ACI ITG/T1.

1-99

Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based

on Structural Testing
Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators

Norman L. Scott Neil M. Hawkins

Chairman Secretary

Michael E. Kreger Leslie D. Martin

James R. Libby Robert F. Mast

Collaborators
Geraldine S. Cheok Suzanne Nakaki John F. Stanton
S. K. Ghosh M. J. Nigel Priestley Dean E. Stephan
H. S. Lew David C. Seagren William C. Stone

This document defines the minimum experimental evidence that can be 4.0—Design procedure, p. ITG/T1.1-2
deemed adequate to attempt to validate the use, in regions of high seismic
risk or in structures assigned to satisfy high seismic performance or design
5.0—Test modules, p. ITG/T1.1-2
categories, of weak beam/strong column moment frames not satisfying fully
the prescriptive requirements of Chapter 21 of ACI 318-99. This document
consists of both a Provisional Standard and a Commentary that is not part
6.0—Testing agency, p. ITG/T1.1-3
of the Provisional Standard. The document has been written in such a form
that its various parts can be adopted directly into Sections 21.0, 21.1, and 7.0—Test method, p. ITG/T1.1-3
21.2.1 of ACI 318-99 and the corresponding sections of ACI 318R-99.
Among the subjects covered are requirements for: procedures that shall be 8.0—Test report, p. ITG/T1.1-3
used to design test modules; configurations for those modules; test meth-
ods; test reports; and determination of satisfactory performance. 9.0—Acceptance criteria, p. ITG/T1.1-3
The Commentary describes some of the considerations of the Innovation
Task Group in developing the Provisional Standard. The section numbering 10.0—References, p. ITG/T1.1-3
for the Commentary is the same as that for the Provisional Standard with
numbers preceded by an “R” to distinguish them from the corresponding
INTRODUCTION
section numbers of the Provisional Standard.
The Commentary references documentary evidence, additional to the ref-
For seismic design, ACI 318-99 specifies in Section
erences of Chapter 21 of ACI 318R-99, that supports the Provisional Stan- 21.2.1.5 that “a reinforced concrete structural system not sat-
dard. Consistent with the approach of ACI 318-99 and ACI 318R-99, no isfying the requirements of this chapter (Chapter 21) shall be
comparison is made, either in the body of the Provisional Standard or its permitted if it is demonstrated by experimental evidence and
Commentary, of research results for test modules satisfying ACI 318-99 analysis that the proposed system has strength and toughness
with those for modules that, although not satisfying ACI 318-99, do satisfy
the Provisional Standard. Such comparisons, both experimental and ana-
equal to or exceeding those provided by a comparable mono-
lytical, are available in the references of the Commentary. lithic reinforced concrete structure that satisfies the require-
ments of this chapter.” This Provisional Standard defines the
Keywords: acceptance criteria; drift ratio; energy dissipation; lateral resis- minimum experimental evidence that shall be provided in or-
tance; moment frame; post-tensioning; precast concrete; prestressed con- der to validate the use, in regions of high seismic risk or for
crete; seismic design; test module; toughness. structures assigned to satisfy high seismic performance or de-
sign categories, of a weak beam/strong column moment frame
CONTENTS not satisfying the requirements of Chapter 21 of ACI 318-99.
Introduction, p. ITG/T1.1-1

1.0—Notation, p. ITG/T1.1-2 ACI ITG/T1.1-99 became effective April 2, 1999.

Copyright  1999, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
2.0—Definitions, p. ITG/T1.1-2 means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduc-
3.0—Scope, p. ITG/T1.1-2 tion or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in
writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

ITG/T1.1-1
ITG/T1.1-2 PROVISIONAL STANDARD
Consistent with the ACI 318-99 requirement for analysis,
this Provisional Standard specifies that, prior to the testing
mandated by the Provisional Standard, a design procedure
shall have been developed for prototype frames having the
generic form for which acceptance is sought and that design
procedure shall be used to proportion the test modules. Fur-
ther, the Provisional Standard assumes that the prototype
frames have forms that are essentially regular, having no sig-
nificant physical discontinuities in plan or in vertical config-
uration or in their lateral-force-resisting systems, and that the
frames satisfy some, but not all, of the requirements of Chap-
ter 21. Such frames might, for example, involve use of pre-
cast elements, precast prestressed elements, post-tensioned
reinforcement or combinations of those elements and rein-
forcement. Prescriptive requirements for moment frames
constructed with such elements are not included in ACI 318-
99. Such frames might also, for example, use alternate meth-
ods, other than those specified in Chapter 21, for force trans-
fer through beam-column joints.
The provisions of this Provisional Standard are intended to
supplement the provisions of Chapter 21 of ACI 318-99 and
not to supplant them.
1.0—Notation
Only symbols additional to those in ACI 318-99 are defined.
Emax = maximum lateral resistance of test module deter-
mined from test results (forces or moments)
En = nominal lateral resistance of test module determined
using specified geometric properties of test mem-
bers, specified yield strength of reinforcement, spec-
ified compressive strength of concrete, a strain
compatibility analysis for flexural moment strength
and a strength reduction factor φ of 1.0
Epr = probable lateral resistance of test module determined
using actual geometric and material properties of test
members, an analysis for probable flexural moment
strength of beams, based on strain compatibility and
including strain-hardening effects in the reinforce-
ment, and a strength reduction factor φ of 1.0
λ = column overstrength factor used for test module
θ = drift ratio
β = relative energy dissipation ratio
2.0—Definitions
2.1 Drift ratio—Angular rotation under load of the column
chord of the test module with respect to the beam chord,
where the chords are the straight lines connecting the centroi-
dal axes of the points of contraflexure in the beam and the
column, respectively, or the centroidal axis at the point of
contraflexure to the centroid of the beam-column joint in the
case where a member extends on one side of the joint only.
2.2 Moment frame—Space frame in which members and
joints resist forces through flexure, shear and axial force.
2.3 Overstrength factor—Ratio of the sum of the nominal
flexural strengths of the columns at their interfaces with the
joint to the sum of the nominal flexural moment strengths of
the beams at their interfaces with the same joint.
2.4 Relative energy dissipation ratio—Ratio of actual to
ideal energy dissipated by test module during reversed cyclic
response between given drift ratio limits, expressed as the ra-
tio of the area of the hysteresis loop for that cycle to the area
of the circumscribing parallelograms defined by the initial
stiffness during the first cycle and the peak resistance during
the cycle for which the relative energy dissipation ratio is
calculated. See 9.1.3.
2.5 Test module—Laboratory specimen representing charac-
teristics of typical configuration of intersecting beams and col-
umns of moment frame for which acceptance is sought. See 5.0.
2.6 Toughness—The ability of the entire lateral-force re-
sisting system to maintain structural integrity and continue to
carry the required gravity load at the maximum lateral dis-
placements anticipated for the ground motions of a major
seismic event.
3.0—Scope
3.1—This document defines minimum acceptance criteria
for new reinforced concrete moment frames designed for re-
gions of high seismic risk or for structures assigned to satisfy
high seismic performance or design categories, where accep-
tance is based on experimental evidence and mathematical
analysis.
3.2—Reinforced concrete moment frames, designed on
the basis of a weak beam/strong column concept, shall be
deemed to have a response that is, as a minimum, at least
equivalent to the response of monolithic frames designed in
accordance with 21.2 through 21.5 of ACI 318-99,1 when
both of the following conditions are satisfied:
3.2.1—Tests on frame modules, in accordance with this
document, establish the dependable and predictable strength,
drift-ratio capacity, relative energy dissipation, and stiffness-
es required by the acceptance criteria of 9.0.
3.2.2—The frame as a whole, based on the results of the
tests of 3.2.1 and analysis, shall be demonstrated as able to re-
tain its structural integrity and support its specified gravity
loads through peak displacements equal to or exceeding story-
drift ratios of 0.035.
4.0—Design procedure
4.1—Prior to testing, a design procedure shall be devel-
oped for prototype moment frames having the generic form
for which acceptance is sought. That procedure shall account
for effects of material nonlinearity, including cracking, de-
formations of members and connections, and reversed cyclic
loadings.
4.2—The design procedure shall be used to proportion the
test modules.
4.3—The overstrength factor used for the columns of the
prototype frame shall be not less than that specified in
21.4.2.2 of ACI 318-99.1
5.0—Test modules
5.1—A minimum of one module shall be tested for each
characteristic configuration of intersecting beams and col-
umns in the generic moment frame.
 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR MOMENT FRAMES BASED ON STRUCTURAL TESTING
5.2—Modules shall have a scale large enough to repre-
sent fully the complexities and behavior of the real materi-
als and of the load transfer mechanisms in the prototype
frame. Modules shall have a scale not less than one-third
full size.
5.3—The minimum extent of modules on either side of a
beam-column joint shall be the distance between the con-
traflexure points nearest to that joint for both beams and col-
umns for linear elastic lateral load response of the generic
moment frame.
6.0—Testing agency
Testing shall be carried out by an independent testing
agency working under the supervision of a professional en-
gineer experienced in seismic structural design.
7.0—Test method
7.1—Test modules shall be subjected to a sequence of dis-
placement-controlled cycles representative of the drifts ex-
pected under earthquake motions for that portion of the
frame represented by the test module. Cycles shall be to pre-
determined drift ratios as defined in 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4.
7.2—Three fully reversed cycles shall be applied at each
drift ratio.
7.3—The initial drift ratio shall be within the essentially
linear elastic response range for the module. Subsequent
drift ratios shall be to values not less than one and one-quar-
ter times, and not more than one and one-half times, the pre-
vious drift ratio.
7.4—Testing shall continue with gradually increasing
drift ratios until the drift ratio equals or exceeds 0.035.
7.5—Data shall be recorded from the test such that a quan-
titative, as opposed to qualitative, interpretation can be made
of the performance of the module. A continuous record shall
be made of test module drift ratio versus column shear force,
and photographs shall be taken that show the condition of
the test module at the completion of testing for each se-
quence of three cycles.
8.0—Test report
8.1—The test report shall contain sufficient evidence for
an independent evaluation of the performance of the test
module. As a minimum, all of the following information
shall be provided:
8.1.1—A description of the theory used to predict test
module strength together with predictions of test module
nominal lateral resistance, En, and test module probable lat-
eral resistance Epr.
8.1.2—Details of test module design and construction,
including engineering drawings.
8.1.3—Specified material properties used for design,
and actual material properties obtained by testing.
ITG/T1.1-3
8.1.4—Description of test setup, including diagrams
and photographs.
8.1.5—Description of instrumentation, locations, and
purpose.
8.1.6—Description and graphical presentation of ap-
plied drift ratio sequence.
8.1.7—Description of observed performance, including
photographic documentation, of test module condition at key
drift ratios that include the ratios corresponding to first
cracking and first crushing of the concrete for both positive
and negative loading directions.
8.1.8—Graphical presentation of lateral force versus
drift ratio response.
8.1.9—Graphical presentation of relative energy dissi-
pation ratio versus drift ratio.
8.1.10—Test date, report date, name of testing agency,
report author(s), supervising professional engineer, and test
sponsor.
9.0—Acceptance criteria
9.1—The test module shall be deemed to have performed
satisfactorily when all of the following criteria are met for
both directions of response:
9.1.1—The test module shall have attained a lateral re-
sistance equal to or greater than En before its drift ratio ex-
ceeds the value consistent with the allowable story drift
limitation of the International Building Code.2
9.1.2—The maximum lateral resistance, Emax , recorded
in the test shall have not exceeded λEn, where λ is the spec-
ified overstrength factor for the test column.
9.1.3—For cycling at the given drift level at which ac-
ceptance is sought, but not less than a drift ratio of 0.035, the
characteristics of the third complete cycle shall have satis-
fied the following:
1. Peak force for a given loading direction shall have been
not less than 0.75Emax for the same loading direction;
2. The relative energy dissipation ratio shall have been
not less than 1/8; and
3. The secant stiffness from a drift ratio of -0.0035 to
a drift ratio of +0.0035 shall have been not less than
0.05 times the stiffness for the initial drift ratio speci-
fied in 7.3.
10.0—References
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99),” American Con-
crete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999.
2. 2000 International Building Code, Final Draft, July 1998, Interna-
tional Code Council, Falls Church, Va., 22041-3401.