See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238741253

A modified equivalent frame method for lateral

load analysis

Article in Magazine of Concrete Research January 2009

DOI: 10.1680/macr.2008.00081

CITATIONS READS

8 1,389

3 authors, including:

Sang Whan Han seong-hoon Kee

Hanyang University Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
112 PUBLICATIONS 595 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 209 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sang Whan Han on 06 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Magazine of Concrete Research
doi: 10.1680/macr.2008.00081

A modified equivalent frame method for lateral

load analysis
Y. M. Park* S.-W. Han* S.-H. Kee

Hanyang University

The equivalent frame method (EFM) was developed for two-way slabs as a simple approximate method. Current
design codes (ACI 318-05, Eurocode 2 and BS 8110) permit the EFM for the analysis of two-way slab systems
under gravity loads, as well as lateral loads such as seismic loads. The EFM, however, was developed based on a
semi-empirical formula, derived from the behaviour of two-way slab systems under gravity loads. This study shows
that the EFM is not appropriate in accurately predicting the response of two-way slab systems under lateral loads.
To improve the EFM under lateral loads, this study proposes a modified equivalent frame method (MEFM). To
verify the MEFM, an idealised two-storey flat plate frame is considered and analysed by both the MEFM and
elastic finite-element (FE) analysis for estimating slab moments and lateral drifts. Analysis results obtained from
the conventional EFM and effective beam width method (EBWM) are also compared. The lateral stiffness, based on
the proposed MEFM, was also compared with experimental data.

Notation L1 slab span length in the loading direction

L2 slab span length transverse to the loading
C torsional constant direction
c1 dimension of the column parallel to loading Tx twisting moment at portion, x, in torsional
direction element
c2 dimension of the column transverse to loading x shorter side of the rectangular cross-section of
direction a torsional element
Ec Youngs modulus of elasticity for concrete y longer side of the rectangular cross-section of a
f c9 specified compressive strength of concrete torsional element
Gc shearing modulus of elasticity for e effective beam width factor for exterior frame
concrete Ec =2(1 v) lines
H dimension of column in height i effective beam width factor for interior frame
h dimension of slab in thickness lines
Ic moment of inertia of column section about c rotation of column elements
centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement ec rotation of equivalent column elements
Is moment of inertia of slab section about es rotation angle of an equivalent slab element
centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement s rotation angle of a slab element
Kc stiffness of the column element ( 4Ec I c = H) t:avg average rotation of torsional elements
K ec stiffness of the effective column element
Poissons ratio of concrete
Kes stiffness of the effective slab element x curvature at portion, x, in torsional element
Ks stiffness of the slab element ( 4Ec I s =L1 )
Kt stiffness of the torsional element
Introduction
* Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Two-way slab systems have gained popularity in cur-
Seoul 133-791, Korea rent building construction. Among them, flat plate slab
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
systems, which are simple structural systems composed
Texas, Austin, USA
of slabs and columns without beams, are most com-
(MACR 800081) Paper received 18 April 2008; last revised 22 monly used owing to their functional form, cost effi-
October 2008; accepted 24 October 2008 ciency in construction, and spatial flexibility. There are,
1

www.concrete-research.com 1751-763X (Online) 0024-9831 (Print) # 2009 Thomas Telford Ltd

Park et al.

however, some structural drawbacks in this system: the

flat plate systems are vulnerable to brittle failure, L2 L1
caused by punching shear in the vicinity of slab Torsional element
column joints.13 In particular, under lateral loads such Column
as seismic loads, internal forces (e.g. unbalanced mo- c2
element
c1
ments) and lateral deformation, generated in the vici-
Slab element
nity of slabcolumn joints, render the flat plate system
more susceptible to punching shear. To avoid failures
dominated by punching shear, accurate prediction of
Equivalent column element
design forces and drifts is important in designing two-
Column element Torsional element
way slab systems.
ACI 318-05,4 Eurocode 25 and BS 81106 permit the (a)
equivalent frame method (EFM) for estimating design
forces and drifts in two-way slab systems under gravity
loads, as well as lateral loads. It is noted that ACI 318-
L2
054 permits three different analysis methods for Column
element
two-way slab systems: finite-element (FE) analysis, L1
effective beam width method (EBWM) and equivalent c2
frame method (ACI-EFM). c1

FE analysis provides the most accurate results, includ- Slab element

ing the behaviour of three-dimensional flat plate struc-
tures; this method, however, requires intensive
computational efforts and detailed knowledge of finite-
element analysis. In contrast, EBWM and ACI-EFM are
simplified methods, in which three-dimensional slab
column structures are represented using planar frames.7
In the EBWM, two-way slab systems are modelled,
using column and beam elements, in which the thick-
ness of beam elements is assigned as the thickness of
actual slabs, and the width of beam elements is esti-
mated using an equation derived by numerical analysis
and experimental verifications.812 The dimensions of
column elements are the same as those of the actual
columns.
In the ACIEFM, a two-way slab system is repre-
sented by slab elements, and equivalent column ele-
ments consisting of column and torsional elements, as
shown in Figure 1a. According to ACI 318-05, the
ACI-EFM is permitted for the analysis of two-way slab
systems under gravity loads, as well as lateral loads. In
Eurocode 25 and BS 8110,6 the actual column element
is used for representing the equivalent column element.
However, the use of actual column elements instead of
equivalent column elements in slabs results in exterior
negative column strip moments which are considerably
too large.13,14
In the ACIEFM, the stiffness of torsional elements
was derived based on the mechanical behaviour of two-
way slab systems under gravity loads. Furthermore, the
equivalent column element is developed based on the
load-transfer mechanism in two-way slab systems under
gravity as well. The behaviour of two-way slab systems
under lateral loads could be different from that under
gravity load. Hwang and Moehle reported that the ACI-
EFM underestimates lateral stiffness of two-way slab
systems compared with the stiffness obtained from ex-
perimental tests.2,9
To avoid such drawbacks in the ACI-EFM under
2 Magazine of Concrete Research
Torsional element
c1
Equivalent slab element
Slab element Torsional element
(b)
Figure 1. Equivalent frame model: (a) ACIEFM;
(b) modified EFM
lateral loads, this study developed the modified equiva-
lent frame method (MEFM). In the MEFM, the stiff-
ness of the torsional element is newly defined
considering the realistic distribution of twisting mo-
ment along the torisonal element under lateral loads.
Moreover, the equivalent slab element is proposed for
the MEFM instead of proposing an equivalent column
element as specified in ACI 318-05.
Equivalent frame method
In ACI 318-05,4 it is assumed that slab moments are
transferred to columns by torsional elements. For the
EFM, two-way slab systems are modelled by beam and
equivalent column elements. The beam element has the
flexural stiffness of the slab members. The equivalent
column element consists of column elements and tor-
sional elements. The rotation of equivalent column ele-
ments (ec ) is calculated by summing the rotation of
column elements (c ) and torsional elements (t:avg ), as
follows
ec c t:avg (1)
From the above equation, the flexibility of the equiva-
lent columns can be computed
 A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis
1 1 1 torsional elements (t:avg ), as shown in the following
X (2)
K ec Kc Kt
where K ec is the flexural stiffness of equivalent col-
umns, K c is the flexural stiffness of columns and K t is
the stiffness of the torsional elements
Stiffness of the torsional elements (K t ) is specified
in ACI 318-05, as follows
X 9Ec C
Kt (3)
L2 1
c2 =L2 3
X

x x3 y
C 1
0:63 (4)
y 3
where Ec is Youngs modulus of elasticity for concrete,
C is the torsional constant, L2 is the width of the slab,
c2 is the width of the column parallel to L2 and x and y
are the shorter and longer side of the rectangular cross-
section of a torsional element respectively.
The stiffness of torsional elements in Equation 3 is
derived, assuming that the distribution of the twisting
moment per unit length along the torsional element is
triangular.4,13 This assumption may only be valid for
slab systems under gravity loads.
Modified equivalent frame method
(MEFM)
The load-transfer mechanism under gravity loads is
different from that under lateral loads. When two-way
slab systems are subjected to lateral loading, columns
displace first, and the forces in columns are transferred
to the torsional elements. Subsequently, the torsional
elements transfer the forces to the slabs. Thus, under
lateral loads, the flexural deformation of columns is
restrained by both the stiffness of torsional elements
and the flexural stiffness of the slab; it is more appro-
priate to use equivalent slab elements under lateral
loads rather than to use equivalent column elements
(see Figures 1a and 1b). It is noted that, under gravity
loads, slabs transfer the forces to the torsional elements
first, then the forces of the torsional elements are
transferred to the columns.
This study develops the MEFM for two-way slab
systems under lateral loads, which consist of equivalent
slab elements and column elements, shown in Figure
1b, instead of the equivalent column elements and slab
elements used in the ACIEFM, shown in Figure 1a.
Stiffness of equivalent slab element
The rotation angle (es ) of an equivalent slab element
can be estimated by summing the rotation angle of slab
elements (s ) and the average rotation angle of the
Magazine of Concrete Research
equation
es s t:avg (5)
From Equation 5, the flexibility of the equivalent slab
elements can be expressed as follows
1 1 1
(6)
K es K s K t
where K es is the stiffness of the effective slab element,
K s is the stiffness of the slab element ( 4Ec I s =L1 ), K t
is the stiffness of the torsional element, Ec is Youngs
modulus of elasticity of concrete, I s is the moment of
inertia of slab sections, L1 is the slab span length in the
loading direction.
Stiffness of torsional element, K t
To determine the stiffness of torsional elements, the
distribution of the twisting moment per unit length
along the torsional elements should be defined. As
mentioned earlier, triangular distribution is assumed for
the ACIEFM. However, it seems that the stiffness of
torsional elements in two-way slab systems under lat-
eral loads is not the same as the stiffness under gravity
loads because of the difference in the load-transfer
mechanism.
To show the difference in stiffness of torsional ele-
ments according to types of loads, FE analyses are
carried out for a two-storey building with flat plate
slabs, as shown in Figure 2. The commercial software
SAP200015 was used for the FE analyses. Poissons
ratio (
) and Youngs modulus (E) are assumed to be 0
and 25 300 MPa, respectively. This study assumes that
columns in the first storey are clamped to the base.
Slabs are modelled using plate element, and columns
using beam element, which are provided in the
SAP2000.15 Plate elements adjacent to the columns are
rigidly connected to the column elements as used in the
prior researches.5,6
To estimate the rotational angle along the torsional
elements, a gravity load of 7.8 kPa is applied to the
slabs without lateral loads. Subsequently, removing the
gravity loads, lateral loads are applied to the frame, as
shown in Figure 2(b).
Figure 3 shows rotational angle along the torsional
elements under gravity loads and lateral loads, and
which denotes the rotation angle normalised by the
maximum rotation angle max . As expected, the distri-
bution pattern of the rotational angles shown in Figure
3a and 3b are different. In the slab under gravity loads,
the rotation angle decreases on approaching the column
face (Figure 3a), whereas, under lateral loads, the rota-
tion angle increases on approaching the column face
(Figure 3b). Thus, it is necessary to derive the stiffness
of the torsional elements under lateral loads which
3
Park et al.
10
L1 L2 6 m

Normalised rotation angle: /max

08

35 m
06 L1

35 m CL Panel
04
Slab thickness 02 m L2
1
Columns 05 m 05 m
2
(a) 02 CL Panel
1 2

00
(a)

10
L1

Normalised rotation angle: /max

08 CL Panel

(b) L2
1
06 2
105 kN
CL Panel
Rigid joint 1 2
Column 35 m
Slabbeam 04
210 kN
35 m
02

6m 6m 6m
00
(c) 00 05 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from the column face: m
Figure 2. Model frame for verification: (a) dimensions; (b)
(b) FEM modelling; (c) EFM modelling
Figure 3. Distribution of rotation angle along the torsional
element: (a) under gravity loads; (b) under lateral loads
reflect the distribution of rotation angle shown in Fig-
x x x
ure 3b. Tx 1 1
The derivation of the stiffness of the torsional ele- x  x dx dx xdx x2
0 0 CG 0 L2 CG 2CGL2
ments under lateral loads is summarised in Figure 4. (8)
For comparison, the torsional stiffness under gravity
loads is also depicted in Figure 4. A unit twisting According to the above equation, the maximum rotation
moment (T 1) is applied to the torsional elements, as angle (max ) is obtained at the column face
shown in Figure 4a. Under gravity loads, the moment [x L2 (1
c2 =L2 )]
per unit length of the torsional element may be as-
sumed triangular since the moment in the slab tends to L2 (1
c2 =L2 )2
max (9)
be attracted towards the column (see Figure 4b). How- 8CG
ever, under lateral loads, the moment in the slab is
As shown in Figure 4e, the distribution of rotation
distributed more uniformly along the torsional element;
angle is parabolic. Thus, the average rotation angle
thus, in this study the uniform distribution of the twist-
(t,avg ) is taken as 1/3 of max , which is
ing moment per unit length is assumed, as shown in
Figure 4b. 1 L2 (1
c2 =L2 )2
t:avg (10)
Under lateral loads, the magnitude of a twisting mo- 3 8CG
ment per unit length is 1=L2 . As shown in Figure 4c,
twisting moment T x at x can be calculated by integrat- When Poissons ratio (
) for concrete is assumed to be
ing the twisting moment per unit length from 0 to x, as zero, the shearing modulus of elasticity for concrete
follows (G) is one-half of Youngs modulus (E): finally, Equa-
x tion 10 can be rewritten as follows
1 1
Tx dx x (7) L2 (1
c2 =L2 )2
0 L2 L2 t:avg (11)
12CE
Twisting moment T x at x produces curvature at x
( x T x =CG). Thus, rotation angle at x is computed Torsional stiffness is calculated by K t T =t. As
by integrating curvature from 0 to x, using the follow- Equation 11 is derived for one-half of the torsional
ing equation element (T 1/2), the torsional stiffness of half of the
4 Magazine of Concrete Research
 A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis
Under gravity loads Under lateral loads
T1 T1

L2 c2 L2 c2 L2 c2 L2 c2
1 1 1 1
2 L2 c2 2 L2 2 L2 c2 2 L2

(a)

2
4 x L2
L22 1
L2

x x
(b)

1 1
T T
2 2
2 x2 1 x
Tx Tx
L22 L2

x x
(c)

Area of one parabola Area of one parabola

(1 c2/L2)2 L2(1 c2/L2)3 (1 c2/L2) L2(1 c2/L2)2
max max
2CG 12CG 2CG 8CG
2 x2 1 x
x x
CGL22 LCG

x x
(d)

L (1 c2/L2)2 L2(1 c2/L2)3

2 x3 2 max
x 12CG
2 8CG
3CGL2 1 L2(1 c2/L2)2
x x2 max
2L2CG 8CG

x
(e)

Figure 4. Derivation of torsional stiffness Kt : (a) column and torsional element; (b) distribution of twisting moment per unit
length; (c) twisting moment diagram; (d) unit rotation angle; (e) rotation angle

torsional elements can be represented by the following Note that Equation 13 is not the same as Equation 3,
equation derived using two-way slab systems under gravity
loads.
6EC
Kt (12)
L2 (1
c2 =L2 )2
The torsional stiffness of torsional elements is then Verification of proposed MEFM
calculated by summing the stiffness of each torsional To verify the accuracy of the proposed MEFM, this
element as follows study considers an idealised, two-storey, flat plate frame
(Figure 2). Analytical results from the MEFM and
X 6EC
Kt (13) FEM are compared. The results of the ACI-EFM and
L2 (1
c2 =L2 )2 EBWM are also compared. The FEM results are treated
Magazine of Concrete Research 5
Park et al.
as exact results. To model the frame using the ACI-
EFM and the MEFM, rigid joints are placed at the
connections between slabs and columns, as shown in
Figure 2c. The length of the rigid joints is equal to the
column depth. One example to calculate slab moments
in the flat plate systems using the proposed MEFM is
presented in the appendix.
For EBWM, the effective beam width factor in Equa-
tions 14 and 15 proposed by Banchik8 is used. Hwang
and Moehle2,9 reported that the effective beam width
factor in Equations 14 and 15 is appropriate to use for
simulating experimental results


c1 1 L1 1
i 5 (for interior frame lines)
L2 4 L2 1

2
(14)
 
c1 1 L1 1 EFM, the moment at the slabcolumn joint tends to
e 3 (for exterior frame lines)
L2 8 L2 1

2
(15)
where c1 is the column dimension in the loading direc-
tion, L1 is the slab span length in the loading direction,
L2 is the slab span length perpendicular to the loading
direction and
is Poissons ratio.
Moreover, this study compares the analytical results
of two-way slab systems with different dimensions
of columns (c1 =c2 0:51:5) and slabs (L1 =L2
0:51:5) obtained from the four different analyses:
finite-element method (FEM), EFM, MEFM and
EBWM.
Analytical results of the two-storey flat
plate frame
Table 1 summarises slab moments at the column
faces obtained from different analysis methods. In this
table, moment ratio, MR(%), and drift ratio, DR(%),
denote the ratios of slab moment and drift obtained
from the approximate methods (ACIEFM, EBWM,
MEFM) to those obtained from FEM, respectively. A
positive ratio value of MR and DR indicates that the
Table 1. Slab moments at column faces of second floor (unit: N m)
Analysis method Exterior span
Exterior column
FEM 7000 (100)
EBWM 7693 (110)
ACI-EFM 12964 (185)
Proposed MEFM 7357 (105)
FEM: finite-element method
EBWM: effective beam width method
ACIFEM: equivalent frame method in the ACI 318-05 4
Proposed MEFM: modified EFM proposed by this study
( ) denotes the ratio of slab moment or drift ratio obtained using each method to that obtained using FEM
6 Magazine of Concrete Research
result of approximate methods is greater than that of
the FEM analysis.
Moment ratio, MR of the EFM, EBWM and MEFM
are 126185%, 110114% and 105111%, respectively.
The MEFM most accurately predicts the slab moment
of the FEM whereas the ACIEFM overestimates slab
moments significantly. The greatest overestimation
(185%) occurs at the exterior joints in the frame. This
could be attributed to the stiffness of the equivalent
column elements used in the ACIEFM. The stiffness
of the equivalent columns is calculated by combining
the stiffness of column elements and torsional elements
(Equation 2). As column elements and torsional ele-
ments are connected as serial springs, the stiffness of
the equivalent column elements is smaller than the
stiffness of the column element; thus, in the ACI
concentrated on slabs, compared with moment calcu-
lated by the other methods. This phenomenon is more
significant at the exterior joints since there is only one
slab element connected at the joint.
Drift ratio, DR, of the ACI-EFM, MEFM and
EWBM is 282%, 122% and 118%, respectively. MEFM
and EBWM provide lateral drift ratios close to the
FEM analysis. However, owing to the smallest stiffness
of the equivalent columns in the ACI-EFM, the largest
lateral drift is produced using this method.
Effect of different dimensions of slabs and
columns
To investigate the influence of different column and
slab dimensions on analytical results, a two-storey, flat
plate frame (Figure 2) is used. The slab thickness and
storey height are assumed to be 0.2 m and 3.5 m,
respectively. Four different types of slab panels (e.g.
4 m 3 8 m, 4 m 3 6 m, 6 m 3 6 m and 6 m 3 4 m)
are tested with a fixed column section (0.5 m 3 0.5 m).
Furthermore, this study considers slab systems with
four different column sections (e.g. 0.4 m 3 0.8 m,
0.4 m 3 0.6 m, 0.5 m 3 0.5 m and 0.6 m 3 0.4 m)
with a fixed slab dimension (6 m 3 6 m). Slab
Interior span Lateral drift: mm
Interior column Interior column Interior column

6504 (100) 5987 (100)
5987 (100) 0.37 (100)

7220 (111) 6833 (114)
6833 (114) 0.43 (118)

10358 (159) 7534 (126)
7534 (126) 1.03 (282)

7015 (107) 6650 (111)
6650 (111) 0.45 (122)
 A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis
220
moments at column faces and lateral drift are calcu-
lated, using the four different analysis methods: ACI 200
EFM, MEFM, EWBM and FEM. 180
Figure 5 shows moment ratio, MR, with respect to
slab aspect ratio (L1 =L2 ). Slab aspect ratio is the ratio 160

MR: %
of span length in the loading direction (L1 ) to the 140
perpendicular direction (L2 ). It is assumed that column
120
section is constant (0.5 m 3 0.5 m) in this calculation.
The fluctuation in MR obtained using the ACI-EFM 100
is very large. The effective beam width method
80
(EWBM) and the proposed MEFM produce slab mo-
ments close to those of the FEM analysis, irrespective (a)
220
of slab aspect ratios (L1 =L2 ). The difference between
FEM
slab moments, obtained from these two methods (pro- 200 MEFM
posed MEFM and the EBWM) and FEM, is less than EBWM
180 ACIEFM
15%.
Figure 6 shows the moment ratio, MR with respect 160

MR: %
to column aspect ratios (c1 =c2 ). Column aspect ratio is 140
the ratio of column depth (c1 ) to column width
(c2 ). The slab dimension is set to 6 m 3 6 m in this 120

calculation. 100
The EWBM and MEFM produce slab moments close
80
to those of the FEM analysis, irrespective of column
aspect ratios. The difference between slab moments 04 06 08 10 12 14 16

obtained from these two methods (MEFM and the
EBWM) is less than 20%.
Figures 7 and 8 show the drift ratios, DR, with
respect to slab aspect ratios and column aspect ratios,
220
Column aspect ratio: c1 /c2
(b)
Figure 6. Moment ration (MR) with respect to column aspect
ration (c1 /c2 ) (slab dimension: 6 m 3 6 m): (a) exterior
connection; (b) interior connection

200
400
180 FEM
350 MEFM
160 EBWM
MR: %

ACIEFM
300
140
250
DR: %

120
200
100

80 150

(a) 100
220
FEM 50
200 MEFM 04 06 08 10 12 14 16
EBWM Slab aspect ratio: L1 /L2
180 ACI-EFM

160 Figure 7. Drift ratio (DR) with respect to slab aspect ratio
(L1 /L2 ) (column dimension 0.5 m 3 0.5 m)
MR: %

140

120 respectively. The drift ratio of the ACIEFM fluctuates

100 significantly with respect to the slab aspect ratio. The
drift ratio of the ACIEFM reaches 220368%, and the
80
largest drift ratio (368%) is obtained when the slab
04 06 08 10 12 14 16 aspect ratio, L1 =L2 , is 0.5 (see Figure 7). The EBWM
Slab aspect ratio: L1 /L2
and the proposed MEFM produce lateral drifts close to
(b)
those obtained from the FEM, throughout the range of
Figure 5. Moment ration (MR) with respect to slab aspect slab aspect ratios.
ration (L1 /L2 ) (column dimension: 0.5 m 30.5 m): Similarly, the ACI-EFM produces lateral drifts much
(a) exterior connection; (b) interior connection different from those of the FEM, irrespective of c1 =c2 .
Magazine of Concrete Research 7
Park et al.
400 N
A B C D
FEM 274
350 MEFM
EBWM 1
ACIEFM
300

183
250
DR: %

2
200 Line of symmetry

150
3
100 163 163 244 244 325 163 244 122

50
04 06 08 10 12 14 16 163 163 163 163 244 122 244 122
4
Slab aspect ratio: c1 /c2
(a)
Figure 8. Drift ration (DR) with respect to column aspect
ratio (c1 /c2 ) (column dimension 6 m 3 6 m)

1219 305
81

In contrast, the MEFM and EBWM produce lateral

drifts close to those of the FEM.
Verification of the MEFM using
experimental results
For verifying the accuracy of the MEFM, this study
compared actual lateral stiffness of flat plate frames
obtained from experiments (University of California at
Berkeley (UCB)2 test and National Research Council
(NRC) test20,21 with that of corresponding frames mod-
elled by the MEFM.
Verification using UCB test
The model frame used in the UCB test2 is shown in
Figure 9. The specimen was designed according to ACI
318. It is noted that the test results were used by several
researches9,1619 for proposing an effective beam width
method for flat plate frames.
The lateral stiffness of the frame from the UCB test
is summarised in Table 2. In this table, the lateral
stiffness of the specimen calculated using the approx-
imate methods (MEFM, EBWM and ACI-EFM) is also
included. For predicting the lateral stiffness using the
approximate methods as close as actual lateral stiffness,
Pinned
support
(b)
Figure 9. Layout of UCB test slab specimen: (a) plan;
(b) section. Unit: cm
actual properties and conditions of the UCB test speci-
men were used in modelling the frame such as material
properties, dimensions, boundary conditions and load-
ing conditions and so on.
Figure 10 shows the lateral stiffness obtained from
the analysis methods. Initial lateral stiffness was ob-
tained during loading stage LAT1, which was the stage
for estimating the initial stiffness under low lateral
loads causing a drift ratio of 1/800 ( 0.125%). It was
reported that no visual crack was observed during this
loading stage. The lateral stiffness obtained, based on
proposed MEFM, FEM and EBWM, is comparable
with the value obtained from test LAT1. In contrast, the
lateral stiffness of the ACIEFM is 55% of the stiff-
ness obtained from test LAT1. It is noted that the initial
lateral stiffness is calculated without considering stiff-
ness reduction factor.
During loading stage NS400, lateral loads were
applied to the specimen to create a drift ratio of 1/400
( 0.25%). Lateral stiffness estimated from the test

Table 2. Comparison between the values of lateral stiffness obtained from UCB test and MEFM

Test Lateral load: kN Deflection: mm Lateral stiffness: Calculated stiffness: kN/mm

kN/mm
/
FEM EBWM ACIEFM MEFM

LAT1 34.12 1.52 21.70 21.5(99) 22.12(102) 12.02(55) 20.97(97)

31.89
1.52
NS400 40.48 3.05 12.25 11.73(95) 9.96(81) 11.55(94)

34.25
3.05

( ) denotes the lateral stiffness ratio obtained using each method to that obtained using test / 20, 21

8 Magazine of Concrete Research

 A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis
110 110
column shear force and column height (from the col-
umn hinge to the slab mid-depth). Connection rotation
100 100
is determined by dividing the displacement (relative
displacement between the column hinge and the slab
90 90
Lateral stiffness ratio: %

mid-depth) by a column height. As seen in Figure 11,

the rotational stiffness of each connection is accurately
80 80
estimated by the MEFM at stage LAT1 as well as
NS400.
70 70

60 60
Verification using NRC slab test
ACIEFM

ACIEFM
50 50
EBWM

EBWM
MEFM

MEFM

This study also used the lateral deflection of seven-

FEM

storey flat plate frames obtained from the NRC test.20

40 40
(a) (b) The frames are shown in Figure 12. A lateral load of
444.8 N for the frame was applied at the 8th floor.
Figure 10. Comparison of lateral stiffness between MEFM
and UCB tests: (a) test LAT1; (b) test NS400
8

7
during this loading stage is compared with that calcu-
lated using the analysis methods considering a stiffness 6 L /L 157 (Unit: mm) L1/L2 064
1 2

reduction factor of 1/3. The MEFM and EBWM pro-

Floor level

5
duce lateral stiffness close to the actual lateral stiffness

2300
obtained at a drift ratio of 0.125%, which is 94% and 4
Slab thk: 286
Measured
95% of the actual lateral stiffness, respectively. In con- 3
MEFM
trast, the lateral stiffness of the ACIEFM is 81% of
2 1820 EBWM
the stiffness obtained from test NS400. NRC slab ACIEFM
Figure 11 shows the relationship between measured 1
00 01 02 03 04 00 01 02 03 04 05
moment and rotation at each connection of the speci-
Deflection: mm
men. The stiffness of each connection is also calculated
using the proposed MEFM and plotted in Figure 11. Figure 12. Comparison of lateral stiffness between MEFM
The connection moment is calculated as the product of and NRC slab tests

10
08
A 1 B 1 C 1 D 1
06
04
02
00
02
Normalised moment: Mu /Mmax

04 UCB test
06 (LAT1)
08 MEFM
10
10
08
A 2 B 2 C 2 D 2
06
04
02
00
02
04
06
08
10
0008 0 0008 0008 0 0008 0008 0 0008 0008 0 0008
0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004

Rotation: radian

Figure 11. Comparison of connection stiffness between MEFM and UCB tests
Magazine of Concrete Research 9
Park et al.
Using the approximate methods (MEFM, EBWM,
ACIEFM), lateral deflection was also estimated. In
this estimation, stiffness reduction owing to cracks was
not considered since no visual crack was reported in
the frames during the test.20
Figure 12 shows the lateral deflections at each floor
level obtained from the test as well as the approximate
methods. The EBWM and the proposed MEFM pro-
duce lateral deflections close to the measured deflec-
tions of the frame having two bays (slab aspect ratio,
L1 =L2 1.57). The lateral defections estimated using
the ACIEFM overestimate lateral deflection by 15%.
In the case of the frame having four bays
(L1 =L2 0.64), the MEFM and the EBWM accurately
predict lateral deflection: the ratio of deflections esti-
mated using the MEFM and the EFM to the actual
deflection is 0.9 and 1.1, respectively. The ACIEFM
overestimates lateral deflection by 40%.
Conclusion
This study developed the MEFM, using column
elements and equivalent slab elements for two-way
slab systems under lateral loads. Equivalent slab ele-
ments consist of slab elements and torsional elements.
The stiffness of the torsional elements is derived
according to the realistic behaviour of torsional ele-
ments under lateral loads. The following conclusions
are made.
(a) The force transfer mechanism of two-way slab
systems under lateral loads is different from that
under gravity loads. This study derives an equation
for estimating the stiffness of torsional elements,
which can account for realistic distribution of rota-
tion along the torsional elements under lateral
loads
X 6EC
Kt
L2 (1
c2 =L2 )2
(b) The proposed MEFM method uses equivalent slab
elements instead of equivalent column elements.
Equivalent slab elements consist of slab elements
and torisonal elements. The stiffness of equivalent
slab elements is proposed as follows


1 1
1
K es
Ks Kt
(c) The proposed MEFM and EBWM produce slab
moments, lateral drifts and lateral stiffness compar-
able to those obtained from the elastic FEM analy-
sis. The difference between the analytical results
obtained from the proposed MEFM and FEM does
not vary with respect to slab aspect ratios or col-
umn aspect ratios. However, the analytical results
of the ACIEFM are quite different from those of
FEM. Furthermore, the difference fluctuates ac-
10
cording to the slab aspect and column aspect ra-
tios.
(d ) Compared with UCB test results in the elastic
range, the proposed MEFM, FEM and EBWM
provide lateral stiffness values close to those
obtained from the UCB test at a lateral drift
ratio of 1/800 ( 0.125%) which was the load-
ing stage LAT1. Moreover, the proposed MEFM
with stiffness reduction factor of 1/3 predicts the
actual lateral stiffness at a drift ratio of
1/400 ( 0.25%) which was the loading stage
NS400.
(e) Compared with NRC test results, the proposed
MEFM and EBWM provide lateral deflections
close to the measured deflections. However, ACI-
EFM overestimates deflection by 40%.
APPENDIX
This appendix illustrates an example to calculate slab
moments in the flat plate systems using the MEFM
proposed by this study. For this purpose, a two-storey
frame is considered, which is shown in Figure 2. The
floor plan and design strip of the building are presented
in Figure 13.
Given that H 3.5 m, h 0.2 m, L1 L2 6.0 m,
c1 c2 0p.5 m, f c9 30 MPa (for all members) and
Ec 4700 f c9 25743 (MPa).
Numerical models for the analysis using computers
Figure 14 shows a numerical model for the flat plate
system shown in Figure 13. Stiffness for equivalent-
slab, K es , and columns, K c , are calculated according to
steps (1)(4).
(1) Flexural stiffness of slabbeams at both ends, K s
4Ec I s
Ks
L1
4 3 25 743 (MPa) 3 4:0 3 10
3 (m4 )  6 (m)
6:86 3 107 N m
6 3 (0:2)3
where I s 4:0 3 10
3 (m4 )
12
(2) Flexural stiffness of column members, K c
4Ec I c
Kc
Lc
4 3 25 743 (MPa) 3 5:2 3 10
3 (m4 )  3:5 (m)
1:53 3 108 N m
0:5 3 (0:5)3
where I c 5:2 3 10
3 (m4 )
12
(3) Torsional stiffness of torsional members at both
ends, K t
Magazine of Concrete Research
 A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis

S N

105 kN

210 kN

(a)

Design strip

6m 05 m

02 m
6m

6m

N
6m
(c)
A A

6m 6m

(b)

Figure 13. Prototype building: (a) elevation; (b) floor plan; (c) section AA

X 6Ec C (4) Equivalent slab stiffness, K es

Kt
L2 (1
c2 =L2 )2


1
1 1
1 1 1
K es
6 3 25 743 (MPa) 3 9:97 3 10
4 (m4 ) Ks Kt 6:86 3 107 6:10 3 107
23
6 (m) 3 [1
0:5 (m)=6 (m)]2
3:23 3 107 N m
7
6:10 3 10 N m
where
X Frame moments
C (1
0:63 x= y)(x 3 y=3)
Under lateral loads shown in Figure 13a, the slab
moment in the frame was estimated based on calculated
(1
0:63 3 0:2=0:5) (0:23 3 0:5=3) stiffness of equivalent slabs and columns using the
numerical model shown in Figure 14. Positive and
9:97 3 10
4 (m4 ) negative slab moments are plotted in Figure 15.
Magazine of Concrete Research 11
 Park et al.
c1/2
Kes Kes Kes 5. British Standards Institution. Eurocode 2: Design of Con-
crete Structures. Part 1-1 General Rules and Rules for Building.
Rigid joint BSI, London, 2004, BS EN 1992-1-1.
Kc Kc Kc Kc
H 6. British Standards Institution. The Structural Use of Con-
crete. Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction.
Kes Kes Kes BSI, London, 1997, BS 8110-1.
7. Gamble W. L. Plane-frame Analysis Applied to Slabs. American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 1999, ACI SP-
Kc Kc Kc Kc
H 183, pp. 119129.
8. Banchik C. A. Effective Beam Width Coefficients for Equiva-
lent Frame Analysis of Flat-plate Structures. ME thesis, Univer-
L1 L1 L1
sity of California at Berkeley, 1987.
9. Hwang S. J. and Moehle J. P. Models for laterally loaded
slabcolumn frames. ACI Structural Journal, 2000, 97, No. 2,
Figure 14. Numerical model for MEFM
345352.
10. Grossman J. S. Verification of proposed design methodologies
for effective width of slab in slabcolumn frame. ACI Structural
4306 3759 4061 Journal, 1997, 94, No. 2, 18196.
11. Luo Y. H. and Duranni A. J. Equivalent beam model for flat-
slab buildings. Part I: interior connection. ACI Structural Jour-
nal, 1995, 92, No. 1, 11524.
12. Luo Y. H. and Duranni A. J. Equivalent beam model for flat-
4031 3762 4353
7357 6650 6995 slab buildings. Part II: exterior connection. ACI Structural Jour-
nal, 1995, 92, No. 2, 250257.
13. Murray K. A., Cleland D. J., Gilbert S. G. and Scott R. H.
Improved equivalent frame analysis method for flat plate struc-
ture in vicinity of edge columns. ACI Structural Journal, 2003,
7015 6650 7327 100, No. 4, 454464.
14. Gamble W. L. Discussion of Proposed revisions of ACI 318-
63; building code requirements for reinforced concrete. ACI
Journal, Proceedings, 1970, 67, No. 2, 700.
15. Computers & Structures. SAP2000 Integrated Finite Element
Analysis and Design of Structures. Computers & Structures Inc.,
Figure 15. Moments occurred in flat plate owing to lateral
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1996.
loads 16. Grossman J. S. Verification of proposed design methodologies
for effective width of slabs in slabcolumn frames. ACI Struc-
tural Journal, 1997, 94, No. 2, 181196.
Acknowledgement 17. Aslani H. and Mirand E. Fragility assessment of slabcolumn
The authors appreciate the support of the research connections in existing non-ductile reinforced concrete build-
ings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 9, No. 66, 777
fund of Hanyang University (HY-2007-g). 804.
18. Park H. and Choi K. Improved strength model for interior flat
platecolumn connections subject to unbalanced moment. Jour-
References nal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 2006, 132, No. 5, 694
704.
1. Melo G. S. S. A. and Regan P. E. Post-punching resistance of
19. Hueste M. B. D., Browning J. A., Lepage A. and Wallace
connections between flat slabs and interior columns. Magazine
J. W. Seismic design criteria for slab-column connections. ACI
of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4, 319327.
Structural Journal, 2007, 104, No. 4, 448458.
2. Hwang S. J. and Moehle J. P. An Experimental Study of Flat-
20. Vanderbilt M. D. Equivalent frame analysis for lateral loads.
plate Structures under Vertical and Lateral Loads. Earthquake
Proceedings, Journal of the Structural Division ASCE, 1979,
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berke-
105, No. 10, 19811998.
ley, 1993, Report No. UCB/EERC-93/03.
21. Zelman M. I., Heidebrecht A. C., Tso W. K. and Johnson
3. Papanikolaou K. V., Tegos I. A. and Kappos A. J. Punching
W. A. Practical problems and costs of fabricating multi-storey
shear testing of reinforced concrete slabs, and design implica-
models. In Models for Concrete Structures. American Concrete
tions. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2005, 57, No. 3, 167
Institute. Detroit, MI, USA, 1970, SP-24, pp. 159186.
177.
4. American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Require-
ments for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary
(318R-05). ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005. Discussion contributions on this paper are welcomed by the editor

12 Magazine of Concrete Research

View publication stats