −1
f þ ks Þ ;
3
kf = flexural stiffness = 3Ec I g =hw ;
ks = shear stiffness = Gc Aw =hw ;
lw = length of wall;
M=Vlw = normalized moment-to-shear ratio (equivalent to
aspect ratio in this manuscript);
P=Ag f c0 = normalized applied axial compressive force tw ;
tw = thickness of wall;
δ A = displacement at control point for cracking;
δ B = displacement at control point for yield;
δ C = displacement at control point for peak strength;
δ 0D = displacement at control point for residual strength
equal to zero;
ρh = ratio of area of distributed horizontal reinforcement
to gross concrete area perpendicular to that
reinforcement;
ρv = ratio of area of distributed vertical reinforcement to
gross concrete area perpendicular to that
reinforcement; and

© ASCE 04019006-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006

 ρvb = ratio of area of boundary element vertical
reinforcement to gross concrete area of boundary
element perpendicular to that reinforcement.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014. Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
ASCE. 2006. Seismic rehabilitation of buildings. ASCE/SEI Standard
41. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2013. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.
ASCE/SEI Standard 41. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Barda, F., J. M. Hanson, and W. G. Corley. 1977. “Shear strength of
low-rise walls with boundary elements.” ACI Spec. Publ. 53: 149–202.
Deierlein, G. G., A. M. Reinhorn, and M. R. Willford. 2010. Nonlinear
structural analysis for seismic design. NEHRP Seismic Design
Technical Brief No. 4. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
Elwood, K. J., A. B. Matamoros, J. W. Wallace, D. E. Lehman, J. A. Heintz,
A. D. Mitchell, M. A. Moore, M. T. Valley, L. N. Lowes, and
C. D. Comartin. 2007. “Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions.”
Earthquake Spectra 23 (3): 493–523. https://doi.org/10.1193/1
.2757714.
Epackachi, S., N. Sharma, A. S. Whittaker, and A. Hortacsu. 2018.
“A cyclic backbone curve for squat reinforced concrete shear
walls.” In Proc., 11th US National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering.
Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
© ASCE 04019006-14
J. Struct. Eng., 2019, 145(4): 04019006
FEMA. 1997a. NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 274. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 1997b. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. FEMA 273. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings. FEMA 356. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Gulec, C. K., and A. S. Whittaker. 2009. Performance-based assessment
and design of squat reinforced concrete shear walls. MCEER-09-0010.
Buffalo, NY: Univ. at Buffalo.
Gulec, C. K., and A. S. Whittaker. 2011. “Empirical equations for
peak shear strength of low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls.”
ACI Struct. J. 108 (1): 80–89.
Gulec, C. K., A. S. Whittaker, and B. Stojadinovic. 2008. “Shear strength
of squat rectangular reinforced concrete walls.” ACI Struct. J. 105 (4):
488–497.
Luna, B. N., J. P. Rivera, S. Epackachi, and A. S. Whittaker. 2018. Seismic
response of low aspect ratio rein forced concrete shear walls for build-
ings and safety-related nuclear structures. MCEER-18-0002. Buffalo,
NY: Univ. at Buffalo.
Luna, B. N., J. P. Rivera, and A. S. Whittaker. 2015. “Seismic behavior of
low aspect ratio reinforced concrete shear walls.” ACI Struct. J. 112 (5):
593–603. https://doi.org/10.14359/51687709.
Mahin, S. A., and V. V. Bertero. 1976. “Problems in establishing and pre-
dicting ductility in a seismic design.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Earth-
quake Structural Engineering, 613–628. Rolla, MO: Univ. of Missouri.
NIST. 2017. Recommended modeling parameters and acceptance criteria
for nonlinear analysis in support of seismic evaluation, retrofit,
and design. NIST GCR 17-917-45. Gaithersburg, MD: Applied
Technology Council.
J. Struct. Eng.