UCLA

UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Title
Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: Test Database and Modeling Parameters

Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tp0q6hk

Author
Abdullah, Saman Ali

Publication Date
2019

Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library

University of California
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Los Angeles

Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: Test Database and Modeling Parameters

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy

in Civil Engineering

by

Saman Ali Abdullah

2019
 © Copyright by

Saman Ali Abdullah

2019
 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: Test Database and Modeling Parameters

by

Saman Ali Abdullah

Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering

University of California, Los Angeles, 2019

Professor John Wright Wallace, Chair

Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls (also known as shear walls) have commonly been used

as lateral force-resisting elements in buildings in regions of moderate-to-high seismic hazard

because they provide substantial lateral strength and stiffness to buildings when subjected to strong

ground shaking. Although relatively few wall tests were reported in the literature prior to 1990, a

substantial number of tests have since been reported, primarily to assess the role of various

parameters on wall deformation capacity, failure mode, strength, and stiffness. However, a

comprehensive database that summarizes information and results from these tests does not exist.

To address this issue, a comprehensive experimental wall database, referred to as the UCLA-

RCWalls database, was created. The database currently contains detailed and parameterized

information on more than 1100 wall tests surveyed from more than 260 programs reported in

literature, and enables assessment of a spectrum of issues related to the behavior and performance

of structural walls. The database was developed using software that enabled use of an engineering

database structure with a user-friendly interface to manipulate data, i.e., filter, import, export, and

review, and a secure background to store the data.

ii
The underlying premise of the ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-14 provisions is that special structural

walls satisfying the provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.2 through §18.10.6.4 possess adequate

deformation capacity to exceed the expected deformation demand determined using ASCE 7-10

analysis procedures. However, observations from recent laboratory tests and reconnaissance

efforts following strong earthquakes, where significant damage occurred at boundary regions of

thin walls due to concrete crushing, rebar buckling, and lateral instability, have raised concerns

that current design provisions are inadequate. To address this concern, the database was filtered to

identify and analyze a dataset of 164 tests on well-detailed walls generally satisfying ACI 318-14

provisions for special structural walls. The study revealed that wall lateral deformation capacity is

primarily a function of the ratio of wall neutral axis depth-to-width of flexural compression zone

(c/b), the ratio of wall length-to- width of flexural compression zone (lw/b), wall shear stress, and

the configuration of boundary transverse reinforcement (e.g., use of overlapping hoops versus a

single perimeter hoop with intermediate crossties), and that, in some cases, the provisions of ACI

318-14 may not result in buildings that meet the stated performance objectives. Based on these

observations, an expression is developed to predict wall drift capacity associated with 20% lateral

strength loss with low coefficient of variation, and a new reliability-based design methodology for

structural walls is proposed. The approach has been adopted for ACI 318-19, where a drift demand-

to-capacity ratio check is performed to provide a low probability that roof drift demands exceed

roof drift capacity at strength loss for Design Earthquake hazard level.

A large number of RC buildings constructed prior to the mid-1970s in earthquake-prone regions

rely on lightly reinforced or perforated, perimeter structural walls to resist earthquake-induced

lateral loads. These walls are susceptible to damage when subjected to moderate-to-strong shaking;

a number of such cases were observed in 1999 Chi-Chi and Kocaeli Earthquakes, and more

iii
recently in 2010 Maule and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. Despite these observations, limited

studies have been reported in the literature to investigate the loss of axial (gravity) load carrying

capacity of damaged walls and wall piers, primarily due to the lack of experimental data. To study

axial failure of structural walls, the database was filtered to identify and analyze datasets of tests

on shear- and flexure-controlled walls. Based on the results, expressions were derived to predict

lateral drift capacity at axial failure of RC walls and piers.

Furthermore, the ASCE/SEI 41 standard (and other similar standards or guidelines, e.g., ACI 369)

represents a major advance in structural and earthquake engineering to address the seismic hazards

posed by existing buildings and mitigate those hazards through retrofit. For nonlinear seismic

evaluation of existing buildings, these standards provide modeling parameters (e.g., effective

stiffness values, deformation capacities, and strengths) to construct backbone relations, as well as

acceptance criteria to determine adequacy for a given hazard level. The modeling parameters and

acceptance criteria for structural walls were developed based on limited experimental data and

knowledge available in the late 1990s (FEMA 273/274-1997), with minor revisions since,

especially for flexure-controlled walls. As a result, the wall provisions tend to be, in many cases,

inaccurate and conservative, and can result in uneconomical retrofit schemes. Therefore, one of

the objectives of this study involved utilizing the available experimental data in the UCLA-

RCWalls database and new information on performance of structural walls to develop updated

modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for flexure-controlled walls. The updated provisions

include a new approach to identify expected wall dominant behavior (failure mode), cracked and

uncracked flexural and shear stiffness values of flexure-controlled walls, and updated modeling

parameters (backbone relations) and acceptance criteria for flexure-controlled walls. The updates

iv
are expected to be significant contributions to the practice of seismic evaluation and retrofit of wall

buildings.

v
The dissertation of Saman Ali Abdullah is approved.

Henry J. Burton

Kristijan Kolozvari

Scott Joseph Brandenberg

John Wright Wallace, Committee Chair

University of California, Los Angeles

2019

vi
This dissertation is dedicated to the soul of Dr. Abdul Hakim Ahmed Alrawi, who, although no

longer with us, continues to inspire me by his example and dedication to the students he served

over the course of his career.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION ................................................................................... ii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................xiv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... xxiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... xxv
VITA…………. ....................................................................................................................... xxvii
CHAPTER 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background and Motivation .........................................................................................................1

1.2. Objectives .....................................................................................................................................2

1.3. Dissertation Outline......................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER 2. UCLA-RCWalls: A Database for RC Structural Wall Tests ........................... 5

2.1. Abstract ........................................................................................................................................5

2.2. Background ..................................................................................................................................5

2.3. Motivations...................................................................................................................................7

2.4. Database Structure........................................................................................................................9

2.5. Database Organization and Content ...........................................................................................12

2.5.1. General Information ..........................................................................................................13

2.5.2. Test Setup and Loading .....................................................................................................14

2.5.3. Geometry ...........................................................................................................................17

2.5.4. Material Properties ............................................................................................................18

2.5.5. Boundary Elements Details ...............................................................................................20

2.5.6. Web Details .......................................................................................................................22

2.5.7. Experimental Results .........................................................................................................23

2.5.8. Analytical Results ..............................................................................................................25

2.6. Recommendations for Future Wall Tests ...................................................................................27

2.7. Summary ....................................................................................................................................28

2.8. Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................29

viii
 2.9. References ..................................................................................................................................30

CHAPTER 3. Drift Capacity of RC Structural Walls with Special Boundary Elements.... 37

3.1. Abstract ......................................................................................................................................37

3.2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................37

3.3. Research Significance ................................................................................................................39

3.4. Experimental RC Wall Database................................................................................................39

3.5. Parameters That Impact Wall Lateral Drift Capacity.................................................................46

3.5.1. Impact of lw /b ...............................................................................................................47

3.5.2. Impact of c b ....................................................................................................................49

3.5.3. Impact of vmax f c' ......................................................................................................51

3.5.4. Overlapping Hoops ............................................................................................................55

3.5.5. Other Factors .....................................................................................................................59

3.6. Drift Capacity Prediction ...........................................................................................................63

3.7. Conclusions and Recommendations...........................................................................................65

3.8. References ..................................................................................................................................68

CHAPTER 4. A Reliability-Based Design Methodology for Structural Walls with SBEs .. 74

4.1. Abstract ......................................................................................................................................74

4.2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................74

4.3. Research Significance ................................................................................................................77

4.4. Wall Deformation Capacity .......................................................................................................78

4.5. Wall Deformation Capacity Predictions ....................................................................................83

4.6. Roof Drift Demand.....................................................................................................................89

4.7. Proposed Design Approach ........................................................................................................90

4.7.1. Proposed approach: drift demand-to-capacity ratio (DDCR) check .................................93

4.8. Example Application ..................................................................................................................96

ix
 4.8.1. Description of the buildings ..............................................................................................96

4.8.2. Lateral load analysis ..........................................................................................................98

4.8.3. Walls design ....................................................................................................................100

4.8.4. Reliability analysis ..........................................................................................................101

4.8.5. Revised design .................................................................................................................102

4.9. Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................................103

4.10. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................106

4.11. References ................................................................................................................................107

CHAPTER 5. Drift Capacity at Axial Failure of RC Structural Walls and Wall Piers .... 112
5.1. Abstract ....................................................................................................................................112

5.2. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................112

5.3. Experimental RC Wall database ..............................................................................................115

5.3.1. Overview .........................................................................................................................115

5.3.2. Failure Mode Classification.............................................................................................121

5.3.3. Datasets of Flexure-Controlled Walls .............................................................................122

5.3.4. Dataset of Shear-Controlled Walls ..................................................................................127

5.4. Axial Failure of Flexure-Controlled Walls ..............................................................................129

5.4.1. Special Walls ...................................................................................................................129

5.4.2. Ordinary Walls ................................................................................................................133

5.5. Axial Failure of Shear-Controlled Walls and Piers ..................................................................136

5.5.1. Shear Friction Model - Background ................................................................................136

5.5.2. Shear Friction Model – Calibration and Validation ........................................................138

5.5.3. Simplified Model .............................................................................................................142

5.6. Walls with Spirally Reinforced Columns.................................................................................144

5.6.1. Flexure-Controlled Walls ................................................................................................145

5.6.2. Shear-Controlled Walls ...................................................................................................146

x
 5.7. Conclusions and Recommendations.........................................................................................147

5.8. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................150

5.9. References ................................................................................................................................151

CHAPTER 6. Structural Wall Classification Based Failure Mode ..................................... 157

6.1. Abstract ....................................................................................................................................157

6.2. Background of ASCE 41-17 / ACI 369-17 Methodology........................................................157

6.3. Wall Database–UCLA-RCWalls..............................................................................................158

6.4. Discussion of Wall Failure Mode Classification in Database ..................................................164

6.5. Proposed Wall Classification Approach ..................................................................................168

6.6. Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................171

6.7. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................171

6.8. References ................................................................................................................................172

CHAPTER 7. Stiffness of Flexure-Controlled RC Structural Walls ................................... 174

7.1. Abstract ....................................................................................................................................174

7.2. Wall Database ..........................................................................................................................175

7.3. Derivation of Wall Stiffnesses from Data in the Database ......................................................179

7.3.1. Uncracked Flexural Stiffness...........................................................................................179

7.3.2. Effective “Cracked” Flexural Stiffness ...........................................................................181

7.4. Parameters Influencing Wall Flexural Stiffness.......................................................................184

7.4.1. Uncracked Flexural Stiffness...........................................................................................184

7.4.2. Effective “Cracked” Flexural Stiffness ...........................................................................185

7.5. Provisions and Commentary of ACI 369-17 ............................................................................188

7.6. Evaluation of Provisions and Commentary of ACI 369-17 .....................................................190

7.7. Proposed Models for Flexural and Shear Stiffnesses ...............................................................196

7.7.1. Uncracked Flexural Stiffness, EcIuncr ...............................................................................196

7.7.2. Effective “Cracked” Flexural Stiffness, EcIeff ..................................................................198

xi
 7.7.3. Uncracked Shear Stiffness ...............................................................................................201

7.7.4. Cracked Shear Stiffness ...................................................................................................201

7.9. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................203

7.10. References ................................................................................................................................204

CHAPTER 8. Nonlinear Modeling Parameters for Flexure-Controlled RC Walls ........... 206

8.1. Abstract ....................................................................................................................................206

8.2. Experimental RC Wall Database..............................................................................................207

8.2.1. Overview .........................................................................................................................207

8.2.2. Conforming Wall Dataset ................................................................................................210

8.2.3. Non-Conforming Wall Dataset ........................................................................................213

8.3. Use of Total Hinge Rotation Versus Plastic Rotation ..............................................................215

8.4. Evaluation of Current ASCE 41-17 Nonlinear Modeling Parameters .....................................219

8.5. Modeling Parameters for Conforming Walls ...........................................................................222

8.5.1. Point B (EcIeff and MyE) ....................................................................................................223

8.5.2. Point C (Parameter c' and Parameter d)...........................................................................223

8.5.3. Point D (Parameter c and d')............................................................................................227

8.5.4. Point E (Axial Collapse) ..................................................................................................229

8.6. Proposed Modeling Parameters for Conforming Flexure-Controlled Walls............................230

8.6.1. Notes on Table 8-3 (Most will apply to Table 8-5 for non-conforming walls) ...............232

8.7. Modeling Parameters for Non-Conforming Walls ...................................................................234

8.7.1. Point B (EcIeff and MyE) ....................................................................................................234

8.7.2. Point C (Parameter c' and Parameter d)...........................................................................235

8.7.3. Point D (Parameter c and d')............................................................................................239

8.7.4. Point E (Axial Collapse) ..................................................................................................240

8.8. Wall with Low Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratios ................................................................241

8.9. Proposed Modeling Parameters for Non-Conforming Flexure-Controlled Walls ...................243

xii
 8.9.1. Notes on Table 8-5 (in addition to the applicable notes on Table 8-3) ...........................245

8.10.1. General.............................................................................................................................246

8.10.2. Distribution of Data for Parameters d and e ....................................................................248

8.10.3. Proposed Acceptance Criteria (AC) for Nonlinear Procedures .......................................248

8.10.4. Proposed Acceptance Criteria (AC) for Linear Procedures– m-factors ..........................253

8.12. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................256

8.13. References ................................................................................................................................258

CHAPTER 9. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 260

APPENDIX A – References of Data in UCLA-RCWalls Database ...................................... 264

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 2-1– Interface of UCLA-RCWalls database. ......................................................................... 10

Fig. 2-2–An example of how filters can be used to screen data. ................................................... 11

Fig. 2-3–Partial view of filtered data that can be exported in a spreadsheet. ................................ 11

Fig. 2-4–Distribution of wall tests: (a) country and (b) year. ....................................................... 13

Fig. 2-5– Wall test setup configurations........................................................................................ 14

Fig. 2-6–Types of cyclic loading histories. ................................................................................... 15

Fig. 2-7–Histograms of test setup and loading. ............................................................................. 16

Fig. 2-8–Wall cross-section shapes included UCLA-RCWalls. ................................................... 17

Fig. 2-9–Histograms of wall cross-section shape and geometry. .................................................. 18

Fig. 2-10–Histograms of tested material strength properties. ....................................................... 19

Fig. 2-11–Tested versus specified material strengths: a) concrete compressive strength, f’c, b)

yield strength of boundary longitudinal reinforcement, fyl, and c) yield strength of boundary

transverse reinforcement, fyt. ......................................................................................................... 20

Fig. 2-12–Examples of wall boundary element details parameterized in UCLA-RCWalls. ......... 21

Fig. 2-13–Histograms of boundary element details. ..................................................................... 21

Fig. 2-14–Examples of wall web details parameterized in UCLA-RCWalls. ............................... 22

Fig. 2-15–Histograms of web details............................................................................................. 23

Fig. 2-16–An example of backbone derivation (Tran, 2012). ....................................................... 25

Fig. 2-17–Wall failure modes. ....................................................................................................... 25

Fig. 2-18–Steel stress-strain relationships used to compute moment-curvature relations. ........... 26

Fig. 2-19–Histograms of normalized neutral axis depth ............................................................... 27

Fig. 3-1–Histograms of the dataset (164 tests) used in this study. ................................................ 44

xiv
Fig. 3-2–Conversion of elastic drift from heff and hw . .................................................................. 45

Fig. 3-3–Drift capacity of companion specimens against cross-section slenderness ratio. ........... 49

Fig. 3-4–Wall drift capacity variation versus λb . ......................................................................... 50

Fig. 3-5–Companion specimens with special detailing and different levels of wall shear stress.. 53

Fig. 3-6–Impact of wall shear stress on wall drift capacity. .......................................................... 55

Fig. 3-7–Types of overlapping hoop configurations observed in the database. ............................ 56

Fig. 3-8–Types of crossties observed in the database. .................................................................. 57

Fig. 3-9–Comparison of different boundary transverse reinforcement configurations (Note:

number of tests for each case is given in parentheses). ................................................................. 59

Fig. 3-10–Impact of some boundary element details on drift capacity of walls with SBEs. ........ 61

( )
Fig. 3-11–Impact of axial load ratio P / Ag f 'c on drift capacity of walls with SBEs. ................ 62

Fig. 3-12–Comparison of predicted drift capacity with experimental drift capacity. ................... 65

Fig. 4-1–Histograms of the dataset of 164 wall tests with special detailing. ................................ 79

Fig. 4-2–Impact of slenderness parameter ( λb ) and wall shear stress ratio v max ( )
f 'c on wall

drift capacity. ................................................................................................................................. 82

Fig. 4-3–Comparison of different configurations of boundary transverse reinforcements (Note:

number of tests for each case is given in parentheses). ................................................................. 82

Fig. 4-4–Comparison of predicted drift and curvature capacities with experimental drift and

curvature capacities. ...................................................................................................................... 85

Fig 4-5–Comparison of c computed from Eq. 4-3 with that from detailed sectional analysis. .... 86

Fig. 4-6–Variation of specified and as-tested material strengths in the overall database. ............ 87

Fig. 4-7–Computed value of c using specified versus as-tested material strengths. ..................... 87

xv
Fig. 4-8–Definition of width (b) and length (c) of flexural compression zone. (bave = average

width of compression zone, cave= average depth of neutral axis, and beff= effective with of wall

flange; the blue and red arrows indicate the direction of bending) ............................................... 88

Fig. 4-9–Illustration of the current displacement-based design approach. .................................... 91

Fig. 4-10–Typical plan view of the buildings. .............................................................................. 97

Fig. 4-11–Detail of the walls at 1st and 2nd floors........................................................................ 101

Fig. 5-1–Typical wall backbone curve contained in UCLA-RCWalls database. ........................ 116

Fig. 5-2–Reported axial failure of a wall test reported by Segura and Wallace (2018). (Note: for

(b) only the first cycle at each displacement is shown) ............................................................... 117

Fig. 5-3–Reported axial failure of a shear-controlled wall test reported by Sanada et al. (2012).

..................................................................................................................................................... 117

Fig. 5-4–Out-of-plane instability and concrete crushing of a wall test reported by Dashti et.

(2018). (Note: for (b) only the first cycle at each displacement is shown).................................. 117

Fig. 5-5–Wall flexural failure modes: (a) bar buckling and concrete crushing (Thomsen and

Wallace, 1995), (b) bar fracture (Dazio et al., 2009), and (c) lateral instability (Thomsen and

Wallace, 1995). ............................................................................................................................ 118

Fig. 5-6–Wall shear failure modes: (a) diagonal tension (Mestyanek, 1986), (b) diagonal

compression (Dabbagh, 2005), and (c) shear-sliding (Luna, 2015). ........................................... 118

Fig. 5-7–Wall flexure-shear failure modes: (a) flexure-diagonal tension (Tran and Wallace,

2015), (b) flexure-diagonal compression (Oesterle et al., 1976), and (c) flexure-shear-sliding

(Salonikios et al., 1999). .............................................................................................................. 119

xvi
Fig. 5-8–Wall failure modes results from a dataset of 1000 wall tests: (a) Shear (diagonal and

sliding) versus flexural failure mode; (b) Blue region = flexure-controlled; red region = diagonal

shear-controlled; and yellow region = sliding shear-controlled. ................................................. 122

Fig. 5-9–Histograms of the dataset with 88 special, flexure-controlled walls. ........................... 125

Fig. 5-10–Histograms of the dataset with 68 ordinary, flexure-controlled walls. ....................... 127

Fig. 5-11–Histograms of the dataset of 53 shear-controlled wall/pier tests. ............................... 129

Fig. 5-12–Variation of wall drift capacity at axial failure versus λb for special walls. .............. 130

Fig. 5-13–Variation of wall drift capacity at axial failure as a function of including λb and

P / Ag f c′ for special walls. ......................................................................................................... 132

Fig. 5-14–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-3) with experimental drift capacities.

..................................................................................................................................................... 132

Fig. 5-15–Variation of drift capacity at axial failure as a function of λb and P / Ag f c′ for

ordinary walls. ............................................................................................................................. 134

Fig. 5-16–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-4) with experimental drift capacities.

..................................................................................................................................................... 134

Fig. 5-17–Asymmetric wall cross-sections. ................................................................................ 135

Fig. 5-18–Damage in walls tests with flanged and barbell shaped cross-sections. ..................... 135

Fig. 5-19–Free body diagram of a cracked wall pier................................................................... 137

Fig. 5-20–Angle of critical diagonal shear cracks observed from experimental tests and

earthquake reconnaissance: (a) Pier tests by Massone (2006); (b) Five-story building in Dungshr,

Taiwan, after 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake (Wallace et al., 2008); (c) Wall test by Flores (2007); (d)

Wall test by Bimschas (2010)...................................................................................................... 140

xvii
Fig. 5-21–Shear friction relations derived from wall tests: (a) linear fits to data; (b) logarithmic

fits to data. (* the green diamond-shaped data point is a wall with only a slight yielding of

longitudinal bars) ......................................................................................................................... 141

Fig. 5-22–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-8) with experimental drift capacities.

..................................................................................................................................................... 142

Fig. 5-23–Drift capacity of shear-controlled walls as a function of P / Ag f c' . ............................ 143

Fig. 5-24–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-10) with experimental drift capacities.

..................................................................................................................................................... 144

Fig. 5-25–Test results of flexure-controlled walls with spiral transverse reinforcement in the

boundary columns: (a) Damage of a wall tests by Wang et al. (1975) (b) Comparison of drift

capacity of walls with spirally- vs non-spirally reinforced columns. .......................................... 146

Fig. 5-26–Test results of shear-controlled walls with spiral transverse reinforcement in the

boundary columns: (a) Damage of a wall tests by Kabeyasawa and Matsumoto (1992), and (b)

Comparison of drift capacity of walls with spirally- vs non-spirally reinforced columns. ......... 147

Fig. 6-1–Wall flexural failure modes: (a) bar buckling and concrete crushing (Thomsen and

Wallace, 1995), (b) bar fracture (Dazio et al., 2009), and (c) lateral instability (Thomsen and

Wallace, 1995). ............................................................................................................................ 159

Fig. 6-2–Wall shear failure modes: (a) diagonal tension (Mestyanek, 1986), (b) diagonal

compression (Dabbagh, 2005), and (c) shear-sliding (Luna, 2015). ........................................... 160

Fig. 6-3–Wall flexure-shear failure modes: (a) flexure-diagonal tension (Tran, 2012), (b) flexure-

diagonal compression (Oesterle et al., 1976), and (c) flexure-shear-sliding (Salonikios et al.,

1999). ........................................................................................................................................... 160

Fig. 6-4–Stress-strain relationships used to compute moment-curvature relations. .................... 161

xviii
Fig. 6-5–Impact of strain hardening of longitudinal reinforcement at concrete compressive strain

of 0.003 on: (a) yield moment strength (MyE), and (b) depth of neutral axis (c)–results from 200

walls. ............................................................................................................................................ 162

Fig. 6-6–Histograms of wall tests in the UCLA-RCWalls database. .......................................... 165

Fig. 6-7–Wall failure modes results from a dataset of 1000 wall tests: failure modes separated.

..................................................................................................................................................... 166

Fig. 6-8–Wall failure modes results from a dataset of 1000 wall tests: failure modes combined.

..................................................................................................................................................... 167

Fig. 6-9–Wall classification: blue region = flexure-controlled, red region= shear-controlled

(diagonal tension or compression), and yellow region= shear sliding at the base. ..................... 167

Fig. 6-10–Variation of wall failure mode versus shear-span-ratio and shear-flexure strength ratio.

..................................................................................................................................................... 168

Fig. 7-1–Typical backbone curve for base shear versus total top displacement in UCLA-RCWalls

database. ...................................................................................................................................... 176

Fig. 7-2–Histograms of the dataset (527 wall tests). ................................................................... 178

Fig. 7-3–Definition of uncracked flexural stiffness. ................................................................... 180

Fig. 7-4–Contribution of shear deformation to total deformation at general yield. .................... 182

Fig. 7-5–Definition of effective first yield flexural stiffness. ..................................................... 183

Fig. 7-6–Influence of parameters on EcIuncr. (Note: R=correlation coefficient) .......................... 185

Fig. 7-7–Influence of key parameters on EcIeff. (Note: R=correlation coefficient) ..................... 188

Fig. 7-8–Sensitivity of EcIeff to the reduction factor used in Eq. 7-8: a) 0.6, b) 0.7, and c) 0.8. . 188

Fig. 7-9–Comparison of calculated (Eq. 7-9) and experimental EcIeff. ....................................... 192

Fig. 7-10– Comparison of experimental and calculated (Eq. 7-10) EcIeff. .................................. 193

xix
Fig. 7-11– Comparison of experimental and calculated (Eq. 7-11) EcIeff. .................................. 194

Fig. 7-12– Comparison of experimental and calculated (Eq. 7-12) EcIeff considering an h1 of 7 ft

for one-half scale (14 ft for full scale) where lsp calculated from Eq. 7-13 and multiplied by: (a)

2.0, (b) 1.0. .................................................................................................................................. 195

Fig. 7-13– Linear regression lines to the data and the proposed model for EcIuncr. (black line =

model). ......................................................................................................................................... 196

Fig. 7-14–Linear regression lines to the data and the proposed model for EcIeff. (black line =

model). ......................................................................................................................................... 198

Fig. 7-15–Influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (rl,BE) on EcIeff. .................................... 200

Fig. 7-16–Comparison of experimental and calculated EcIeff from Eq. 7-17. ............................. 200

Fig. 7-17–Effective shear modulus results from 64 wall tests. ................................................... 202

Fig. 8-1–Typical wall backbone curve contained in UCLA-RCWalls database. ........................ 207

Fig. 8-2–Reported axial collapse of a wall test reported by Altheeb (2016). .............................. 209

Fig. 8-3–Reported axial collapse of a wall test reported by Segura and Wallace (2018a). ......... 209

Fig. 8-4–Out-of-plane instability and concrete crushing of a wall test reported by Dashti et.

(2018). ......................................................................................................................................... 209

Fig. 8-5–Histograms of the first dataset (188 tests) for walls with conforming detailing........... 212

Fig. 8-6–Histograms of the second dataset (256 tests) for walls with non-conforming detailing.

..................................................................................................................................................... 214

Fig. 8-7–The proposed idealized backbone relation to model hinge region of flexure-controlled

walls. ............................................................................................................................................ 216

Fig. 8-8–Displacement profiles of flexure-controlled walls........................................................ 218

xx
Fig. 8-9–Histograms of the contribution of computed hinge elastic flexural rotation to a) the wall

total elastic rotation, and b) the total hinge rotation capacity...................................................... 218

Fig. 8-10–Evaluation of Parameter a given in ASCE 41-17 for walls with “confined boundaries”.

..................................................................................................................................................... 220

Fig. 8-11– Impact of axial load ratio, longitudinal reinforcement, and slenderness parameter

(lwc/b2) on plastic rotation capacity (at strength loss) for walls with conforming detailing. ...... 222

Fig. 8-12– Impact of axial load ratio on plastic rotation capacity at strength loss (Parameter a) for

walls with No Confined Boundaries (note: the break points for the ASCE 41-17 trends are

approximate since x-axis does not include (As-A's)fyE/(Agf'cE)). ................................................. 222

Fig. 8-13–Ratio of calculated-to- experimental yield moment strength (MyE,cal/MyE,exp) for the

conforming wall dataset. ............................................................................................................. 223

Fig. 8-14–Ratio of experimental ultimate to yield moment strength (Mult,exp/MyE,cal) for the

conforming wall dataset. ............................................................................................................. 224

Fig. 8-15–Examples of boundary transverse reinforcement configurations................................ 225

Fig. 8-16–Impact of some boundary element details on drift capacity of walls with special

boundary elements. ...................................................................................................................... 226

Fig. 8-17–Proposed models for Parameter d for conforming flexure-controlled walls (Note: the

statistics shown are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values for the entire dataset). .. 227

Fig. 8-18–Proposed models for Parameter c for conforming flexure-controlled walls. .............. 228

Fig. 8-19–Proposed models for Parameter d' for conforming flexure-controlled walls (Note: the

statistics shown are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values). .................................... 229

Fig. 8-20–Proposed models for Parameter e for conforming flexure-controlled walls (Note: the

statistics shown are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values). .................................... 230

xxi
Fig. 8-21–Ratio of calculated-to- experimental yield moment strength (MyE,cal/MyE,exp) for the

non-conforming wall dataset. ...................................................................................................... 235

Fig. 8-22– Ratio of experimental ultimate-to-yield moment strength (Mult,exp/MyE,cal) for the non-

conforming wall dataset. ............................................................................................................. 236

Fig. 8-23–Impact of λb = lwc / b2 , P / Ag f c′ , and vmax / f c′ on Parameter d for walls with non-

conforming detailing. .................................................................................................................. 237

Fig. 8-24–Impact detailing parameters on Parameter d of non-conforming walls. ..................... 238

Fig. 8-25–Proposed models for Parameter d for non-conforming walls as a function of Ash ratio

and s/db. ....................................................................................................................................... 239

Fig. 8-26–Proposed models for Parameter c for non-conforming flexure-controlled walls. ...... 240

Fig. 8-27–Proposed models for Parameter d' for non-conforming flexure-controlled walls. ..... 241

Fig. 8-28–Proposed models for Parameter e for conforming flexure-controlled walls. .............. 241

Fig. 8-29–Proposed model for Parameter d of flexure-controlled walls with ρlw < 0.0025........ 243

Fig. 8-30–Distribution of ratios of experimental-to-predicted d and e, along with normal and

lognormal distributions associated with the means and standard deviations of the data ............ 249

Fig. 8-31–Approximate location of AC on backbone relation. ................................................... 253

Fig. 8-32–Yield curvature (fy) computed from sectional analysis as a function of wall length (lw).

..................................................................................................................................................... 255

xxii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1–Correlation coefficients, R, for design parameters and wall drift capacity .................. 46

Table 3-2–Companion wall specimens with special detailing and different levels of shear stress

....................................................................................................................................................... 54

Table 4-1–Parameters to be used in Eq. 4-2 ................................................................................. 84

Table 4-2–Neutral axis depth parameters in Eq. 4-3 .................................................................... 86

Table 4-3–COVs for mean roof drift demand from NRHA at DE level shaking.......................... 90

Table 4-4–ASCE 7-10 seismic parameters.................................................................................... 97

Table 4-5–Demands from ASCE 7-10 LCs for Wall #1 in Building 6A ...................................... 99

Table 4-6–Design details of the walls in each building .............................................................. 104

Table 5-1. Shear friction variable in Eq. 5-4............................................................................... 141

Table 6-1–Criteria for determining the expected wall dominant behavior ................................. 170

Table 7-1–Statistics of the ratios of predicted-to-experimental EcIeff/EcIg values. ...................... 191

Table 7-2–Proposed values for uncracked wall flexural stiffness (EcIuncr) ................................. 197

Table 7-3–Existing models for uncracked or minorly cracked wall flexural stiffness ................ 197

Table 7-4–Proposed values for effective flexural stiffness (EcIeff) .............................................. 198

Table 7-5–Proposed values for EcIeff as a function of P/(Agf’c) and rl,BE .................................... 199

Table 8-1–Definition of backbone response points ..................................................................... 208

Table 8-2–Partial view of ASCE 41-17 Table 10-19 .................................................................. 219

Table 8-3–Modeling parameters for conforming RC structural walls controlled by flexure ...... 231

Table 8-4–Statistics of the modeling parameters given in Table 8-3* ......................................... 231

Table 8-5–Modeling parameters for non-conforming RC structural walls controlled by flexure

..................................................................................................................................................... 244

xxiii
Table 8-6–Statistics of the modeling parameters given in Table 8-5* ......................................... 245

Table 8-7–Acceptance criteria for conforming structural walls: biased models are used ........... 251

Table 8-8–Acceptance criteria for conforming structural walls: unbiased models are used ....... 251

Table 8-9–Acceptance criteria for non-conforming structural walls: biased models are used ... 251

Table 8-10–Acceptance criteria for non-conforming structural walls: unbiased models are used

..................................................................................................................................................... 252

Table 8-11–Recommended acceptance criteria for conforming and non-conforming flexure-

controlled concrete structural walls. ............................................................................................ 252

Table 8-11–m-factors for reinforced concrete walls based on provisions of ASCE 41-17 §7.6.3

..................................................................................................................................................... 254

xxiv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am profoundly thankful for the unconditional love my wonderful wife and best friend, Shayda,

has given me while I worked on completing my doctoral studies and conducted other research

efforts. Without her patience, support, and devotion, this dissertation would have not been

completed. I am also incredibly grateful for my beautiful daughter, Saveen, who has brought a

tremendous joy into my life, and whose existence has made me a better person. It is not possible

for me to express in words how grateful I am for having Shayda and Saveen in my life. It is truly

a blessing to share my life with you both. I would also like to express my sincere love and gratitude

towards my parents and siblings for their boundless love and consistent prayers and motivations.

They are instrumental in all aspects of my life. If it were not for the support of my mother, I would

have had left school even before high school. For that, I thank her from the bottom of my heart.

I would like to extend my profound gratitude to my advisor Professor John Wallace for his

supervision, guidance, and constant support during this research and other graduate studies. I want

to sincerely thank him for entrusting me with and giving me the opportunity to work on few

exciting and impactful projects, for always challenging me, and encouraging me to think more

independently. He has also provided numerous opportunities for me to get involved with different

ACI committees and work with other academics and practitioners in the field. I am incredibly

grateful to have the opportunity to work with him and learn from his extensive expertise and

knowledge.

My special thanks go to Professors Scott Brandenburg, Henry Burton, and Kristijan Kolozvari,

who served on my Doctoral Committee, for offering their insight, input, and helpful suggestions

on this research.

xxv
I wish to extend my gratitude to my colleagues Negin Tauberg, Elham Moore, Amin Safdari, Han

Sun, Chris Segura, Sofia Gavridou, Sunai Kim for their feedback, friendship, and support. It was

very rewarding that I had the opportunity to do research, be co-teaching assistant, and share an

office space with them.

My sincere appreciation goes to the University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan-Iraq, where I had a truly

rewarding experience as an undergraduate student. I want to thank all faculties in the Civil

Engineering department, especially Assistant Professor Paiman Mohammed and Dr. Sirwan Al-

Zahawi, for their constant guidance and encouragement throughout my undergraduate and

graduate studies.

Of course, I am genuinely thankful to Endreson’s family for letting me be a part of their wonderful

family, especially Dan and Barbara. Knowing them is one of the best privileges my journey to the

United States offered me. Therefore, thank you very much.

xxvi
 VITA

Education and Work Experience

2008 B.S., Building Construction Engineering, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan-Iraq
2008-2010 Engineer, Consultant Engineering Bureau at University of Sulaimani, Iraq
2008-2010 Teaching Assistance, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan-Iraq
2013 M.S., Structural Engineering, California State University, Fullerton
2014-2019 Graduate Student Researcher, Civil and Environmental Engineering, UCLA
2014-2018 Teaching Assistant, Civil and Environmental Engineering, UCLA

Publications and Presentations

Journal Papers
Abdullah, S., Naish, D., and Abo-Shadi, N., 2016, “Experimental study of out-of-plane wall-to-beam
connections under cyclic loading,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 355–664.
Motter, J. C., Abdullah, S., and Wallace, J. W., 2018, “Reinforced concrete structural walls without special
boundary elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 3, pp. 723–733.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W., 2019 “Drift capacity of reinforced concrete structural walls with special
boundary elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, pp. 183–194.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W., “New design methodology for RC structural walls with special boundary
elements,” ACI Structural Journal, submitted for review and publication, 33 pp.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W., 2019, “UCLA database for reinforced concrete structural walls: UCLA-
RCWalls,” Earthquake Spectra, submitted for review and publication, 23 pp.
Abdullah, S., Aswegan, K., Jaberansari, S., Klemencic, R., and Wallace, W., 2019, “Performance of RC
coupling beams subjected to simulated wind loading,” ACI S.J., submitted for review & publication, 33 pp.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W., 2019, “Drift capacity at axial failure of RC structural walls and wall piers,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, submitted for review and publication, 36 pp.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W., “Evaluation of flexural Stiffness and Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, (has been drafted).
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W., “Nonlinear modeling parameters for reinforced concrete structural walls,”
ACI Structural Journal, (has been drafted).
Conference Papers
Abdullah, S., Naish, D., and Abo-Shadi, N. “Experimental evaluation of out-of-plane wall-to-beam
connections under cyclic loading-preliminary,” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Urban
Earthquake Engineering, March 1-2, 2013, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan: 1-7 pp.
Abdullah, S. and Naish, D. “Experimental evaluation of non-planar wall-to-beam connections under cyclic
loading,” Proceedings of Structures Congress, April 23-25, 2015, Portland, Oregon: 2078-2088 pp.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “Parameters impacting drift capacity of reinforced concrete structural walls
with special boundary elements” 11th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 11NCEE 2018,
Los Angeles, CA, June 25-29, 2018.

xxvii
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “UCLA robust database for reinforced concrete structural walls: UCLA-
RCWalls” 11th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 11NCEE 2018, Los Angeles, CA,
June 25-29, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “A reliability-based design approach for RC walls in ACI 318 code,” 2018
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOC) Annual Convention, Palm Desert, CA,
September 11-15, 2018.
Abdullah, S., Aswegan, K., Jaberansari, S., Klemencic, R., and Wallace, W., “Performance of RC coupling
beams subjected to simulated wind and seismic loading,” 2019 Conference of Los Angeles Tall Building
Seismic Design Council.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W., “Drift capacity at axial failure of RC structural walls and wall piers,”
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake Taipei,
Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019.
Selected Poster Presentations
Abdullah, S. and Naish, D. “Experimental Evaluation of Out-of-Plane Wall-to-Beam Connections under
Cyclic Loading” Structures Congress, April 23-25, 2015, Portland, Oregon.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “UCLA-RCWalls Database” 11th National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering Los Angeles, June 25-29, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “New Wall Modeling Parameters” 2019 Annual EERI Meeting, Vancouver,
Canada, March 5-8, 2019.

Selected Presentations
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “UCLA Database for Experimental RC Structural Walls (UCLA-RCWalls)”
ACI Convention: Fall 2016, Philadelphia, PA, October 23-27, 2016.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “UCLA-RCWalls Database, Wall Modeling Parameters and Flexural
Stiffness” ACI Convention: Fall 2017, Committees 369D and 374, Anaheim, CA, October 15-19, 2017.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “Wall Modeling Parameters” ACI Convention: Spring 2018, Committee
369D, Salt Lake City, UT, March 23-28, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “Drift Capacity of RC Structural Walls with Special Boundary Elements”
11th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Los Angeles, June 25-29, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “UCLA-RCWalls Database” 11th National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Los Angeles, June 25-29, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “New Design Approach for RC Structural Walls” SEAOC Convention
2018, Palm Desert, CA, September 12-15, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “ATC 140 Project Update” ACI Convention: Fall 2018, Committees 369D
and 374, Las Vegas, NV, Oct. 13-18, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “Performance of RC Coupling Beams Subjected to Simulated Wind
Loading” ACI Convention: Fall 2018, Committee 375, Las Vegas, NV, Oct. 13-18, 2018.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “New Modeling Parameters for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit” ACI
Convention: Spring 2019, Committees 369D and 374, Quebec City, Canada, March 24, 2019.
Abdullah, S. and Wallace, J. W. “Update on Performance of RC Coupling Beams Subjected to Simulated
Wind Loading” ACI Convention: Spring 2019, Committees 375 and 374, Quebec City, Canada, March 24.
Abdullah, S., Aswegan, K., Jaberansari, S., Klemencic, R., and Wallace, W., “Performance of RC coupling
beams subjected to simulated wind and seismic loading,” 2019 LATBSDC Conference, LA, CA, May 3.

xxviii
CHAPTER 1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Motivation

RC structural walls are commonly used as lateral force-resisting systems in tall and moderately

tall buildings because they provide substantial lateral strength and stiffness against wind and

earthquake loads and are designed and detailed in accordance with ACI 318 code. Major updates

to the wall provisions of ACI 318 code occurred in 1983, 1999, and 2014. Even with these updates,

the underlying premise of ACI 318-14 approach to design and detailing of walls is that walls

satisfying the provisions of the code for Special Structural Walls possess adequate displacement

capacity to exceed the expected displacement demands (i.e., collapse prevention). However,

observations from recent earthquakes and experimental studies have demonstrated that this

underlying premise is not always correct and is in fact a significant deficiency.

Furthermore, the ASCE 41 standard (and other similar documents, e.g., ATC-78) represents a

major advance in earthquake engineering to address the seismic hazards posed by existing

buildings and mitigate those hazards through retrofit. The wall provisions in the ASCE 41 standard

were developed based on limited experimental data available in the late 1990s, with minor

revisions since; therefore, the existing provisions tend to be in many cases very uncertain and

conservative. However, over the last two decades, a substantial number of experimental studies

have been conducted, and several attempts have been made to assemble wall databases to assist in

the development of code provisions and to validate analytical models for RC structural walls;

however, these databases do not contain sufficient and well-detailed information to allow detailed

and robust assessment of the above issues. Therefore, in this work, a comprehensive and very

detailed database called UCLA-RCWalls was developed. The database has been extensively used

to accomplish a fairly broad set of research objectives, as outlined below, which focus primarily

1
on developing reliable provisions for design codes and standards to improve safety concerns for

both new and existing buildings.

1.2. Objectives

The specific and detailed objectives of this dissertation are outlined in each chapter, starting with

Chapter 2; however, the key objectives are:

1. to develop a comprehensive and detailed relational database of RC wall tests reported in

the literature.

2. to develop an accurate, yet simple, drift capacity and curvature capacity models for flexure-

controlled walls with special boundary elements (SBEs) satisfying the detailing

requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4.

3. to highlight the deficiencies in the current design approach of ACI 318-14 and ASCE 7-16

for RC structural walls that led to inadequate performance of walls in recent earthquakes

and laboratory tests and to develop a new reliability-based design approach to address the

deficiencies.

4. to develop a quantitative approach to identify the dominant behavior of structural walls

(i.e., whether a wall is shear- or flexure-controlled).

5. to develop models to evaluate the loss of axial load carrying capacity of both flexure- and

shear-controlled structural walls.

6. to propose updated modeling parameters (backbone relations that includes shear and

flexural stiffness values, lateral strengths, and deformations-based modeling parameters)

and other provisions for seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing flexure-controlled walls.

2
1.3. Dissertation Outline

This dissertation is comprised of nine chapters and one appendix. It starts with an Introduction in

Chapter 1 and ends with the Conclusions and Recommendations in Chapter 9. The main body

consists of seven distinct yet closely related chapters. Chapters 2 through 5 are adopted from four

research journal papers that have either been published or submitted for review and publication.

Chapters 6 through 8 contain results that have been drafted into two additional journal papers.

Chapter 2 presents details of a comprehensive and large database of RC walls known as UCLA-

RCWalls that currently contains detailed and parameterized information and test results of over

1100 wall tests from more than 260 experimental programs reported in the literature around the

world.

Chapter 3 presents a study of parameters that primarily impact lateral drift capacity (associated

with 20% lateral strength loss) of structural walls with special boundary elements that results in a

drift capacity model.

Chapter 4, based on the results of Chapter 3, highlights the deficiencies existing in the design

approach of structural walls using current codes (ACI 318 and ASCE 7). To address these

deficiencies, Chapter 4 also presents a new reliability-based design methodology where a drift

demand-capacity ratio (DDCR) check is performed to provide a low probability (i.e., 10% or lower)

that roof drift demands exceed roof drift capacity at strength loss for the Design Earthquake

shaking.

Chapter 5 describes drift capacity models for axial collapse (loss of axial load-carrying capacity)

of both flexure- and shear-controlled walls.

3
Chapter 6 provides an approach to quantitatively distinguish between shear- and flexure-controlled

walls and between diagonal-shear- and sliding-shear-controlled walls. The approach uses a shear-

flexure strength ratio as the criteria, as opposed to aspect ratio or shear span ratio.

Chapter 7 presents uncracked and cracked flexural and shear stiffness values for flexure-controlled

structural walls.

Chapter 8 presents updated modeling parameters to construct backbone relations of flexure-

controlled walls and wall segments with conforming and non-conforming detailing.

Chapter 9 summarizes the key findings of the previous chapters.

Appendix A presents all the references where information on the wall tests in UCLA-RCWalls

database are reported and that were available to the author

4
CHAPTER 2. UCLA-RCWalls: A Database for RC Structural Wall Tests

2.1. Abstract

Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls have been commonly used as lateral force-

resisting elements in buildings subjected to strong earthquake shaking. Although relatively

limited number of wall tests were reported in the literature prior to 1990, a substantial number

of tests have since been reported since 1990, primarily to assess the role of various

parameters on wall deformation capacity, failure mode, strength, and stiffness. However,

there is a lack of a robust and detailed database that summarizes the results of these tests.

Therefore, a robust database called UCLA-RCWalls, which contains detailed and

parameterized information on more than 1000 wall tests reported in the literature, was

assembled to serve as a resource for both researchers and practitioners. The database was

developed using software that enabled use of an engineering database structure with a user-

friendly interface to manipulate data, i.e., filter, import, export, and review, and a secure

background to store the data.

2.2. Background

Structural RC walls have been commonly used as lateral force-resisting elements in low- to high-

rise buildings because they efficiently provide large lateral strength and stiffness to resist strong

ground shaking. Test programs on squat walls were initiated in the 1950s at Stanford University

and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The main objectives of these tests were to evaluate

peak lateral shear strength of barbell-shaped walls under monotonic loading (Benjamin and

Williams 1953, Benjamin and Williams 1954, Benjamin and Williams 1956, Galletly 1952).

Following these tests, seismic provisions for design of structural walls first appeared in the 1971

5
version of ACI 318. Tests on squat walls under quasi-static, cyclic lateral loading began with the

work performed by Barda (1972) in the United States (US), Hirosawa (1975) in Japan, and

Beekhuis (1971) and Synge (1980) in New Zealand. Results from these tests led to the introduction

of significant changes to wall shear strength provisions in ACI 318-83.

Experimental studies on slender (i.e., flexure-dominated) walls under quasi-static, cyclic loading

initiated in mid-1970s in the US with the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) extensive, three-

phase experimental program (Oesterle et al. 1976, Oesterle et al. 1979, Oesterle 1984). The PCA

wall testing programs, which consisted of testing 19 walls (excluding repaired walls) between 1974

to 1983, were designed to mainly address existing knowledge gaps related to the influence of

boundary element detailing and wall shear stress on the load versus deformation behavior and

failure modes of slender walls with various cross sections (i.e., rectangular, barbell, and flanged),

and to develop design criteria for walls in earthquake resistant buildings. These tests, along with

tests by Paulay and Goodsir (1985) in New Zealand, were primarily responsible for the

introduction of design and detailing provisions for wall boundary elements in ACI 318-83. Another

prominent wall testing program was conducted at University of California, Berkeley to study the

impact of different forms of confinement (i.e., spiral or hoop reinforcement), wall cross-sectional

shapes (i.e., rectangular or barbell), loading protocols, shear span ratios, and repair procedures

(Wang et al. 1975, Vallenas et al. 1979, Iliya and Bertero 1980). Following these initial studies

conducted at PCA and Berkeley, relatively few additional experimental studies on slender walls

were conducted in the US in the 1980s and early 1990s. The limited testing was generally focused

on assessing the behavior of coupled walls (Shiu et al. 1981a,) and isolated walls pierced with

openings (Shiu et al. 1981b, Ali and Wight 1991). However, a large number of tests, mostly on

barbell-shaped walls, were conducted in Japan throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.

6
Thomsen and Wallace (1995) reported on testing of slender walls with rectangular and T-shaped

cross-sections to assess boundary element detailing using a displacement-based design approach,

which was introduced into ACI 318-99. Introduction of displacement-based design approach

(Wallace and Orakcal 2002), observations from major earthquakes in the US and Japan in the mid-

1990s, and the expansion of experimental testing facilities around the world have since led to a

significant increase in the available wall test results reported in the literature.

This paper presents a robust, well-detailed, and organized database of RC wall tests (hereafter

referred to as UCLA-RCWalls) developed at University of California, Los Angeles, that currently

contains detailed and parameterized data on more than 1000 isolated solid RC wall tests collected

from more than 200 test programs reported in the literature around the world. Currently, the

database does not include tests of repaired, retrofitted, perforated (pierced), coupled, and precast

walls, as well as walls tested under dynamic loading referring to the use of earthquake simulators

(shake tables) or blast loading.

2.3. Motivations

Several factors motivated the development of UCLA-RCWalls database. First, there have been

attempts by researchers and institutions to gather the available experimental data of RC walls and

utilize them to assess behavior of walls and validate analytical studies. However, those efforts have

not been comprehensive in a sense that they only include tests conducted at particular geographic

regions (e.g., wall databases in Japan and China, which tend to be difficult to obtain by other

researchers) or pertinent to tests of a specific type of walls (e.g., squat walls). Furthermore, existing

databases (e.g., NEEShub Shear Wall Database (Lu et al. 2010) and SERIES Database 2013) do

not contain sufficiently detailed and parameterized information about reinforcement details, test
7
setups, experimental results, and analytical results (e.g., moment-curvature response and depth of

neutral axis). In addition, a significant number of wall tests, mostly code-compliant, have been

conducted since the 2010 Chile and 2011 New Zealand earthquakes, and data from these more

recent tests are typically not included in these databases. Therefore, there was a lack of a robust

wall database with a uniform approach to assembling data from the available tests and to identify

gaps in the available test results to guide future experimental programs on RC walls (some of these

gaps are summarized later).

Second, following observations of poor performance and severe damage of walls during recent

earthquakes and laboratory tests (e.g., Wallace 2011, Elwood et al. 2011, Wallace et al. 2012,

Birely 2012, Arteta et al. 2014, Nagae et al. 2011), researchers have raised concerns about potential

deficiencies in the current building code provisions and have suggested more studies be conducted

to address these issues (Wallace 2012). Furthermore, there are uncertainties related to the

effectiveness of some boundary element details and configurations that are not specifically

addressed in the current ACI 318-14 provisions, e.g., the type of hooks used on crossties, the

effectiveness of overlapping hoops relative to a perimeter hoop with intermediate crossties, and

the need to support all boundary longitudinal bars versus every other bar. To enable investigation

of these concerns, and, ultimately, provide guidance that could lead to better performance of walls,

a robust wall database that contains very detailed (parameterized) information is required. As part

of the effort to address the above issues, Abdullah and Wallace (2019a, 2019b) utilized this

database to assess the impact of various design parameters on lateral drift capacity (defined at 20%

strength degradation from peak) of walls with special boundary elements (SBE). The database

enabled the authors to answer some important questions related to potential for brittle compression

failure of walls and deficiencies in the current ACI 318-14 code provisions, develop an empirical

8
model to estimate drift capacity of walls with SBE details, and propose a drift demand-capacity

ratio (DDCR) check for ACI 318-19.

Lastly, documents such as ASCE 41-17 and ACI 369-17, which provide wall modeling parameters

for plastic deformation capacity and sectional stiffness, have been developed based on review of

limited number of experimental results (FEMA 273-1997, FEMA 365-2000). Research (e.g., Tran

2012, Birely et al. 2014, Segura and Wallace 2018, Motter et al., 2018) has demonstrated that the

existing provisions are, in many cases, generally conservative, and there have been limited studies

to improve those provisions due to lack of a robust and detailed wall database. Therefore, the

authors are currently using the database to develop updated modeling parameters that reflect the

current state of knowledge of performance of RC walls.

2.4. Database Structure

Important features of any engineering database should include the ability to efficiently manipulate

data (i.e., filter, modify, import, export, and preview), ensure that data are secure and unauthorized

changes cannot be performed, be widely available to enable use by researchers and practitioners,

and be easily updated to include new data. To address these needs, a sophisticated database

management software (Microsoft SQL Server, 2014) and a web application framework (ASP.NET

MVC4) were utilized to develop the background (data repository) and foreground (interface) of

the database, respectively. Fig. 2-1 shows the database interface, where data manipulations can be

performed.

9
 Fig. 2-1– Interface of UCLA-RCWalls database.

Since the number of experimental programs on RC walls is rapidly rising and new data becomes

available every year, it was deemed necessary to ensure the database is capable of accepting further

data in an efficient manner by inputting data into a pre-formatted Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and

then simply importing the spreadsheet to the database. An important feature of the database is that

the stored data can be conveniently filtered based on as many criteria as the user wishes to apply,

e.g., see Fig. 2-2. The filtered data can then be downloaded to an Excel spreadsheet (Fig. 2-3).

This filtering capability is essential because, in addition to accuracy, it saves

researchers/practitioners time and effort that would otherwise be needed to manually refine

datasets to satisfy specified criteria.

10
 Fig. 2-2–An example of how filters can be used to screen data.

Fig. 2-3–Partial view of filtered data that can be exported in a spreadsheet.

11
2.5. Database Organization and Content

Organization of data in a database can be challenging, particularly for RC wall tests, which include

a substantial amount of detail and data. Throughout the development of the database, attempts

were made to ensure the data are neatly organized, and navigation through the database is

straightforward. Although UCLA-RCWalls contains three major clusters of data, namely,

specimen and test setup data, experimental data, and analytical/computed data, it is organized into

nine main sections: general information, test setup and loading, geometry, concrete material

properties, web details, boundary element details, experimental results, flexural strength

parameters, and shear strength parameters. Some of these sections are further divided into sub-

sections to further organize the database and, more importantly, to allow recording more detailed

and parameterized information.

Currently, UCLA-RCWalls database contains over 1000 isolated solid RC wall tests collected

from more than 200 experimental programs reported in the literature around the world, making it

by far the largest database of RC wall tests. It is noted that UCLA-RCWalls does not currently

include tests of repaired, retrofitted, perforated (pierced), coupled, and precast walls, as well as

walls tested under dynamic loading referring to the use of earthquake simulators (shake tables) or

blast loading. If a wall is asymmetric about the cross-section centerline in terms of geometry,

longitudinal reinforcement, detailing, and/or loading, the database contains details on either side

of the wall centerline and test results of both directions of loading. However, to avoid increasing

the number of rows of data needed for each wall test, those asymmetric walls are treated as two

separate tests. For example, TW1, a T-shaped wall specimen tested by Thomsen and Wallace

(1995), is registered twice: once as “TW1-web BE” to record details of the web boundary element

with backbone curve of the direction of web in compression, and again as “TW1-flange BE” to

12
 200

No. o
100

ile d

a
Ch lan

19 9
19 9

9
20 9
Ze a

ul
-8
-7

-0
-9
ew re
S. ina
Ch n

er
SA

g
a

80
70

00
pa

90
N Ko

an
th
U
Ja

19
O

ct

B
Re
a) Country b) Year
record details of the flange with backbone curve of the direction
400
of flange in compression, with

BE referring to boundary element. In case of symmetric walls, only the test results of the positive

No. of Specimens
300

direction of response are included. A brief description of200

some of the details of UCLA-RCWalls

database are presented in the following sections. Appendix

100 A presents all the references where

information on the wall tests in UCLA-RCWalls database are

0 reported and that were available to

1
5
0
0

6
4
5

3
2
5-
10

0.
-3
-2

-4

4-
3-
1-

2-
1-
0

0.
5-

<
20
10

30
0.

0.
the author f) Axial Load Ratio [%] g) Reinf. Ratio, rlong. BE [%] h) As

400
2.5.1. General Information

No. of Specimens
300
This section contains information such as name of the program (i.e., Thomsen and Wallace, 1996),
200

specimen name, year when the test results were first published, and country where the tests were
100

performed. Fig. 2-4(a) indicates that more than half of the walls in the database have been tested
0

10

0
5
5
5

-2
-1
7.

5-
in China, Japan, and the US. Reporting of wall test results increased drastically starting in 1990s

<

15
10
5-

7.
j) Comp. Zone Width, b [in.] k) lw/b
0
5

0
0
0
2.
1.

5
4.

-4
-3
-2
1-
0
5-
0-

0-

30
20
10
0.
1.
1.

3.

d) Shear Span and

Ratioespecially after
e) Axial 2010
Load Ratio(Fig.
[%] 2-4(b)), due to observations following major earthquakes in the US

and Japan in the mid-1990s and in Chile and New Zealand in the early-2010s and the expansion

of experimental testing facilities around the world.

400 500 700

60
40
30 400
Number of Tests
Number of Tests

300 300
Percentage

300 30 40
200 20
200
200 20
20
100 10 100
100 10

0 0 0 0 0 0
nd lar d d ell
n ina orea eala ile her gu rbell nged hape hape Barb
9
9

8
9

9
-9

SA
-8

-1
-7

-0

p a n
Ch S. K ew Z C
h Ot cta Ba Fla T-s L-s alf
90
80

10
70

00

U Ja Re
19
19

20
19

20

N H
a) Country b) Year a) Cross-section shape
Fig. 2-4–Distribution of wall tests: (a) country and (b) year.
600 300 400

500
Number of Tests

Number of Tests

300
40
400 200

300 13 200

200 20 100
100
100

0 0 0 0
ar
2.5.2. Test Setup and Loading

The walls included in UCLA-RCWalls database are tested under either uni-directional monotonic,

uni-directional or bi-directional quasi-static, cyclic loading protocols, using test setup

configurations shown in Fig. 2-5. Other details such as heights at which global measurements are

taken, type of cyclic histories (Fig. 2-6), total number of cycles, number of repeated cycles at each

displacement/load level, shear span ratio (M/Vlw), and level of axial load are also included.

HV H∆top Hu H∆top Hu

HV
H∆top Hu

a) Cantilever with single lateral load b) Cantilever with multiple lateral loads c) Panel with single lateral load and moment

Hu Hu
H∆top H∆top
HV

d) Panel with multiple lateral loads and moment e) Double curvature

Fig. 2-5– Wall test setup configurations.

14
 Displacement
Drift or

a) Increasing amplitude b) Increasing/decreasng c) Constant amplitude d) Cyclic and monotonic

amplitude

Fig. 2-6–Types of cyclic loading histories.

Fig. 2-7(a) indicates that about 90% of the walls in the database have been tested under uni-

directional quasi-static, cyclic loading and only 7% and 2% being tested under monotonic and bi-

directional quasi-static, cyclic loading, respectively. Sparseness of wall tests under bi-directional

loading is partly due to limitations of laboratory capabilities to perform more complicated loading

schemes. Fig. 2-7(b) shows that the vast majority of the tests in the database are conducted on

cantilever walls with a single lateral load applied at the top of the wall (i.e., approximate effective

height, heff) with or without axial load (e.g., Thomsen and Wallace 1995) due to the simplicity of

cantilever wall test setups (Fig. 2-5(a)). Tests of cantilever walls with multiple lateral loads (Fig.

2-5(b)) have rarely been conducted (e.g., Wang et al. 1975, Vallenas et al. 1979, Iliya and Bertero

1980) due to the complexity associated with stability and application of multiple actuators

simultaneously and the fact that multiple actuators can be replaced with application of a single

actuator acting at heff of the wall. One important limitation of cantilever wall tests is that it does

not allow testing of walls at larger scale or walls subjected to larger shear span ratios and axial

loading, i.e., very slender walls, due to height limitations. As a result, walls tested under high axial

( )
load ratios P / Ag f 'c > 0.3 and large shear span ratio (M/Vlw > 4.0) are rare, as seen from Fig.

2-7(c) and Fig. 2-7(d). However, researchers have recently overcome this issue by testing panel or

partial height walls, in which the lower one or two stories of a high-rise wall is tested under a

15
combined effects of lateral load(s), axial load, and bending moment at the top of the panel (Fig.

2-5(c) and Fig. 2-5(d)), which allows testing of walls at a larger scale and walls subjected to larger

shear span ratios (e.g., Segura and Wallace 2018, Birely 2012, Furukawa et al. 2003, Kabeyasawa

et al. 2012, Tabata et al. 2003, Lu et al. 2017, Shegay et al. 2018). An important aspect of creating

the database involved providing a unified approach to convert drift capacity of panel walls to that

of cantilever walls at heff to allow a more meaningful comparison of wall tests. That is, for panel

and partial wall height tests, the UCLA-RCWalls database includes drift capacity at heff,

determined as sum of the measured displacement at the top of the panel (experimental) and an

estimated contribution of elastic bending deformations between the top of the panel and heff. To

estimate the latter, the wall panel is converted to an equivalent cantilever wall based on the M/Vlw

used in the test. Then, the contribution of the upper part of the wall to the top displacement is

computed analytically using the wall effective stiffness (EIeff) obtained from analytical moment-

curvature response. This approach has been shown to be reasonable (Massone and Wallace 2004).

Double-curvature test setups (Fig. 2-5(e)) have been used to test shear-controlled walls and piers

(e.g., Lopes and Elnashi 1992, Orakcal et al. 2009) to address conditions for pierced (or punched)

walls.

Fig. 2-7–Histograms of test setup and loading.

16
2.5.3. Geometry

The wall tests included in UCLA-RCWalls have either rectangular, barbell, flanged, T-shaped, L-

shaped, or half-barbell cross-section (Fig. 2-8). Walls that have C-shaped cross-sections are not

currently included. Fig. 2-8(a) shows that the majority of the wall tests have rectangular cross-

sections. This is mainly due to the transition in the use of barbell-shaped to rectangular walls that

began in the late 1980s, at least in the US and New Zealand, to simplify formwork. This transition

has recently been taking place in Japanese practice after the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ

2010) relaxed mandatory requirements of enlarged boundary columns to permit use of rectangular

walls with confined end regions. The majority of the walls have web thickness, tw, ranging from 3

to 8 in., with only 18 walls with tw > 8 in (Fig. 2-9(b)). Fig. 2-9(c) indicates that about 92% of the

walls have ratio of wall length normalized by width of compression zone, lw/b, ≥ 15, with relatively

few tests with 15 < lw/b < 20 and even fewer tests with very slender cross-sections (i.e., lw/b > 20).

Fig. 2-8–Wall cross-section shapes included UCLA-RCWalls.

17
 0
1

10
5

-2

40
-1
7.

-2
2

5
5

-4
4

-3
3
5-

1-
<

4-
3-
2-
15
10
5-

5-
>

10

30
20
7.

>
) Comp. Zone Width, b [in.] k) lw/b l) c/b m) c/lw [%]

700 400 400

60
40
30 30
Number of Tests

300 300 300

Percentage
Percentage

30 40
200 20 200 20
200
20
20
100 100 10 100 10
10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r ll
ula bell ged aped aped arbe
9
9

8
9

g
-9
-8

-1
-0

10
n r n

0
5
cta Ba Fla T-sh L-sh alf B

5
5

8
4

8
90

6
80

5
10

-2
-1
00

7.

5-
4-
3-

6-
2-

5-
Re

>

<
5-

15
10
19
19

20
20

7.
b) Year a) Cross-section shape b) Web Thickness tw [in.] c) Cross-section Aspect Ratio lw/b
Fig. 2-9–Histograms of wall cross-section shape and geometry.
300 400 400
Number of Tests

300 30 300 30
0

Percentage
200
2.5.4. Material Properties
200 20 200 20

0 100 Materials strength properties, both specified (nominal) and tested (measured), are contained in the
100 10 100 10

0
database for both
0
concrete (i.e., compressive
0 0
strength, f’c) and0 steel reinforcement (i.e., yield
2
10

12

0
0
0

0
0
4

5
8
6

-1

10

40

10
-2

4
3

-2
2
-4
-3

5
5

-4
-3
2-

1-
6-
4-

8-

3-

0
2-
1-
10

4-
>

5-

5-
10

>

strength, fy, and, tensile strength, fu). Tested concrete compressive strength is recorded as strength
10
30
20

30
20
0.
>

b) Shear Stress Vu/Acv f'c(ksi) e) Axial Load Ratio [%]

a) c/lw b) c/b

of standard cylinders with length-to-diameter ratio of 2:1, which is the commonly used
300 400
40

compressive
30
strength test in most 30countries
300 including the US,
30 Canada, Japan, Australia, New
Percentage

200

Zealand,
20 etc. However, some test 20
programs,
200 especially in Europe
20 (e.g., from Great Britain and
100
10
Germany)
10 and Chinese, concrete strength
10 100
is based on cube tests. In such cases, cylinder concrete
0 0 0 0 0
60 70 80 90 80
compressive strength is taken as 80% of cube compressive strength, which is a commonly assumed
-60 -70 -80 -90 -200
0
5

0
0

50- 60- 70- 80- 90-1 50 60 70 80

3.
1.

4.
2.

90
0-
0-

0-
5-
2.
1.

3.
1.

) Yield strength of boundary c) Yield strength of boundary

d) Shear Span Ratio M/Vl
longitudinal bars fvalue
yl [ksi]
(Mindesstransverse
et al. 2003)
bars fytand
[ksi]a reasonable approximation wfor the purpose of this database. As
1000 900 400 400
shown in Fig. 2-10, there are a significant
80 number of wall tests for a wide range of tested material
900 80 800
30 30
Number of Tests

300 300
60
strengths for
60 both concrete and reinforcement in the boundary elements.
Percentage

300 300
200 20 200 20
40
40
200 200
20 100 10 100 10
100 20 100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lic ic er ture
cyc y cl ton
ic lev el urva 18
al c anti n
0
0
5

C
0

ne a
0

ono
5

P ble
3.
2.
1.
40
10

4.

ax i
-2

a
-3

-4
1-

l C
p Dou
0-
0

5-
0-

0-

- i- M
5-
10

20

30
0.

n
>

I B
2.
1.
1.

3.

a) Lateral Loading Protocol b) Test Setup Configuration c) Axial Load Ratio P/Agf'c [%] d) Shear Span Ratio M/Vlw
 100

0 0 0 0 0 0
ear e e
re r Sh splic ailur

2
10
xu a

12

0
-

0
0
4

8
6

-1

10
e

40
e

-2

4
3
2
-4
Sh exur Lab- No F

-3
Fle

2-

6-
4-

8-

3-
2-
1-
10

>

5-

10

30
20

>
Fl
a) Failure Mode b) Shear Stress Vu/Acv f'c(ksi) a) c/lw b) c/b

300 400 300 400

40

Number of Tests 20
300 30
30 300
200 200

200 20 20 200

100 10 100
100 10 10 100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-8 60 70 80 90 80 0 0 80 0 00
50-6 60-7 70- 80-9 90-2

0
5

0
50- 60- 70- 80- 90-1

3.
1.

2.
0-
0-

0-
5-
2.
1.

3.
1.
a) Concrete Compressive b) Yield strength of boundary c) Yield strength of boundary
d) Shear Span Ratio
Strength f'c [ksi] longitudinal bars fyl [ksi] transverse bars fyt [ksi]
Fig. 2-10–Histograms of1000
tested material strength 900
properties. 400
80
900 80 800

Number of Tests
300
60
60
300 300
40 200
Specified strength properties are especially important to determine
40 if walls are code compliant, as
200 200
20 100
20 100
ACI 318-14 code provisions are based on specified
100 material strengths; however, these properties
0 0 0 0 0
l cl er ic ic ture
are not always reported. Therefore, it was of interest cyc to aknow
l cy the ic
ton variationtilevof Ptested urva specified
ane ble Cand
l
ne

0
ono Can

5
10
axi

-2
pla

-3
1-
u

0
In- Bi- M Do

5-
10

20
0.
a) Lateral Loading Protocol b) Test Setup Configuration c) Axial Load Ratio P/A
material strengths (especially f’c and fy) for walls whose both tested and specified strengths are

reported. Fig. 2-11(a) shows that, on average, tested concrete compressive strength is about 9%

larger than specified strength. Tested yield strength of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement

within boundary elements is on average about 10% larger than specified minimum yield strength

(Fig. 2-11(b) and Fig. 2-11(c)). This yield overstrength factor (1.10) is about 88% of the factor

specified by ASCE 41-17 for expected yield strength of reinforcing steel in existing concrete

construction (i.e., fyE = 1.25fy).

400 500 700

40
30 400
Number of Tests
Number of Tests

300 300
Percentage

300 30
200 20
200
200 20

100 10 100
100 10

0 0
19 0 0 0
nd r
ula ell ged aped aped ar
rea eala ile her
9
9

an hina
9

A ng
-9
-8

-1
-7

-0

o b
US p K wZ h t cta Bar Flan T-sh L-sh alf B
90
80

Ja
10
70

00

C S. C O e
19
19

R
20
19

20

Ne H
a) Country b) Year a) Cross-section shape
 25 160 200
a) b) c)
Tested Strength (ksi)

20 160
120

15 120
80
10 723 wall tests 679 wall tests 80 487 wall tests
Mean = 1.09 Mean = 1.10 Mean = 1.09
STDV = 0.10 40 STDV = 0.12 STDV = 0.10
5 40
COV = 0.09 COV = 0.11 COV = 0.09
Mean Mean Mean
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160 200
Specified Strength (ksi) Specified Strength (ksi) Specified Strength (ksi)
Fig. 2-11–Tested versus specified material strengths: a) concrete compressive strength, f’c, b)
yield strength of boundary longitudinal reinforcement, fyl, and c) yield strength of boundary
transverse reinforcement, fyt.

2.5.5. Boundary Elements Details

The boundary element section of the database contains by far the largest body of data. This is

because, in flexure-controlled structural walls, the detailing at the wall boundaries is used to

provide nonlinear deformation capacity (ductility) in lateral-force resisting systems (e.g., Special

Structural Walls according to ACI 318-14). In addition to geometric information (location and

spacing of reinforcement, and provided concrete cover), example details parameterized in the

database include perimeter hoop with intermediate legs of crossties, types of overlapping

hoops/spiral (Fig. 2-12(a)), types of hooks used on crossties or headed bar crossties (Fig. 2-12(b)),

layout and lateral support of vertical bars (Fig. 2-12(c)), anchorage type of vertical bars in the

plastic hinge region (i.e., continuous bars, lap-spliced bars, or mechanical couplers), embedment

type and length of vertical bars into the foundations block (types of hooks or headed bars used),

and distribution of vertical reinforcement (concentrated at boundary elements or uniformly

distributed throughout cross section). Availability of the above information is critical to allow

researchers to assess the role of various parameters and the effectiveness of code provisions.

20
 Histograms of boundary element longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρlong.BE , ratio of provided-to-
400 500 700 4
60
required (per ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4) area of boundary transverse reinforcement,
30 400
40 Ash, provided Ash,required,

Number of Tests
Number of Tests
300 300 3

Percentage
300 30 40
and ratio of vertical spacing
200 of boundary transverse
20
reinforcement to minimum diameter
200 of 2
200 20
20
100 10 100 1
longitudinal boundary reinforcement, s db are shown in100Fig. 2-13. A great deal10 of tests have been
0 d 0 0 0 0 0
a an lar d d ell
A pan ina ore eal hile ther gu rbell nged hape hape Barb

9
9

8
9

9
-9
-8

-1
-7

-0
n
conducted on a large range of S
Ja Ash,Chprovided
S. ewAsh,required
Z C , with the majority not satisfying ACI 318-14 a
ct B a a
Fl T-s L-s alf

90
80
K

10
70

00
U O Re

19
19

20
19

20
N H
a) Country b) Year a) Cross-section shape
§18.10.6.4 required transverse reinforcement partly due to re-instating expression 18.10.6.4a in
600 300 400
the 2014 version of the code which tends
500
to govern for walls with thin boundary zones.
Number of Tests

Number of Tests
300
40
400 200

300 200

200 20 100
100
100

0 0 0 0
ear e e
re r Sh splic ailur

2
10
xu a

12

0
-

0
0
4

8
6

-1

10
e

40
e

-2

-4
Sh exur Lab- No F

-3
Fle

2-

6-
4-

8-
10

>

5-

10

30
20

>
Fl
a) Failure Mode b) Shear Stress Vu/Acv f'c(ksi) a) c/lw

300 400 300

40
Number of Tests

300 30
20 30
200 200

200 20 20

100 10 100
100 10 10

0 0 0 0 0 0
<3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-8 60 70 80 90 80 0 0 80 0 00
50- 60- 70- 80- 90-1 50-6 60-7 70- 80-9 90-2
Fig. 2-12–Examples of wall boundary element
a) Concrete details parameterized
Compressive b) Yield strengthin
ofUCLA-RCWalls.
boundary c) Yield strength of boundary
Strength f'c [ksi] longitudinal bars fyl [ksi] transverse bars fyt [ksi]
5

400 300 300 1000

900
No. of Specimens

Number of Tests

300 30
20 200 20
Percentage

200
300
200 20

10 100 200
100 10
100 10
100

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lic ycl
ic
cyc al c
1. .0
0. 75

0
0. .5

ne
1. .5
1
5

2
6

axi on
2.
4
3

10

16
-1
2

la
5-
0.

-1
6
0

-1
8
0.
3-
2-

In-p
1-

4-

-
5-

4-
1-

0-

1-

i M
6-
75
0.

8-
10
5-

12
<

B
>
0.

a) Reinf. Ratio, rlong. BE [%] b) Ash, provided/Ash,required: X-Dir. c) Bar slenderness s/db a) Lateral Loading Pro
Fig. 2-13–Histograms of boundary element details.
21
2.5.6. Web Details

The database contains thorough information about wall web reinforcements (i.e., vertical,

horizontal, diagonal, and confinement reinforcement). Details such as number of curtains, end

anchorage condition for horizontal web reinforcement (Fig. 2-14(a)), location of web vertical bars

(Fig. 2-14(b)), anchorage type of web vertical bars in the plastic hinge region, and embedment

type and length of web vertical bars in the foundations block are few examples of web details

parameterized in UCLA-RCWalls.

Fig. 2-15(a)and Fig. 2-15(b) show that the vast majority of the wall tests have web horizontal and

vertical reinforcement ratios, ρh and ρl , greater than 0.0025, which has been the required minimum

web reinforcement ratio in ACI 318 since the 1971 version of the code. Fig. 2-15(c) also indicates

that there are about 120 walls with one curtain and five walls with more than two curtains of web

reinforcement in the database, leaving the rest of the walls (~920 walls) having two curtains.

Fig. 2-14–Examples of wall web details parameterized in UCLA-RCWalls.

22
 0 0 0 0
h ear lice re
ure r u

2
ea -S il

10

12
sp

8
6

-1
x Sh exure Lab- Fa

2-
Fle

6-
4-

8-
10

>
No

5
Fl
a) Failure Mode b) Shear Stress Vu/Acv f'c(ksi)

300
500 500 1000

Number of Tests
Number of Tests
400 40 400 40 900
80 200

Percentage
300 30 300 30
300

200 20 200 20 20 100

200

100 10 100 10 100

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 <3 3-4
5
.25 -0.5 0.7 -1.0 -1.5 2.0 .0 5 0
.25 -0. 0.75 -1. 1.5 2.0 .0 1 2
< 0 0.25 0.5- 0.75 1.0 1.5- > 2 < 0 0.25 0.5- 0.75 1.0- 1.5- > 2
a) Con
a) Horizontal reinf. ratio, rh [%] b) Vertical reinf. ratio, rl [%] c) Number of curtains Stre
Fig. 2-15–Histograms of web details.
400 300 300 100

90
No. of Specimens

Number of Tests
300 30
20 200 20

Percentage
200
2.5.7. Experimental Results
30
200 20

Backbone curves of base shear-top displacement,

100
base moment-rotation,
10 100 and base shear-shear 10
20
100 10
10
displacement responses are generated and included in the database. The backbone curves provide
0 0 0 0 0 0
a significant amount of information about wall deformation, strength, and stiffness. As shown in
1. .0
0. 75

0
0. .5

1. .5
1
5

2
6
2.
4
3

10

16
-1
2

6
5-
0.

-1
6
0

-1
8
0.
3-
2-
1-

4-

5-

4-
1-

0-

1-

6-
75
0.

8-
10
5-

12
<

>
0.

a) Reinf. Ratio, r [%] b) Ash, provided/Ash,required: X-Dir. c) Bar slenderness s/db a) L

Fig. 2-16, the backbone curveslong. BE of seven points, namely, Origin, Cracking, General Yield,
consist

Peak, Ultimate, Residual, and Collapse, corresponding to the first cycle at each load/displacement

level. Cracking point represents the state at which horizontal flexural or diagonal shear cracks are

first observed in the test. This information is reported for the majority of the tests in the database.

However, in cases where cracking load and displacement are not reported, attempts were made to

visually identify the cracking point on the load-displacement curve (a significant change in

stiffness). General Yield is defined as the point where the hysteretic loops (or the response curve

in case of monotonic loading) begin to abruptly lose stiffness, as illustrated in Fig. 2-16. It should

be noted that this point does not necessarily correspond to first yielding of longitudinal bars, but

rather is associated with yielding of most of the longitudinal bars. Peak is the point at which the

maximum lateral strength occurred. Ultimate (or deformation capacity) is defined as the
400 500
deformation at which strength degraded by 20% in the first cycle from peak, which is widely
30 400
Number of Tests

300
23 300
200 20
200

100 10
100
accepted among researchers. Residual and Collapse points are defined as the state at which the

wall reaches its residual strength and loses its axial load-carrying capacity, respectively. The

majority of the tests, especially earlier tests, do not have Residual and Collapse points due to

termination of the test before reaching residual strength and axial collapse.

In addition to backbone curves, reported drift at key damage states such as cover spalling, onset of

bar buckling, and bar fracture are recorded based on reported information at those stages. However,

a large number of the programs do not report such details, especially programs for which there are

no available report, thesis, or dissertation, where detailed information is typically reported.

The reported failure modes are also contained in the database, which are classified as flexure

failure modes (i.e., bar buckling and concrete crushing, bar fracture, or global or local lateral

instability), shear failure modes (i.e., diagonal tension, diagonal compression (web crushing), or

shear sliding at the base), flexure-shear failure (i.e., yielding in flexure and failing in shear), and

lap-splice failure. The authors did their best to validate that the reported failure mode was

consistent with the observed response and wall damage before recording that information in the

database. Fig. 2-17(a) shows that half of the walls in the database are classified as flexure failure;

the other tests are recorded as either flexure-shear or shear failure modes. Although the database

contains about 30 walls with lap-splices of boundary element longitudinal bars (Fig. 2-17), there

are only about 10 tests that failed due to insufficient lap-splice. Walls not tested to some degree of

lateral strength degradation due to either limited available actuator stroke/capacity or pushing the

wall to a repairable level of damage are flagged as “No Failure”. These tests are included because

they are useful for wall strength and.

24
 General Peak
400 Yield 500 700

Base Shear/Moment
Ultimate
Drift/Rotation Capacity 40
30 400

Number of Tests
Number of Tests
300 Residual 300

Percentage
300 30
Collapse
200 20
0.8VPeak 200
200 20
Cracking
100 10 100
100 10

0 Origin 0 0 0 0
d lar
ea alan ile gu rbell

9
9

8
9

9
r
r e an ina

-9
SA

-8

-1
-7

-0
p o e Deformation
h Oth a n a Fl
Ch S. K ew Z C ect B

90
80

10
70

00
U Ja

19
19

20
19

20
Fig. 2-16–An example N of backbone derivation (Tran, 2012). R
a) Country b) Year a) Cross

600 300 400

500
Number of Tests

Number of Tests
300
40

Percentage
400 200

300 200

200 20 100
100
100

0 0 0 0
h e ar ce re
re r li u

2
xu Shea ure-S b-sp ail

10

12
4

8
6

-1
2-
Fle oF

6-
4-

8-
10

>
l e x L a N
F
a) Failure
Fig. 2-17–Wall Modemodes.
failure b) Shear Stress Vu/Acv f'c(ksi)

300
500 500 1000
2.5.8. Analytical Results 40

Number of Tests
400 400 40 900
Number of Tests

80 200
Percentage

300
Another important feature of
30 UCLA-RCWalls
300
database is that30it contains computed data for both
300

200 flexural and shear responses, and numerous other calculated20parameters, e.g., axial load
20 200 20 ratio, 100
200

100 reinforcement ratios in the10web

100 and boundary elements, ratio of provided-to-required area of
10 100
0
0 boundary transverse 0 0
reinforcements, 0 0
and normalized shear stresses. 0
These computed data are <3 3
5
.25 -0.5 0.7 -1.0 -1.5 2.0 .0 60 70 80 90 00 1 2
< 0 0.25 0.5- 0.75 1.0 1.5- > 2 50- 60- 70- 80- 90-2
a) Con
essential toreinf.
a) Horizontal facilitate
ratio, filtering
rh [%] process, determine
b) Vertical code r
reinf. ratio, compliancy,
l [%]
assess code of
c) Number provisions,
curtains and, Str
ultimately, assist in developing new design recommendations.
400 300 300 10

9
o. of Specimens

umber of Tests

300 30
25 20 200 20
Percentage

200
3
200 20

10 100 2
100 10
100 10
 Analytical moment-curvature ( M − φ ) analysis was performed for each wall using tested material

properties (f’c, fy, and fu) and assuming 1) linear strain variation (plane sections), 2) maximum

extreme fiber concrete compressive strain of 0.004, 3) stress-strain behavior of unconfined

concrete given by Hognestad (1951) (Fig. 2-18(a)), 4) steel stress-strain relationship given in Fig.

2-18(b), where ey, esh, and eu are steel strains at yield, strain hardening, and ultimate, respectively.

Although the M − φ response of each wall is available in a spreadsheet for each test, values of

nominal and first yield moment strength (Mn and My) and curvature (fn and fy) and depth of neutral
Flexure Shear: Diagonal Compression Shear Sliding
nsion
Shear-Flexure Shear: Diagonal Tension Not Tested to Failure
axis
2 (c) at concrete compressive strain of 0.003 are extracted from the curves and recorded in the
8 Flexure

database. Fig. 2-19 shows histograms of computed c normalized by wall length (c/lw) and width of
Flexure-Shear
1.5 6 Shear: Diagonal Tension or Compression
Shear Sliding
compression zone (c/b). It can be seen that very few walls have been tested with c/b > 4, with the
VTest/V@Mn

1 4
M/Vlw
majority having c/b ≤ 2. ACI 318-14 wall shear strength parameters, e.g., αc, shear strength
0.5
contributed by concrete and reinforcement (Vc and Vs), and nominal
2 shear strength (Vn) computed

from
0 equation 18.10.4.1, are also included in the database.
50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Vn,ACI/V@Mn 0 1 2 3 4 5
Vn/V@Mult

2
Shear Flexure
f'c
0.15f'c
1.5
VTest/V@Mult
Stress

Flexure
0.5 Flexure-Shear
Shear: Diagonal Tension or Com
ase eo = 2f'c/Ec 0.004 Strain Shear Sliding
0
6 (a) Concrete (b) Reinforcement
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 2-18–Steel stress-strain relationships used to compute moment-curvature relations.
Vn/V@Mult

Flexure Shear: Diagonal Compression Shear Sliding

Flexure (506) Shear: Diagonal Compression (102) Shear Sliding (30)
Shear-Flexure (219) Shear: Diagonal Tension (93) Not Tested to Failure (38) Shear-Flexure Shear: Diagonal Tension Not Tested to Failure
2 6

26
1.5
4
st/V@Mn

M/Vlw

1
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lar d d ell
gu rbell nged hape hape Barb

9
9

8
9

9
-9
-8

-1
7

-0

10
n

0
5
5
0-
cta Ba Fla T-s L-s alf

8
4

8
90

6
80

5
10

-2
-1
00

7.

5-
4-
3-

6-
2-

5-
7

Re

>

<
5-

15
10
19
19

20
19

20
H

7.
b) Year a) Cross-section shape b) Web Thickness tw [in.] c) Cross-section Aspect Ratio lw/b

300 400 400

Number of Tests
300 30 300 30
40
Percentage

Percentage
200

200 20 200 20

20 100
100 10 100 10

0 0 0 0 0 0
e
2
10

12

0
0
0

0
0
4

5
8
6

-1

40

10
-2

4
3

-2
2
-4
-3

5
5

-4
-3
2-

1-
6-
4-

1
8-

3-

0
2-
1-
10

4-
>

5-

5-
10

>

10
30
20

30
20
0.
>
b) Shear Stress Vu/Acv f'c(ksi) a) c/lw b) c/b e) Axial Load Ratio [%]
Fig. 2-19–Histograms of normalized neutral axis depth
300 400 300 400
1000 40
Number of Tests

0 900 300 30 300

20 30
80 200 200
Percentage

0 2.6. Recommendations for Future Wall Tests 20 200

300 200 20
0
200 Based on observed in the test results10assembled
20 the gaps100
100
100 database, it is
in the UCLA-RCWalls 10 100
10
0 100
recommended that future
0
test programs of RC 0walls0 address on the following0 items:
0 0 0
0 0 <3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-8
-60 70 80 90 80 0 70 80 0 00
1 2 50 60- 70- 80- 90-1 50-6 60- 70- 80-9 90-2
1. Walls in new building
c) Number of curtains
constructions
a) Concrete are commonly
Compressive characterized
b) Yield strength of by more slender
boundary c)cross-section
Yield strength of boundary
Strength f'c [ksi] longitudinal bars fyl [ksi] transverse bars fyt [ksi]
profiles ( lw b > 15) and1000
higher compression demands
900 ( c b > 4 ) , at least on400the West Coast of 40
300
80
900 80 800
30
Number of Tests

the US. This trend has been accelerated by the availability of high strength
60 concrete. However,
300 30
20 200 20
Percentage

60
300 300
20
test results on walls with lw b > 15 and c 40b > 4 are relatively sparse
40 200
in the literature. 20
200 200
10 100 10
20 100 10 10
20 100
Therefore, it is recommended
100 that future wall test programs focus on ACI 318-14 code-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lic lic er t ure
compliant walls with lw c cyc . al cyc
b-pla>ne 60
2
ton
ic lev el urva
anti Pan uble C
0

0
ono
0
2

5
6

40
10

i
10

16

-3

-4
-2

x
-1
6
4

C
1-
-1
8

a
0

- Do
4-
1-

i M
6-

5-

20

30
10
8-

In
10

>
0.
12

B
>

X-Dir. c) Bar slenderness s/db a) Lateral Loading Protocol b) Test Setup Configuration c) Axial Load Ratio P/Agf'c [%]
2. Abdullah and Wallace (2019a) investigated the impact of using different boundary transverse

reinforcement configurations on drift capacity and noted that there are relatively few code-

compliant walls with large compression zones ( c b > 4 ) , high shear demands, and transverse

reinforcement consisting of either overlapping hoops or a combination of a single perimeter

hoop and crossties with 135º-135º hooks.

27
3. Walls with lap-splices of web horizontal reinforcement are common; however, there are

currently no wall tests that could be used to evaluate the impact of lap-splicing the web

horizontal reinforcement on strength and deformation capacity of walls.

4. Wall tests under bi-directional (or multi-directional) quasi-static, cyclic loading are very scare,

especially tests on rectangular walls, and are limited to tests reported by Almeida et al. (2014),

Brueggen (2009), Imanishi (1996), Imanishi et al. (1996), Kabeyasawa et al. (2012), Idosako

et al. (2017), and Niroomandi et la. (2018).

5. Wall tests that utilize headed bars as crossties with a single perimeter hoop for boundary

element confinement (Fig. 2-12(b)) are limited to tests reported by Mobeen (2002) and Seo et

al. (2010). However, these walls have relatively small ratios of lw/b and c b , such that

lw c / b 2 ≤ 6 ; therefore, these tests, by themselves, do not provide sufficient insight into the

effectiveness of headed bars for use as crossties within SBEs.

2.7. Summary

This paper presents a robust and large database of RC walls known as UCLA-RCWalls. Unlike

other existing databases, the database is designed and developed using sophisticated software and

framework that not only makes the database a secure tool but also enables efficient filtering and

manipulation of data. UCLA-RCWalls currently contains detailed and parameterized information

and test results of over 1000 wall tests from more than 200 experimental programs reported in the

literature around the world. The database can serve as a valuable resource for the

structural/earthquake engineering community to assess behavior of RC walls against a wide range

of design parameters, develop empirical models that capture data trends, and validate analytical

studies.

28
2.8. Acknowledgement

Our endless thanks go to Pshtiwan A. Hassan, a software developer at Farouk Holdings in

Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan-Iraq, for his outstanding assistance and extensive knowledge and

expertise throughout developing the structure of the database. Funding for this work was provided,

in part, by the National Science Foundation Grant CMMI-1446423, which focused on promoting

and enhancing US and international collaboration on performance assessment of structural wall

systems and development of databases. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the views of others mentioned here.

29
2.9. References

Abdullah S. A., and Wallace J. W., 2019a. Drift capacity of RC structural walls with special

boundary elements, ACI Structural Journal 116, 183–194.

Abdullah S. A., and Wallace J. W., 2019b. A reliability-based design methodology for RC

structural walls with special boundary elements, ACI Structural Journal, submitted for

review and possible publication, May 4, 33pp.

Ali, A., and Wight, J. K., 1991. RC structural walls with staggered door openings, Journal of

Structural Engineering 117, 1514–1531.

Almeida, J. P., Prodan, O., Rosso, A., and Beyer, K., 2017. Tests on thin reinforced concrete walls

subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane cyclic loading, Earthquake Spectra 33, 323–345.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-71), 1971. Building code requirements for reinforced

concrete (ACI 318-71), Detroit, MI, 78 pp.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-83), 1983. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced

Concrete (ACI 318-83), Detroit, MI, 155 pp.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-99), 1999. Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), Farmington Hills, MI, 391 pp.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-14), 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (318R-14), Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 369-17), 2017. Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation

and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI 369.1-17) and Commentary, Farmington

Hills, MI, 110 pp.

Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), 2010. Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced

Concrete Structures, Japan. (in Japanese).

30
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 41-17), 2017. ASCE/SEI 41-17: Seismic Evaluation

and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, Reston, VA, 576 pp.

Arteta, C., To, D., and Moehle, J., 2014. Experimental response of boundary elements of code-

compliant reinforced concrete shear walls, Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.

ASP.NET MVC4, 2013. Microsoft, framework, https://www.asp.net/mvc/mvc4.

Barda, F., 1972. Shear Strength of Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements, Ph.D. Thesis, Lehigh

University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Beekhuis, W. J., 1971. An Experimental Study of Squat Shear Walls, M.E. Report, Department of

Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., 1953. Investigation of Shear Walls, Part–Experimental and

Mathematical Studies of Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static Shear Loading,

Report No. 1, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., 1954. Investigation of Shear Walls, Part 6–Continued

Experimental and Mathematical Studies of Reinforced Concrete Walled Bents under Static

Shear Loading, Report No. 4, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University,

Stanford, CA.

Benjamin, J. R., and Williams, H. A., 1956. Investigation of Shear Walls, Part 12–Studies of

Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Assemblies, Report No. 10, Department of Civil

Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Birely, A. C., Lowes, L.N., and Lehman, D. E., 2014. Evaluation of ASCE 41 modeling parameters

for slender reinforced concrete structural walls, Special Publication of American Concrete

Institute, SP-297-4, 4.1–4.18

31
Birely, A. C., 2012. Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Brueggen, B. L., 2099. Performance of T-shaped Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls under

Multi-Directional Loading, PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minnesota.

Elwood, K. J., Pampanin, S., and Kam, W. Y., 2012. 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake

and implications for the design of concrete structures, Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake,

Tokyo, Japan.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1997. Guidelines to the Seismic Rehabilitation

of Existing Buildings (FEMA 273), Washington, D.C, 444 pp.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356), Washington, D.C, 518.

Galletly, G. D., 1952. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Under Static Load, Report

Submitted to Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of Civil

and Sanitary Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Hirosawa, M., 1975. Past Experimental Results on Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Analysis

on Them, Kenchiku Kenkyu Shiryo, No. 6, Building Research Institute, Ministry of

Construction, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese)

Hognestad, E., 1951. A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete

Members, Bulletin No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, IL.

Idosako, Y., Sakashita, M., Tani, M., Nishiyama, M., 2017. Bi-directional lateral loading tests on

RC shear-dominant walls, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering

(Transactions of AIJ) 82, 683–692.

32
Illiya, R., and Bertero, V., 1980. Effect of Amount and Arrangement of Wall-Panel Reinforcement

on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Walls, Report No. 80-04, University of

California, Berkeley, CA.

Imanishi T., Nishinaga M., Itakura Y., and Morita S., 1996. Experimental study of post-yield

behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to bilateral deformation under axial

loading, Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute 18, 1055–1060.

Imanishi, T., 1996. Post-yield behaviors of multi-story reinforced concrete shear walls subjected

to bilateral deformations under axial loading, Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.

Kabeyasawa, T., Kato, S., Sato, M., Kabeyasawa, T., Fukuyama, H., Tani, M., Kim, Y., and

Hosokawa, Y., 2014. Effects of bi-directional lateral loading on the strength and

deformability of reinforced concrete walls with/without boundary columns, Proceedings

of the 10th U.S. National Congress on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.

Lopes, M., and Elnashi, A., 1992. A new experimental setup for high shear loading of reinforced

concrete walls, Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Madrid, Spain.

Lu, X., Zhou, Y., Yang, J., Qian, J., Song, C., and Wang, Y., 2010. NEES Shear Wall Database,

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Dataset, available at

https://nees.org/resources/1683.

Massone, L. M., and Wallace, J. W., 2004. Load – deformation responses of slender reinforced

concrete walls, ACI Structural Journal 101, 103-113.

Microsoft SQL Server, 2014. Microsoft, Software, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server.

33
Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D., 2003. Concrete, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, 644 pp.

Motter, C. J., Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018. Reinforced concrete structural walls

without special boundary elements, ACI Structural Journal 115, 723–733.

Nagae, T., Tahara, K., Taiso, M., Shiohara, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Kono, S., Nishiyama, M.,

Wallace, J. W., Ghannoum, W. M., Moehle, J. P., Sause, R., Keller, W., and Tuna, Z.,

2011. Design and Instrumentation of the 2010 E-Defense Four-Story Reinforced Concrete

and Post-Tensioned Concrete Buildings, PEER Report 2011/104, Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

Niroomandi, A., S.Pampanin, S., Dhakal, R. P., and Ashtiani, M. S., 2018. Experimental study on

slender rectangular RC walls under bi-directional loading, Proceedings of the 11th U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Los Angeles, California.

Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, J.E., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G., 1976.

Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Tests of Isolated Walls, Report to National Science

Foundation, Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,

IL, 315 pp.

Oesterle, R. G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G., 1979.

Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Phase II. Report to National Science Foundation,

Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 336 pp.

Oesterle, R. G., 1986. Inelastic Analysis for In-plane Strength of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,

PhD Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 332 pp.

Orakcal, K., Massone, L., Wallace, J., 2009. Shear strength of lightly reinforced wall piers and

spandrels, ACI Structural Journal 106, 455–465.

34
Paulay, T. and Goodsir, W. J., 1985. The ductility of structural walls, Bulletin of the New Zealand

National Society for Earthquake Engineering 18, 250–269.

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018. Seismic performance limitations and detailing of


slender RC walls, ACI Structural Journal, 115, 849–860.

Seismic Engineering Research Infrastructures For European Synergies (SERIES), 2013. SERIES

RC Walls Database, available at http://www.dap.series.upatras.gr.

Shiu, K. N., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Barney, G. B., Fiorato, A. E., and Corley, W. G., 1981a.

Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Coupled Wall Tests, Report to the National

Science Foundation, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.

Shiu, K. N., Daniel, J. I., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., and Corley, W. G., 1981b.

Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Tests of Walls with and Without Openings, Report

to the National Science Foundation, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.

Synge A. J., 980. Ductility of Squat Shear Walls, Technical Report No. 80-8, Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Thomsen, J. H. and Wallace, J. W., 1995. Displacement-Based Design of Reinforced Concrete

Structural Walls: Experimental Studies of Walls with Rectangular and T-Shaped Cross

Sections, Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.

Tran, T. A., 2012. Experimental and Analytical Studies of Moderate Aspect Ratio Reinforced

Concrete Structural Walls, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA,

300 pp.

35
Vallenas, J. M., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., 1979. Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced

Concrete Structural Walls, Report No. EERC 79-20, University of California, Berkeley,

CA.

Wallace, J. W., 2012. Behavior, design, and modeling of structural walls and coupling beams–

lessons from recent laboratory tests and earthquakes, International Journal of Concrete

Structures and Materials 6, 3–18.

Wallace, J. W., 2011. February 27, 2010 Chile Earthquake: Preliminary observations on structural

performance and implications for U.S. building codes and standards, Proceedings of the

ASCE Structures Congress, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Wallace, J. W., and Orakcal, K., 2002. ACI 318-99 provisions for seismic design of 
structural

walls, ACI Structural Journal 99, 499–508.

Wallace, J. W., Massone, L. M., Bonelli, P., Dragovich, J., Lagos, R., Luders, C., and Moehle, J.,

2012. Damage and implications for seismic design of RC structural wall buildings,

Earthquake Spectra 28, 281–289.

Wang, T. Y., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., 1975. Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Framed Walls, Report No. EERC 75-23, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

36
CHAPTER 3. Drift Capacity of RC Structural Walls with Special Boundary Elements

3.1. Abstract

Performance of reinforced concrete (RC) walls in recent laboratory tests and in recent strong

earthquakes has revealed that thin wall boundaries are susceptible to concrete crushing, rebar

buckling, and lateral instability. To address this concern, a wall database with detailed information

on more than 1000 tests was assembled to enable the study of the impact of various parameters on

wall deformation capacity. For this study, the data are filtered to identify and analyze a dataset of

164 tests on well-detailed walls generally satisfying ACI 318-14 provisions for special structural

walls. The study indicates that wall deformation capacity is primarily a function of the ratio of wall

neutral axis depth-to-compression zone width ( c b ) , the ratio of wall length-to-compression zone

(
width ( lw b ), wall shear stress ratio v max )
f 'c , and the configuration of boundary transverse

reinforcement. Based on these observations, an expression is developed to predict wall drift

capacity with low coefficient of variation.

3.2. Introduction

Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls are commonly used as lateral force-resisting elements

in tall and moderately tall buildings because they provide substantial lateral strength and stiffness

and are assumed to provide the needed nonlinear deformation capacity if detailed according to

ACI 318. Major updates to ACI 318 design provisions for slender walls occurred in 1983, 1999,

and 2014. In 1983, an extreme compression fiber stress limit of 0.2 f 'c under bending and axial

stress was introduced to determine if special boundary transverse reinforcement was required,

whereas in 1999, an alternative to the stress-based approach, a displacement-based approach, was

37
introduced to evaluate the need for special boundary transverse reinforcement for slender,

continuous walls. In 2014, more stringent detailing requirements for slender ( hw lw ≥ 2.0) walls

were introduced to address issues associated with detailing and lateral stability of thin walls, and

to include a minimum wall thickness for sections that are not tension-controlled. The ACI 318-83

provisions were based on research conducted by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) (e.g.,

Oesterle et al., 1976 & 1979) and Paulay and Goodsir (1985) which demonstrated that large lateral

drift ratios could be achieved when compression zones in yielding regions were adequately

detailed to remain stable, whereas the 1999 additions were based primarily on the work by Wallace

and Moehle (1992), Wallace (1994), and Thomsen and Wallace (2004) to develop a displacement-

based approach to assess wall boundary detailing requirements. The 2014 changes to ACI 318

were based on observations from recent earthquakes and laboratory tests (Wallace 2012, Wallace

et al., 2012; Nagae et al., 2011; Lowes et al., 2012).

Even with the 2014 updates, the underlying premise of the ACI 318-14 approach to design and

detailing of Special Structural Walls is that walls satisfying the provisions of §18.10.6.2 through

§18.10.6.4 possess drift capacities in excess of the expected drift demands. However, recent

research has shown that wall drift capacity is impacted by wall geometry, configuration of

boundary transverse reinforcement, and level of wall shear stress. For example, Segura and

Wallace (2018a) studied the relationship between wall thickness and lateral drift capacity and

found that thin walls possess smaller lateral drift capacities than thicker walls that are otherwise

similar. Furthermore, it has been found that thin, rectangular sections confined by an outer hoop

and intermediate legs of crossties, which is a detail allowed by ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4 at wall

boundaries, is less stable in compression than sections that utilize overlapping hoops for

confinement (Welt, 2015; Segura and Wallace, 2018a). Finally, Whitman (2015) suggested, using

38
finite element analysis, that the confined length of a boundary element should be increased over

that currently required, to address the increase in compression demands that result from higher

shear demands.

This research focuses on assessing which wall design parameters have the greatest impact on wall

lateral drift capacity by assembling a detailed database that includes data from more than 1000

large-scale tests. The data are filtered to identify a dataset of 164 tests on walls that are ACI 318-

14 code-compliant, or nearly code-compliant, and results for these tests are analyzed. The data

analysis is then used to develop an expression to predict mean wall drift capacity prior to

substantial lateral strength loss with low coefficient of variation (COV).

3.3. Research Significance

Recent research has indicated that wall lateral drift capacity is significantly impacted by wall

geometry, detailing, and compression and shear stress demands; however, current ACI 318-14

provisions do not adequately address the role of these parameters on wall drift capacity. Instead,

it is assumed that all walls satisfying requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.1 through §18.10.6.4

possess adequate drift capacity to meet the estimated drift demands determined from analysis. A

test database is assembled and analyzed to study the impact of various design parameters and

derive an expression for the lateral drift capacity of slender walls with ACI 318-14 special

boundary elements.

3.4. Experimental RC Wall Database

Prior to the mid-1990’s, relatively few large-scale experimental studies had been conducted on

relatively slender reinforced concrete structural walls (Oesterle et al., 1976, 1979, Paulay and

39
Goodsir, 1985). However, since then, a substantial number of experimental studies have been

conducted to assess the impact of various design parameters on wall load-deformation responses

and failure modes. Several attempts have been made to assemble wall databases (e.g., NEEShub

Shear Wall Database (Lu et al., 2010) and the SERIES Database, 2013) to assist in the development

of code provisions and to validate analytical models for RC walls; however, these databases do

not contain sufficient information to allow detailed and robust assessment of wall lateral drift

capacity. In addition, a significant number of tests have been conducted since the 2010 Chile and

2011 New Zealand earthquakes, and data from these more recent tests are typically not included

in these databases. To address these issues, a new database was developed, referred to as UCLA-

RCWalls, which includes information from more than 1000 wall tests from more than 200

experimental programs reported in the literature. The database includes detailed information about

the tests, i.e., wall cross-section, loading protocol, configuration of boundary transverse

reinforcement, and material properties. The database also includes backbone relations (base shear-

total top displacement, base moment-base rotation, and/or base shear-top shear displacement),

consisting of seven points (origin, cracking, general yielding, peak, ultimate, residual, and

collapse). Ultimate deformation capacity is defined as the total displacement or rotation at which

strength degrades 20% from the peak strength, which has been widely used to define deformation

at strength loss (e.g., Elwood et al., 2009). Finally, the database also contains analytical (or

computed) data, such as moment-curvature relationships, nominal and yield moment strength ( M n

and M y ) and curvature ( φn and φ y ), neutral axis depth, c, and wall shear strength computed

according to ACI 318-14.

An important aspect of the database involved addressing the impact of different test setups

(cantilever wall tests, e.g., Thomsen and Wallace, 2004, versus panel/partial height wall tests, e.g.,
40
Segura Wallace, 2018a) on wall lateral drift capacity. For the wall panel tests and partial wall

height tests, the UCLA-RCWalls database includes the drift capacity at the effective height

(M u,base )
Vu,base , determined as sum of the measured displacement at the top of the panel

(experimental) and the estimated contribution of elastic bending deformations between the top of

the test specimen and the effective height (e.g., see Segura and Wallace, 2018b).

For this study, which focuses on the drift capacity of walls with Special Boundary Elements (SBEs),

the UCLA-RCWalls database was filtered to include only wall tests satisfying the following

requirements:

a) Quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading,

b) Measured concrete compressive strength, fc' ≥ 3 ksi [20.7 MPa],

c) Ratio actual tensile-to-yield strength of boundary longitudinal reinforcement, fu f y ≥1.2,

d) Rectangular, or nearly rectangular, compression zone, b,

e) Wall web thickness, t w ≥ 3.5 in. [90 mm],

f) A minimum of two curtains of web vertical and horizontal reinforcement,

g) Shear span ratio, M Vlw ≥ 1.0,

h) Boundary longitudinal reinforcement ratio, rLong , BE ³ 6 fc' (psi) f y é0.5 f c' (MPa) f y ù ,
ë û

i) Ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4) area of boundary transverse

reinforcement, Ash, provided Ash,required ≥ 0.7,

j) Ratio of vertical spacing of boundary transverse reinforcement to minimum diameter of

longitudinal boundary reinforcement, s db ≤ 8.0,

41
 k) Centerline distance between laterally supported boundary longitudinal bars, hx, between 1.0

in. and 9.0 in. [25 to 230 mm].

l) Reported strength loss due to flexural tension or compression failure, i.e., tests were excluded

if some noticeable strength loss was not observed (only three tests were excluded for this

reason), or if walls exhibited shear (i.e., diagonal tension, diagonal compression, sliding at

the base) or lap slice failures prior to yielding of longitudinal reinforcement.

Based on the selected filters, a total of 164 test specimens were identified. Histograms for various

database parameters for the 164 tests are shown in Fig. 3-1, where P / (Ag f 'c ) is the axial load

normalized by concrete compressive strength ( fc' ) and gross concrete area ( Ag ) and M Vlw is the

ratio of base moment-to-base shear normalized by wall length ( lw ). The filters were selected to

identify walls that satisfied, or nearly satisfied, ACI 318-14, Chapter 18 provisions for Special

Structural Walls, including requirements for boundary transverse reinforcement in §18.10.6.4. A

concrete compression strength limit of 3 ksi [20.7 MPa] was specified in accordance with

requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.2.5 for special seismic systems. Walls with web thickness, t w ,

less than 3.5 in. [90 mm] were not included because use of two layers of web reinforcement along

with realistic concrete cover is not practical. At least two curtains of web reinforcement was

specified to be consistent with ACI 318-14 §18.10.2.2. The limit on ratio fu f y is slightly less

restrictive than the limit of 1.25 specified in ACI 318-14 §20.2.2.5. The specified limits on s db

≤ 8.0 and Ash, provided Ash,required ≥ 0.7 are slightly less restrictive than the current limits in ACI 318-

14 §18.10.6.4 of 6.0 and 1.0, respectively, to include more data. The limit on ρ Long . BE was included

42
to avoid brittle tension failures (Lu et al., 2016). ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4e requires hx,max not

exceeding the lesser of 14 in. [355 mm] or 2b/3; however, most of the tests in the database were

conducted at 25 to 50% scale; therefore, hx,max for the wall tests should generally be between 3.5

to 7.0 in. [89 to 178 mm] for the 14 in. [355 mm] limit. Based on the range of hx used to filter the

data, 95% of the specimens have hx ≤ 6 in. [152 mm], which is reasonable, whereas the histogram

for hx b presented in Fig. 3-1(f) indicates that a majority of tests have hx b < 3/4, which is

slightly higher than the current limit of hx b < 2/3.

The histogram for the parameter M Vlw , presented in Fig. 3-1(d), indicates that 44 tests in the

reduced database have 1.0 ≤ M Vlw < 2.0, and 120 tests with M Vlw ≥ 2.0. Tests with M Vlw³ 2.0

are generally appropriate for assessing the drift capacity of walls designed using ACI 318-14

§18.10.6.2, which requires M Vlw ≥ 2.0, whereas the other tests are more appropriate for walls

designed according to ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.3. Walls with M Vlw < 1.0 are not included because

they are generally governed by shear failure. In subsequent assessments presented here, either the

entire dataset of 164 tests is used, or subsets for 1.0 ≤ M Vlw < 2.0 and M Vlw ≥ 2.0 are used, as

deemed appropriate.

43
 50 (a) 50 (b) 80 (c) 60 (d)
No. of Specimens
40 40
60
40
30 30
40
20 20
20
20
10 10

0 0 0 0

1. 0
0. 9

7
8

0
1

4
.5

.5

5
2

3
0.

1.

3.
6

0.
8

10
3

2.
5

7
4

-2

-4
0.

-3
5

5-
3.
5-

5-
5-

7-
1-

4-

6-
3-

2
8-

0-

0-
7-

5-

0-

5-
9-

10

30

1-
20

2-

3-

3.
1.

2.
0.

2.
0.

1.
s/db Min. Ash, provided/Ash,required P/(fc'Ag) (%) M/(Vlw)
60 50 60 60
(e) (f) (g) (h)
No. of Specimens

40
40 40 40
30

20
20 20 20
10

0 0 0 0
0. 75
10

.0
0. .5
0
5

0. 65

0
0

0
5
0. 3
-1

-2
7.
<5

-3
3

-2
2
-1

-4
4

-1
-0

<1
.0
0.
5-

-0
0.

2-

4-
1-

3-
10
5-

15

20
15
>1
75

30
1-

10
25
7.

5-

65
0.

lw/b hx/b c/b c/lw (%)

Fig. 3-1–Histograms of the dataset (164 tests) used in this study.

In ACI 318-14 Equation 18.10.6.2, roof drift demand (δ u hw ) determined using ASCE 7 analysis

procedures is used to assess the need for SBEs; however, no specific check is required to ensure

that the roof drift capacity of a wall with SBEs exceeds the roof drift demand. An alternative

approach, to use plastic rotation was not considered in this study, because ACI 318-14 does not

include a definition for plastic hinge rotation and plastic hinge rotation capacities from wall tests

are not always measured in tests or reported in the literature. However, it would be a relatively

Eq. 1 simple task to covert roof drift to rotation (elastic and plastic) over an assumed plastic hinge length. b) Eq. 2
To facilitate comparison of test drift capacities with drift demands determined from analysis, drift

capacities for the 164 tests corresponding to the effective height heff ≈ 0.7hw were adjusted to ( )
determine roof-level ( hw ) drift ratios to be consistent with ACI 318-14 Equation 18.10.6.2, which

uses roof level drift demand to assess the need for special boundary elements. To accomplish this

44
task, the increase in elastic drift between heff and hw was estimated analytically based on the

ASCE 7-10 §12.8 Equivalent Lateral Force procedure for a Class B site in Los Angeles with

number of stories estimated based on heff (Fig. 3-2) and an approximate test scale. The wall

effective bending stiffness between heff and hw was determined at first yield of boundary

longitudinal reinforcement based on a computed moment-curvature relation included in the

database. Use of this approach typically increased the elastic roof level displacements by 10 to

20%, which is relatively small compared to nonlinear displacements, which are due to plastic hinge

rotation at the wall base, and thus, nonlinear drift at heff and hw are equal.

Fig. 3-2–Conversion of elastic drift from heff and hw .

45
3.5. Parameters That Impact Wall Lateral Drift Capacity

Parameters likely to impact the lateral drift capacity of walls with SBEs (Table 3-1) were selected

based on a review of current codes/standards and available literature (e.g., ACI 318-14; ASCE 41-

13; Oesterle et al., 1976 & 1979, Brown et al., 2006; Birely, 2012; Segura and Wallace, 2018a).

Based on this review, the following parameters were expected to have the greatest impact on wall

lateral drift capacity: (1) ratio of wall neutral axis depth-to-width of the compression zone, c b ,

where c is computed for an extreme fiber concrete compressive strain of 0.003, (2) ratio of the wall

length-to-width of the compression zone, lw b , (3) ratio of the maximum wall shear stress ratio,

vmax f c' , and (4) the configuration of the boundary transverse reinforcement used, e.g., use of

overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter hoop with intermediate crossties. Other parameters

investigated (Table 3-1) did not significantly impact wall lateral drift capacity, as will be shown

in subsequent paragraphs.

Table 3-1–Correlation coefficients, R, for design parameters and wall drift capacity

c lw vmax P Ash, provided s hx f l * c lw c

Design Parameter ρlong. BE ρt ,web * u BE
b b f 'c Ag f 'c Ash,required db b f y lw lw b2

Correlation coefficient, R -0.66 -0.56 -0.30 -0.08 0.13 -0.02 -0.25 -0.32 -0.14 -0.07 0.06 -0.32 -0.68

*
ρt ,web = web transverse reinforcement ratio, and l BE = length of confined boundary normalized by wall length.
lw

A series of linear regression analyses were performed to identify the most influential parameters

on wall drift capacity. Correlation coefficients, R, for the complete dataset of 164 tests for various

parameters are presented in Table 3-1. Parameters c b , lw b , and vmax f c' , produce the highest

46
correlation coefficients with wall drift capacity, with R = 0.66, 0.56, and 0.30, respectively. A

similar approach indicated that use of overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter hoop with

supplemental legs of crossties impacted lateral drift capacity. Other parameters, such as ρ Long . BE ,

hx b , and c lw produce modest R-values; however, the impact of these parameters are already

incorporated into c b and lw b . Other parameters, within the range of the filtered data, had little

impact on lateral drift capacity. A more detailed assessment of the four more significant parameters

is presented in the following paragraphs by using results from companion tests and results from

the dataset of 164 tests. Following this presentation, a general expression to predict wall drift

capacity is presented that includes the influence of these four parameters.

3.5.1. Impact of lw /b

Brown et al. (2006) assembled a building inventory of post-1991 designed mid-rise buildings

utilizing structural walls as the primary lateral load resisting system on the West Coast of the

United States. The building inventory indicated that walls with lw b ³ 15 are quite common;

however, due to limitations associated with laboratory testing, it is noted that there are only a

handful of test specimens (6 tests) with SBEs and very slender cross-sections ( lw b ³ 20 ) in the

selected dataset, as seen from Fig. 3-1(e). The complete database of more than 1000 tests includes

38 tests with lw b ³ 20; however, 32 of them do not meet the filtering criteria for the reduced

dataset because they either failed in shear, did not have sufficient boundary transverse

reinforcement, or were tested under monotonic loading.

Although the linear regression analysis indicated a fairly strong correlation between lw b and drift

capacity, various parameters are changing, and it is not always clear which variables are impacting

47
drift capacity. Therefore, the reduced dataset (164 tests) was examined to find “companion” tests,

i.e., tests where the change in ratio lw b is due to changes of primarily one parameter at a time

(either wall length l w or wall compression zone width b ). Results for drift capacity versus lw b

are presented in Fig. 3-3 for four series of companion test specimens with SBEs (Chun, 2015;

Chun and Park, 2016; Chun et al., 2013; Segura and Wallace, 2018a; Xiao and Guo, 2014; Zhi et

al., 2015) and indicate substantial reductions in wall drift capacity. The reason for this is not

obvious. For example, consider two cantilever walls constructed with the same materials and of

the same height hw pushed to the same top displacement du > d y , with identical values of wall

length l w , neutral axis depth c lw , and wall shear stress vmax fc' , where l w b is varied by

changing only b . For this to be the case, wall longitudinal reinforcement would have to be

changed to maintain the ratios of c lw and vmax fc' as b changes. Because yield displacement

(e.g., associated with first yield of boundary longitudinal reinforcement) is related to c lw , the

yield displacements are equal, and therefore, the inelastic displacements are equal. Based on the

common assumption that wall plastic hinge length, lp, is related to wall length l w , e.g., lp = 0.5lw ,

and assuming plane sections remain plane after loading (which has been shown to be reasonably

true, see Thomsen and Wallace, 2004), then the strain gradient along the cross section at all

locations would be identical. Under these conditions and assumptions, there is no reason to expect

that the drift capacities of the two walls should be different. The one important parameter that is

not constant in this example is the ratio of neutral axis depth to the wall compression zone thickness

c b . Segura and Wallace (2018b) has shown that, for slender walls that fail due to flexural

compression (concrete crushing, reinforcement buckling, and lateral instability of the compression

zone), ratio c b is, as shown in the subsequent section, an important variable as the compressive

48
strains tend to concentrate over a wall height that is more closely related to b than l w . The walls

tested by Segura and Wallace (2018a) have similar drift capacities to the other companion test

specimens presented in Fig. 3-3, which have lower values of lw b , because other parameters are

influencing drift capacity, as mentioned above and discussed below.

Fig. 3-3–Drift capacity of companion specimens against cross-section slenderness ratio.

3.5.2. Impact of cb
Segura and Wallace (2018b) show that larger values of c b impact drift capacity because thicker

walls increase the spread of plasticity and provide increased lateral stability under nonlinear

compression yielding. Takahashi et al. (2013) observed that c b correlates well with plastic drift

capacity for slender walls with modest boundary transverse reinforcement. The histogram plotted

in Fig. 3-1(g) indicates that only 18 tests have been conducted with c b > 4.

49
 As noted previously in Table 3-1, use of a combined slenderness parameter lb = ( lw(a) b ) ( c b )
50 50 80 60 50 50 (b)

No. of Specimens
No. of Specimens
40 40 40 40
60
40 30 30
30 30

provided an efficient means to account for slenderness of the cross section ( l w b ) and the
20 20
40
20
20 20

20 10 10
10 10

0 0 0 0 0 0

sectionP/(f( cA ) b(%)) . This combined

1. 0

7
8

0
0. 9

5
1
1. 0

3.
0.
3

2.
5

0.

1.
4
7

8
8

0
0. 9

0.
slenderness of the compression szone on the cross parameter, as snoted

0
0

1-
2

4-
3

6-
5

3-
3

3.

5-
5

7-
0.

10
7

2.
4

0.
8

1.

0-
7-

5-
8-

0-
0.

-3
5

-2

-4

2.

3.

9-
5-

5-
1.

5-
1-

4-

6-
3-

5-

7-

0-
7-

5-

0-
8-

0-

2.
0.

1.
5-
9-

0.
20

2-

3-
10

30

1-

1.

2.

3.
2.
0.

1.
0.
/d Ash, prov. /Ash,req: X-Dir. M/(Vl )
v b
/d ' v b Min. Ash, provided/Ash,required
c g w

60 60 60 60 60 50
(e) (f)

No. of Specimens
No. of Specimens
40

previously, considers the impact of concrete and reinforcement material properties, axial load, wall
40 40 40 40 40
30

20
20 20 20 20 20
10
geometry, and quantities and distributions of longitudinal reinforcement at the boundary and in the
0 0 0 0 0 0

0. 75
10

0. .5
0
5

0. 65

.0
5
12 5

20 0

0. 3
15 0

0
10

-2
5

-1
0

10 0

<5

7.
.5

-0

.
12

.0
20

0.
0

-1
0
15

5
30

5-
0
00

-0
-1

0.
-2

0
<5

-2
2

-4
4

15
-1

-3
3

10
5-
5-
7

<1

>1
1-

25
-1

75
7.
0-

4-
0-

5-
1-

3-

65
10

5-

0-

2-
15

>3
5-

15

30
10

20
7.

0.
90
lw/b b (mm) c/b c/lw lw/b hx/b

web. Fig. 3-4 and Table 3-1 indicate that wall drift capacity is strongly correlated with lb , with

drift capacity varying between 1.25% and 3.25% as lb reduces from 80 to zero. The cluster of

data points with lb » 80 includes the tests by Birely (2012), which have a rather slender cross

section ( lw b » 20 ) and a relatively large ratio of c b ≈ 4 to 5, although the ratio of c lw ≈ 0.20 to

0.25 is not vastly different than many other tests included in the dataset (see Fig. 3-1).
d

5 5
164 specimens 164 specimens
Mean = 1.03 Mean = 1.03 Mean = 1.03
4 COV = 0.16 COV = 0.20 4 COV = 0.18
Drift Capacity (%)

3 3

2 2

1 1
120
0 0
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
4" lb = lwc/b2 lb = lwc/b2
" (a) 0 and 40 < lb (b) 0
b b
Fig. 3-4–Wall drift capacity variation versus λb .

The results plotted in Fig. 3-4 have very important design implications. For design level shaking
5 7-10 §12.12.1 limits allowable interstory drift ratio to 0.02 for typical RC buildings
rift Capacity (%)

(DE), ASCE a) Eq. 1 b) Eq. 2

4 50

120 3
in Risk Category I & II that are taller than four stories and utilize structural walls as a lateral-force-

resisting system. At Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level shaking, which is commonly

used to assess collapse prevention, this limit is typically taken as 0.03. If roof drift is approximated

as three-quarters of peak interstory drift, then the peak roof drift demand allowed by ASCE 7-10

is approximately 0.0225. Results presented in Fig. 3-4 indicate that the drift capacities of RC walls

with SBEs vary substantially, i.e., all RC walls with SBEs do not have the same drift capacity, and

walls with lb > 50 have a mean drift capacity less than that allowed by ASCE 7-10. Results are

presented for two ranges of λb in Fig. 3-4(a) and for the entire dataset in Fig. 3-4(b), to show that

trends are similar. The findings suggest strongly that changes to ACI 318-14 are needed to address

this issue. A possible approach to address this issue would be to include a drift demand versus drift

capacity provision in ACI 318, e.g., similar to demand-to-capacity checks for moment or shear

strengths, or drift capacity of slab-column connections (ACI 318-14 §18.14.5), to meet a specified

level of reliability.

3.5.3. Impact of vmax f c'

As noted earlier, wall shear stress demand, expressed as vmax f c' , has a significant impact on

wall lateral drift capacity, where vmax = Vmax Acv and Vmax is taken as the maximum shear force that

develops in the wall where yielding of tension reinforcement under combined bending and axial

stresses limits the shear force demand, and Acv = lw × t w . It is noted that, because the database

includes only walls tested under quasi-static loading, the impact of dynamic shear amplification is

not considered (e.g., Keintzel, 1990; Eberhard and Sozen, 1993). Even for relatively slender walls,

which are defined in ACI 318-14 as hw lw ³ 2.0 , there is ample evidence that wall lateral drift

capacity is impacted by shear, e.g., see experimental studies presented in Fig. 3-5 and Table 3-2and
51
trends shown in Fig. 3-6(b). Kolozvari et al. (2015) used a shear-flexure interaction model to

demonstrate that shear transfer from diagonal compressive struts into the flexural compression

zone results in higher concrete compressive strains than would result from bending and axial load

alone, and also tends to increase the neutral axis depth modestly. As well, ASCE 41-13 Tables 10-

19 and 10-21 include wall modeling parameters (e.g., plastic rotation capacities at lateral strength

loss and at axial failure) that depend on the level of wall shear stress, with values of

( ) ( )
4 fc' psi 0.33 fc' MPa and 6 fc' psi 0.5 fc' MPa for walls with lower and higher shear

demands, respectively. Currently, ACI 318-14 §18.10.4.4 allows wall shear stress demands as high

as 10 fc' psi (0.83 )

fc' MPa for individual wall segments, although the average shear stress

demand on walls resisting a common shear force is limited to 8 fc' psi 0.67 fc' MPa . ( )
As was done earlier for parameter lw b , the impact of shear stress on wall lateral drift capacity is

first evaluated by using “companion” tests, where the primary test variable is wall shear stress. In

general, for the companion specimens, a change in shear stress demand was accomplished by either

varying M Vlw or the quantity of longitudinal reinforcement (e.g., see programs presented in

Table 3-2); for this latter condition, in addition to shear stress, wall moment capacity and neutral

axis depth are also impacted. Fig. 3-5 shows wall drift capacity versus shear stress ratio

( i.e., v max )
f c' for 13 pairs of companion specimens and indicates that higher shear demands

have a detrimental impact on wall drift capacity, even for relatively low shear demands, i.e.,

v max / fc' psi ≤ 5 ⎡⎢ v max / fc' MPa ≤ 0.42 ⎤⎥ . Table 3-2 provides detailed information about the
⎣ ⎦

results plotted in Fig. 3-5. It also is noted that the impact (slope) of shear stress is different from

52
one pair of companion specimens to another, indicating that other parameters may also be at play

(e.g., c b , since increasing this ratio also tends to reduce drift capacity). Drift capacities versus

lb are plotted in Fig. 3-6(a) for the entire dataset (164 tests) with M Vlw ≥ 1.0 and in Fig. 3-6(b)

for the slender walls (120 tests) in the dataset with M Vlw ≥ 2.0 to demonstrate that shear stress

demand impacts drift capacity beyond what can be attributed to changes in other variables. The

tests are separated into two bins, one for low-to-modest and the other for higher shear stress

demands. The trend lines plotted in Fig. 3-6(a) and Fig. 3-6(b), which are offset by approximately

0.5% drift, clearly indicate that higher shear demand has a significant negative impact on wall drift

capacity. Therefore, it is appropriate that the level of shear stress demand on a wall should be

considered when assessing drift capacity, which is consistent with ASCE 41-13 Table 10-19,

where the modeling parameters and acceptance criteria vary with level of wall shear stress.

vmax/÷ fc' MPa

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
6 Birely (2012) Hines et al. (2002)
Kabeyasawa & Mat. (1992) Kabeyasawa et al. (1996)

5
Kishimoto et al. (2008)
Liang et al. (2013)
Matsubara et al. (2013)
Oesterle (1986) &
vmax/÷ fc
Drift Capacity (%)

Tran and Wallace (2012) Oesterle et al. (1976) 0 0.4

5
4
Drift Capacity (%)

4
3
3
2
2
1
0 4 8 12 16 20 1
0 4 8
vmax/÷ fc' psi
vmax/÷ f
Fig. 3-5–Companion specimens with special detailing and different levels of wall shear stress.

53
 Table 3-2–Companion wall specimens with special detailing and different levels of shear stress

P Vn,ACI Vtest V@ Mn c Drift

M ρlong. BE lw c
Ref. Test ID Ag f 'c Capacity
Vlw (%) Acv f 'c Acv f 'c Acv f ' c lw b b
(%)
(%) in psi in psi in psi (%)

Kishimoto et No. 5 18.3 2.0 6.4 5.7 3.43

4.0 7.2 35 8.0 2.8
al., 2008 No. 6 17.7 3.0 4.1 3.7 3.82
Kabeyasawa & NW-1 10.9 2.0 8.9 9.4 7.5 2.75
Matsumoto 1992
2.1 20 8.5 1.7
NW-2 10.2 1.3 9.6 13.4 10.9 1.49
Liang et al., DHSCW-02 2.1 9.3 8.7 8.9 34 1.7 3.24
21.0 2.7 5.0
2013 DHSCW-04 1.5 9.7 12.8 12.4 33 1.6 2.80
Tran and RW-A20-P10-S38 3.0 4.4 4.5 3.6 17 1.4 3.20
7.3 2.0 8.0
Wallace 2015 RW-A20-P10-S63 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.1 22 1.7 3.04
Tran and RW-A15-P10-S51 7.7 3.0 5.9 5.6 4.9 18 1.4 3.34
1.5 8.0
Wallace, 2015 RW-A15-P10-S78 6.4 5.7 8.2 7.4 6.9 21 1.7 3.06
Hines et al., 1A 9.3 4.0 7.6 3.4 2.8 4.37
1.6 20 4.5 0.9
2002 2A 9.7 2.0 7.9 6.5 5.8 2.92
Hines et al., 1B 8.3 4.0 3.1 2.7 4.39
1.6 3.6 20 4.5 0.9
2002 2B 8.5 2.0 5.8 5.4 2.92
Kabeyasawa et HW1 -8.0 2.3 6.2 4.1 12 1.3 2.00
4.3 7.2 11
al., 1996 HW2 -7.9 2.0 9.2 6.1 17 1.9 1.70
Matsubara et N 4.5 1.5 1.6 7.5 7.7 6.2 22 3.2 2.55
14.5
al., 20131 N(M/Qd3.1) 5.3 3.1 1.5 7.1 4.1 3.1 24 3.5 2.78
R3 6.9 5.9 7.3 7.1 6.1 25 4.7 1.97
Oesterle 1986 2.4 18.7
R4 7.4 3.4 6.1 3.6 3.5 19 3.6 2.30
Oesterle et al., B3 1.1 4.6 2.5 2.3 5 0.3 4.44
0.0 2.4 6.3
1976 B5 3.7 7.6 7.0 6.2 10 0.6 2.78
Liang et al., DHSCW-01 28.0 2.1 10.2 10.0 46 2.3 3.03
2.7 10.0 5.0
20131 DHSCW-03 21.0 1.5 11.8 12.5 34 1.7 2.97
PW1 9.5 2.8 4.9 3.6 3.2 22 4.3 1.70
Birely, 20121 3.4 20
PW2 13.0 2.2 4.7 4.8 4.6 25 5.1 1.66
1
Although these specimens were intended to be companion specimens, there is a moderate variation between the two
specimens.
Vn , ACI = the nominal wall shear strength in accordance with ACI 318-14 §18.10.4.

V@ Mn = wall shear strength corresponding to nominal flexural strength (Mn),

1 ksi = 1000 psi = 6.895 MPa.

54
 5
vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa)
4 vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa)
Drift Capacity (%)

0
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
lb = lwc/b2 lb = lwc/b2
(a) Entire dataset (M/Vlw 1.0) (b) M/Vlw .0
Fig. 3-6–Impact of wall shear stress on wall drift capacity.

3.5.4. Overlapping Hoops

As noted earlier, one of the primary reasons to develop the database was to assess the impact of
5
Experimental Drift Capacity (%)

a) Eq. options
different detailing 1 b)§18.7.5.2(a)
on wall drift capacity. ACI 318-14 Eq. 2 states that “transverse
4
reinforcement shall comprise either single or overlapping spirals, circular hoops, or rectilinear

0
hoops3with or without crossties”; therefore, both configurations are allowed and are assumed to be

equivalent. To assess the impact of overlapping hoops on lateral drift capacity, very detailed
2
information on the configuration of boundary transverse reinforcement used in each test was
1 COV = 0.15 COV = 0.15
included in the database. Different types of overlapping hoop configurations observed in the
164 Specimens 164 Specimens
0 are shown in Fig. 3-7, whereas different configurations used for supplemental crossties
database
0 1 2 3 4 50 1 2 3 4 5
combined withPredicted
a single perimeter
Drift hoop are shown
Capacity (%)in Fig. 3-8. It isPredicted
noted that Drift
ACI 318-14 §25.3.5
Capacity (%)
requires that crossties shall have a seismic hook (135º) at one end and a 90º hook at the other end,

and that the 90º hooks on successive crossties engaging the same longitudinal bars must be
5
vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa)
alternated end for end vertically and along the perimeter of the boundary element. For columns,
4 vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa)
Drift Capacity (%)

0
ACI 318-14 §18.7.5.2 requires use of seismic hooks (135º) on both ends of crossties for high axial
3

2 55
1
5
0
load ratios and high concrete compressive strengths ( fc' ≥10,000 psi; 69 MPa); however, this

provision does not apply to walls. As noted in Fig. 3-8, a range of crosstie configurations are

included in the database. Tests with 135º-135º hooks on crossties were primarily conducted in

Japan, where the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ 2010) requires their use, and China. Test

results that utilize a single perimeter hoop with headed bar crossties for wall boundary transverse

reinforcement (Fig. 3-8(c)) are limited to the studies by Mobeen (2002) and Seo et al. (2010).

However, walls tested utilizing headed bars for crossties have relatively small ratios of ( l w b ) and

( c b ) , such that lb £ 6, and strength degradation for these tests resulted from longitudinal bar

fracture; therefore, these tests, by themselves, do not provide sufficient insight into the

effectiveness of headed bars used for transverse reinforcement within SBEs.

Fig. 3-7–Types of overlapping hoop configurations observed in the database.

56

Fig. 3-8–Types of crossties observed in the database.

Of the 164 tests, analysis of the dataset indicates that 51 tests utilized overlapping hoop

configurations such as those shown in Fig. 3-7, whereas 51 and 31 tests used a combination of a

perimeter hoop and crossties with 90º-135º and 135º-135º hooks, respectively. Twenty-eight tests

utilized a single hoop without intermediate legs of crossties, and the rest (3 tests) used headed bars

as intermediate legs combined with a single perimeter hoop such as that shown in Fig. 3-8(c);

however, these three tests have c b ≤ 1.3 and lb ≤ 6. Drift capacity versus c b and lb , for

v max / fc' psi ≤ 5 ⎡⎢ v max / fc' MPa ≤ 0.42 ⎤⎥ and v max / fc' psi > 5 ⎡⎢ v max / fc' MPa > 0.42 ⎤⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

are shown in Fig. 3-9(a) and Fig. 3-9(b), respectively. For the lower shear stress range, use of

overlapping hoops provides improved drift capacity if, c / b ≥ 2.5 or λb ≥ 40 (Fig. 3-9(a)),

whereas the use of a perimeter hoop with 135º-135º crossties results in only a slight increase in

drift capacity over the use of 90º-135º crossties. It is noted that, for c / b ≥ 2.5, the provided length

of confinement was, on average, 118% of that required by ACI 318-14, which is defined as at least

the greater of c − 0.10lw and c / 2 ; therefore, the test results in the database were not significantly

overdesigned with respect to length of confinement provided. The phenomenon of “90º hook

opening prematurely” for walls with larger lb ratios has been observed in recent laboratory

57
programs, e.g., Birely (2012), with approximately 80 £ lb £ 100 and Segura and Wallace (2018a),

with approximately 45 ≤ λb ≤ 60 . For the Segura and Wallace (2018b) tests, 2.0 ≤ c / b ≤ 4.0 and

0.2 ≤ c / lw ≤ 0.3 . Observations indicated that once cover concrete spalled and longitudinal bar

buckling initiated, crosstie hooks opened and the long leg of the perimeter hoop was ineffective in

resisting the forces exerted on it by the buckling longitudinal reinforcement, leading to concrete

crushing of the core of the SBE and subsequent lateral instability of the boundary. For values of

lb ³ 50 , use of overlapping hoops results in a 50 to nearly 100% increase in drift capacity (Fig.

3-9(a)). Interestingly, use of overlapping hoops for the tests with high shear stresses i.e.,

v max / fc' psi > 5 ⎡⎢ v max / fc' MPa > 0.42 ⎤⎥ does not indicate a clear trend of increased drift
⎣ ⎦

capacity (Fig. 3-9(b)); however, it is noted that relatively few tests exist for lb ³ 40 to evaluate

this trend. Given these observations, it would seem prudent to require the use of overlapping hoops

for ratios of c b ≥ 2.5; alternatively, the impact of the reduced drift capacity of the wall could be

accounted for in the design process. This issue is addressed later.

58
 6 Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (15) Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (15)
Hoop+crossties with 90º-135º hooks (38) Hoop+crossties with 90º-135º hooks (38)

Drift Capacity (%)

5 Overlapping hoops (23) Overlapping hoops (23)

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
c/b lb = lwc/b2
(a) vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa)
6 Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (16)
Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (16)
Hoop+crossties with 90º-135º hooks (13) Hoop+crossties with 90º-135º hooks (13)
Drift Capacity (%)

5 Overlapping hoops (28) Overlapping hoops (28)

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
c/b lb = lwc/b2
(b) vmax/÷ f psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa) c
'

Fig. 3-9–Comparison of different boundary transverse reinforcement configurations (Note:

number of tests for each case is given in parentheses).

3.5.5. Other Factors

As noted earlier, the primary variables impacting wall lateral drift capacity were c b , lw b ,

vmax f c' , and configuration of the boundary transverse reinforcement used. However, for

completeness, the influence of other variables on lateral drift capacity is presented here to

demonstrate that they do not significantly impact lateral drift capacity. Parameters considered

include: (1) minimum Ash, provided Ash,required , (2) s / db , (3) hx / hx,max , (4) degree of lateral support

provided (support for all boundary longitudinal bars versus every other bar), and (5) P / Ag f 'c .

59

6 6
Single hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks Single hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks
For these variables, the dataset of 164 tests was further reduced to include only those tests that

fully satisfy the ACI 318-14 provisions, particularly those related to quantities Ash, provided , s , s / db ,

hx , and lbe , resulting in a reduced dataset of 78 code-compliant wall test specimens. Results are

discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

Results presented in Fig. 3-10(a) indicate that providing ratios of Ash, provided Ash,required modestly

greater than 1.0, does not significantly increase wall lateral drift capacity. Similarly, results

presented in Fig. 3-10(b) demonstrate that variations in s / db (and s ) also have little influence on

wall lateral drift capacity, particularly for the practical range of 3 ≤ s / db ≤ 6, suggesting that the

current ACI 318-14 limits are sufficient. Additional investigation indicated no significant

difference in drift capacity trends for 3 ≤ s / db ≤ 4 and 4 < s / db ≤ 6. Comparison of test results

where lateral support was provided for every boundary longitudinal bar by corners of a crosstie or

hoop leg versus for every other longitudinal boundary bar (e.g., Fig. 3-10(c)), indicates only a

slight improvement in drift capacity when all bars are supported, although data are limited for

lb > 60 for configurations where all bars are supported. It is noted that, for columns with high

(
axial load Pu > 0.3 Ag fc' ) or high concrete strength ( fc' ≥10,000 psi; 69 MPa), ACI 318-14

§18.7.5.42(f) requires that every longitudinal bar around the perimeter of a column have lateral

support provided by the corner of a hoop or by a seismic hook, and the value of hx cannot exceed

8 in. [200 mm]. For wall with SBEs, ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4(e) requires hx not exceed the least

of 14 in. [356 mm] or 2b/3. The 14 in. [356 mm] limit governs only for relatively thick walls (b ≥

21 in. [533 mm]); no walls within the reduced database fell into this category. Fig. 3-10(d)

indicates that, for the range of hx within the dataset (i.e., 0.3 ≤ hx / hx,max ≤ 1.0 ), and assuming an

60
 average test scale factor 0.23 < h /b for all tests, hx,max = 0.4x14 in. = 5.6
of 40%
x
0.3 <in.
hx/h[142
x,maxmm], variations in
0.65 < hx/b 0.7 < hx/hx,max

Drift Capacity (%)

Drift Capacity (%)

hx had no impact on wall drift capacity. An alternative approach, where hx was normalized to the

wall compression zone width (b), did not alter the trends noted in Fig. 3-10(d). Based on the

information provided here, requiring wall SBEs to satisfy the same requirements (ACI 318-14

(
§18.7.5.2(f)) for columns with high axial load Pu > 0.3 Ag fc' or high concrete strength ( fc' )
0≥10,000 psi;4069 MPa) would
80 120 to0 only slightly
be expected 40 improve wall
80 lateral 120
drift capacity.
lwc/b2
2
lwc/b
However, as noted, due to the lack of data, adding such a requirement might be prudent.

5
1.0 Ash,provided/Ash,required 1.2 1.5 s/db < 3.5
4 1.2 < Ash,provided/Ash,required 3.5 < s/db 6
Drift Capacity (%)

1
a) BE transverse reinf.: X-Dir b) Bar slenderness ratio
0
5
All bars supported 0.3 < hx/hx,max
4 Not all bars supported 0.7 < hx/hx,max
Drift Capacity (%)

1
d) Spacing of laterallysupported BE
c) Lateral support of BE longi. bars longi. bars
0
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
lb = lwc/b2 lb = lwc/b2
Fig. 3-10–Impact of some boundary element details on drift capacity of walls with SBEs.

61
 Drift Ca

Drift Ca
2 2

1 1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Axial load is typically assumed to have a significant impact on wall
P/Agf 'c [%] P/A(or
f ' column)
[%] lateral drift (or
g c

a) SpecialFor
plastic rotation) capacity. Detailing b) Poor
example, in UBC 1997 §1921.6.6.3 Detailing
and ASCE 41-13 §10.7.1.1, if

axial load on a wall exceeded 0.3 Ag fc' , the lateral strength of the wall could not be considered.
vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 4 (£ 0.33 in MPa)
Additionally, ASCE 41-13 Tables 10-19 and 10-20 use axial load ratio as a primary term for
4 (> 0.33 in MPa) < vmax/÷ fc psi £ 6 (£ 0.5 in MPa) 5
'

vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in M

vmax/÷ fc' selecting modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for both flexure- and shear-controlled
psi > 6 (> 0.5 in MPa) walls. '
4 vmax/÷ fc psi > 5 (> 0.42 in M
5

Drift Capacity (%)

However, as noted earlier in Table 3-1, axial load ratio by itself had no clear correlation
3 with wall
4
Drift Capacity (%)

drift capacity (correlation coefficient, R = 0.08). Variation of wall drift capacity2against axial load
3

2 ( )
ratio P Ag fc' is shown in Fig. 11(a) for the entire dataset with M Vlw ≥ 1.0 and in Fig. 3-11(b)
1

0
1
for slender walls in the dataset with M Vlw ≥ 2.0, whereas trends for two levels0of P20 Ag f40
'
are 60 80 100
0
c lb = lwc/b2
0 20 40 60 80 100 Special
shown in Fig.2 3-11(c). From Fig. 3-11, it is clear that there is no significant trend between Detailing
axial
lb = lwc/b
Poor
load Detailing
ratio (ranging from 0.0 to 0.35) and wall drift capacity. It is noted that the slenderness

parameter ( λb ) described earlier incorporates the impact of axial load through neutral axis depth.

6
vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa) P/Agf 'c
5 P/Agf 'c > 0.10
Drift Capacity (%)

vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa)
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 40 80 120
P/Agf 'c [%] P/Agf 'c [%] lb = lwc/b2
(a) Entire dataset (M/Vlw 1.0) (b) M/Vlw .0 (c) Entire dataset (M/Vlw 1.0)
(
Fig. 3-11–Impact of axial load ratio P / Ag f 'c on drift capacity of walls with SBEs. )

62
5 5 5
vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in M

4 vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa) 4 vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa) 4 vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5 (> 0.42 in M
)
)

)
3.6. Drift Capacity Prediction

A primary objective of this study was to develop an empirical model to predict lateral drift capacity

of structural walls with SBEs. Key variables impacting lateral drift capacity have been identified,

such as: λb = lw c b 2 , vmax f c' , and the use of overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter hoop

with intermediate legs of crossties. Other variables also were investigated and found to not

substantially influence lateral drift capacity for cases were ACI 318-14 detailing provisions for

SBEs are satisfied. It is important to note here that the authors are not saying that these parameters

do not influence lateral drift capacity, defined as a 20% drop in strength from the peak lateral load,

only that changes in these parameters within ranges that are permissible or reasonable for SBEs

do not influence (or change significantly) the lateral drift capacity. Application of linear regression

analyses for the dataset of 164 tests, including the variables that significantly impact lateral drift

capacity, resulted in the following predictive equation for mean drift capacity (δ c / hw ) of walls

with SBEs:

δc λ vmax
hw
( % ) = 3.85 − b −
α 10 f ' (psi)
(Eq. 3-1a)
c

δc λ vmax
hw
( % ) = 3.85 − b −
α 0.83 f ' (MPa)
(Eq. 3-1b)
c

Where λb = lw c b 2 ; α = 60 where overlapping hoops are used and 45 where a combination of a

single perimeter hoop with supplemental crossties is used. The first term in Eq. 3-1 represents the

maximum mean drift capacity, whereas the second term represents the impact of c b and lw b ,

which incorporate the influence of material properties (e.g., f y and f c' ), axial load, geometry, and

63
quantities and distribution of longitudinal reinforcement at the boundaries and within the web, on

lateral drift capacity, whereas the third term incorporates the reduction in wall drift capacity due

to the level of wall shear stress normalized by the maximum shear stress allowed by ACI 318-14

§18.10.4.4 for an isolated wall. The drift capacities predicted with Eq. 3-1 are compared with

experimental drift capacities in Fig. 3-12(a) for the entire dataset of 164 walls and for the 44 walls

with 1.0 ≤ M Vlw < 2.0. The mean and coefficient of variation (COV) are 1.0 and 0.15,

respectively, over the entire range of drift values, from roughly 1.25% drift to 3.5% drift. In

addition, Eq. 3-1 was applied to the subset of 78 fully ACI 318-14 code-complaint walls identified

previously, and the mean and COV of 1.03 and 0.137 are obtained, indicating that the result is not

sensitive to the dataset used to derive Eq. 3-1. For the majority of the test specimens in the dataset,

b did not vary over c (in a few cases for walls with boundary columns and thinner webs, c did

extend modestly into the thinner web); however, for more complex cases, e.g., biaxial loading on

a flanged wall, an average or representative value of b would need to be defined to compute drift

capacity. In such cases, the drift capacity is likely to be relatively large, such that this case is not

critical, whereas cases with flanges in tension producing large compression on a narrow

compression zone are likely to be critical.

To facilitate the implementation of Eq. 3-1 into design recommendations or ACI 318, Eq. 3-1 was

simplified modestly as Eq. 3-2:

δc λ vmax
hw
( % ) = 4.0 − b −
α 10 f ' (psi)
(Eq. 3-2a)
c

δc λ vmax
hw
( % ) = 4.0 − b −
α 0.83 f ' (MPa)
(Eq. 3-2b)
c

64
 0. 9

0.
0
1

0
0

1-
2

4-
3

6-
5

3-
3

3.

5-
5

7-
0.

10
7

2.
4

0.
8

1.

7-

8-
0.

-3
5

-2

-4

2.

3.

9-
5-

5-
1.

5-
1-

4-

6-
3-

5-

7-

0-
7-

5-

0-
8-

0-

0.
5-
9-

0.
20

2-

3-
10

30

1-

0.
1.

2.

3.
2.
0.

1.
0.

1.
sv/db Ash, prov./Ash,req: X-Dir. P/(fc'Ag) (%) M/(Vlw) sv/db Min. Ash, provide
60 60 60 60 60 50
(e) (f)

No. of Specimens
No. of Specimens
40
40 40 40 40 40
30

20
20 20 20 20 20
10

0 0 0 0 0 0

10

0. .5
0
5

0. 65
5
12 5

20 0

0. 3
15 0

0
10

-2
5

-1
0

10 0

<5

7.
5

-0
12

20

0.
0

0
15

5
30

5-
0
00
-1

0.
-2

0
<5

7.

-2
2

-4
4

15
-1

-3
3

10
5-
5-

<1

1-

25
-1

7.
0-

4-
0-

5-
1-

3-
10

5-

0-

2-
15

>3
5-

15

30
10

20
7.

0.
90
lw/b b (mm) c/b c/lw lw/b hx/

Where α = 50 where overlapping hoops are used and 40 where a combination of a single

perimeter hoop with supplemental crossties are used. The drift capacities predicted with the

simplified equation (Eq. 3-2) are compared with experimental drift capacities observed in Fig.

3-12(b) for the entire dataset of 164 walls and for the 44 walls with 1.0 ≤ M Vlw < 2.0. The drift

capacities predicted with Eq. 3-2 are slightly conservative, with mean and COV of 0.97 and 0.16,

respectively.

5
Experimental Drift Capacity (%)

Entire dataset (164 tests) Entire dataset (164 tests)

Mean = 1.0 Mean = 0.97
4
COV = 0.15 COV = 0.16
3

1 Entire dataset (M/Vlw 1.0) Entire dataset (M/Vlw 1.0)

1.0 £ M/Vlw < 2.0 1.0 £ M/Vlw < 2.0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Predicted Drift Capacity (%) Predicted Drift Capacity (%)
a)(a)Eq.
Eq.1 3-1 b)(b)
Eq.Eq.
2 3-2
Fig. 3-12–Comparison of predicted drift capacity with experimental drift capacity.

3.7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions with regards to behavior of structural
5
erimental Drift Capacity (%)

walls witha) Eq.can1 be drawn:

SBEs b) Eq. 2
4
1. Displacement capacity of special structural walls that satisfy the detailing requirements of

3ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4 is primarily a function of c b , lw b , v max f 'c , and use of

2 65

1 COV = 0.15 COV = 0.15

164 Specimens 164 Specimens
 overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter hoop with supplemental crossties. Depending

on these variables, the lateral drift capacity can be as low as 1.25% and as high as 3.5%. In

general, lower drift capacities result for walls with lw b ≥15, c b ≥ 3.0, and wall shear stress

( )
levels approaching the ACI 318-14 limit of 10 f c' psi 0.83 f c' MPa for an individual wall.

2. ACI 318-14 §18.10 provisions for Special Structural Walls do not ensure that the walls have

roof drift capacity at 20% strength loss greater than the maximum roof drift demand allowed

by ASCE 7-10, which is approximated as three-quarters of the allowable story drift of 0.02

x 1.5 = 0.03 for MCE level demands, or 0.0225. Drift capacities for a significant number of

walls in the dataset are less than 0.0225.

3. A slenderness parameter, λb = lw c b 2 , was defined that provides an efficient means to

account for the impact of slenderness of the cross section ( l w b ) and the slenderness of the

compression zone on the cross section ( c b ) on wall lateral drift capacity. The slenderness

parameter λb considers the impact of concrete and reinforcement material properties, axial

load, wall geometry, and quantities and distributions of longitudinal reinforcement at the

boundary and within the web.

4. The drift capacity of walls with higher shear stress ratio (i.e.,

v max / fc' psi > 5 [v max / fc' MPa > 0.42] ) is approximately 0.5% drift less than walls

with low-to-moderate shear stress ratios (i.e., v max / fc' psi ≤ 5 [v max / fc' MPa ≤ 0.42] ).

Over the full range of shear stress ratios, shear demand can reduce wall drift capacity by as

much as 1.0% drift.

66
5. For low-to-modest shear stress ratios, i.e., v max / fc' psi ≤ 5 [v max / fc' MPa ≤ 0.42] , use

of overlapping hoops, as opposed to use of a single perimeter hoop with supplemental

crossties, provides improved drift capacity if, c b ³ 2.5 or lb ³ 40 . No clear trend of

increased drift capacity is observed where overlapping hoops are used for walls with higher

shear stress ratios, i.e., v max / fc' psi > 5 [v max / fc' MPa > 0.42] ; however, given the

relatively sparse data for higher shear stresses, use of overlapping hoops is recommended for

all cases.

6. The drift capacity of SBEs with a single perimeter hoop and crossties with 135º-135º hooks

is slightly higher than for SBEs with a single perimeter hoop and crossties with alternating

90º-135º hooks; however, neither is as effective as using overlapping hoops because crossties

with either 90º or 135º hooks are prone to opening that leads to rebar buckling and crushing

of the entire boundary region. Use of overlapping hoops results in an increase in drift capacity

from 0.2% to 0.5% drift as λb increases from 40 to 100.

7. A drift capacity equation that depends on λb = lw c b 2 , level of wall shear stress, and

configuration of boundary transverse reinforcement was developed that accurately predicts

the lateral drift capacity of walls with SBEs, with mean and coefficient of variation of

approximately 1.0 and 0.15, respectively.

8. There is no real correlation between axial load ratio (ranging from 0.0 to 0.35) and wall drift

capacity; therefore, limits on wall axial load (stress) alone are not recommended.

9. It is recommended that future experimental programs focus on walls with lw b ≥ 20 and

c b ≥ 4 (or walls with λb ≥ 80), to address gaps in the test database given that walls with

these parameters are common in practice.

67
3.8. References

ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14)

and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 1999, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99)

and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 391 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 1983, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83),

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 155 pp.

Architectural Institute of Japan, 2010, “AIJ Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced

Concrete Structures,” Maruzen, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japanese)

ASCE/SEI Standards, 2013, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI

41-13),” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 518 pp.

ASCE/SEI Standards, 2010, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

(ASCE/SEI 7-10),” American Society for Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 518 pp.

Birely, A. C., 2012, “Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,”

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 983 pp.

Brown, P., Ji, J., Sterns, A., Lehman, D. E., Lowes, Kuchma, D., and Zhang, J., 2006 “Investigation

of the seismic behavior and analysis of reinforced concrete walls,” Proceedings, 8th US

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA.

Chun, Y. S., 2015, “Seismic performance of special shear wall with the different hoop

reinforcement detail and spacing in the boundary element,” LHI Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.

11-19. (in Korean)

68
Chun, Y. S., and Park, J. Y., 2016, “Seismic performance of special shear wall with modified

details in boundary element depending on axial load ratio,” LHI Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.

31-41. (in Korean)

Chun, Y. S., Lee, K. H., Lee, H. W., Park, Y. E., and Song, J. K., 2013, “Seismic performance of

special shear wall structural system with effectively reduced reinforcement detail,” Journal

of the Korea Concrete Institute, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 271-281. (in Korean).

Eberhard, M. O., and Sozen, M. A., 1993, “Behavior-based method to determine design shear in

earthquake-resistant walls,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 619-

639.

Elwood, K. J., Maffei, J. M., Riederer, K. A., and Telleen, K., 2009, “Improving Column

Confinement—Part 1: Assessment of design provisions,” Concrete International, Vol. 31,

No. 11, pp. 32-39.

Hines, E. M., Seible, F., and Priestley, M. J. N., 2002, “Seismic Performance of Hollow

Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly Confined Corner Elements—Phase I:

Flexural Tests, and Phase II: Shear Tests,” Structural Systems Research Project 99/15,

University of California, San Diego, CA, 266 pp.

Kabeyasawa, T., and Matsumoto, K., 1992, “Tests and analyses of ultra-high strength reinforced

concrete shear walls,” Proceedings, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Madrid, Spain, pp. 3291-3296.

Kabeyasawa, T., Ohkubo, T., and Nakamura, Y., 1996, “Tests and analysis of hybrid wall systems,”

Proceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.

Keintzel, E., 1990, “Seismic design shear forces in RC cantilever shear wall structures,” European

Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 7–16.

69
Kishimoto, T., Hosoya, H., and Oka, Y., 2008, “Study on structural performance of R/C

rectangular section core walls (Part 3 and 4)”, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual

Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. C-2, pp. 355-358. (in Japanese)


Kolozvari, K., Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J. W., 2015a, “Modeling of cyclic shear-flexure

interaction in reinforced concrete structural walls. Part I: Theory,” Journal of Structural

Engineering, Vol. 141, No. 5, 10 pp.

Liang, X., Che, J., Yang, P., and Deng, M., 2013, “Seismic Behavior of High-Strength Concrete

Structural Walls with Edge Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 110, No. 6, pp. 953-

963.

Lowes, L. N., Lehman, D. E., Birely, A. C., Kuchma, D. A., Marley, K. P., and Hart, C. R., 2012,

“Earthquake Response of Slender Concrete Planar Concrete Walls with Modern Detailing”

Engineering Structures, Vol. 34, pp. 455-465.

Lu, X., Zhou, Y., Yang, J., Qian, J., Song, C., and Wang, Y., 2010, “NEES Shear Wall Database,”

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Dataset, available at

https://nees.org/resources/1683.

Lu, Y., Gultom, R., Henry, R. S., and Ma, Q. T., 2016, “Testing of RC walls to investigate

proposed minimum vertical reinforcement limits in NZS 3101:2006 (A3)”, Proceedings,

2016 NZSEE Annual Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Matsubara, S., Sanada, Y., Tani, M., Takahashi, S., Ichenose, T., and Fukuyama, H., 2013,

“Structural parameters of confined area affect flexural deformation capacity of shear walls

that fail in bending with concrete crushing,” Journal of Structural and Construction

Engineering, Vol. 78, No. 691, pp. 1593-1602.

70
Mobeen, S., 2002, “Cyclic Tests of Shear Walls Confined with Double Head Studs,” MS Thesis,

University of Alberta, Canada, 194 pp.

Nagae, T., Tahara, K., Taiso, M., Shiohara, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Kono, S., Nishiyama, M., Wallace,

J. W., Ghannoum, W. M., Moehle, J. P., Sause, R., Keller, W., and Tuna, Z., 2011, “Design

and Instrumentation of the 2010 E-Defense Four-Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-

Tensioned Concrete Buildings,” PEER Report 2011/104, Pacific Earthquake Engineering

Research Center (PEER), Berkeley, CA, 234 pp.

Oesterle, R. G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G., 1979,

“Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Phase II,” Report to National Science Foundation

(ENV77-15333), Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association,

Skokie, IL, 331 pp.

Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, J.E., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G., 1976,

“Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Tests of Isolated Walls,” Report to National

Science Foundation (GI-43880), Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement

Association, Skokie, IL, 315 pp.

Paulay, T. and Goodsir, W. J., 1985, “The ductility of structural walls,” Bulletin of the New

Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 250-269.

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018a, “Seismic performance limitations and detailing of

slender RC walls,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 115, No. 03, pp. 849-860.

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018b, “Impact of geometry and detailing on drift capacity of

slender walls,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 115, No. 03, pp. 885-896.

Seismic Engineering Research Infrastructures For European Synergies (SERIES), 2013, “SERIES

RC Walls Database,” available at http://www.dap.series.upatras.gr.

71
Seo, S., Oh, T., Kim, K., and Yoon, S., 2010, “Hysteretic behavior of RC shear wall with various

lateral reinforcements in boundary columns for cyclic lateral load,” Journal of the Korea

Concrete Institute, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 357-366.

Takahashi, S., Yoshida, K., Ichinose, T., Sanada, Y., Matsumoto, K., Fukuyama, H., and Suwada,

H., 2013, “Flexural drift capacity of reinforced concrete wall with limited confinement,”

ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 110, No. 1, pp. 95-104.

Thomsen, J. H. IV, and Wallace, J. W., 2004, “Displacement-based design of slender reinforced

concrete structural walls—experimental verification,” Journal of Structural Engineering,

V. 130, No. 4, pp. 618-630.

Uniform Building Code, 1997, “International Council of Building Code Officials (UBC-97),”

Whittier, CA.

Wallace J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1992, “Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall

buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 1625-1644.

Wallace, J. W., 1994, “A new methodology for seismic design of RC shear walls,” Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3, pp. 863-884.

Wallace, J. W., 2012, “Behavior, design, and modeling of structural walls and coupling beams–

lessons from recent laboratory tests and earthquakes,” International Journal of Concrete

Structures and Materials, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3-18.

Wallace, J. W, Massone, L. M., Bonelli, P., Dragovich, J., Lagos, R., Luders, C., and Moehle, J.,

2012, “Damage and implications for seismic design of RC structural wall buildings,”

Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 28, No. S1, pp. 281-289.

72
Welt, T. S., 2015, “Detailing for Compression in Reinforced Concrete Wall Boundary Elements:

Experiments, Simulations, and Design Recommendations,” PhD Thesis, University of

Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 530 pp.

Whitman, Z., 2015, “Investigation of Seismic Failure Modes in Flexural Concrete Walls Using

Finite Element Analysis,” MS Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 201 pp.

Xiao, Q.，and Guo, Z., 2014, “Low-cyclic reversed loading test for double-wall precast concrete

shear wall,” Journal of Southeast University, Vol. 44, No., 4, pp. 826-831. (in Chinese)

Zhi, Q., Song J., and Guo Z., 2015, “Experimental study on behavior of precast shear wall using

post-cast at the connection,” Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Civil

Engineering and Transportation (ICCET 2015), Guangzhou, China, pp. 1089-1092.

73
CHAPTER 4. A Reliability-Based Design Methodology for Structural Walls with SBEs

4.1. Abstract

The underlying premise of the ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-14 provisions is that special structural

walls satisfying the provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.2 through §18.10.6.4 possess adequate

deformation capacity to exceed the expected deformation demand determined using ASCE 7-10

analysis procedures. However, observations from recent laboratory tests and strong earthquakes,

where significant damage occurred at wall boundaries due to concrete crushing, rebar buckling,

and lateral instability, have raised concerns that current design provisions are inadequate. Recent

studies have identified that deformation capacity of code compliant walls is primarily a function

of wall cross-section geometry, neutral axis depth, shear stress demands, and the configuration of

boundary transverse reinforcement, and that, in some cases, the provisions of ACI 318-14 may not

result in buildings that meet the stated performance objectives. To address this issue, this study

proposes a new reliability-based design methodology for structural walls where a drift demand-to-

capacity ratio check is performed to provide a low probability that roof drift demands exceed roof

drift capacity at strength loss for a specified hazard level.

4.2. Introduction

Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls are commonly used as lateral force-resisting systems

(LFRS) in tall and moderately tall buildings because they provide substantial lateral strength and

stiffness and are assumed to provide the needed deformation capacity if detailed according to

provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10 for Special Structural Walls. ACI 318 provisions for wall design

and detailing have undergone three major updates, which occurred in the 1983, 1999, and 2014

74
versions of the code. In 1983, an extreme fiber compression stress limit of 0.2 f 'c under combined

gravity loads and earthquake overturning moment was introduced to determine if special boundary

element transverse reinforcement was required. This approach was implemented based on research

conducted by the Portland Cement Association (e.g., Oesterle et al., 1976 and 1979; Paulay and

Goodsir, 1985), which indicted that lateral drift ratios as large as 0.03 or 0.04 could be achieved if

the wall boundary zones were adequately detailed to remain stable while yielding in compression.

This approach still exists in 318-14 §18.10.6.3. In 1999, an alternative to the stress-based limit, a

displacement-based approach, which applies to continuous (or effectively continuous), cantilever

walls with a single critical section, was introduced to evaluate the need for Special Boundary

Element (SBE) detailing (Wallace and Moehle, 1992; Wallace, 1994; and Thomsen and Wallace,

2004). More recently, in 2014, extensive revisions were introduced to require more stringent

detailing requirements for thin, slender walls ( hw lw ≥ 2.0 ) , include a limit on wall slenderness

(hu
b ≤ 16 ) , require a minimum width of flexural compression zone ( b ≥ 12 in., 300 mm) for

sections that are not tension-controlled ( c lw ≥ 3 8 ) , and require that more walls be detailed with

SBEs by adding a 1.5 factor in the denominator of ACI 318-14 Equation 18.10.6.2. These more

recent changes were a result of the unsatisfactory performance of many walls in the 2010 Chile

and 2011 New Zealand earthquakes, as well as observations from recent large-scale laboratory

tests (Wallace, 2012; Wallace et al., 2012; Nagae et al., 2011; Lowes et al., 2012).

Even with these updates, the underlying premise of the ACI 318-14 approach to design and

detailing of Special Structural Walls is that walls satisfying the provisions of §18.10.6.2 through

§18.10.6.4 possess adequate displacement capacity to exceed the expected displacement demands

from ASCE 7-10 analysis procedures when subjected to design-level ground motions. However,

recent research has shown that wall drift capacity is impacted by parameters that are not adequately
75
addressed in ACI 318-14. For example, Segura and Wallace (2018a) studied the relationship

between wall thickness and lateral drift capacity of planar walls and concluded that thin walls

possess smaller lateral drift capacities than thicker walls that are otherwise similar. Furthermore,

it has been found that thin, rectangular boundary regions confined by an outer hoop and crossties,

which is a detail allowed by ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4, may be substantially less stable in

compression than sections that utilize overlapping hoops for confinement (Welt, 2015; Segura and

Wallace, 2018a). The studies by Segura and Wallace (2018b) and Abdullah and Wallace (2018a)

showed that lateral drift capacity of walls with SBEs is significantly influenced by parameters,

such as width of flexural compression zone b , wall length lw , neutral axis depth c (i.e.,

compression demands), wall shear demand Vu , and configuration of boundary transverse

reinforcement (overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter hoop with intermediate crossties). The

findings of these studies indicated that, depending on these variables, drift capacity of walls with

SBEs varies by a factor of three, ranging between approximately 1.2% and 3.5%. These results

have very important design implications. For instance, at Design Earthquake (DE) level shaking,

ASCE 7-10 §12.12.1 limits allowable story drift ratio to 0.02 for typical RC buildings in Risk

Category I & II that are taller than four stories and utilize structural walls for a LFRS. At Maximum

Considered Earthquake (MCE) level shaking, which is used to assess collapse prevention, this

limit is typically taken as 1.5 times the DE limit, or 0.03. If roof drift demand is approximated as

three-quarters of peak story drift, which is a reasonable approximation for buildings with walls,

then the peak roof drift demand allowed by ASCE 7-10 is approximately 0.0225, which is about

87% greater than the minimum wall drift capacity of 0.012 observed by Abdullah and Wallace

(2018a) and Segura and Wallace (2018b). These findings suggest that current ACI 318 code

provisions do not adequately address concerns related to brittle compression failure of walls, nor

76
do they ensure that walls have adequate drift capacity to exceed the expected drift demands under

DE shaking with a reasonable level of reliability (e.g., 90%); therefore, ACI 318-14 wall

provisions should be updated to address this critical issue.

To address the above issue, a new reliability-based design methodology is proposed where a drift

demand-to-capacity ratio (DDCR) check is performed to provide a low probability that roof drift

demands exceed roof drift capacity at strength loss for a given hazard level (e.g., 10% probability

of lateral strength loss for the DE or MCE level shaking). In general, walls with slender cross

sections ( lw b > 15 ) , large neutral axis depth relative to width of flexural compression zone

( c b > 3) , shear stress demands approaching the ACI 318 §18.10.4.4 limit (10 )
f 'c , and roof

drift demands approaching the maximum value allowed by ASCE 7-10 (i.e., 0.75×0.02 = 0.015)

tend to be screened out for redesign using the proposed methodology to prevent strength loss under

DE level shaking and reduce the probability of collapse under MCE level shaking. Finally, two

design examples are presented to highlight the deficiencies in the current code provisions and to

illustrate application of the proposed methodology.

4.3. Research Significance

Current provisions of ACI 318-14 assume that walls satisfying Special Structural Wall provisions

of 18.10.6 possess adequate drift capacity to exceed the expected drift demands from analysis

under DE level shaking defined in ASCE 7, without critical strength decay. However, recent

research has indicated that this underlying premise is not always correct, and that wall deformation

capacity is significantly impacted by wall cross-section geometry, detailing, and compression and

shear demands, and that these factors are not adequately addressed in ACI 318. A drift demand-

77
to-capacity ratio (DDCR) check is proposed for ACI 318 to require that wall drift capacity exceed

expected drift demands under a prescribed hazard level with a low probability of strength loss.

4.4. Wall Deformation Capacity

Abdullah and Wallace (2018b) developed a comprehensive database that summarizes results from

more than 1000 RC wall tests reported in the literature. The database was filtered to identify walls

that satisfied, or nearly satisfied, the provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10 for Special Structural Walls,

resulting in a reduced dataset of 164 wall tests, in which about one-half of the walls fully satisfied

requirements for special boundary transverse reinforcement in ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4 (see

Abdullah and Wallace, 2018a and 2019). The walls in the dataset included 108 rectangular, 34

barbell, 2 Flanged, 15 T-shaped (web in compression), 2 L-shaped (web in compression), and 3

half-barbell (web in compression) cross-sectional shapes. Histograms for various parameters for

the 164 tests are shown in Fig. 4-1, where s db is the ratio of vertical spacing of boundary

transverse reinforcement to minimum diameter of longitudinal boundary reinforcement,

Ash, provided Ash,required is the ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4) area of

boundary transverse reinforcement, P (A f ' )

g c
is the axial load normalized by concrete

compressive strength ( f ) and gross concrete area ( A ) ,

c
'
g
M (Vlw ) is the ratio of base moment-

to-base shear normalized by wall length ( lw ) , b is the width of flexural compression zone, hx is

the centerline distance between laterally supported boundary longitudinal bars, and c is the depth

of neutral axis computed at concrete compressive strain of 0.003. Wall displacement capacity (δ c )

in the database is defined as the lateral displacement corresponding to wall effective height

78
 20 20 20 20

No. of
0 0 0 0

12 5

20 0
15 0

0
10

10 0
5

12

20

0
15

5
30

0
00
-1

-2

0
<5

7.

-2
2

-4
4

-1

-3
3
5-

<1
-1

0-

4-
0-

1-

3-
10

5-

0-

2-
15

>3
5-

15

30
10

20
7.

90
lw/b b (mm) c/b c/lw

(h eff )
≈ 0.7hw at which lateral strength degrades by 20% from peak strength. To facilitate

comparison of test drift capacities (δ c hw ) with drift demands determined from analysis, which is

the roof level ( hw ) drift demand (δ u hw ) for ACI 318-14 Equation 18.10.6.2, test drift capacities

(δ c )
heff at heff were adjusted to include the elastic displacement contributed by the wall height

between heff and hw . This adjustment was accomplished using a representative lateral load

distribution in ASCE 7-10 §12.8 consistent with a prototype building height for the tested wall,

and typically increased the elastic roof level displacements by 10 to 20% over the value at heff .

The adjustments tended to be small compare to nonlinear roof level displacements. More details

of this adjustment are available in Abdullah and Wallace (2019).

50 (a) 50 (b) 80 (c) 60 (d)

No. of Specimens

40 40
60
40
30 30
40
20 20
20
20
10 10

0 0 0 0
1. 0
0. 9

7
8

0
1

4
5

5
-2

3
0.

1.

3.
6

0.
8

10
3

2.
5

7
4

-2

-4
0.

-3
5

5-
1.

2.

3.
5-
5-

7-
1-

4-

6-
3-

8-

0-

0-

5
7-

5-

0-

5-
9-

10

30

1-
20

2-

3-

3.
1.

2.
0.

2.
0.

1.

s/db Min. Ash, provided/Ash,required P/(fc'Ag) (%) M/(Vlw)

60 50 60 60
(e) (f) (g) (h)
No. of Specimens

40
40 40 40
30

20
20 20 20
10

0 0 0 0
5
10

0
5
0
.5

65

0
0

0
5
.7
3
-1

.
0.
-2
<5

-3
3

-2
2
-1

-4
4

-1
<1
.0
7

0.
5-

-0
0.

2-

4-
1-

3-
-
10
5-

15

20
15
>1
75

30
1-

10
25
7.

5-

65
0.

0.
0.

0.

0.

lw/b hx/b c/b c/lw (%)

Fig. 4-1–Histograms of the dataset of 164 wall tests with special detailing.

79
A series of regression analyses (linear and nonlinear) were performed on the dataset of 164 walls

to identify design parameters that significantly impact in-plane lateral drift capacity (δ c hw ) of

walls with SBEs. Based on the results, it was concluded that wall drift capacity is primarily a

function of: (1) ratio of wall neutral axis depth-to-width of flexural compression zone, c b , (2)

ratio of wall length-to-width of flexural compression zone, lw b , (3) ratio of the maximum wall

shear stress to square-root of concrete compressive strength, v max f 'c , and (4) the configuration

of the boundary transverse reinforcement used, i.e., overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter

hoop with intermediate legs of crossties (see Abdullah and Wallace, 2018b for examples of

boundary transverse reinforcement configurations). The impacts of other parameters were also

considered, such as: (5) Ash, provided Ash,required , (6) s db , (7) hx , (8) degree of lateral support

provided to the boundary longitudinal reinforcement (i.e., support for all boundary longitudinal

bars versus every other bar), and (9) P ( A f ' ) ; however, it was found that the items (5) through
g c

(9) did not significantly impact lateral drift capacity of fully code-compliant walls with SBEs.

These findings suggest that a majority of the current detailing provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4

are adequate, and that minor-to-moderate adjustments to these parameters would not likely result

in an appreciable improvement of wall lateral deformation capacity. The results also indicated that

P ( A f ' ) , by itself (ranging from 0.0 to 0.35), has low correlation with wall drift capacity, and
g c

that its impact is best accounted for in the c b parameter. A summary of the impact of first four

(more significant) parameters is presented in the following paragraphs; however, a more detailed

assessment can be found in Abdullah and Wallace (2019; 2018c).

80
A combined slenderness parameter, λb = ( lw b ) ( c b ) = lw c b 2 , was identified, which provides an

efficient means to account for the slenderness of the cross section ( lw b ) and the slenderness of

the compression zone of the cross section ( c b ) . In addition to wall cross-section geometry, this

parameter, through depth of neutral axis (c), considers the impact of concrete and reinforcement

material strengths, axial load, and quantities and distributions of longitudinal reinforcement at the

wall boundaries and in the web (Wallace, 1994). Fig. 4-2 indicates that lateral drift capacity of

walls with SBEs is highly correlated with λb , with drift capacity varying roughly between 1.2%

and 3.5% as λb decreases from 80 to zero. Fig. 4-2 also shows trends for two levels of shear stress

demand, represented by v max f 'c , to demonstrate the impact of wall shear stress beyond what

can be attributed to changes in other variables. For the shear stress demand levels considered, the

trend lines are offset by approximately 0.5% drift, indicating that higher shear stress demand has

a significant negative impact on wall drift capacity, even for relatively slender walls (Fig. 4-2(b)).

Fig. 4-3 highlights the impact of different boundary element transverse reinforcement

configurations on wall drift capacity. For low-to-moderate shear stress demands, use of

overlapping hoops provides improved drift capacity if λb ≥ 40 (Fig. 4-3(a)), whereas the use of a

perimeter hoop with 135º-135º crossties results in only a slight increase in drift capacity over the

use of 90º-135º crossties due to ineffectiveness of 90º hooks used on crossties for walls with large

λb (Segura and Wallace, 2017a). On the other hand, Fig. 4-3(b) indicates that use of overlapping

hoops for the walls with high shear stresses does not necessarily lead to increased drift capacity;

however, it is noted that relatively few tests exist for lb ³ 40 to evaluate this trend.

81
 b) max c > 5 (> 0.42 in MPa)

5
6 vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa) vmax/÷ fc' psi £ 5 (£ 0.42 in MPa)
Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (15) Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (16)
(%)
Capacity (%) 4
5
÷ fc' psi
vmax/with
Hoop+crossties 90º-135º hooks
> 5 (> 0.42 (38)
in MPa) Hoop+crossties /÷ fc' psi
vmaxwith 90º-135º
> 5 (> hooks (13)
0.42 in MPa)
Overlapping hoops (23) Overlapping hoops (28)
Capacity
3
4
23
Drift
Drift

12

01
00 20 40
40 60 8080 120 00
100 120 20 40
40 60 80
80 100 120
120
llbb == lwc/b2
lwc/b2 llbb = lwc/b2
= l c/b2
w
(a) M/Vlw
(a) vmax1.0
/÷ f(164 walls)
c psi £ 5
' (b) M/Vlw .0 (120 walls)
(b) vmax/÷ fc' psi > 5
Fig. 4-2–Impact of slenderness parameter ( λb ) and wall shear stress ratio v max ( )
f 'c on wall
drift capacity.

6
Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (15) Hoop+crossties with 135º-135º hooks (16)
5
Experimental Drift Capacity (%)

Drift Capacity (%)

Hoop+crossties with 90º-135º hooks (38) Hoop+crossties with 90º-135º hooks (13)
a)5Eq. 1 Overlapping hoops (23) b) Eq. 2
Overlapping hoops (28)
4
4
3
3 2

2 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 6080 100 120
lb = lwc/b 2 lb = lwc/b2
1 COV = 0.15 COV = 0.15
(a) vmax/÷164 £5
f psiSpecimens
c
'
(b) vmax/÷ f psi 164 '
> 5 Specimens
c
Fig.
0 4-3–Comparison of different configurations of boundary transverse reinforcements (Note:
0 1 number
2 of tests3 for each4 case is5given
0 in parentheses).
1 2 3 4 5
Predicted Drift Capacity (%) Predicted Drift Capacity (%)

82

5
4.5. Wall Deformation Capacity Predictions

Linear regression analysis was applied to the 164-wall dataset considering only the four important

( )
variables that significantly impact wall lateral drift capacity δ c hh , and the following predictive

( )
equation for mean drift capacity δ c hw of walls with SBEs is proposed:

δc λ vmax δ
hw
( % ) = 3.85 − b −
α 10 f (psi )
'
≥ min c
hw
(Eq. 4-1a)
c

δc λ vmax δ
hw
( % ) = 3.85 − b −
α 0.83 f ' (MPa )
≥ min c
hw
(Eq. 4-1b)
c

Where λb = lw c b 2 ; α = 60 where overlapping hoops are used and 45 where a single perimeter

hoop with supplemental crosstie legs are used; minimum drift capacity ( δ c hw ) = 1.75% where

overlapping hoops are used and 1.25% where a single perimeter hoop with supplemental crosstie

legs are used. Eq. 4-1 results in mean and coefficient of variation (COV) of 1.0 and 0.15,

respectively, over the entire range of drift capacity values, from roughly 1.2% to 3.5% drift (Fig.

4-4(a)).

An alternative format, where displacement capacities of the walls in the dataset were converted to

total curvatures over an assumed plastic hinge length, also is presented, since this format is

( )
convenient for nonlinear response history analysis. Total curvature φt was computed for an

( )
assumed plastic hinge length l p of lw 2 as the sum of elastic (first yield) and plastic curvatures

over the assumed plastic hinge length. It is noted that the contribution of hinge yield curvature to

( )
the total hinge curvature φt was on average 10% for the dataset. Similar to drift capacity, linear

regression analysis was applied to the dataset to develop the following predictive equation:

83
 ⎛ λ vmax ⎞
φt ( rad / in ) = ⎜ a1 − b − 0.2 ⎟ × 10−4 ≥ φt ,min (Eq. 4-2a)
⎜⎝ a2 f c (psi) ⎟⎠
'

⎛ λb vmax ⎞
φt ( rad / mm) = ⎜ a1 − − 0.95 ⎟ × 10−5 ≥ φt ,min (Eq. 4-2b)
⎜⎝ a2 f c (MPa) ⎟⎠
'

Where the values of parameters a1 and a2 are obtained from Table 4-1based on the wall length

( l ) , which ranges from 27.5 in. (700 mm) to 120 in. (3048 mm) in the dataset, and minimum
w

total curvature ( φt ,min ) = 2.8×10-4 rad/in. (1.1×10-5 rad/mm). Eq. 4-2 results in a mean and COV

of 1.0 and 0.20, respectively, for the entire range of curvature capacities (Fig. 4-4(b)). It should be

noted that this model is developed based on an assumed plastic hinge length of lw/2, and if the

nonlinear analysis results show that nonlinear curvature demands spread over a distance greater

than lw/2, the total curvature capacities obtained from Eq. 4-2 or the curvature demands need to be

adjusted.

Table 4-1–Parameters to be used in Eq. 4-2

lw in. (m) ≤ 40 (1.0 m) 40-60 (1.0-1.5 m) > 60 (1.5 m)

a1 20 (7.9) 15 (5.9) 10 (3.9)

Overlapping Hoops 11 (27.9) 13 (33)

a2
Hoop + Crossties 6 (15.2) 8 (20.3)

84
 Experimental ft, (rad/mm)
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008
5 0.003
Entire dataset (M/Vlw 1.0) lw £ 40 in. (1.0 m)
1.0 £ M/Vlw < 2.0 40 in. (1.0 m) < lw £ 60 in. (1.5 m) 0.0008

Predicted ft, (rad/mm)

4 0.002

Predicted ft, (rad/in)

Predicted dc/hw (%)

lw > 60 in. (1.5 m)

3 0.002 0.0006

Predicted ft, (rad/in) 10-4

2 0.001 0.0004

1 0.0005 0.0002
Mean = 1.00 Mean = 1.00
COV = 0.15 COV = 0.20
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.0005 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003
Experimental dc/hw (%) Experimental ft, (rad/in)
(a) Eq. 4-1 (b)(b)
Eq. 4-2
Eq. 2
(a) Eq. 1
Fig. 4-4–Comparison of predicted drift and curvature capacities with experimental drift and
curvature capacities.

For the purpose of preliminary analysis, Eq. 4-3 can be used to compute the approximate depth of

neutral axis c, corresponding to concrete compressive strain of 0.003. Eq. 4-3 was derived based

on data from 696 walls in the overall database with P ( A f ' ) > 0 , including the wall test results
g c

included in Fig. 1.

c P
= k1 + k2 (Eq. 4-3)
lw Ag f 'c

Where values of k1 and k2 are obtained from Table 4-2 based on the cross-section shape of the

wall. In Eq. 4-3, the first term considers the impact of longitudinal reinforcement (ratio and

strength) and concrete strength, whereas the second term addresses the impact of axial load. Fig

4-5 compares the depth of neutral axis computed from Eq. 4-3 with that computed from detailed

sectional analysis using as-tested material properties.

85
 5 5
Mean= 1.03
COV = 0.177 4

Drift Capacity (%)

4

Drift Capacity (%)

Table 4-2–Neutral axis depth parameters in Eq. 4-3
3 3
Wall cross-section shape k1 k2 Mean COV
2 2
*
Rectangular 0.10 1.2 1.04 0.17
1 1
Barbell and Flanged 0.03 1.4 1.05 0.27
T-, L-shaped, and half-barbell:
0 flange in 0
0.03 0.7 1.00 0.30
compression 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60
T-, L-shaped, and half-barbell: web in lwc/b2 lwcapp
0.20 2.0 1.01 0.24
compression (a) Slenderness parameter with actual c (b) Slenderness para
*This value is for walls with longitudinal reinforcement concentrated in the boundary elements. For
wall with uniformly distributed reinforcement, k1 = 0.05 and 0.20 when longitudinal reinforcement
ratio < 0.005 and ≥ 0.015, respectively. For intermediate values, linear interpolation is applied.

100
Rectangular (444 walls)
2.5 Rectangular (444
Barbell (135 walls) Barbell (135 wal
T-, L-shaped, and half-barbell: T-, L-shaped, and
80 2
c/lw from equation [%]

web in compression (38 walls) web in compress

c/lw (%): Eq. 2

Flanged (79 walls) Flanged (79 wall
60 1.5

40 1

20 0.5

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 6
c/lw from sectional analysis [%]
P/Agf'c (%)
Fig 4-5–Comparison of c computed from Eq. 4-3 with that from detailed sectional analysis.

In addition, since the specified

5 (design) material strengths are not always reported,
5 the c values
Mean= 1.03
COV = and
included in the database are based on the as-tested (actual) concrete 0.17steel strengths. Given this,
4
Drift Capacity (%)

4
Drift Capacity (%)

the sensitivity of the calculation of c was investigated to assess the impact of using
3 specified versus
3
as-tested material properties (Fig. 4-6). A random subset of 35 tests from different
2 tests programs
2
was selected for a more detailed comparison. Results presented in Fig. 4-7 indicate
1 that the value
1

0 86 0
0 20 40
60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80
lwc/b2 lwcappr /b2
(a) Slenderness parameter with actual c (b) Slenderness parameter
 of c is insensitive to the use of specified versus as-tested material properties, since the ratios for

as-tested-to-specified for reinforcement yield strength and concrete strength are similar (Fig. 4-6).

Specified Strength (ksi) Specified Strength (ksi)

Specified
0 5 Strength
10 (ksi)
15 20 Specified
0 40Strength
80 (ksi)
120 160
0
160 5 10 15 20 0
1200 40 80 120 160

As-tested Strength (MPa)

As-tested Strength (MPa)
c (in): tested strengths

742 Specimens

As-tested Strength (ksi)

662 Specimens 160

(ksi)
160 1200

(MPa)
As-tested Strength (MPa)

20 Mean = 1.14
742 Specimens

As-tested Strength (ksi)

Mean = 1.12
662 Specimens 160

As-tested Strength (ksi)

30
Mean STDV
120 = 1.12= 0.19 20 Mean =STDV
900 1.14 = 0.15

Strength
120 STDVCOV= 0.19= 0.17 900 STDV =COV
0.15 = 0.13 120
15 120

Strength
20 COV = 0.17 Mean COV = 0.13 Mean
15
80 Mean 600 Mean 80
80 10 600 80
10

As-tested
10
300

As-tested
40 5 40
40 300 40
0 5
000 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
40 80 120 160 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Specified Strength (MPa) Specified Strength (MPa)
Specified Strength (MPa) Specified Strength (MPa)
(a) Concrete compressive strength (b) Reinforcement yield strength
(a) Concrete compressive strength (b) Reinforcement yield strength
Fig. 4-6–Variation of specified and as-tested material strengths in the overall database.

c (in): Specified material strengths
c (mm): As-tested material strengths

0 10 20 30
c (in): As-tested material strengths

1000
35 Specimens
800 Mean = 0.99
STDV = 0.09 30
COV = 0.09
600
Mean
20
400
10
200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
c (mm): Specified material strengths
Fig. 4-7–Computed value of c using specified versus as-tested material strengths.

The expressions presented here are intended to apply to walls with rectangular, flanged, and barbell

cross sectional shapes (Fig. 4-8(a) through (f)). For cases with a large b, e.g., where the barbell or
87
flange of the wall is in compression (Fig. 4-8(a) through (h)), drift capacity is likely to be relatively

large (low λb ); however, for cases with a barbell or flange in tension, and a thin wall web in

compression (Fig. 4-8(b) and (e) through (h)), relatively large values of c b , and thus λb , and

higher shear demands are likely, and thus, lower drift capacities will result. For cases where b

varies over c , or where c varies over b , a representative (e.g., weighted average) value of b or

c should be used, as shown in Fig. 4-8(c), (d), (e) and (h).

Fig. 4-8–Definition of width (b) and length (c) of flexural compression zone. (bave = average
width of compression zone, cave= average depth of neutral axis, and beff= effective with of wall
flange; the blue and red arrows indicate the direction of bending)

88
4.6. Roof Drift Demand

Roof drift (or displacement) demand at the top of a wall, referred to as Design Displacement (δ u )

in ACI 318-14, is used in Equation 18.10.6.2 to assess the need for SBEs. The design displacement

is computed using ASCE 7-10 analysis procedures for lateral loads, such as the Equivalent Lateral

Force (ELF) procedure of §12.8, the Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) of §12.9, or the

Linear Response History Analysis (LRHA) of §16.1. For reinforced concrete buildings, the

influence of concrete cracking is considered, resulting in the use of effective stiffness values for

flexure Ec I eff and shear Gc Aeff .

Because the design methodology presented is based on a low probability that mean wall drift

capacity at significant strength loss is less than mean wall drift demand, dispersion estimates in

drift capacity and demand are required. Dispersion in drift capacity was estimated from Eq. 4-1

(Fig. 4-4) presented in the prior section. Dispersion in roof drift demand was estimated based on

limited results of nonlinear response history analyses (NL-RHA) of 28 buildings with planar

structural walls (Wallace and Safdari, 2018), as well as results reported in the literature. Seven

different building heights (4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, 12-, 16-, and 20-stories) were designed and analyzed for

suites of ground motion records scaled to match the ASCE 7-10 DE spectra for site classes B, C,

D, and E. COVs for mean roof drift demand of each building is presented in Table 4-3, and range

from 0.23 to 0.50, with an overall mean value of 0.38.

Additional information was gleaned from studies reported in the literature that reported mean and

COV of roof drift demands from NL-RHA of wall buildings. Kim (2016) reports dispersion in

mean roof drift demands for a 30-story RC core wall system at both DE and MCE hazard levels,

using two suites of ground motions (suite A and B containing 15 and 30 ground motions,

89
respectively). The COVs in mean roof drift demand for DE hazard level were 0.26 and 0.39 for

suite A and B, respectively; whereas the COVs for MCE hazard level were 0.29 and 0.40 for Suite

A and B, respectively. Moehle et al. (2007) reports a COV of 0.23 for mean roof drift demand of

a 40-story building with RC core walls subjected to 14 ground motions scaled to DE hazard level.

Similar results are reported by Haselton (2009) and Dezhdar (2012) for MCE level shaking. Based

on these results, the COV for mean roof drift demand under DE level shaking generally ranges

from 0.20 to 0.40. A COV of 0.30 was adopted for the reliability analysis presented in the next

section, and the sensitivity of the results to modest variations in the COVs is considered later.

Table 4-3–COVs for mean roof drift demand from NRHA at DE level shaking
Building 4-story 6-story 8-story 10-story 12-story 16-story 20-story

Site Class B 0.50 0.43 0.52 0.30 0.47 0.47 0.39

Site Class C 0.30 0.47 0.38 0.40 0.37 0.32 0.23

Site Class D 0.23 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.34

Site Class E 0.41 0.48 0.42 0.39 0.32 0.31 0.38
0.36 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.33
Mean
0.38

4.7. Proposed Design Approach

ACI 318-14 §18.10.6 includes two design approaches to assess whether SBE detailing is required

at wall boundaries, a simplified displacement-based design approach (§18.10.6.2) and a stress-

based approach (§18.10.6.3). The present study focuses on a DDCR approach for more slender

walls with a single critical section; therefore, the discussion that follows is limited to the

90
displacement-based design approach of §18.10.6.2, which applies to walls with hw lw ³ 2.0 that

are effectively continuous from a single critical section to the top of the wall.

Wallace and Orakcal (2002) provide background on the displacement-based approach to evaluate

the need for SBEs. The approach is based on the model shown in Fig. 4-9(a), whereas a simplified

approach shown in Fig. 4-9(b) was adopted for ACI 318-99. The simplified model neglects the

contribution of elastic and shear deformations to the top displacement, and it moves the centroid

of the plastic hinge to critical section, which is the base of the wall in Fig. 4-9(b). Using the

simplified model, with the assumption that the wall plastic hinge length, l p , can be approximated

as lw 2 , the following relationship for the top (roof) displacement, δ u , can be derived:

Fig. 4-9–Illustration of the current displacement-based design approach.

91
 æε l ö
( )
δu = θ p hw = fu l p hw = ç cu w ÷ hw
è c 2ø
(Eq. 4-4)

Where θ p is the plastic rotation at the base of the wall, and ε cu is the extreme concrete fiber

compression strain associated with the inelastic curvature φu . If ccritical is defined as the neutral

axis depth associated with ε cu = 0.003 and a 1.5 factor is applied to (δ u ) , then Eq. 4-4 can be

rearranged as:

lw lw
ccritical = ≈ (Eq. 4-5)
667 (1.5δ u hw ) 600 (1.5δ u hw )

If maximum value of c computed for the factored axial load and nominal moment strength

(P u,max )
, M n consistent with the direction of the design roof displacement (δ u ) exceeds ccritical

from Eq. 4-5, then SBEs are required. The 1.5 multiplier on δ u was added in ACI 318-14 to

account for dispersion in the computed drift demands under DE level shaking and to produce

detailing requirements more consistent with the ASCE 7 code intent of a low probability of

collapse for MCE level shaking.

If a structural wall is determined to require an SBE based on Eq. 4-5, the SBE is required to satisfy

the detailing requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4. If these requirements are satisfied, the

underlying premise of the code is that the wall drift capacity exceeds the expected wall drift

demands determined from analysis when subjected to DE-level ground motions, without critical

strength decay. However, as presented earlier, this is not necessarily the case. In particular, walls

with lw b ≥ 15 and c b ≥ 3 (i.e., λb ≥ 45 ), and high shear stresses (e.g., approaching the ACI

92
318-14 §18.10.4.4 average wall shear stress limit of 10 f 'c (psi) (0.83 f 'c (MPa) )), would be

expected to have a δ c hw less than the maximum drift demand allowed by ASCE 7-10. Walls

with these attributes are fairly common in modern wall buildings (Brown et al., 2006). In the

following paragraphs, a new reliability-based design approach is proposed that has been

implemented in the ACI 318-19 code to address this issue.

4.7.1. Proposed approach: drift demand-to-capacity ratio (DDCR) check

One strategy that could be adopted to address the deficiencies identified in the previous paragraph

would be to require sufficient detailing such that all walls have a roof drift capacity that exceeds a

“worst-case” for a story drift demand of 0.03 for MCE-level demands (a roof level drift demand

of approximately 0.03(3/4) = 0.0225). This approach was used recently to update column detailing

requirements in the ACI 318-14 §18.7.5.4 (Elwood et al., 2009); however, this approach would be

overly conservative for structural walls where story drift demands are often considerably less than

0.03, e.g., for a building with many walls. Therefore, an alternative approach, to introduce a DDCR

check for Special Structural Walls is proposed. This approach is somewhat similar to demand-to-

capacity checks in ACI 318 code for moment and shear strengths, or drift capacity of slab-column

connections (ACI 318-14 §18.14.5), to meet a specified level of reliability. The basis for the new

design approach is expressed in Eq. 4-6:

⎛δ ⎞ ⎛ δ ⎞
φd ⎜ c ⎟ ≥ ⎜ 1.5 u ⎟ (Eq. 4-6)
⎝ hw ⎠ ⎝ hw ⎠

(
Where δ c hw ) is the mean wall lateral drift capacity estimated from Eq. 4-1, fd is a

( )
“displacement” reduction factor, and δ u hw is the mean roof drift demand estimated using

ASCE 7 analysis approaches, multiplied by 1.5 to convert the DE mean roof drift demands to mean
93
MCE demands (see ASCE 7-10 §11.4.4). This format also is consistent with 1.5 multiplier used

in the current ACI 318-14 Equation 18.10.6.2 to assess the need for SBEs. Considering COV of

0.3 on δ u hw based on the results presented previously and COV of 0.15 on δ c hw based on the

results obtained from Eq. 4-1, a simple reliability analysis of Eq. 4-6, assuming lognormal

distributions in δ u hw and δ c hw , results in a probability of strength loss of approximately 10%

and 50% for DE and MCE level demands, respectively, for φd = 1.0. If the COVs on δ u hw and

δ c hw are increased to 0.40 and 0.2, respectively, the probability of strength loss under DE

demands increases modestly from about 10% to 17%, indicating the strength loss probabilities are

not overly sensitive to the estimated COVs. These levels of probability of collapse appear to be

high, given the target collapse probabilities of ASCE 7-16 §1.3.1.3 of 10% for Risk Category I

and II buildings and 5% for Risk Category III building under MCE level demands. To reduce the

probability of strength loss to 10% for MCE level demands Risk Category I and II buildings, a φd

of 0.65 is required. Selection of an appropriate φd value requires a definition for collapse, since

drift capacity at 20% strength loss is not necessarily associated with building collapse, which is

more commonly associated with loss of axial load capacity.

Use of a low probability (10%) of strength loss for MCE level demands would be a conservative

estimate of collapse, since axial failure models in the literature for columns (Elwood and Moehle,

2005) and for walls (Wallace et al., 2008), as well as ASCE 41 backbone relations, generally

indicate that drift ratios at axial failure exceed those at significant strength loss. A review of the

dataset of 164 tests with lower drift capacities (i.e., λb > 40) revealed that lateral strength loss in

these walls was abrupt and typically much greater than 20%, and that axial failure was observed

to occur soon after loss of lateral strength (i.e., Segura and Wallace, 2018a; Shegay et al., 2016).
94
Although tests of well-detailed, isolated cantilever walls in the database show that axial failure

may follow soon after substantial lateral strength loss under continued lateral loading, collapse of

buildings with structural walls has rarely been reported following earthquakes or shake table tests,

even for walls with substantial damage (Wallace et al., 2008; Nagae et al., 2015). Given these

observations, use of a low probability of strength loss (i.e., 10%) for DE level shaking is suggested

here as a minimum criterion for collapse (i.e., φd = 1.0). This approach will screen out walls with

high likelihood of strength loss at DE shaking for redesign, which will reduce the likelihood of

severe damage at shaking levels less than DE and reduce the potential for collapse for MCE level

shaking.

If Eq. 4-6 is not satisfied for a given wall, then the designer would be required to revise the design

for that wall. The most likely change would be to increase the width of the flexural compression

zone b (i.e., wall thickness, t w ), which would increase the drift capacity obtained with Eq. 4-1 by

reducing the slenderness parameter λb = lw c b 2 and also likely reducing the shear and drift

demands. Eq. 4-6 can be rearranged to determine the required minimum width of compression

zone ( bmin ) as:

lw c
(b )
2
≥ (Eq. 4-7a)
min
⎛ vmax 1.5δ u ⎞
α ⎜ 3.85 − − ⎟
⎜⎝ 10 f c' (psi) hw ⎟⎠

lw c
(b )
2
≥ (Eq. 4-7b)
min
⎛ vmax 1.5δ u ⎞
α ⎜ 3.85 − − ⎟
⎜⎝ 0.83 f c' (MPa) hw ⎟⎠

95
 ( )
An upper-bound width of the flexural compression zone bupper can be approximated using Eq.

4-7, which is based on assuming the shear stress term approaches 1.0 and 1.5δ u hw approaches

0.0225, resulting in the following:

bupper = 0.025clw (Eq. 4-8)

Note that, if c = 0.20lw, then Eq. 4-8 requires walls with bupper of 17 in. (432 mm) and 26 in. (660

mm) for walls with length of 20 ft (6096 mm) and 30 ft (9144 mm), respectively. Two design

examples are presented in the following section to illustrate the proposed approach.

4.8. Example Application

4.8.1. Description of the buildings

In the following, two residential buildings (6-story and 10-story) located in Los Angeles,

California are used to illustrate the application of the proposed design methodology, as well as to

highlight the significant deficiency in the current design provisions of ACI 318. The building

footprint (Fig. 4-10) is 150×75 ft. (45.75×22.9 m), and the typical story height is 12 ft. (3.66 m).

A summary of seismic design parameters is provided in Table 4-4. Design concrete compressive

strength ( f ' ) of 5 ksi (34.5 MPa) and Grade 60 reinforcement with yield strength ( f ) of 60 ksi
c y

(414 MPa) are specified, consistent with requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.2.5 for concrete and

§18.2.5 for reinforcement in structural walls. A total uniformly distributed floor dead load (in

addition to self-weight of walls) of 150 psf (7.18 kN/m2) and floor live load of 40 psf (0.2 kN/m2)

per ASCE 7-10 §4.3.1 are used as the loading criteria.

96
 6@25ft (7.6m) = 150ft (45.6m)
D
3@25ft (7.6m) = 75ft (22.8m)

Tributary Area
C

Wall #2
Wall #1

N
B
24"x24"
Gravity column (typ.)
A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fig. 4-10– Typical
Plan
(a)view plan
of view of the buildings.
the building.

Table 4-4–ASCE 7-10 seismic parameters

Parameter Value

Building Location 34.058°N, 118.445°W

Risk Category II
Importance Factor 1.0
Site Class D
SS; SDS (g) 2.253; 1.502
S1; SD1 (g) 0.829; 0.829
SDC E
R = Cd 5
Redundancy factor ρ 1.3

97
4.8.2. Lateral load analysis

ASCE 7-10 §12.9 Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) was utilized to determine design

lateral forces on the walls under DE level shaking. For the purposes of this study, only analysis

and design of the LFRS in the north-south direction, which consists of planar RC Special Structural

Walls, was considered. A wall effective stiffness, Ec I eff , of 0.5Ec I g was assumed for the lateral

analysis, consistent with ACI 318-14 §6.6.3.1.2. The contribution of the gravity columns to the

lateral strength and stiffness of the system was ignored. The lateral analysis included the impact

of accidental torsional moment ( M ta ) required by ASCE 7-10 §12.8.4.2. Inclusion of accidental

torsion generally resulted in an increase of both roof drift and base shear demands by about 15%.

The ASCE 7-10 strength level load combinations (LC) defined in §2.3.2 and §12.14.3.1 were used

to compute the ultimate force demands. Additionally, a redundancy factor ( ρ ) of 1.3 was applied

to the load combinations that include seismic loads ( E ) in accordance with ASCE 7-10 §12.3.4.2,

resulting in a 30% increase in base shear and moment demands, and a redundancy factor ( ρ ) of

1.0 was used for drift calculations in accordance with ASCE 7-10 § 12.3.4.1. A summary of the

force and drift demands obtained from different applicable Load Combinations (LC) is given in

Table 4-5 for Wall #1 of building 6A. It can be seen from Table 4-5 that LC 5, with negative

accidental eccentricity (i.e., moving CM closer to the wall) produces the largest force and drift

demands.

Detailed information for the LFRS and the analysis results (maximum story and roof drifts, base

moment, and base shear demands) are summarized in Table 4-6 under columns A6 and A10 for

the 6-story and 10-story buildings, respectively. The walls were proportioned such that the

( )
allowable story drift demands Δ story hx , computed at CM in accordance with ASCE 7-10

98
§12.8.6, were smaller than the allowable story drift (i.e., Δ a hx = 0 .02) given in ASCE 7-10

§12.12.1 for DE level shaking. The DE roof drift demands (δ u hw ) , given in Table 4-6, were

taken at the top of the wall (not at CM), consistent with wall design displacements used in ACI

318-14 Equation 18.10.6.2. A factor of 1.5 was used to convert the DE roof drift demands to MCE

demands, as noted previously. Base moment, shear, and axial demands given in Table 4-6 are for

a critical section at the base of the walls.

Table 4-5–Demands from ASCE 7-10 LCs for Wall #1 in Building 6A

δu δ u hw
ASCE 7-10 Pu,base M base Vbase
LC
LC No. (kips) (kips-ft) (kips) (in.) (%)

1 1.4D 2102 - - - -

2 1.2D + 1.6L 2337 - - - -

5 (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + ρQE1 2420 58166 -1196 8.465 0.98

5 (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L + ρQE2 2420 85523 -1767 12.466 1.44

5 (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L - ρQE1 2420 -758063 1194 -8.44 -0.98

5 (1.2+0.2SDS)D + 0.5L - ρQE2 2420 -85420 1766 -12.444 -1.44

7 (1.2-0.2SDS)D + ρQE1 901 58133 -1196 8.458 0.98

7 (1.2-0.2SDS)D + ρQE2 901 85490 -1766 12.459 1.44

7 (1.2-0.2SDS)D - ρQE1 901 -58095 1194 -8.45 -0.98

7 (1.2-0.2SDS)D - ρQE2 901 -85452 1766 -12.451 -1.44

Note:
(1) QE1 = Effect of horizontal seismic forces with negative accidental eccentricity (i.e., moving CM
towards Wall #1), and QE2 = Effect of horizontal seismic forces with positive accidental eccentricity (i.e.,
moving CM away from Wall #1).
(2) The negative and positive signs indicate the direction of the seismic forces.
(3) r = 1.3 for base moment and shear demands and = 1.0 for drift demands.
( )
(4) δ u is the design displacement at the top of the wall δ elastic × C d I .

99
4.8.3. Walls design

Based on the demands from the preceding section, two identical planar structural walls are

proposed as the LFRS in the north-south direction for each building. The walls are 24 ft. (7.3 m)

long and 12 in. (0.30 m) thick for building A6 and 26 ft. (7.9 m) long and 18 in. (0.46 m) thick for

building A10, resulting in wall cross-section aspect ratio ( lw t w ) of 24 and 17.33, respectively.

Because the buildings are assigned to SDC E in accordance with ASCE 7-10 §11.6, the walls are

required to be designed and detailed to satisfy the provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10 for Special

Structural Walls. Wall design details are shown in Table 4-6 under columns 6A and 10A for the

6-story and 10-story buildings, respectively. Since c > ccritical , the compression zones of the walls

must be reinforced with SBE details that satisfy the requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4 over

a distance of lbe,required = max ( c 2;c − 0.1lw ) . The wall boundary element details are shown in Fig.

4-11(a) and Fig. 4-11(c) for building 6A and 10A, respectively.

100

Fig. 4-11–Detail of the walls at 1st and 2nd floors.

4.8.4. Reliability analysis

Wall roof drift capacities, defined at 20% strength degradation, were computed from Eq. 4-1 for

two boundary transverse reinforcement configurations, namely, overlapping hoops (OH) and a

single perimeter hoop with supplemental legs of crossties (HC), as shown in Table 4-6. The lower

bound (minimum) drift capacity from Eq. 4-1 governs for both walls. To determine the

probabilities of strength loss, simple reliability analyses were performed using Eq. 4-6 assuming

lognormal distributions in drift demand and capacity and considering COVs of 0.30 and 0.15 for

roof drift demand and capacity, respectively. The probabilities of strength loss under DE and MCE

level shaking are given in Table 4-6. The resulting values of 28% and 66% for OH and HC

configurations, respectively, for building 6A, and 46% and 83% for OH and HC configurations,

respectively, for building 10A, for DE level shaking, are unacceptably high given the current target

reliabilities of ASCE 7-16 §1.3.1.3. It is important to note that the walls in both buildings (6A and

101
10A) satisfy the provisions of ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-14 for Special Structural Walls (i.e., code

compliant walls). These results highlight that the current code provisions do not adequately address

concerns related to brittle compression failure of walls under DE shaking, and that these wall

designs should be revised.

4.8.5. Revised design

To reduce the probability of strength loss to an acceptable level (e.g., 10% or lower for DE level

( )
shaking), either Eq. 4-7 ( bmin ) or Eq. 4-8 bupper can be employed. For the given c lw demands,

( )
the upper bound compression zone width bupper is 25.4 in. (645 mm) for the 6-story building and

27.9 in. (709 mm) for the 10-story building. An alternative approach is used here, where bmin is

determined using Eq. 4-7 assuming a change in wall thickness results in proportional reductions

in δ u hw , v max ( )
f 'c , and c lw . For building 6A with HC configuration α = 45 , revised

demand values for an estimated 15% reduction are: δ u hw ≈ 1.44×0.85 = 1.22%,

v max f 'c psi (MPa) ≈ 7.21(0.6)×0.85 = 6.13 (0.51), and c lw ≈ 0.31×0.85 = 0.26.

Substituting these values in Eq. 4-7 results in bmin = 0.064 lw ≈ 18 in. (457 mm) for the 6-story

building and, similarly, bmin = 23 in. (584 mm) for the 10-story building. Therefore, wall thickness

values were increased to 18 in. (457 mm) for the 6-story building and to 24 in. (610 mm) for 10-

story building. Using the new wall thickness values, the analyses were rerun to determine the new

force and drift demands, as well as to determine whether Eq. 4-6 is satisfied (i.e., probability of

strength loss is 10% or lower for DE level shaking). The revised design details are given in Table

4-6 under columns 6B and 10B for the 6-story and 10-story building, respectively. As can be seen

102
from Table 4-6, increasing in the wall thickness for building 6A resulted in: (1) reduction of δ u hw

by about 18%, (2) reduction of v max f 'c by about 16%, and (3) significant increase in δ c hw ,

because a portion of the drift capacity is proportional to b 2 . The new probabilities of strength loss

for DE level shaking have reduced to below 10% for both the 6-story building (6B) and the 10-

story building (10B), for both OH and HC configurations. The wall boundary element details are

shown in Fig. 4-11(b) and Fig. 4-11(d) for building 6B and building 10B, respectively.

4.9. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions with regards to design of structural

walls with SBEs resulted:

1. Displacement capacity of ACI 31-14 code-compliant walls is primarily a function of

parameters that are not adequately addressed in ACI 318-14 code, such as wall cross-section

geometry, neutral axis depth, wall shear stress demand, as well as the configuration of the

boundary transverse reinforcement (use of overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter hoop

with supplemental crosstie legs). Based on these variables, drift capacity of walls with SBEs

varies roughly by a factor of 3, ranging from approximately 0.012 to 0.035.

103
 Table 4-6–Design details of the walls in each building
6-story 10-story
Building
6A 6B 10A 10B
72×24×1.0 72×24×1.5 120×26×1.5 120×26×2.0
hw × lw × t w , ft. (m)
(21.95×7.3×0.30) (21.95×7.3×0.46) (36.5×7.9×0.46) (36.5×17.9×0.61)
hw lw ; M base Vbase l w( ) 3.0; 2.02 4.62; 2.39
lbe × b , in. (mm) 61×12 (1,550×305) 52×18 (1,321×457) 71×18 (1,778×457) 53×24 (1,346×610)
lbe,required , in. (mm) 60.2 (1,529) 41.2 (1,046) 69.8 (1,773) 50 (1,270)
Boundary longitudinal 45 No.11 45 No.11 42 No.14 44 No.14
reinforcement (45 No.35) (45 No.35) (42 No.43) (44 No.43)
Boundary transverse [email protected]. [email protected]. No.5@4in. [email protected].
reinforcement (No.12@95mm) (No.12@114mm) (No.16@100mm) (No.16@114mm)
Ash, prov . Ash,req. ;S prov . Sreq. 1.05; 0.9 1.02; 0.8 1.00; 0.7 1.05; 0.8
Web vertical and horizontal 2 layers No.6@8in. 2 layers No.6@9in. 2 layers No.6@10in. 2layers [email protected].
reinforcement (No.19@200mm) (No.19@229mm) (No.19@200mm) (No.19@216mm)
Min φ M n , kips-ft. (kN-m) 88,139 (119,578) 95,570 (129,660) 133,039 (180,494) 152,076 (206,321)
V@ Mn (A cv
f 'c psi (MPa) ) 8.3 (0.69) 6.0 (0.5) 6.0 (0.5) 5.1 (0.43)
Vn, ACI , kips (kN) 2,408 (10,710) 2,440 (10,854) 2,884 (12,830) 3,032 (13,486)
Vn, ACI (A cv
f 'c psi (MPa) ) 9.8 (0.82) 6.6 (0.55) 7.2 (0.6) 5.7 (0.48)
Ta ;Tu ;T1 (sec) 0.49; 0.69; 0.94 0.49; 0.69; 0.78 0.73; 1.02; 1.79 0.73; 1.02; 0.1.58
Pu1 , kips (kN); Pu1 (A
g
f 'c ) 2,420 (10,765); 0.14 2,649 (11,780); 0.10 4,606 (20.488); 0.16 5,022 (22,339); 0.13
Pu2 , kips (kN); Pu2 (A
g
f 'c ) 901 (4,008); 0.05 991 (4,408); 0.038 1,724 (7,669); 0.06 1,888 (8,398); 0.05
M base , kips-ft. (kN-m) 85,356 (115,803) 92,050 (124,884) 132,213 (179,373) 146,073 (198,177)
Vbase , kips (kN) 1,762 (7,838) 1,835 (8,162) 2,127 (9,461) 2,222 (9,884)
Vbase (A cv
f 'c psi (MPa) ) 7.21 (0.6) 6.0 (0.50) 5.36 (045) 4.2 (0.35)
Max c , in. (mm) 89 (2,261) 70 (1,778) 101 (2,565) 81 (2,057)
ccritical , in. (mm) 22.2 (564) 26.7 (678) 20.3 (515) 23 (584)
Max c lw ; c lw from Eq. 4-3 0.31; 0.27 0.24; 0.22 0.32; 0.29 0.26; 0.26
c b ; lw b 7.5; 24 3.89; 16 5.6; 17.33 3.38; 13
λb = l w c b 2
180 62 97 44
Max Δ story hx (%) at DE 1.92 1.56 1.93 1.70
ASCE 7-10 Δ a hx (%) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Roof δ u hw (%) at DE 1.44 1.20 1.71 1.51
Roof δ u hw (%) at MCE 1.44×1.5 = 2.16 1.20×1.5 = 1.80 1.71×1.5 = 2.56 1.51×1.5 = 2.27
δ c hw (%): OH 1.75 2.21 1.75 2.70
δ c hw (%): HC 1.25 1.87 1.25 2.45
Probability of strength loss
28 (73) 3 (26) 46 (87) 4 (30)
(%) at DE (MCE): OH
Probability of strength loss
66 (95) 9 (45) 83 (98) 8 (41)
(%) at DE (MCE): HC
OH = Overlapping hoop configuration, HC = Single perimeter hoop with supplemental crossties.

104
2. Considering parameters with the greatest impact on wall lateral deformation capacity,

equations Eq. 4-1 and Eq. 4-2 were developed to accurately predict drift and total curvature

capacities of walls with SBEs, with mean values of 1.0 and COVs of 0.15 and 0.18,

respectively.

3. The underlying premise of the ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-14 provisions is that special structural

walls satisfying the provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.2 through §18.10.6.4 possess adequate

drift capacity to exceed the expected drift demand determined from ASCE 7-10 analysis

procedures. However, results presented in this study show that this assumption is not always

correct, and that, in some case, the intended performance objectives may not be achieved.

4. To address the above deficiencies, a new reliability-based design methodology is proposed

where a drift demand-capacity ratio (DDCR) check is performed to provide a low probability

(i.e., 10% or lower) that roof drift demands exceed roof drift capacity at strength loss for the

DE level shaking. In general, walls with slender cross sections ( lw b > 15 ) , large neutral axis

depth relative to width of flexural compression zone ( c b > 3 ) , shear stresses approaching the

( )
ACI 318 §18.10.4.4 limit 10 f 'c , and roof drift demands approaching the maximum story

drift allowed by ASCE 7-10 are screened out for redesign. Preventing strength loss under DE

level shaking is assumed to reduce the probability of collapse under MCE level shaking;

however, for improved performance, a lower (or specified) probability of strength loss for

MCE level shaking could be used.

105
5. Example applications are presented to highlight concerns that, in some cases, the provisions of

ACI 318-14 may not result in buildings that meet the stated performance objectives. To assist

in cases where redesign is required, expressions for minimum and upper-bound width of

flexural compression zone are provided.

4.10. Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided, in part, by the National Science Foundation Grant CMMI-

1446423, which focused on promoting and enhancing US and international collaboration on

performance assessment of structural wall systems. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the views of others mentioned here. The authors would also like to thank members of ACI

Committee 318H for providing thoughtful comments on the proposed design approach.

106
4.11. References

ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14)

and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 1999, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99)

and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 391 pp.

ACI Committee 318, 1983, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-83),

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 155 pp.

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018a, “Drift capacity prediction of RC structural walls with

special boundary elements,” Proceedings, 11th National Conference in Earthquake

Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018b, “UCLA-RCWalls database for reinforced concrete

structural walls,” Proceedings, 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018c, “A Reliability-based deformation capacity model for

ACI 318 compliant special structural walls,” Proceedings, 2018 Structural Engineers

Association of California (SEAOC) Convention, Palm Springs, CA.

Abdullah S. A., Wallace J. W., 2019, “Drift capacity of RC structural walls with special boundary

elements,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 183–194.

ASCE/SEI Standards, 2013, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI

41-13),” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 518 pp.

ASCE/SEI Standards, 2010, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

(ASCE/SEI 7-10),” American Society for Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 518 pp.

107
ASCE/SEI Standards, 2016, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

(ASCE/SEI 7-16),” American Society for Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 690 pp.

Brown, P., Ji, J., Sterns, A., Lehman, D. E., Lowes, L. N., Kuchma, D., and Zhang, J., 2006

“Investigation of the seismic behavior and analysis of reinforced concrete walls,”

Proceedings, 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA.

Dezhdar, E., 2012, “Seismic Response of Cantilever Shear Wall Buildings,” Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 287 pp.

Elwood, K. J., Maffei, J. M., Riederer, K. A., and Telleen, K., 2009, “Improving Column

Confinement–Part 2: Proposed New Provisions for the ACI 318 Building Code,” Concrete

International, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 41–48.

Elwood, K. J. and Moehle, J. P., 2005, “Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light

transverse reinforcement,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 71–89.

Haselton, C. B., 2009, “Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods:

Predicting Median Interstory Drift Response of Buildings,” PEER Report 2009/01, Pacific

Engineering Research Centre (PEER), Berkeley, CA, 288 pp.

Kim, S., 2016, “Reliability of Structural Wall Shear Design for Tall Reinforced Concrete Core

Wall Buildings,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 246 pp.

Lowes, L. N., Lehman D. E., Birely A. C., Kuchma D. A., Marley K. P., and Hart C. R., 2012,

“Earthquake response of slender concrete planar concrete walls with modern detailing”

Engineering Structures, Vol. 34, pp. 455–465.

Moehle, J., Bozorgnia, Y., and Yang, T. Y., 2007, “The tall buildings initiative,” Proceedings,

SEAOC 2007 Convention, Squaw Creek, California, USA.

108
Nagae, T., Tahara, K., Taiso, M., Shiohara, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Kono, S., Nishiyama, M., Wallace,

J. W., Ghannoum, W. M., Moehle, J. P., Sause, R., Keller, W., and Tuna, Z., 2011, “Design

and Instrumentation of the 2010 E-Defense Four-Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-

Tensioned Concrete Buildings,” PEER Report 2011/104, Pacific Earthquake Engineering

Research Center (PEER), Berkeley, CA, 234 pp.

Oesterle, R. G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G., 1979,

“Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Phase II,” Report to National Science Foundation

(ENV77-15333), Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association,

Skokie, IL, 331 pp.

Oesterle, R. G., Fiorato, A. E., Johal, L. S., Carpenter, J. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G.,

1976, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Tests of Isolated Walls,” Report to National

Science Foundation (GI-43880), Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement

Association, Skokie, IL, 315 pp.

Paulay, T. and Goodsir, W. J., 1985, “The ductility of structural walls,” Bulletin of the New

Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 250–269.

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018a, “Seismic performance limitations and detailing of

slender reinforced concrete walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 3, pp. 849–860.

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018b, “Impact of geometry and detailing on drift capacity of

slender walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 3, pp. 885–896.

Shegay, A. S., Motter, C. M., Henry, R. S., and Elwood, K. J., 2016, “Large scale testing of a

reinforced concrete wall designed to the amended version of NZS3101: 2006,”

Proceedings, The New Zealand Concrete Industry Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

109
Thomsen, J. H. IV, and Wallace, J. W., 2004, “Displacement-based design of slender reinforced

concrete structural walls—experimental verification,” Journal of Structural Engineering,

Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 618–630.

Wallace, J. W. and Moehle, J. P., 1992, “Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall

buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 1625–1644.

Wallace, J. W., 1994, “A new methodology for seismic design of RC shear walls,” Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3, pp. 863–884.

Wallace, J. W., 2012, “Behavior, design, and modeling of structural walls and coupling beams–

lessons from recent laboratory tests and earthquakes,” International Journal of Concrete

Structures and Materials, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3–18.

Wallace, J. W., and Orakcal, K., 2002, “ACI 318-99 provisions for seismic design of structural

walls,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 499–508.

Wallace, J. W, Massone, L. M., Bonelli, P., Dragovich, J., Lagos, R., Luders, C., and Moehle, J.,

2012, “Damage and implications for seismic design of RC structural wall buildings,”

Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 28, No. S1, pp. 281–289.

Wallace, J. W., Elwood, K. J., and Massone, L. M., 2008, “Investigation of the axial load capacity

for lightly reinforced wall piers,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 9, pp.

1548–1557.

Wallace, J. W., and Safdari, A., 2018, “Design of slender reinforced concrete walls,” Proceedings,

11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research

Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

110
Welt, T. S., 2015, “Detailing for Compression in Reinforced Concrete Wall Boundary Elements:

Experiments, Simulations, and Design Recommendations,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of

Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 530 pp.

111
CHAPTER 5. Drift Capacity at Axial Failure of RC Structural Walls and Wall Piers

5.1. Abstract

A large number of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings constructed prior to the mid-1970s in

earthquake-prone regions rely on lightly reinforced or perforated, perimeter structural walls to

resist earthquake-induced lateral loads. These walls are susceptible to damage when subjected to

moderate-to-strong shaking; a number of such cases were observed in Chi Chi and Kocaeli

Earthquakes in 1999, and more recently in 2010 Maule and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes.

Despite these observations, there have been limited studies reported in the literature to investigate

the loss of axial (gravity) load carrying capacity of damaged walls and wall piers, primarily due to

limited experimental data. However, over the last decade, a large number of experimental studies

examining the behavior of RC walls, including axial failure, have become available. A

comprehensive database was developed that includes detailed information on more than 1100 RC

wall tests. To study axial failure of structural walls, the database was filtered to identify and

analyze datasets of tests on shear- and flexure-controlled walls. Based on the results, expressions

were derived to predict lateral drift capacity at axial failure of RC walls and piers.

5.2. Introduction

Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls (also known as shear walls) have commonly been used

as lateral force-resisting elements in buildings in regions of moderate-to-high seismic hazard

because they provide substantial lateral strength and stiffness when buildings are subjected to

strong ground shaking. Although test programs on RC walls initiated in the 1950s in the US,

relatively few test programs were reported in the literature through the late-1990s. Those limited

112
test programs focused primarily on addressing issues related to peak shear strength of squat walls

and the influence of boundary element detailing, cross-section shape, and wall shear stress on the

load versus deformation behavior and failure modes of slender walls. Observations from major

earthquakes in the US and Japan in the mid-1990s, and the expansion of experimental testing

facilities around the world have since led to a significant increase in the available wall test results

reported in the literature. However, one common aspect of the experimental programs conducted

prior to around the mid-2000s is that the tests were generally terminated after peak strength or

relatively minor loss of lateral strength (~20 to 40%); therefore, the issue of loss of axial load

carrying capacity (referred to as axial failure in this paper) was not studied. Although axial failure

has rarely been reported for walls (Wallace et al, 2008), wall axial failure could trigger partial or

total building collapse, especially in buildings with significant torsional irregularities and no

redundancy. The lack of data may also result in conservatively low estimates of lateral drift

capacity at axial failure for ASCE 41 acceptance criteria, which would result in most intrusive and

costly seismic retrofits. Therefore, it is important to be able to adequately evaluate the lateral drift

capacity of walls associated with axial failure.

Observations of column axial failures in the 1995 Kobe earthquake led to a number of test

programs to investigate the axial failure of shear-critical columns (Kabeyasawa et al., 2002; Kato

and Ohnishi, 2002; Nakamura and Yoshimura 2002; Tasai, 1999; Tasai, 2000; Yoshimura and

Yamanaka, 2000). Subsequently, theoretical and empirical or semi-empirical models were

proposed to assess axial failure of shear-damaged columns (e.g., Elwood and Moehle, 2005;

Ousalem, 2006; Tran, 2010; Uchida and Uezono, 2003; Nakamura and Yoshimura, 2002).

Research efforts focused on axial failure of RC walls were initiated in the early 2000s to extend

the model developed by Elwood and Moehle (2005) to predict axial failure of shear-controlled

113
columns to lightly reinforced, shear-controlled wall and wall-piers based on observations from the

Chi-Chi, Taiwan and Kocaeli, Turkey earthquakes in 1999 (Wallace et al, 2008). These walls are

typically found in buildings constructed prior to the mid-1970s; however, limited data existed to

calibrate and validate the model for shear-controlled walls. Recently, Looi and Su (2018)

formulated a model based on Mohr’s circle to assess axial failure of heavily reinforced, short shear-

span RC coupled shear walls, designed for moderate intensity earthquake ground shaking and

primarily used to control lateral drift in strong wind events.

ASCE 41-17 is commonly used to evaluate the expected performance of existing buildings

subjected to earthquake ground motions. Generally, shear- and flexure-controlled walls are treated

as deformation-controlled components, where ASCE 41-17 provides modeling parameters

(backbone relations) and acceptance criteria. However, the provided backbones were developed in

late 1990s (FEMA 273/274-1997) based on limited experimental data and engineering judgment.

Studies by Abdullah and Wallace (2019), Motter et al. (2018), and Segura and Wallace (2018)

have indicated that the current modeling parameters tend to be overly conservative and are

influenced by variables that are not considered in ASCE 41-17. Wall axial failure models are

needed to update and improve the modeling parameters (currently the b-parameter) of ASCE 41-

17, which could result in considerable savings during seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing

RC buildings.

Over the last ten years, a large number of laboratory studies examining the behavior of RC

structural walls have been reported in the literature. A comprehensive wall database, UCLA-

RCWalls, has been developed at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) that includes

detailed information on more than 1100 tests reported in the literature (Abdullah and Wallace,

2018). The database was utilized to develop an approach to determine the expected failure mode

114
for RC structural walls, and then to study axial failure of walls, by filtering the main database to

identify and analyze datasets of test results on shear- and flexure-controlled walls. Based on the

results, relationships were developed to predict wall lateral drift capacity at axial failure. Given

that the study is based on test results for individual walls, the predictive expressions do not take

into account the impact of gravity load redistribution and torsional irregularity on potential for

axial failure of the wall and the building. The lack of test data on complete buildings, either

laboratory or in earthquakes, limits these studies.

5.3. Experimental RC Wall database

5.3.1. Overview

A comprehensive database, referred to as the UCLA-RCWalls database, was developed by the

authors that compiles detailed data on more than 1100 RC wall tests reported in the literature. The

database includes three major clusters of data: 1) information about the test specimen, test setup,

and axial and lateral loading protocols, 2) analytically computed data, e.g., moment-curvature

relationships (c, Mn, My, φn , φ y ) and wall shear strengths according to ACI 318-19, and 3) test

results, e.g., backbone relations and failure modes. Database information related to the objectives

of this study (i.e., failure mode classification and axial failure) are briefly presented below;

however, detailed information about the content and structure of the database can be found

elsewhere (Abdullah and Wallace, 2018; Abdullah and Wallace, 2019).

Fig. 5-1 shows a typical backbone curve for the experimental base shear versus total top

displacement (curvature, shear, and bar slip/extension) from a wall test (Tran and Wallace, 2015).

The collapse point represents the state at which axial failure occurs and was identified based on

115
either reported axial failure from the test (e.g., Fig. 5-2 and Fig. 5-3) or observed concrete crushing

and damage along the entire length of the wall and/or out-of-plane instability such that no portion

of the wall is left intact or stable to carry the applied axial load (e.g., Fig. 5-4). In some tests,

complete loss of axial load carrying capacity was not observed or reported, in these cases, the data

represent a lower bound deformation capacity for axial failure. If reported axial failure occurred

at deformations smaller than the maximum deformation reached prior to axial failure, then the

maximum deformation is reported in the database for axial failure (e.g., Fig. 5-2 and Fig. 5-3). As

noted previously, many wall tests, especially earlier tests (prior to mid-2000s), do not have

information on axial failure because the test was terminated prior to an observed axial failure.

Fig. 5-1–Typical wall backbone curve contained in UCLA-RCWalls database.

116
Fig. 5-2–Reported axial failure of a wall test reported by Segura and Wallace (2018). (Note:
for (b) only the first cycle at each displacement is shown)

Fig. 5-3–Reported axial failure of a shear-controlled wall test reported by Sanada et al.
(2012).

Fig. 5-4–Out-of-plane instability and concrete crushing of a wall test reported by Dashti et.
(2018). (Note: for (b) only the first cycle at each displacement is shown)

117
The reported failure modes are classified in the database as either flexure failure modes, i.e.,

flexural compression (bar buckling and concrete crushing), flexural tension (bar fracture), or

global or local lateral instability (Fig. 5-5), shear failure modes, i.e., diagonal tension, diagonal

compression (web crushing), or shear sliding at the base (Fig. 5-6), flexure-shear failure modes,

i.e., yielding in flexure and failing in one of the shear failure modes (Fig. 5-7), and lap-splice failure

mode. The authors did their best to validate that the reported failure mode was consistent with the

observed wall response and damage before recording that information in the database.

Fig. 5-5–Wall flexural failure modes: (a) bar buckling and concrete crushing (Thomsen and
Wallace, 1995), (b) bar fracture (Dazio et al., 2009), and (c) lateral instability (Thomsen and
Wallace, 1995).

Fig. 5-6–Wall shear failure modes: (a) diagonal tension (Mestyanek, 1986), (b) diagonal
compression (Dabbagh, 2005), and (c) shear-sliding (Luna, 2015).
118
 Fig. 5-7–Wall flexure-shear failure modes: (a) flexure-diagonal tension (Tran and Wallace,
2015), (b) flexure-diagonal compression (Oesterle et al., 1976), and (c) flexure-shear-sliding
(Salonikios et al., 1999).

Furthermore, the database contains computed data for both flexural and shear responses.

Analytical moment-curvature ( M − φ ) analysis was performed for each wall using tested material

properties and the sustained axial load, if present. Although the moment-curvature response of

each wall is available in a spreadsheet, values of nominal moment strength (Mn) and depth of

neutral axis (c) at concrete compressive strain of 0.003 and first yield moment strength (My) and

curvatures corresponding to Mn and My are recorded in the database. Additionally, the database

includes the following diagonal and sliding shear friction strengths:

1. Diagonal shear strength, Vn,d

The wall shear strength corresponding to the strength associated with diagonal tension or

compression strut (Vn,d) is computed from Eq. 5-1 (ACI 318-19 Equation 18.10.4.1 without

restrictions on spacing, reinforcement ratio, and the number of curtains of reinforcement):

( )
Vn,d = Acv α c f c' + ρt f yt ≤ 10 Acv f c' (Eq. 5-1)

119
Where Acv is the gross area of concrete section bounded by web thickness and wall length (Acv=

twlw), f’c is the tested concrete compressive strength, ρt is the web transverse (horizontal)

reinforcement ratio, fyt is the tested yield strength of the web transverse reinforcement, and αc is a

coefficient that depends on hw/lw of the wall. However, walls are generally tested as cantilevers

with a single lateral load applied at the top of the wall (with or without axial load) or as panel or

partial height walls under a combined effects of lateral load(s), axial load, and bending moment at

the top of the panel, and thus hw/lw is not always a relevant parameter. Therefore, the test shear-

span-ratio (M/Vlw) was used instead, where αc is taken as 3.0 for M/Vlw ≤ 1.5, as 2.0 for M/Vlw ≥

2.0, and varies linearly between 3.0 and 2.0 for M/Vlw between 1.5 and 2.0.

2. Sliding shear friction strength at the base, Vn,f

The wall shear strength corresponding to the shear friction strength at the wall-foundation interface

(Vn,f) is computed from Eq. 5-2 (ACI 318-19 Equation 22.9.4.2) including the impact of sustained

axial load (ACI 318-19 §22.9.4.5):

( )
Vn, f = µ Avf f yl + P ≤ 0.2 f c' Ac (Eq. 5-2)

Where Avf is the area of all reinforcement crossing the wall-foundation interface, fyl is the tested

yield strength of the reinforcement crossing the wall-foundation interface, μ is the coefficient of

friction and is taken as 0.6 in accordance with ACI 318-19 Table 22.9.4.2, Ac is the area of concrete

section resisting shear transfer, and P is the sustained axial load applied during the experiment. It

is noted that the upper limit of 800Ac given in ACI 318-19 §22.9.4.4 for Eq. 5-2 was not considered,

as it was found to under predict wall shear friction strength, especially for walls with high strength

concrete.

120
To enable classifying walls based on their failure mode, an approach is proposed below and is then

used to obtain datasets of flexure- and shear-controlled walls from the database to study wall axial

failure.

5.3.2. Failure Mode Classification

The reported failure modes in the database are presented in Fig. 5-8(about 1000 wall tests,

excluding walls that failed due to inadequate lap-splices and walls not tested to failure), where Vn

is the least shear strength computed from Eq. 5-1 and Eq. 5-2, V@Mn is the wall shear demand

corresponding to the development of Mn computed based on the shear-span-ratio used in the test,

and V@test is the peak shear strength obtained during the test. Fig. 5-8(a) indicates that the vast

majority of flexure- and shear-controlled walls have a shear-to-flexure strength ratio (Vn/V@Mn) >

1.0 and < 1.0, respectively. Walls with failure modes reported as flexure-shear are mainly scattered

between 0.7 < Vn/V@Mn < 1.3. The flexure-shear-controlled walls with Vn/V@Mn < 1.0 generally

have limited flexural nonlinearity (i.e., barely experiencing first yield of longitudinal

reinforcement) and, therefore, could realistically be classified as shear-controlled walls. On the

other hand, for the flexure-shear-controlled walls with Vn/V@Mn > 1.0, the behavior is initially

governed by flexural cracking and yielding similar to flexure-controlled walls because Vn is

initially greater than V@Mn, but the wall shear strength gradually reduces, as the wall is cycled

through large nonlinear displacement excursions, until it drops below V@Mn, and then the wall fails

in shear. Depending on the level of shear and flexural demands, these walls could exhibit drift

capacities comparable to those of flexure-controlled walls (e.g., Tran and Wallace, 2015). Fig.

5-8(a) also reveals that the maximum strength (Mult) obtained during the test for the flexure-

controlled walls is approximately 1.15 times the shear corresponding to the development of Mn. A

similar conclusion can be observed for shear-controlled walls.

121
 An alternative presentation of failure modes is given in Fig. 5-8(b), where the Y-axis is the shear

friction strength computed from Eq. 5-2 (Vn,f) normalized by the diagonal shear strength from Eq.

5-1 (Vn,d). It can be seen that the data are divided between three regions: 1) blue region: flexure-

controlled walls with Vn/V@Mn > 1.0, 2) red region: diagonal 8shear-controlled walls (due to failure

of2 diagonal tension or compression

2
(b) Diagonalstrut) with (237V 7 and Vn,f/Vn,d ≥ 1.0, and 3) yellow
n/V@Mn ≤ 1.0

Shear Span Ratio (M/Vlw)

(a) Flexure-controlled (538 walls) shear-controlled walls) 6
1.5 1.5
Vtest/V@MyE

5
region:
1 sliding shear-controlled
1 walls with Vn/V@Mn ≤ 1.0 and Vn,f/Vn,d < 1.0.
0.5 0.5
4
0 0 3
Therefore,
2
0 1 for
2 the
3 purpose
4 5 6of0 obtaining
2
1 2 datasets
3 4 to
5 study
6 axial failure, walls with Vn/V@Mn > 1.0
(c) Sliding shear-controlled (53 walls) (d) Flexure-shear-controlled (172 walls) 2 Flexure-controlled
1.5 1.5 Flexure-shear-controlled
and ≤ 1.0 are considered as flexure- and shear-controlled walls,
1 respectively, as presented below.
Vtest/V@MyE

Diagonal shear-controlled
1 1
Sliding shear-controlled
0.5 0.5
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
VyE/V@MyE
VyE/V@MyE VyE/V@MyE

2.0 6
Flexure-controlled
Shear Flexure
Mean of flexure-controlled Flexure-shear-controlled
5
1.5 4 Diagonal shear-controlled
Sliding shear-controlled
Vtest/V@Mn

Vn,f/Vn,d

3
1.0
2
Flexure-controlled
0.5
Flexure-shear-controlled 1
Limit if Mult is used Diagonal shear-controlled
instead of Mn Sliding shear-controlled Limit if Mult is used instead of Mn
0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) Vn/V@Mn (b) Vn/V@Mn
Fig. 5-8–Wall failure modes results from a dataset of 1000 wall tests: (a) Shear (diagonal and
sliding) versus flexural failure mode; (b) Blue region = flexure-controlled; red region = diagonal
shear-controlled; and yellow region = sliding shear-controlled.

5.3.3. Datasets of Flexure-Controlled Walls

The following two datasets, for special and ordinary (non-special) flexure-controlled walls, were

filtered from the UCLA-RCWalls database:

122
Special Walls: Design of RC structural walls is currently governed by the requirements of ASCE

7-16 and ACI 318-19, which includes provision for special structural walls with well-detailed

special boundary elements (SBE) that satisfy ACI 318-19 §18.10.6.4 for buildings assigned to

Seismic Design Category D, E, and F. Detailing requirements for SBEs have changed over the

years and are likely to keep change in the future; therefore, the UCLA-RCWalls database was

filtered using the following criteria to obtain a dataset of ACI 318-19 code- or nearly code-

compliant walls. It is noted that the detailing criteria are less restrictive than the detailing

requirements of ACI 318-19 §18.10.6.4:

m) General criteria:

i. Flexure-controlled walls, i.e., Vn / V@ Mn > 1.0,

ii. Walls with different cross-sections were included (i.e., rectangular, barbell, H-shaped,

T-shaped, L-Shaped, or half-barbell),

iii. Walls tested under quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading,

iv. Tests were excluded if information on axial failure was not available in the database.

v. Walls with measured concrete compressive strength, f c' ≥ 3 ksi,

vi. Walls with ratio of measured tensile-to-yield strength for boundary longitudinal

reinforcement, fu f y ≥ 1.2, and

vii. Walls with web thickness, t w ≥ 3.5 in.,

n) Detailing criteria:

i. A minimum of two curtains of web vertical and horizontal reinforcement,

ii. Boundary longitudinal reinforcement ratio, ρl ,BE , ≥ 6 f c' (psi) / f y ,

123
 iii. Min ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-19 §18.10.6.4) area of boundary

transverse reinforcement, Ash, provided Ash,required ≥ 0.7,

iv. Ratio of vertical spacing of boundary transverse reinforcement to minimum diameter of

longitudinal boundary reinforcement, s db < 8.0, and

v. Centerline distance between laterally supported boundary longitudinal bars, hx, between

1.0 in. and 9.0 in.

Based on the above selected filters, a total of 88 wall tests were identified. Histograms for various

( )
dataset parameters for the 88 tests are shown in Fig. 5-9, where P Ag f c' is the compressive axial

load normalized by the measured concrete compressive strength ( f ) and gross concrete area
c
'

( A ) , and
g
M Vlw is the ratio of base moment-to-base shear normalized by wall length ( lw ) . A

limit of 3 ksi was specified on f c' in accordance with requirements of ACI 318-19 §18.2.5 for

conforming seismic systems. At least two curtains of web reinforcement were specified to be

consistent with ACI 318-19 §18.10.2.2. Walls with t w less than 3.5 in. were not included because

use of two curtains of web reinforcement along with realistic concrete cover is not practical in such

thin walls. The limit on ratio fu f y is slightly less restrictive than the limit of 1.25 specified in

ACI 318-19 §20.2.2.5. The specified limits on s db ≤ 8.0 and Ash, provided Ash,required ≥ 0.7 are slightly

less restrictive than the current limits in ACI 318-19 §18.10.6.4 of 6.0 and 1.0, respectively. The

limit on ρ long ,BE was included to avoid brittle tension failures (Lu et al., 2016), based on what was

adopted in ACI 318-19 §18.10.2.4. ACI 318-19 §18.10.6.4e requires hx,max not exceeding the lesser

124
of 14 in. or 2b/3; however, most of the tests in the database were conducted at less than full scale

(typically 25 to 50%). Therefore, hx,max for the wall tests should generally be between 3.5 to 7.0 in.

for the 14 in. limit. Based on the range of hx used to filter the data, 95% of the specimens have hx

≤ 6 in., which is reasonable, whereas the histogram for hx b presented in Fig. 5-9(l) indicates that

a majority of the tests have hx b < 3/4, which is only slightly higher than the current limit of hx b

< 2/3.

35 50 30 45
(a) (b) 0.18 (c) 40
(d) 0.16
0.12
No. of Specimens

30 0.16 25 0.1
40 35 0.14
25 0.1 0.14

Percentage
20 0.08 30 0.12
20 0.08 30 0.12
25 0.1
0.1 15 0.06
15 0.06 20 20 0.08
0.08
0.06 10 0.04 15 0.06
10 0.04
10 0.04 10 0.04
5 0.02 5 0.02
0.02 5 0.02
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
<5 5-10 10-2 20-3 30-4 40-6
3
.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-8 8-1
0 -50 -60 -70 -80 10
<1 1.5- 2.0- 3.0- 38 50 60 70 80-
P/(fc'Ag) [%] Tested fc' [ksi] Tested fyBE [ksi]
M/(Vlw)
90 30 35 35
(e) 0.32 (f) (g) (h)
0.12 0.12
No. of Specimens

75 25 0.1 30 30
0.28
25 0.1 25 0.1

Percentage
60 0.24 20 0.08
0.2 20 0.08 20 0.08
45 15 0.06
0.16 15 0.06 15 0.06
30 0.12 10 0.04
10 0.04 10 0.04
0.08
15 5 0.02 5 0.02 5 0.02
0.04
0 r 0
ell
0 0 0 0 0 0
ula ll ed ed ed b 0 5 0 -20 -30 -40 -50 50
ng be ap ap ap ar 5
< 5 5-7. 7.5-1 10-1 15-2 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 > 5 15 20 30 40 >
cta Bar H-sh T-sh L-sh alf B
Re H
Cross-section Shape c/b c/lw [%]
lw/b
35 40 30 50
(i) (j) 0.14 (k) 45 (l) 0.18
0.12 35
No. of Specimens

30 25 0.1 0.16
0.12 40
25 0.1 30 0.14
Percentage

20 0.08 35
25 0.1 30 0.12
20 0.08
20 0.08 15 0.06 25 0.1
15 0.06 20 0.08
15 0.06 0.04
0.04 10 15 0.06
10 10 0.04
5 0.02 10 0.04
5 0.02 5 0.02 0.02
5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
8 9 0 2
-0. -0. -1. -1. -1.
5 0 0 0 0
-1. -2. -3. -4. -5.
0 .45 0.6 0.7 0.9
<3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 <0 0.45- 0.60- 0.75-
s/db Min Ash,provided/Ash,required hx/b
l,BE [%]
Fig. 5-9–Histograms of the dataset with 88 special, flexure-controlled walls.

125
Ordinary Walls: Walls with detailing not conforming to Special Structural Wall provisions of

ACI 318-19 are common in older constructions designed prior to the establishment of detailing

requirements for Special Structural Walls, which were introduced in ACI 318-77 and were updated

significantly in ACI 318-83, 318-99, and 318-14. Additionally, the special detailing requirements

of ACI 318-19 are relaxed where wall displacements or force demands are low; however, if the

boundary longitudinal reinforcement ratio exceeds 400/fy (psi), modest detailing is required by ACI

318-19 §18.10.6.5 (introduced in ACI 318-99 in §21.6.6.5) to prevent bar buckling at smaller

deformation demands. These walls are sometimes referred to as walls with Ordinary Boundary

Elements, or OBEs (e.g., see NIST 2011). Based on these considerations, the following (a) general

and (b) detailing criteria were used to obtain a dataset of “Ordinary Walls”:

(a) General criteria:

i. Flexure-controlled walls, i.e., Vn / V@ Mn > 1.0,

ii. Walls with different cross-sections were included (i.e., rectangular, barbell, H-shaped, T-

shaped, L-Shaped, or half-barbell),

iii. Walls tested under quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading, and

iv. Tests were excluded if information on axial failure was not available in the database.

(b) Detailing criteria:

i. Walls with one or more curtains of web vertical and horizontal reinforcement,

ii. Min ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-19 §18.10.6.4) area of boundary

transverse reinforcement Ash, provided Ash,required < 0.7, and/or ratio of vertical spacing of

boundary transverse reinforcement to minimum diameter of longitudinal boundary

reinforcement, s db ≥ 8.0.

126
 160

No. of Specimens
200 200 200
140
120 160 160 160
100
120 120 120
80
60 80 80 80
40
40 40 40
20
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 .25 1 .5 5 .0 5
Based on the above selected filters,
245 400 5a
-40 -50 00-6total
0 -75 of 68 wall-0 .25 tests
- 2
2- were
3 5
identified.
<0 0.25 0.5- Histograms
.25 -0 0.7 75-1 .0-1.
for

0
1- 3-

-2

-3

-4

-5

-7
600 0.1 0 0. 1

12

20

30

40

55
Measured f'c [MPa] Measured fyBE [MPa] longi., BE [%] l,web [%]

various dataset parameters for those 68 tests are shown in Fig. 5-10.

20 50 20 20
(a) 0.07 (b) 0.18 (c) 0.07 (d) 0.07
No. of Specimens

40 0.16
15 0.06 15 0.06 15 0.06
0.14

Percentage
0.05 30 0.12 0.05 0.05
10 0.04 0.1 10 0.04 10 0.04
0.03 20 0.08 0.03 0.03
0.06
5 0.02 5 0.02 5 0.02
10 0.04
0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
<5 5-10 10-2 20-3 30-4 40-6
3
2.0 3.0 4.0 < 3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-8 50 60 70 80 100
.5
<1 1.5- 2.0- 3.0- 38- 50- 60- 70- 80-
P/(fc'Ag) [%] Tested fc' [ksi] Tested fyBE [ksi]
M/(Vlw)
75 0.28 20 25 25
(e) (f) 0.07 (g) 0.09 (h) 0.09
No. of Specimens

60 0.24 20 0.08 20 0.08

15 0.06
0.07 0.07

Percentage
0.2 0.05
45 15 0.06 15 0.06
0.16 0.04 0.05 0.05
10
30 0.12 0.03 10 0.04 10 0.04
0.08 0.03 0.03
5 0.02
15 5 0.02 5 0.02
0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01
0 0
ell
0 0 0 0 0 0
lar ll ed ed ed b 20 30 40 50 50
ngu be ap ap ap ar 5 0 5
< 5 5-7. 7.5-1 10-1 15-2
0
1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 > 5 15- 20- 30- 40- >
cta Bar H-sh T-sh L-sh alf B
Re H
Cross-section Shape c/b c/lw [%]
lw/b
25 30 20 70
(i) 0.09 (j) (k) 0.07 (l)
0.24
No. of Specimens

0.08 25 0.1 60
20 0.06
0.07 15 50 0.2

Percentage
20 0.08 0.05
15 0.06 40 0.16
0.05 15 0.06 10 0.04
10 0.04 30 0.12
0.04 0.03
0.03 10 0.08
5 0.02 20
5 0.02 5 0.02
0.01 0.01 10 0.04
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 4 0.7 1.0 .5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
<4 2
4-6 6-8 8-1 12-1 >16 -0. - - 1 2
0.1 0.4 0.7 < 0 0.5- 1.0- 2.0- 3.0-
Number of curtains
s/db Min Ash,provided/Ash,required l,BE [%] of web reinforcement
Fig. 5-10–Histograms of the dataset with 68 ordinary, flexure-controlled walls.

5.3.4. Dataset of Shear-Controlled Walls

Similar to flexure-controlled wall, the UCLA-RCWalls database was filtered to obtain a subset of

shear-controlled wall or wall pier tests:

(a) Shear-controlled walls, i.e., Vn / V@ Mn ≤ 1.0,

127
 (b) Walls with different cross-sections were included (i.e., rectangular, barbell, H-shaped, T-

shaped, L-Shaped, or half-barbell),

(c) Walls tested under quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading, and

(d) Tests were excluded if information on axial failure was not available in the database.

It is noted that no detailing criteria were applied to the dataset. Based on the above selected

filters, a total of 53 wall tests were identified, which include a range of parameters (axial load

level, geometry, reinforcement), as shown in Fig. 5-11, where ρl and ρt are the web vertical and

horizontal reinforcement ratios, respectively, and f yt is tested yield strength of the web

horizontal reinforcement.

128
 25 20 20 12 0.045
No. of Specimens (a) 0.09 (b) 0.07 (c) 0.07 (d)
0.08 10 0.04
20 0.06 0.06
0.07 15 15 0.035

Percentage
0.05 0.05 8 0.03
15 0.06
0.05 10 0.04 10 0.04 6 0.025
10 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02
0.03 4 0.015
0.02 0.02
5 0.02 5 5
2
0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-5 -10 0-15 5-20 0-30 30 .75 1.0 1.5 2.0 <3 3-4 4-5 5-8 50 60 70 80
0.2 5 1 1 2 > .5
<0 0.5-0 0.75- 1.0- 1.5- 40- 50- 60- 60-
P/(fc'Ag) [%] Tested fc' [ksi] Tested fyt [ksi]
M/(Vlw)
35 25 50 15
(e) (f) 0.09 (g) 0.18 (h)
0.12
No. of Specimens

30 0.08 0.16 0.05

20 40
25 0.1 0.07 0.14

Percentage
10 0.04
20 0.08 15 0.06 30 0.12
0.05 0.1 0.03
15 0.06 10 0.04 20 0.08
0.03 0.06 5 0.02
10 0.04
5 0.02 10 0.04 0.01
5 0.02 0.01 0.02
0 r ed ll 0l 0 0 0 0 0 0
ula ell ped hap rbe al 16 20 .25 .30 .40 .70
angBarb -sha r L-s lf Ba ing W 4-8
2
8-1 12- 16- 1 2 8-0 5-0 0-0 0-0
Re
ct
H - o Ha W 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4
T Number of curtains
Cross-section Shape lw/tw t [%]
of web reinforcement
20 20 25 25
(i) 0.07 (j) 0.07 (k) 0.09 (l) 0.09
No. of Specimens

20 0.08 20 0.08
15 0.06 15 0.06
0.07 0.07

Percentage
0.05 0.05 15 0.06 15 0.06
10 0.04 10 0.04 0.05 0.05
0.03 0.03 10 0.04 10 0.04
0.03 0.03
5 0.02 5 0.02
5 0.02 5 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0
.25 .30 .40 .70 -1.
0 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 0 0 0 .0 6.0 0-8.0 -10.0 0-15. 0-23
0-0 .25-0 .30-0 .40-0 - - - -4. -6. .0-8. .0-10 -
0.1 0 0 0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0- 2.8 4.0 6 8 2.6 6. 8.0 10. 15.
l [%] l,BE [%] Vn/Acv÷f'c(psi) V@Mn/Acv÷f'c(psi)
Fig. 5-11–Histograms of the dataset of 53 shear-controlled wall/pier tests.

5.4. Axial Failure of Flexure-Controlled Walls

5.4.1. Special Walls

Abdullah and Wallace (2019) studied the drift capacity at 20% lateral strength loss of flexure-

controlled walls with special boundary elements (SEBs) and found that drift capacity is primarily

a function of: (1) ratio of wall neutral axis depth-to-width of the flexural compression zone, c / b ,

where c is computed for an extreme fiber concrete compressive strain of 0.003, (2) ratio of the wall

length-to-width of the flexural compression zone, lw / b , (3) ratio of the maximum wall shear stress,

vmax / f c' , and (4) the configuration of the boundary transverse reinforcement used, e.g., use of

129
overlapping hoops versus a single perimeter hoop with intermediate crossties. They also found that

a combined slenderness parameter, λb = ( lw / b) ( c / b) = lwc / b2 , provides an efficient means to

account for the slenderness of the cross section ( lw / b) and the slenderness of the flexural

compression zone of the cross section ( c / b) . In addition to wall cross-section geometry, this

parameter, through depth of neutral axis (c), considers the impact of concrete and reinforcement

material strengths, axial load, and quantities and distributions of longitudinal reinforcement at the

wall boundaries and in the web (Wallace, 1994).

The reduced subset of 88 flexure-controlled special walls described in Fig. 5-9 was studied to

identify parameters that primarily influence lateral drift capacity at axial failure. The results

showed that, similar to drift capacity at 20% lateral strength loss, λb = lwc / b2 significantly

influences drift capacity at axial failure, with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.70, as shown in Fig.

5-12, with drift capacity varying on average between 1.5 and 4.0% as λb reduces from 100 to zero.

0.06 0.06
88 Wall tests
0.05 Correlation coefficient, R, = 0.70 0.05
Drift Capacity, Da/hw
Drift Capacity, Da/hw

0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 6
lb = lwc/b2 lb =
wall drift capacity at axial failure versus λb for special walls.
Fig. 5-12–Variation of0.06
Axial Collapse-Non-spiral: P/A f' < 0.10 g c 0.06
Axial Collapse-Non-spiral: P/Agf'c " 0.10
0.05
20% lateral strength loss-spiral: 0.7<P/Agf'c £ 0.13
0.045
Drift Capacity

Predicted Da/hw

0.04 130
0.03
0.03
0.015
0.02
Additionally, although the axial load is included in the λb = lwc / b2 parameter through depth of

neutral axis, c, it was found that the level of axial load has a significant impact on post-strength

loss deformation capacity, as shown in Fig. 5-13. This is because, once strength degradation

initiates, the level of axial load accelerates the rate of deterioration such that walls with high

P / Ag f c′ have a steep post-peak slope on the backbone relation shown in Fig. 5-1, where little to

no additional deformation capacity beyond the Ultimate point is achieved prior to axial failure (i.e.,

no residual strength plateau). Insufficient data existed to evaluate the impact of using overlapping

hoops in the boundary elements, as opposed to a single perimeter hoop with crossties, on drift

capacity at axial failure. Segura and Wallace (2018a) reported that providing lateral restraint in the

form of crossties for the web longitudinal reinforcement in the plastic hinge region increased the

rotation capacity at axial failure; however, tests on walls with such detailing are rare and would

not allow statistical analysis. Further data are needed to help explain the role of detailing variables

(e.g., overlapping hoops versus a perimeter hoops with crossties in the boundary elements and

lateral restraint in the form of 135º-135º crossties in the web) and loading protocol (i.e., number

of cycles) on deformation capacity at axial failure.

Linear regression analyses performed on the dataset of 88 special walls, including λb and

P / Ag f c′ as predictor variables, resulted in the following predictive equation for mean drift

capacity at axial failure ( Δ a / hw ):

Δa ⎛ l c ⎞ ⎛ P ⎞
hw
( % ) = 4.10 − ⎜ w 2 ⎟ − ⎜ 2.5
⎝ 40b ⎠ ⎝
⎟ ≥ 1.5%
Ag f c' ⎠
(Eq. 5-3)

131
 0.06 P/Agf'c < 0.10
88 Wall tests
Correlation coefficient, R, = 0.70 0.1 < P/Agf'c < 0.20
0.05

Drift Capacity, Da/hw

P/Agf'c " 0.20
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.06 P/Agf'c < 0.10
0
ent, R,60= 0.70
40 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 < P/Ag120
80 0.1 100 f'c < 0.20
0.05
Drift Capacity, Da/hw

lb = lwc/b2 lb = lwc/b2 P/Agf'c " 0.20

Fig. 5-13–Variation of wall drift capacity at axial failure as a function of including λb and
l Collapse-Non-spiral: P/Agf'c < 0.100.04 0.06
l Collapse-Non-spiral: P/Agf'c " 0.10 P / Ag f c′ for special walls.
lateral strength loss-spiral: 0.7<P/Agf'c £ 0.13
0.03 0.045
Predicted Da/hw

0.03
0.02predicted with Eq. 5-3 are compared with experimental drift capacities for the
The drift capacities
0.015 Mean = 1.03

0.01 walls in Fig. 5-14. The mean ofSTDV

dataset of 88 special ratios
COV = 0.19
of predicted-to-experimental values,
= 0.20

0
0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06
standard deviation (STDV), and coefficient of variation (COV) are 1.03, 0.20, and 0.19,
0 Experimental Da/hw

4010060 120 respectively,

80 100 over
120the 0 20of drift values,
entire range 40 from60roughly 80 100
1.5 to 4.5% drift. 120
lb = lwc/b2 2 lb = lwc/b
Agf'c < 0.10
0.06
Agf'c " 0.10
al: 0.7<P/Agf'c £ 0.13
0.045
Predicted Da/hw

0.03

0.015 Mean = 1.03

STDV = 0.20
COV = 0.19
0
0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06 0
Experimental Da/hw
Fig. 5-14–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-3) with experimental drift capacities.
80 100 120
132
5.4.2. Ordinary Walls

After studying the reduced dataset of ordinary walls (Fig. 5-10), it was found that, similar to special

walls, λb = lwc / b2 and P / Ag f c′ significantly influence drift capacity at axial failure. Fig. 5-15

shows the variation of drift capacity at axial failure as a function of λb = lwc b2 and P Ag f c' for the

dataset of 68 ordinary walls. The trends of Fig. 5-15 are generally similar to those of Fig. 5-13, with

two main differences. First, at low values of λb = lwc b2 , the drift capacity values of the ordinary

walls are lower than those of special walls by about 0.01 drift, which highlights the impact of

special detailing on the performance of structural walls. Second, the slope of the trends of Fig.

5-15 are steeper than those of Fig. 5-13. This is likely because an increase in value of λb = lwc b2

means an increase in compression demands, and having more compression demands in such walls

means faster deterioration of both lateral and axial strength due to lack of proper detailing to

restrain bar buckling and prevent concrete curushing.

Application of linear regression analyses for the dataset of 68 ordinary wall tests, including

λb = lwc b2 and P Ag f c' as variables that significantly impact lateral drift capacity, resulted in the

following predictive equation for drift capacity at axial failure:

Δa ⎛ l c ⎞ ⎛ P ⎞
hw
( % ) = 3.65 − ⎜ w 2 ⎟ − ⎜ 3.5
⎝ 30b ⎠ ⎝
⎟ ≥ 0.8%
Ag f c' ⎠
(Eq. 5-4)

Comparison of predicted drift capacities from Eq. 5-4 with experimentally obtained drift capacities

at axial failure from the dataset of 68 ordinary walls results in a mean of 1.01 and COV of 0.20

(Fig. 5-16).

133
 0.05 P/Agf'c < 0.10
0.05 0.1 < P/Agf'c < 0.20

Drift Capacity, Da/hw

0.04 P/Agf'c " 0.20
0.04
Predicted Da/hw

0.03 0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01 Mean = 1.01
STDV = 0.21
COV = 0.20
0 0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Experimental Da/hw
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
lb = lwc/b2
Fig. 5-15–Variation of drift capacity at axial failure as a function of λb and P / Ag f c′ for
ordinary walls.

0.05
0.05

Drift Capacity, Da/hw

0.04
0.04
Predicted Da/hw

0.03 0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01 Mean = 1.01
STDV = 0.21
COV = 0.20
0 0.01
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Experimental Da/hw
0
Fig. 5-16–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-4) with experimental drift capacities.
0 20 4

For walls with asymmetric cross-sections, such as T-shaped, L-shaped, and half-barbell cross-

sections (Fig. 5-17), the drift capacity should be evaluated for both directions of loading (i.e.,

flange/barbell in compression and web in compression), and the larger drift value should be

used to assess axial failure. This is because, for cases that result in a large b, e.g., where the

134
barbell or flange of the wall is in compression (low λb ), drift capacity is relatively large

(Abdullah and Wallace, 2019). Additionally, it is unlikely that these walls lose axial load

capacity since tests observations have shown that, although the web experiences extensive

damage, the flange or the barbell remains mostly intact (unless it is subjected to a bi-directional

loading) and thus could carry the axial load (Fig. 5-18).

Fig. 5-17–Asymmetric wall cross-sections.

Fig. 5-18–Damage in walls tests with flanged and barbell shaped cross-sections.

135
5.5. Axial Failure of Shear-Controlled Walls and Piers

5.5.1. Shear Friction Model - Background

Research conducted by Elwood and Moehle (2005) suggested that the axial load-carrying capacity

of shear-controlled RC columns can be investigated using a shear friction model, where the axial

load supported by a column must be transferred across a diagonal crack through shear friction.

Wallace et al. (2008) extended the model by Elwood and Moehle (2005) to investigate the axial

failure of shear-controlled wall piers, where the critical crack is assumed to extend diagonally over

the clear height of the pier (Fig. 5-19), and the axial failure is assumed to result from sliding along

the critical crack plane when the shear friction demand exceeds the shear friction capacity. Using

vertical and horizontal equilibrium for the free body diagram in Fig. 5-19 and the classical shear

friction model of ACI 318 (i.e., Vsf = µN), they developed the following model for axial capacity

of shear-controlled walls and wall piers (Eq. 5-5). Further details of formulation of Eq. 5-5 can be

found in Wallace et al. (2008).

⎛A f h ⎞ ⎛ 1+ µ m tan θ ⎞
P = ⎜ st yt − Vr ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (Eq. 5-5)
⎝ sv ⎠ ⎝ tan θ − µ m ⎠

Where P is the axial load demand on the wall, Ast fyt is the force developed in the web horizontal

bars crossing the critical crack (Fig. 5-19), sv is the vertical spacing of the horizontal web bars, Vr

is the residual lateral shear resistance at the onset of axial failure, h is the height over which the

diagonal crack extends, θ is the angle of the critical crack relative to the horizontal plane, and µm

is the coefficient of friction which includes aggregate interlock and reinforcement dowel action.

136
 P
M V

q sh

sv
Astfyt
h Critical
crack

N
Vsf
Vd
dc Ps
Fig. 5-19–Free body diagram of a cracked wall pier.

By rearranging Eq. 5-5, the coefficient of friction can be calculated as

Ast f yt h 1 V
P− + r
sv tan θ tan θ
µm = (Eq. 5-6)
P A f h
+ st yt − Vr
tan θ sv

For columns, Elwood and Moehle (2005) and Wallace et al. (2008) were able to develop a

relationship between µm determined from Eq. 5-6 and observed drift capacity at axial failure based

on limited sets of test data of shear- and flexure-shear-controlled columns. The data revealed that

µm decreases as the drift ratio at axial failure increases, which makes sense, and that the relationship

can be captured by a linear fit in the form of Eq. 5-7:

⎛Δ ⎞
µm = C1 − C2 ⎜ a ⎟ ≥ 0 (Eq. 5-7)
⎝ h⎠

Where Δ a / h is the lateral drift ratio at axial failure, and the coefficients C1 and C2 define the

intercept (shear friction coefficient at zero drift ratio) and slope (reduction in shear friction
137
coefficient due to increase in lateral drift) of the trend. Substitution of Eq. 5-7 into Eq. 5-5, and

rearranging, results in the following general expression for drift capacity at axial failure:

Δ a (1+ C1 tan θ ) + ( P / C3 ) ( C1 − tan θ )

= (Eq. 5-8)
hw C2 ( P / C3 + tan θ )

In which

Ast f yt hw
C3 = − Vr (Eq. 5-9)
sv

Due to the lack of experimental data of walls, Wallace et al. (2008) used results from Elwood and

Moehle (2005) and additional column test data to propose values for C1 and C2 (i.e., C1 = 1.6 and

C2 = 30 or 50). The proposed values produced relatively high estimates of lateral drift capacity at

axial failure, in the range of 0.03 to 0.10, for shear-controlled walls and wall piers, suggesting that

axial failure is unlikely. Therefore, the following section provides a more detailed assessment of

the model and its assumptions using experimental data of wall and pier tests described in Fig. 5-11.

5.5.2. Shear Friction Model – Calibration and Validation

In the following section, the experimental results from the dataset of shear-controlled walls

described in Fig. 5-11 are used to provide a more detailed assessment of the shear friction model,

particularly with respect to the relation used for shear friction versus lateral drift capacity, as well

as critical crack angle and residual lateral strength. The dataset includes 28 walls with diagonal

tension failure (with no flexural yielding), 17 walls with diagonal compression failure (or web

crushing with no flexural yielding), and eight walls with flexure-shear failures (flexural yielding

prior to diagonal shear failure), six of which are Japanese wing wall tests (i.e., large and generally

well detailed columns with thin wing walls on one or both side of the column, e.g., see Kabeyasawa

138
et al., 2008). Walls that fail in sliding shear at the base typically have no or low axial loads and

low longitudinal reinforcement ratios, and they tend to slide along the shear plane at the base,

leading to sequential fracture of some of the longitudinal bars crossing the shear plane

(Ramarozatovo et al., 2016), while the wall portion above the shear plane remains relatively intact;

therefore, axial failure is unlikely. Therefore, axial failure of shear-friction-controlled walls is not

addressed in this study.

Review of the results of the dataset of 53 shear-controlled walls revealed the following three major

observations:

Critical diagonal crack: The critical diagonal crack generally extends diagonally over the clear

height of the wall or pier when aspect ratio (hw/lw) is equal to, or smaller than, 1.5 (i.e., crack angle

θ ≤ 56º), especially for diagonal tension-controlled walls, which is consistent with post-earthquake

reconnaissance observations [e.g., Fig. 5-20(a) and (b)]. However, for walls with hw/lw greater than

1.5, experimental evidence indicates that the critical crack extends diagonally over a height that is

approximately 1.5 times the wall length, i.e., θ ≈ 56º [e.g., Fig. 5-20(c) and (d)]. Therefore, the

critical crack angle is limited to be less than, or equal to, 56º.

139
 Fig. 5-20–Angle of critical diagonal shear cracks observed from experimental tests and
earthquake reconnaissance: (a) Pier tests by Massone (2006); (b) Five-story building in Dungshr,
Taiwan, after 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake (Wallace et al., 2008); (c) Wall test by Flores (2007); (d)
Wall test by Bimschas (2010).

Residual lateral shear resistance (Vr): When axial failure occurs, the residual lateral shear

resistance (Vr) typically is close to zero (only three out of the 53 wall tests in the dataset showed

residual lateral strength, ranging from 10% to 30% of the nominal shear strength, Vn). Wallace et

al. (2008) performed sensitivity analyses to highlight the impact of residual lateral strength on drift

capacity at axial failure and observed that lateral drift ratios are reduced modestly where Vr is taken

as 0.2Vn, as opposed to no residual strength. Although in the results presented herein the residual

lateral resistance is taken as zero, consideration of residual shear strength of equal to 10 or 20% of

Vn for walls with low axial loads (e.g., < 0.05 Agf’c) would introduce a modest level of conservatism

in the results predicted using the shear friction model.

Coefficient of friction (µm): Similar to columns, µm calculated using Eq. 5-6 correlates well with

Δ a / h and failure mode. Fig. 5-21 presents the relationship between µm and the observed Δ a / h

for the different failure modes and Fig. 5-21(a) and Fig. 5-21(b) show linear and logarithmic trends

fitted to the data, respectively. Fig. 5-21(a) reveals that C1 is about 1.1 for walls with diagonal

tension and flexure-shear failure modes and 0.70 for walls with diagonal compression failure mode,

that the trends for the diagonal tensions- and compression-controlled walls have the same slope

(i.e., C2 = 40), and that the trend for the flexure-shear-controlled walls has a significantly smaller

slope (i.e., C2 = 8). Alternatively, the logarithmic trends shown in Fig. 5-21(b) can be used, which

result in higher shear friction coefficients at zero or near zero drift ratios. However, axial failure

at drift ratios smaller than 0.5% might be unlikely, as it is less than the lateral drift ratio

140
 corresponding to yield. Therefore, for ease of implementation of µm in Eq. 5-8, the shear friction

variables ( C1 and C2 ) associated with the linear trends are selected, as shown in Table 5-1. It

should be noted that relatively few tests are available to derive the relationship between µm and

Δ a / h for flexure-shear-controlled walls, and most of the test results are from tests of wing walls.

The resulting trend line shown in Fig. 5-21 for this case is very flat and would produce significant

estimates of drift capacity. This result is shown for completeness; however, the author does not

recommend using this trend until additional data are available to sufficiently validate the model.

2.0 2.0 Walls Failed in Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7 Walls)

Coefficient of Friction, mm

Walls Failed in Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7 Walls)

mm = 1.06 - 8.0(Da/hw) mm = -0.14 - 0.27ln(Da/hw)
Walls Failed in Diagonal Tension (28 Walls)
1.5
Walls Failed in Diagonal Tension (28 Walls)
mm = 1.1 - 40(Da/hw)
1.5 mm = -1.9 - 0.57ln(Da/hw)
Walls Failed in Diagonal Compression (17 Walls) Walls Failed in Diagonal Compression (17 Walls)
mm = 0.70 - 40(Da/hw) mm = -2.40 - 0.57ln(Da/hw)
1.0 1.0
* 0.5 *
0.5

Mean = 1.00 0.0 0.0

STDV = 0.19 (b)
COV = 0.19 (a)
-0.5 -0.5
0.06 0.08 0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06 0.075 0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06 0.075
al Da/hw Drift Capacity, Da/hw Drift Capacity, Da/hw
Fig. 5-21–Shear friction relations derived from wall tests: (a) linear fits to data; (b) logarithmic
0.04
fits to data. (* the green diamond-shaped data point is a wall with only a slight
Strengthyielding
Loss-Spiral (19of
0.04 20% or Less Walls)
xure-Diagonal Tension (7 Walls) longitudinal bars) Axial Collapse-Non-spiral (45 Walls)
agonal Tension (28 Walls) Axial Collapse-Non-spiral
0.03
Drift Capacity

hw = -0.0072ln(P/Agf'c) - 0.0023 0.03

Predicted Da/hw

agonal Compression (17 Walls)

hw = 0.0065ln(P/Agf'c) + 0.0003 0.02
0.02 Table 5-1. Shear friction variable in Eq. 5-4
Walls
Expected failure modea 0.01 C1 C2
0.01 Mean = 1.00
STDV = 0.28
Diagonal tension 1.1 40
COV = 0.28 0.00
0
Diagonal 0 0.700.1 0.240 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.01 0.02 compression
0.03 0.04
Axial Load Ratio, P/(Agf'c)
d Ratio, P/(Agf'c) Experimental Da/hw
Flexure-shear 1.1 8

141
 a
the limited data presented here suggests that shear-controlled walls
with can be assumed as diagonal-compression-controlled.

The drift capacities (∆a/hw) predicted with Eq. 5-8 using the variables given in Table 5-1 are

compared with the experimental drift capacities of the 53-test dataset in Fig. 5-22. The mean of

ratios of predicted-to-experimental values, STDV, and COV are 1.00, 0.19, and 0.19, respectively,

over the entire range of drift values, from roughly 0.005 to 0.70 drift.

0.08 2.0

Coefficient of Friction, mm
Walls Failed in Flexure-Diagonal Tension
mm = 1.06 - 8.0(Da/hw)
Walls Failed in Diagonal Tension (28 Wa
1.5 mm = 1.1 - 40(Da/hw)
0.06
Predicted Da/hw

Walls Failed in Diagonal Compression (17

mm = 0.70 - 40(Da/hw)
1.0
0.04 *
0.5
0.02 Mean = 1.00 0.0
STDV = 0.19
COV = 0.19 (a)
0 -0.5
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06
Experimental Da/hw Drift Capacity, Da/hw
Fig. 5-22–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-8) with experimental drift capacities.
0.08 0.04
Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7 Walls)
Drift Capacity, Da/hw

Diagonal Tension (28 Walls)

0.05 Da/hw = -0.0072ln(P/Agf'c) - 0.0023 0.03
Predicted Da/hw

Diagonal Compression (17 Walls)

0.04
Da/hw = 0.0065ln(P/Agf'c) + 0.0003
5.5.3. Simplified Model 0.02
0.03
Wing Walls
For the purpose of preliminary analysis,
0.02 a simplified drift capacity model is developed that is only
0.01 Mean = 1
0.01
a function of axial load ratio. Axial load is one of the primary terms in the shear friction model STDV =
COV = 0
0.00 0
(Eq. 5-8) and is used to assess the drift capacity of shear-controlled walls in ASCE 41-17. 0 The
0.01 0.02 0.03
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Axial Load Ratio, P/(Agf'c) Experimental Da/hw
observed drift capacities at axial failure of the wall tests are plotted against P / Ag f c' in Fig. 5-23,

142
along with logarithmic trend lines fitted to the data. Trend lines shown in Fig. 5-23 for walls with

diagonal tension and compression failure modes are only slightly different, and there is a

significant scatter in the data for walls with flexure-shear failure modes. It is noted that there are

flexure-shear failure modes, five which are2.0

only seven data points with 0.08 wing walls; therefore,
Walls Failedthe

Coefficient of Friction, mm
in Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7 W
mm = 1.06 - 8.0(Da/hw)
Walls Failed in Diagonal Tension (28 Walls)
data for wing walls are not considered. 1.5 mm = 1.1 - 40(Da/hw)
0.06
Predicted Da/hw Walls Failed in Diagonal Compression (17 Wall
mm = 0.70 - 40(Da/hw)
Extrapolating the trends in Fig. 5-23 indicates that drift capacity reaches1.0about zero at P / A f of g c
'

0.04 *
'
0.5
approximately 0.85 (i.e., axial stress of ~ 0.85 f c ), which is commonly used as the maximum pure
0.02 Mean = 1.00 0.0
axial compression strength of compression members STDV = 0.19
(ACI 318-19), ignoring(a)
the presence of the
COV = 0.19
0 -0.5
longitudinal reinforcement. 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06 0
Experimental Da/hw Drift Capacity, Da/hw

0.08 0.04
Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7 Walls)
Drift Capacity, Da/hw

Diagonal Tension (28 Walls)

0.05 Da/hw = -0.0072ln(P/Agf'c) - 0.0023 0.03

Predicted Da/hw
Diagonal Compression (17 Walls)
0.04
Da/hw = 0.0065ln(P/Agf'c) + 0.0003
0.03 0.02
Wing Walls
0.02
0.01 Mean = 1.00
0.01 STDV = 0.28
COV = 0.28
0.00 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0
Axial Load Ratio, P/(Agf'c) Experimental Da/hw
Fig. 5-23–Drift capacity of shear-controlled walls as a function of P / Ag f c' .

An average logarithmic fit through the data results in the following predictive equation for ∆a/hw

of shear-controlled walls and piers (Eq. 5-10):

Δa
hw
(
= −0.006ln P Ag fc' ) (Eq. 5-10)

143
 2.0 2.0 Walls Failed in Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7

Coefficient of Friction, mm
Walls Failed in Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7 Walls)
mm = 1.06 - 8.0(Da/hw) mm = -0.14 - 0.27ln(Da/hw)
Walls Failed in Diagonal Tension (28 Walls)
The drift capacities predicted
1.5 with Eq. 5-10 are compared with experimental
Walls Failed in Diagonal Tension (28 Walls)
m = 1.1 - 40(D /h )
1.5 drift capacitiesmmin Fig.
= -1.9 - 0.57ln(D /h ) a w
m a w

Walls Failed in Diagonal Compression (17 Walls) Walls Failed in Diagonal Compression (17 W
mm = -2.40 - 0.57ln(Da/hw)
5-24 for the walls with diagonal
1.0 tension or compression failures. The mean
1.0 of ratios of predicted-
mm = 0.70 - 40(Da/hw)

to-experimental values, STDV, and COV are

* 1.00, 0.28, and 0.28, respectively. * the
0.5 It is noted that
0.5
dispersion of the simplified model is significantly higher than that of 0.0
the shear friction model,
Mean = 1.00 0.0
STDV = 0.19 (b)
which
COVexplains (a)parameters on drift capacity.
= 0.19 the role of other
-0.5 -0.5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06 0.075 0 0.015 0.03 0.045 0.06
Experimental Da/hw Drift Capacity, Da/hw Drift Capacity, Da/hw

0.04
8 0.04 20% or Less Strength Loss-Spiral (
Flexure-Diagonal Tension (7 Walls) Axial Collapse-Non-spiral (45 Wal
Diagonal Tension (28 Walls) Axial Collapse-Non-spiral
5 0.03

Drift Capacity
Da/hw = -0.0072ln(P/Agf'c) - 0.0023 0.03
Predicted Da/hw

Diagonal Compression (17 Walls)

4
Da/hw = 0.0065ln(P/Agf'c) + 0.0003 0.02
3 0.02
Wing Walls
2 0.01
0.01 Mean = 1.00
1 STDV = 0.28
COV = 0.28 0.00
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0.8 0
Axial Load Ratio, P/(Agf'
Axial Load Ratio, P/(Agf'c) Experimental Da/hw
Fig. 5-24–Comparison of predicted drift capacities (Eq. 5-10) with experimental drift capacities.

5.6. Walls with Spirally Reinforced Columns

Use of walls with barbell shaped cross-sections (i.e., walls with a thin web and large columns at

boundary regions) was common in low- to medium-rise concrete buildings till late 1980s, where

the boundary columns were typically reinforced with spiral transverse reinforcement spaced at, or

smaller than, 3 in. center-to-center (Wang et al., 1975). Post-earthquake reconnaissance

observations (e.g., 1971 San Fernando earthquake) has revealed that columns reinforced with

closely spaced spiral reinforcement performed significantly better than columns with non-spiral

transverse reinforcement. Although test results of axial failure of walls with spirally reinforced

144
boundary columns are not available in the database, it is plausible that such walls have greater drift

capacities than walls reinforced with non-spirally reinforced boundary columns or non-barbell

shaped walls, and that use of expressions proposed earlier for such walls might result in

conservative drift values for axial failure. Nonetheless, to provide some insight into performance

of these walls, the UCLA-RCWalls database was searched, and subsets of 11 and 19 flexure- and

shear-controlled wall tests were identified, respectively. As noted, one key limitation of these tests,

which were mostly conducted in 1990s or earlier, is that they are not tested to axial failure (and in

some cases, only modest lateral strength degradation).

5.6.1. Flexure-Controlled Walls

Review of test results and damage of the 11 flexure-controlled walls revealed that at lateral strength

loss the damage in most cases included concrete cover spalling of the boundary columns and

concrete crushing in the web next to the columns [Fig. 5-25(a)], and in rare cases bar fracture

(fatigue) and concrete crushing in the column cores. This is consistent with post-earthquake

reconnaissance observations of columns reinforced with closely spaced spirals (e.g., 1971 San

Fernando earthquake). Fig. 5-25(b) shows that the drift capacities at ~ 20% lateral strength loss of

these 11 wall tests, which ranges from 2.7 to 5.0% on average (green dots), are comparable with

the trends of Fig. 5-13 (i.e., drift capacities at axial failure of special walls with no spirally

reinforced columns). This is because the closely spaced spirals prevent early strength degradation

due to bar buckling and concrete core crushing. It is also noted that since the width of flexural

compression zone, b, is relatively large for these walls, λb for these 11 tests is equal, or smaller,

than 15. Abdullah and Wallace (2019) found that walls that have λb < 20 can exhibit moderate to

significant post-20% strength loss deformation capacity. Therefore, there is a potential for these

11 tests to develop moderate-to-significant additional drift capacities prior to axial failure.

145


Fig. 5-25–Test results of flexure-controlled walls with spiral transverse reinforcement in the
boundary columns: (a) Damage of a wall tests by Wang et al. (1975) (b) Comparison of drift
capacity of walls with spirally- vs non-spirally reinforced columns.

5.6.2. Shear-Controlled Walls

For the 28 shear-controlled walls, the test results showed that the damage at lateral strength loss

generally includes crushing concrete in the thinner web and in some cases spalling concrete cover

of the columns, as seen in Fig. 5-26(a). However, the core of the boundary columns appears to be

mostly intact and can, therefore, resist axial load. After the web is crushed, it is possible that the

wall becomes flexible and can deform significantly before the columns fail in a sliding shear failure

mode along the crushed plane. Fig. 26(b) compares drift capacities of the 28 tests at either peak

strength or 20% lateral strength loss with drift capacities at axial failure of the walls shown in Fig.

5-23. This figure shows that it is plausible that walls with spirally reinforced columns have larger

drift capacities than those predicted by the shear friction or simplified model presented earlier.

Furthermore, tests results reported by Nakachi et al. (1992) revealed that providing confinement

146
in the form of crossties or closed hoops in the web of barbell-shaped walls results in significantly

increased drift capacity.

Fig. 5-26–Test results of shear-controlled walls with spiral transverse reinforcement in the
boundary columns: (a) Damage of a wall tests by Kabeyasawa and Matsumoto (1992), and (b)
Comparison of drift capacity of walls with spirally- vs non-spirally reinforced columns.

5.7. Conclusions and Recommendations

A comprehensive wall database, UCLA-RCWalls, that includes detailed information on more than

1100 tests reported in the literature was utilized to develop an approach to determine the expected

failure mode for RC structural walls and study axial failure of shear- and flexure-controlled walls.

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions and recommendations are made:

1. Analysis of reported failure modes of about 1000 wall tests indicated that the flexure- and

shear-controlled walls have a shear-to-flexure strength ratio (Vn/V@Mn) > 1.0 and < 1.0,

respectively, whereas walls with failure modes reported as flexure-shear are mainly scattered

between 0.7 < Vn/V@Mn < 1.3.

147
2. Displacement capacity at axial failure of flexure-controlled special structural walls that

generally satisfy the detailing requirements of ACI 318-14, §18.10.6.4, is primarily a function

of λb = lwc / b2 and P / Ag f c' . Depending on these variables, the lateral drift capacity can be as

low as 1.2% and as high as 5.0%. Although the axial load is indirectly included in the

λb = lwc / b2 parameter through depth of neutral axis, c, it was found that the level of axial load

has a significant impact on post-lateral strength loss deformation capacity. This is because,

once strength degradation initiates, the level of axial load accelerates the rate of deterioration

such that walls with high P / Ag f c′ have a steep post-peak slope on the backbone relation,

where little to no additional deformation capacity beyond the deformation at initiation of lateral

strength loss is achieved prior to axial failure (i.e., no residual strength plateau), which is

consistent with observations from column tests.

3. Similar to special walls, it was found that λb = lwc / b2 and P / Ag f c′ significantly influenced

drift capacity at axial failure for flexure-controlled ordinary walls. At low values of

λb = lwc b2 , the drift capacity values of the ordinary walls are lower than those of special

walls by about 0.01 drift, which highlights the impact of special detailing on the performance

of structural walls.

4. Drift capacity equations that depends on λb = lwc / b2 and P / Ag f c′ were developed to predicts

the lateral drift capacity of flexure-controlled walls with special and ordinary detailing, with

mean and coefficient of variation of approximately 1.0 and 0.20, respectively.

5. For flexure-controlled walls with asymmetric cross-sections such as T-shaped, L-shaped, and

half-barbell cross-sections, drift capacity at axial failure is controlled by the case where the

barbell or flange of the wall is in compression (low λb ). Additionally, it is unlikely that these

148
 walls lose axial load capacity since tests observations have shown that, although the web

experiences extensive damage, the flange or the barbell remains mostly intact (unless it is

subjected to a bi-directional loading) and thus could carry the axial load.

6. Further data are needed to help explain the role of detailing variables (e.g., overlapping hoops

versus a perimeter hoops with crossties in the boundary elements and lateral restraint in the

form of 135º-135º crossties in the web) and loading protocol (i.e., number of cycles) on

deformation capacity at axial failure for flexure-controlled walls.

7. Review of the results of the dataset of 53 shear-controlled walls revealed that the critical

diagonal crack generally extends diagonally over the clear height of the wall or pier when

hw/lw≤ 1.5 (i.e., crack angle θ ≤ 56º), which is consistent with post-earthquake reconnaissance

observations. However, for walls with hw/lw greater than 1.5, experimental evidence indicates

the critical crack angle be limited to ≤ 56º.

8. Similar to columns, coefficient of friction (µm) calculated using Eq. 5-6 correlates well with

drift capacity at axial failure ( Δ a / h ) and failure mode. Results from the dataset of 53 shear-

controlled walls were used to derive relations between µm and Δ a / h for walls controlled by

diagonal tension or compression to use in the shear friction model developed by Wallace et al.

(2008). Relatively few tests were available to derive the relationship between µm and Δ a / h

for flexure-shear-controlled walls, and most of the test results were from tests of wing walls.

The resulting trend line shown in Fig. 5-21 for this case is very flat and would produce

significant estimates of drift capacity. This result is shown for completeness; however, the

authors do not recommend using this trend until additional data are available to sufficiently

validate the model.

149
9. Although the results presented in this study for shear-controlled walls indicated that when axial

failure occurs, the residual lateral shear resistance typically is close to zero, consideration of

residual shear strength of equal to 10 or 20% of nominal shear strength for walls with low axial

loads (e.g., < 0.05Agf’c) would introduce a modest level of conservatism in the results predicted

using the shear friction model.

10. Lastly, given that the study is based on test results for individual walls, the predictive

expressions do not take into account the impact of gravity load redistribution and torsional

irregularity on potential for axial failure of the wall and the building. The lack of test data on

complete buildings, either laboratory or in earthquakes, limits these studies.

5.8. Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided, in part, by the National Science Foundation Grant CMMI-

144642, which focused on promoting and enhancing US and international collaboration on

performance assessment of structural wall systems, and ATC Project 78, and the University of

California, Los Angeles. The authors would also like to thank members of ATC 78 Project for

providing thoughtful comments on the proposed approach. Any opinions, findings, and

conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the views of others mentioned here.

150
5.9. References

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W. (2018). “UCLA-RCWalls database for reinforced concrete

structural walls.” Proceedings, 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, June 25-29, Los Angeles, CA.

Abdullah S. A., and Wallace J. W. (2019). “Drift capacity of RC structural walls with special

boundary elements.” ACI Structural Journal, 116(1), 183–194.

ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2019). “Building code requirements for structural concrete.”

ACI 318-19, Farmington Hills, MI, 623 pp.

ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2014). “Building code requirements for structural concrete.”

ACI 318-14, Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.

ACI (American Concrete Institute). (1999). “Building code requirements for structural concrete.”

ACI 318- 99, Detroit, MI, 391 pp.

ACI (American Concrete Institute). (1983). “Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.”

ACI 318-83, Detroit, MI, 155 pp.

ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2017). “Standard requirements for seismic evaluation and

retrofit of existing concrete buildings.” ACI 369.1-17, Farmington Hills, MI, 110 pp.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2017). “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing

buildings.” ASCE/SEI 41-17, Reston, VA, 576 pp.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2016). “Minimum design loads for buildings and

other structures.” ASCE/SEI 7-16, Reston, VA, 690 pp.

Bimschas, M. (2010). “Displacement based seismic assessment of existing bridges in regions of

moderate seismicity.” PhD dissertation, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.

151
Dabbagh, H. (2005). “Strength and ductility of high-strength concrete shear walls under reversed

cyclic loading.” PhD Dissertation, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Dazio, A., Beyer, K., and Bachmann, H. (2009). “Quasi-static cyclic tests and plastic hinge

analysis of RC structural walls.” Engineering Structures, 31(7), 1556–1571.

Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P. (2005). “Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns.” ACI

Structural Journal, 102(4), 578–587.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (1997). “Guidelines to the seismic

rehabilitation of existing buildings.” FEMA 273, Washington, D.C.

Flores, L., Alcocer, S., and Carrillo, J. (2007). “Tests of concrete walls with various aspect ratios

and small steel ratios, to be used for housing.” Proceedings, XVI National Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, Mexico (in Spanish).

Kabeyasawa, T., Tasai, A., and Igarashi, S. (2002). “An economical and efficient method of

strengthening reinforced concrete columns against axial load collapse during major

earthquake.” PEER Report 2002/02, Third US-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based

Earthquake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Kabeyasawa, T., and Matsumoto, K. (1992). “Tests and analyses of ultra-high strength reinforced

concrete shear walls.” Proceedings, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Madrid, Spain, July 19–24, 3291–3296.

Kato, D., and Ohnishi, K. (2002). “Axial load carrying capacity of RC columns under lateral load

reversals.” PEER Report 2002/02, Third US- Japan Workshop on Performance-Based

Earthquake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

152
Looi, D. T. W., and Su, R. K. L. (2018). “Seismic axial collapse of shear damaged heavily

reinforced shear walls experiencing cyclic tension–compression excursions: a modified

Mohr’s axial capacity model.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering,

DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2018.1475314.

Lu, Y., Gultom, R., Henry, R. S., and Ma, Q. T. (2016). “Testing of RC walls to investigate

proposed minimum vertical reinforcement limits in NZS 3101:2006 (A3).” Proceedings,

2016 NZSEE Annual Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Luna, B. N. (2015). “Seismic response of low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls for building

and safety-related nuclear applications.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University at Buffalo, NY.

Massone, L. M. (2006). “RC wall shear–flexure interaction: analytical and experimental

responses.” PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Mestyanek, M. (1986). “The earthquake of resistance of reinforced concrete structural walls of

limited ductility.” MS Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Motter, C. J., Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W. (2018). “Reinforced concrete structural walls

without special boundary elements.” ACI Structural Journal, 115(3), 723-733.

Nakachi, T., Toda, T., and Makita, T. (1992). “Experimental study on deformation capacity of

reinforced concrete shear walls after flexural yielding.” Proceedings, 10th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 19-24, Madrid, Spain, 3231-3236.

Nakamura, T., and Yoshimura, M. (2002). “Gravity load collapse of reinforced concrete columns

with brittle failure modes.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1(1),

21–27.

153
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). (2011). “Seismic design of cast-in-place

concrete special structural walls and coupling beams: a guide for practicing engineers.”

NIST GCR 11-917-11 REV-1, NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, J.E., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G. (1976).

“Earthquake resistant structural walls–tests of isolated walls.” Report to NSF (GI-43880),

Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.

Ousalem, H. (2006). “Experimental and analytical study on axial load collapse assessment and

retrofit of reinforced concrete columns.” PhD Dissertation, The University of Tokyo,

Tokyo, Japan.

Ramarozatovo, R., Hosono, J., Kawai, T., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose T. (2016). “Effects of

construction joints and axial loads on slip behavior of RC shear walls.” International

Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and

Development (IJCSEIERD), 6(4), 1-10.

Salonikis, T., Kappos, A., Tegos, I. and Penelis, G. (1999). “Cyclic load behavior of low-

slenderness reinforced concrete walls: design basis and test results.” ACI Structural.

Journal, 96(4), 649–661.

Sanada, Y., Takahashi, H., and Toyama, H. (2012). “Seismic strengthening of boundary columns

in RC shear walls.” Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sept.

24-28, Lisbon, Portugal.

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J. (2018). “Seismic performance limitations and detailing of

slender reinforced concrete walls.” ACI Structural Journal, 115(3), 849-860.

154
Takahashi, S., Yoshida, K., Ichinose, T., Sanada, Y., Matsumoto, K., Fukuyama, H., and Suwada,

H. (2013). “Flexural drift capacity of reinforced concrete wall with limited confinement.”

ACI Structural Journal, 110(1), 95-104.

Tasai, A. (2000). “Residual axial capacity of reinforced concrete columns during shear

deterioration.” PEER Report 2000/10, Second US-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based

Earthquake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Tasai, A. (1999). “Residual axial capacity and restorability of reinforced concrete columns

damaged due to earthquake.” PEER Report 1999/10, US-Japan Workshop on Performance-

Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Pacific

Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Thomsen, J. H. and Wallace, J. W. (1995). “Displacement-based design of reinforced concrete

structural walls: experimental studies of walls with rectangular and T-shaped cross

sections.” Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y.

Tran, T. A., and Wallace, J. W. (2015). “Cyclic testing of moderate-aspect-ratio reinforced

concrete structural walls.” ACI Structural Journal, 112(6), 653–666.

Tran, C. (2010). “Experimental and analytical studies on the seismic behavior of reinforced

concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement.” PhD Dissertation, Nanyang

Technological University, Singapore.

Uchida, Y., and Uezono, Y. (2003). “Method of judging collapse of SRC and RC columns failed

by shear and axial force.” Proceedings, ASSCCA’03 International Conference Advances

in Structures (ASCCS-7), June 22–25, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1209–1215.

155
Wallace, J. W., Elwood, K. J., and Massone, L. M. (2008). “Investigation of the axial load

capacity for lightly reinforced wall piers.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(9),

1548-1557.

Wallace, J. W. (1994). “A new methodology for seismic design of RC shear walls.” Journal of

Structural Engineering, 120(3), 863–884.

Wang, T. Y., Betero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1975). “Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete

framed walls.” Report No. EERC 75-23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,

University of California, Berkeley.

Yoshimura, M., and Yamanaka, N. (2000). “Ultimate limit state of RC columns.” PEER Report

2000/10, Second US-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

156
CHAPTER 6. Structural Wall Classification Based Failure Mode

6.1. Abstract

The shear and flexural behaviors of a reinforced concrete (RC) structural wall are accounted for in

a lumped plasticity model using shear (translational) and flexural (rotational) springs, respectively.

In a nonlinear analysis, these springs will exhibit either linear or nonlinear behavior depending on

the dominant wall behavior mode. Therefore, it is important to quantitatively distinguish between

flexure-controlled (generally slender) walls and shear-controlled (generally low-rise or squat)

walls/piers. ASCE 41-17 Tables 10-19 and 10-20 (Structural wall tables) include “components

controlled by flexure” and “components controlled by shear” in the table captions, but the standard

does not provide the user with an approach to determine whether a wall is controlled by flexure or

shear. The commentary of ASCE 41-17 (C10.7.1) defines slender and squat walls as walls with

aspect ratio (hw/lw) ≥ 3.0 and ≤ 1.5, respectively, and walls with intermediate aspect ratios are

defined as flexure-shear-controlled walls. However, the results presented show that shear span

ratio (heff/lw), which is similar to hw/lw, is not a good indicator of the expected wall dominant

behavior and failure mode. Therefore, an approach, which is based on the shear-to-flexure strength

ratio (VyE/V@MyE), is proposed using results from a large database, known as UCLA-RCWalls

database. The proposed approach accurately captures the predominant behavior and failure mode

of walls.

6.2. Background of ASCE 41-17 / ACI 369-17 Methodology

In ASCE 41-17 (§ 7.5.1.2) and ACI 369-17 (§7.2.4.1) Standards, both shear and flexure actions in

RC structural walls are treated as deformation-controlled actions, with acceptance criteria

157
tabulated for linear approaches (deformation-based m factors) and nonlinear approaches (plastic

hinge rotations). Other actions, such as axial, shear sliding, as well as shear in walls with a

transverse reinforcement ratio < 0.0015 (ASCE 41-17 § 10.7.2.3) and flexure in walls where the

cracking moment strength exceeds the yield strength (ASCE 41-17 § 10.7.2.3), are currently

treated as force-controlled actions, unless component testing is performed to demonstrate

otherwise. The approach presented herein for wall classification based on expected dominant

behavior (shear or flexure) and failure mode does not result in changes to the modeling parameters

for force and deformation-controlled actions.

ASCE 41-17 §7.5.1.3 also explicitly denotes whether to use expected or lower-bound strengths

based on whether an action is classified as deformation- or force-controlled. For evaluating the

behavior of deformation-controlled actions, expected strength is used, whereas for evaluating the

behavior of force-controlled actions, a lower bound estimate of strength is used. Because wall

shear and flexure actions are generally treated as deformation-controlled actions, the proposed

classification is based on tested (expected) material strengths. The ASCE 41-17 and ACI 369-17

standards use the notation of MyE to denote wall nominal moment strength associated with expected

material properties obtained consistent with ACI 318-14 approach for Mn, using expected material

strengths. The notations MyE and cE, which imply the use of expected material properties, are used

hereafter instead of the ACI 318-14 notation for nominal moment strength, Mn, and the associated

depth of neutral axis, c, respectively.

6.3. Wall Database–UCLA-RCWalls

The database currently contains detailed information and test results on more than 1000 wall tests

reported in the literature (Abdullah and Wallace, 2018). The database includes three major clusters
158
of data: 1) detailed information about the test specimen and loading protocols, 2) test results, e.g.,

backbone relations and failure modes; and 3) computed data, e.g., moment-curvature relationships

and wall shear strength parameters.

The reported failure modes are classified in the database as either flexure failure modes, i.e., bar

buckling and concrete crushing, bar fracture, or global or local lateral instability (Fig. 6-1), shear

failure modes, i.e., diagonal tension, diagonal compression (web crushing), or shear sliding at the

base (Fig. 6-2), flexure-shear failure modes, i.e., yielding in flexure prior to failing in one of the

shear failure modes (Fig. 6-3), and lap-splice failure mode. Wall not tested to some level of lateral

strength loss are flagged as “not tested to failure”. The authors did their best to validate that the

reported failure mode was consistent with the observed wall response and damage before recording

that information in the database.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6-1–Wall flexural failure modes: (a) bar buckling and concrete crushing (Thomsen and
Wallace, 1995), (b) bar fracture (Dazio et al., 2009), and (c) lateral instability (Thomsen and
Wallace, 1995).

159
 (a) (b) (c)
Fig. 6-2–Wall shear failure modes: (a) diagonal tension (Mestyanek, 1986), (b) diagonal
compression (Dabbagh, 2005), and (c) shear-sliding (Luna, 2015).

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6-3–Wall flexure-shear failure modes: (a) flexure-diagonal tension (Tran, 2012), (b) flexure-
diagonal compression (Oesterle et al., 1976), and (c) flexure-shear-sliding (Salonikios et al.,
1999).

Furthermore, the database contains computed data for both flexural and shear responses.

Analytical moment-curvature ( M − φ ) analysis was performed for each wall test using tested

material properties and the sustained axial load if present, and assuming 1) linear strain gradient

(plane sections), 2) compressive stress-strain behavior for unconfined concrete given by

Hognestad (1951) in Fig. 6-4(a), and 3) steel stress-strain relationship given in Fig. 6-4(b), where

ey, esh, and eu are steel strains at yield, initiation of strain hardening, and peak strength, respectively.

Although the moment-curvature response of each wall is available in a spreadsheet, values of

nominal moment strength (Mn) and depth of neutral axis (c) at concrete compressive strain of 0.003
160
 Shear Sliding

VTest/V@Mn 1 4

M/Vlw
0.5 and first yield moment strength (M ) and the corresponding curvatures (i.e., e at M and e at M )
y 2 n n y y

are recorded in the database.

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Vn,ACI/V@Mn 0 1 2 3
Vn/V@Mult

2
Shear Flexure
f'c
0.15f'c
1.5

VTest/V@Mult
Stress

Flexure
0.5 Flexure-Shear
Shear: Diagonal T
eo = 2f'c/Ec 0.004 Strain Shear Sliding
(a) Concrete (b) Reinforcement
0
Fig. 6-4–Stress-strain relationships used to compute moment-curvature
0 relations.
1 2 3
Vn/V@Mult

As noted, Shear:
Flexure (506) the Diagonal
steel stress-strain
Compression (102) relationship
Shear Sliding (30) used to produce the moment-curvature relations
Flexure Shear: Diagonal Compression Shear Sliding

Shear-Flexure (219) Shear: Diagonal Tension (93) Not Tested to Failure (38) Shear-Flexure Shear: Diagonal Tension Not Tested to Fa
2 6
includes the impact of strain hardening of longitudinal reinforcement. However, ACI 318-14

§20.2.2.1 stipulates that the increase in Mn due to the effect of strain hardening of the reinforcement
1.5
4
be neglected. Thus, to evaluate the impact of strain hardening of longitudinal reinforcement on the
VTest/V@Mn

M/Vlw

1
value of MyE and cE, a randomly selected subset of 200 walls with different cross-sections and
2
attributes was examined. For this data subset, MyE and cE were computed with and without the
0.5
impact of strain hardening. The results are shown in Fig. 6-5, which demonstrates that including
0 0
0 strain
1 hardening
2 of longitudinal
3 4 reinforcement
5 increased
6 0MyE and 1cE by only
2 3% and 3 1%, 4 5
Vn,ACI/V@Mn Vn,ACI/V@Mn
respectively. In general, the increase in MyE due to strain hardening was observed for walls with
Flexure (506) Shear: Diagonal Compression (102) Shear Sliding (30)
Shear-Flexure (219) Shear: Diagonal Tension (93)
Not Tested to Failure (38)
2 T-shaped, L-shaped, or half barbell-shaped cross-sections for the case where the flange or barbell

1.5
VTest/V@Mn

161
1

0.5
is in compression. Nonetheless, a 3% increase in MyE due to strain hardening of longitudinal

reinforcement is negligible for seismic retrofit and could be ignored.

The wall shear demand corresponding to the development of yield moment strength (MyE) is

computed based on the shear-span-ratio (SSR) used in the tests, as follows:

M yE
V@ M = (Eq. 6-1)
yE
SSR × lw

Where lw is the total length of the wall.

Fig. 6-5–Impact of strain hardening of longitudinal reinforcement at concrete compressive strain

of 0.003 on: (a) yield moment strength (MyE), and (b) depth of neutral axis (c)–results from 200
walls.

The database also includes the following strengths computed using tested material properties:

1. Shear strength at failure of diagonal tension or compression strut, VyE,d

162
The wall shear strength corresponding to the strength associated with diagonal tension or

compression strut (VyE,d) is computed from Eq. 6-2 (ACI 318-14 Equation 18.10.4.1 without

restrictions on spacing, reinforcement ratio, and the number of curtains of reinforcement):

(
V yE ,d = Acv α c )
f cE' + ρt f ytE ≤ 10 Acv f cE' (Eq. 6-2)

Where Acv is the gross area of concrete section bounded by web thickness and wall length (Acv=

twlw), f’cE is the tested concrete compressive strength, ρt is the web transverse (horizontal)

reinforcement ratio, fytE is the tested yield strength of the web transverse reinforcement, and αc is

a coefficient that depends on hw/lw of the wall. However, walls are generally tested as cantilevers

with a single lateral load applied at the top of the wall (with or without axial load) or as panel or

partial height walls under a combined effects of lateral load(s), axial load, and bending moment at

the top of the panel, and thus hw/lw is not always a relevant parameter. Therefore, the test shear-

span-ratio, SSR, (M/Vlw or heff/lw) was used instead, where αc is taken as 3.0 for M/Vlw ≤ 1.5, as 2.0

for M/Vlw ≥ 2.0, and varies linearly between 3.0 and 2.0 for M/Vlw between 1.5 and 2.0.

2. Shear friction strength at the base, VyE,f

The wall shear strength corresponding to the shear friction strength at the wall-foundation interface

(VyE,f) is computed from Eq. 6-3 (ACI 318-14 Equation 22.9.4.2) including the impact of sustained

axial load (ACI 318-14 §22.9.4.5):

( )
V yE , f = µ Avf f ylE + P ≤ 0.2 f cE' Ac (Eq. 6-3)

Where Avf is the area of all reinforcement crossing the wall-foundation interface, fylE is the tested

yield strength of the reinforcement crossing the wall-foundation interface, μ is the coefficient of

friction and is taken as 0.6 in accordance with ACI 318-14 Table 22.9.4.2, Ac is the area of concrete

163
section resisting shear transfer, and P is the sustained axial load applied during the experiment. It

is noted that the upper limit of 800Ac given in ACI 318-14 §22.9.4.4 for Eq. 6-3 was not considered,

as it was found to under predict wall shear friction strength, especially for walls with high strength

concrete. The same conclusion is reported by Mattock (2001), who also proposed a model that

performs well for walls with high strength concrete.

6.4. Discussion of Wall Failure Mode Classification in Database

The database was filtered to obtain a dataset of approximately 1000 wall tests with reported flexure,

shear, or flexure-shear failure modes (i.e., basically all the walls in the database except those that

failed due to inadequate lap-splice of longitudinal reinforcement and walls that were not tested to

failure or some significant (> ~10%) degree of lateral strength degradation). Fig. 6-6 presents

histograms of wall attributes associated with the dataset.

The results obtained using the 1000 wall dataset are presented in Fig. 6-7 for each reported failure

mode separately and in Fig. 6-8 for the entire dataset, where VyE is the least shear strength

computed from Eq. 6-2 and Eq. 6-3, and V@test is the peak wall shear obtained during the test.

From these figures, it can be seen that almost all flexure- and shear-controlled walls have a shear-

to-flexure strength ratio (VyE/V@MyE) > 1.0 (Fig. 6-7(a)) and < 1.0 (Fig. 6-7(b) and (c)), respectively.

Walls with failure modes reported as flexure-shear are mainly scattered between 0.7 < VyE/V@MyE

< 1.3 (Fig. 6-7(d)). The flexure-shear-controlled walls with VyE/V@MyE < 1.0 generally have limited

flexural nonlinearity (i.e., barely experiencing first yield of longitudinal reinforcement) and,

therefore, could realistically be classified as shear-controlled walls. On the other hand, for the

flexure-shear-controlled walls with VyE/V@MyE > 1.0, the behavior is initially governed by flexural

164
cracking and yielding similar to flexure-controlled walls because VyE is initially greater than V@MyE,

but the wall shear strength gradually reduces, as the wall is cycled through large nonlinear

displacements, until it drops below V@MyE, and then the wall fails in shear. Depending on the level

of shear and flexural demands, these walls could exhibit drift capacities comparable to those of

flexure-controlled walls. Fig. 6-8 also reveals that the ratio V@Mult /V@MyE for the flexure-controlled

walls is approximately 1.15.

Fig. 6-6–Histograms of wall tests in the UCLA-RCWalls database.

165
A rearranged presentation of the results is given in Fig. 6-9, where the Y-axis is the shear friction

strength computed from Eq. 6-3 (VyE,f) normalized by the diagonal shear strength from Eq. 6-2

(VyE,d). It can be seen that the data are divided between three regions: 1) blue region: flexure-

controlled walls with VyE/V@MyE > 1.0, 2) red region: diagonal shear-controlled walls (due to failure

of diagonal tension or compression strut) with VyE/V@MyE ≤ 1.0 and VyE,f/VyE,d ≥ 1.0, and 3) yellow

region: sliding shear-controlled walls with VyE/V@MyE ≤ 1.0 and VyE,f/VyE,d < 1.0.

Fig. 6-7–Wall failure modes results from a dataset of 1000 wall tests: failure modes separated.

166
Fig. 6-8–Wall failure modes results from a dataset of 1000 wall tests: failure modes combined.

Fig. 6-9–Wall classification: blue region = flexure-controlled, red region= shear-controlled

(diagonal tension or compression), and yellow region= shear sliding at the base.

167
Fig. 6-10 shows the distribution of failure modes of the walls in the dataset versus test shear-span-

ratio (M/Vlw or heff/lw) and VyE/V@MyE, reveals that M/Vlw, which is closely related to aspect ratio

(hw/lw), is not as good of an indicator of wall dominant behavior and failure mode; therefore, it is

proposed to use VyE/V@MyE as a criterion to classify walls based on expected dominant behavior

and failure mode. However, this figure also shows that walls with M/Vlw ≥ 3.0 and < 1.0 fail in

flexure and shear failure modes, respectively.

Fig. 6-10–Variation of wall failure mode versus shear-span-ratio and shear-flexure strength ratio.

6.5. Proposed Wall Classification Approach

Results presented in the preceding section indicate that walls can be classified as shear- or flexure-

controlled walls based on their shear-to-flexure strength ratio. However, for an actual building

168
(versus a laboratory test), the distribution of lateral forces along the height of the building (wall)

needs to be known to enable calculation of the shear demands (i.e., V@MyE and V@Mult). Linear

analysis approaches of ASCE 7-16 (i.e., ELF in §12.8 and RSA and LRHA in §12.9) or ASCE 41-

17 (i.e., LDP in §7.4.2) could be used to determine the effective height of the wall (heff), from

which V@MyE and V@Mult are calculated as MyE/heff and Mult/heff, respectively. This approach does

not account for the dynamic amplification of wall shear demands due to higher mode responses of

a wall that develops its flexural strength. Currently, ASCE 41-17 §10.7.2.4 and ACI 369-17

§7.2.4.1 allow use of a simplified approach where linear analysis approaches are used to account

for the impact of higher mode responses on the shear demand by assuming uniform distribution of

lateral forces over the height of the wall (i.e., heff is one-half of the total wall height, hw).

Research has shown that dynamic shear amplification is strongly correlated with building period,

which is a function of building height. Therefore, the following simplified dynamic shear

amplification factor (wv) computed from Eq. 6-4 is proposed to amplify V@MyE and V@Mult. This

approach, which is aligned with the approaches in New Zealand and Canadian codes (NZS 3101-

2006 and CSA A23.3-2014, respectively), has been adopted in ACI 318-19 in §18.10.3.

ns
ω v = 0.9 + for ns ≤ 6
10 (Eq. 6-4)
n
ω v = 1.3+ s for ns > 6
30

Where 𝑛" is the number of stories above the critical section and should not be taken less than 0.007

times the wall height above the critical section (hwcs) measured in inches. This limit is imposed on

ns to account for buildings with large story heights (i.e., >12 ft. (144 in.)). Dynamic shear

amplification is not significant in walls with hw/lw < 2.0.

169
It is noted that this new provision in ACI 318-19 also includes shear amplification due to moment

overstrength. However, since the expected material strengths are used to compute MyE, and MyE is

amplified to obtain Mult, the moment overstrength amplification factor is not considered here.

Based on the results presented above, the approach given in Table 6-1 is proposed to distinguish

between flexure- and shear-controlled walls. It is noted that to ensure pure flexural behavior (i.e.,

shear yielding does not occur following flexural yielding), the ratio VyE/(wvV@MyE) was selected to

be equal to and greater than 1.15 (i.e., VyE/(wvV@Mult) ≥ 1.0). To use Table 6-1, the user needs to

estimate the shear demands at the wall critical section using either linear static or linear dynamic

analysis approach, amplify the estimated shear demands to account for the effects of higher modes

on shear demands, if applicable, and then compare these demands to the wall shear strength to

determine the expected dominant behavior. According to the expected dominant behavior, wall

nonlinearity can be modeled using the applicable modeling parameters.

Table 6-1–Criteria for determining the expected wall dominant behavior

Criterion Expected Dominant Behavior

V yE ,d ≤ V yE , f Diagonal shear -controlled

V yE
< 1.15
wvV@ M
yE

V yE ,d > V yE , f Sliding shear-controlled

V yE
≥ 1.15 Flexure-controlled
wvV@ M
yE

Note: VyE is the least of VyE,d and VyE,f per Eq. 6-2 and Eq. 6-3, respectively, and wv is
computed from Eq. 6-4.

170
6.6. Summary and Conclusions

This study involves developing an approach to quantitatively distinguish between flexure-

controlled (generally slender) walls and shear-controlled (generally low-rise or squat) walls/piers

using the experimental results included in the UCLA-RCWalls databse. ASCE 41-17 standard

does not provide the user with an approach to determine whether a wall is controlled by flexure or

shear. The commentary of ASCE 41-17 (C10.7.1) defines slender and squat walls as walls with

aspect ratio (hw/lw) ≥ 3.0 and ≤ 1.5, respectively, and walls with intermediate aspect ratios are

defined as flexure-shear-controlled walls. However, results from a dataset of about 1000 wall tests

indicated that shear span ratio at (heff/lw), which is similar to aspect ratio (hw/lw) for cantilever walls,

is not a good indicator of the expected wall dominant behavior and failure mode. Based on the

results of about 1000 wall tests, an approach, which is based on the shear-to-flexure strength ratio

(VyE/V@MyE), is proposed, which accurately captures the predominant behavior and failure mode of

walls.

6.7. Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided, in part, by ATC 140 Project, and the University of California,

Los Angeles. The authors would also like to thank the other member of Working Group 3 (WG3)

of ATC 140 Project, which include Wassim Ghannoum, Garrett Hagen, Mohamed Talaat, Laura

Lowes, and Afshar Jalalian for providing thoughtful comments on the work presented. Any

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of others mentioned here.

171
6.8. References

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018. UCLA-RCWalls database for reinforced concrete

structural walls. Proceedings, 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, June 25-29, Los Angeles, CA.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-14), 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (318R-14), Farmington Hills, MI, 519 pp.

American Concrete Institute (ACI 369-17), 2017. Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation

and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI 369.1-17) and Commentary, Farmington

Hills, MI, 110 pp.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 41-17), 2017. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of

Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-17), Reston, VA, 576 pp.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2014). CAN/CSA-A23.3-14 Design of concrete

structures. 352 pp.

Dabbagh, H., 2005. Strength and Ductility of High-Strength Concrete Shear Walls Under Reversed

Cyclic Loading, PhD Dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The

University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Dazio, A, Beyer, K., and Bachmann, H, 2009. Quasi-static cyclic tests and plastic hinge analysis

of RC structural walls, Engineering Structures, Vol.31, No. 7, pp. 1556-1571.

Hognestad, E., 1951. A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete

Members, Bulletin No. 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station, IL.

Luna, B. N., 2015. Seismic Response of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Walls for Building

and Safety-Related Nuclear Applications, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil,

Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo.

172
Mattock, A.H., 2001. Shear friction and high-strength concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98,

No. 1, pp. 50–59.

Mestyanek, J. M., 1986. The earthquake of resistance of reinforced concrete structural walls of

limited ductility, Master Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

NZS 3101 (2006). Concrete Structures Standard, Part 1: The Design of Concrete Structures: Part

2: Commentary on the Design of Concrete Structures, Standards New Zealand, Wellington,

New Zealand. ISBN 1-86975-043-8.

Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Johal, L.S., Carpenter, J.E., Russell, H.G., and Corley, W.G., 1976.

Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Tests of Isolated Walls, Report to National Science

Foundation, Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,

IL, 315 pp.

Salonikis, T., Kappos, A., Tegos, I. and Penelis, G. (1999), Cyclic load behavior of low-

slenderness reinforced concrete walls: design basis and test results, ACI Structural Journal,

Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 649–661.

Thomsen, J. H. and Wallace, J. W., 1995. Displacement-Based Design of Reinforced Concrete

Structural Walls: Experimental Studies of Walls with Rectangular and T-Shaped Cross

Sections, Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.

Tran, T. A., 2012. Experimental and Analytical Studies of Moderate Aspect Ratio Reinforced

Concrete Structural Walls, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA,

300 pp.

173
CHAPTER 7. Stiffness of Flexure-Controlled RC Structural Walls

7.1. Abstract

Current requirements of ACI 369-17 §7.2.2 allow “cracked” effective flexural stiffness (EcEIeff) of

RC structural walls to be calculated in accordance with Table 5 of the standard, which is 35% of

the gross flexural stiffness (0.35EcEIg). However, use of a constant value does not adequately

consider variables that influence wall effective flexural stiffness. Also, ACI 369-17 §7.2.2 requires

that shear response in flexure-controlled walls be modeled using 100% of the gross “uncracked”

shear stiffness (0.4EcEAw), which research has shown that significantly overestimates effective

shear stiffness. As an alternative to the use of §7.2.2 Table 5, ACI 369-17 C7.2.2 provides

additional guidance on modeling wall flexural stiffness for fiber-section and lumped-plasticity

modeling approaches, which are based on moment-curvature analysis of the wall cross-section

with and without consideration of the effect of bond slip of the wall longitudinal reinforcement

anchored in the foundation. However, these recommendations have only been verified using a

limited set of test results. Furthermore, there is currently no explicit provision in ACI 369-17 to

estimate “uncracked” wall flexural stiffness for cases where little to no cracking is expected. For

such cases, ACI 369.1-17 C7.2.2 allows the licensed design professional to use an iterative

approach to obtain a more accurate estimate of the wall flexural stiffness. Therefore, the objectives

of this study are to: 1) evaluate the wall stiffness provisions and recommendations of ACI 369-17

§7.2.2 and C7.2.2, and 2) develop provisions and recommendations for appropriate flexural and

shear stiffness values that account for the effect of various parameters using results from a large

database of RC structural walls.

174
7.2. Wall Database

To accomplish the aforementioned objectives, a comprehensive database of RC wall tests (called

UCLA-RCWalls) is utilized (Abdullah and Wallace, 2018a and 2018b), which includes data from

more than 1000 wall tests reported in the literature. The database includes three major clusters of

data: 1) detailed information about the test specimen and loading, i.e., wall cross-section, web

reinforcement, parameterized information of boundary transverse reinforcement, and material

properties, loading protocol; 2) test results, e.g., backbone relations, key damage details, and

failure modes; and 3) analytically computed data, such as moment-curvature relationships and wall

shear strength according to ACI 318-14.

Fig. 7-1shows a typical backbone curve for base shear versus total top displacement (flexural,

shear, and bar slip/extension deformation). The cracking point represents the state at which

horizontal flexural cracks are first observed in the test. The cracking load and displacement is

contained in the database for the majority of the tests based on information reported by the authors

who performed the tests. However, in cases where this information is not reported, attempts were

made to visually identify the cracking point on the load-displacement curve (i.e., a significant

change in stiffness). If this was not possible, the cracking information was left blank in the database.

The general yield point is defined as the point where the hysteretic loops (or the response curve in

case of monotonic loading) begin to abruptly lose stiffness, as shown in Fig. 7-1. The value in the

database was visually identified. It should be noted that this point does not necessarily correspond

to first yielding of longitudinal bars, but rather is associated with yielding of most of the

longitudinal bars in the boundary region for tension-yielding walls or onset of concrete

nonlinearity for compression-yielding walls. Peak is the point at which the maximum lateral

strength occurred. Ultimate (or deformation capacity) is defined as the deformation at which lateral

175
strength degraded by 20% in the first cycle from the peak. Residual and Collapse points are defined

as the state at which the wall reaches its residual strength (if any) and loses its axial load-carrying

capacity, respectively. The majority of the tests, especially earlier tests, do not have Residual and

Collapse points due to termination of the tests before reaching residual strength and axial collapse.

Fig. 7-1–Typical backbone curve for base shear versus total top displacement in UCLA-RCWalls
database.

For the purpose of this study, the UCLA-RCWalls database was filtered to obtain a subset of

wall tests that satisfied the following requirements:

(a) Flexure-controlled walls (i.e., shear-to-flexure strength ratio, VyE/V@MyE ≥ 1.15),

(b) Walls tested under quasi-static, monotonic or cyclic loading (in-plane or bi-directional),

(c) Walls containing one or two curtains of web reinforcement,

(d) Walls with conforming or non-conforming detailing, and

(e) Walls with different cross-sections (i.e., rectangular, barbell, I-shaped, T-shaped, L-

Shaped, or half-bar bell).

176
Based on the selected filters, a total of 527 wall tests were identified. Histograms for various

dataset parameters are shown in Fig. 7-2, where P/Agf’c is the sustained axial load applied during

the experiment normalized by tested concrete compressive strength (f'c) and gross concrete area

(Ag), M/(Vlw) is the ratio of base moment-to-base shear used in the test normalized by wall length

(lw), rl,BE and rl,web are the longitudinal reinforcement ratios in the boundary elements and the web,

respectively, fy,BE is the tested yield strength of the boundary longitudinal reinforcement, tw is the

wall web thickness, and b is the width of flexural compression zone. Walls tested under monotonic

or bidirectional loading are included because it is assumed that the loading protocol does not have

a significant influence on the wall behavior up to yielding. Nonetheless, walls tested under

monotonic and bidirectional loading constitute only 6% and 2.5% of the walls in the dataset of 527

walls, as shown in Fig. 7-2(l).

Due to the lack of information on first flexural cracking, a total of 132 of the 527 wall tests were

excluded from the uncracked stiffness scope, leaving 395 tests.

177
 Fig. 7-2–Histograms of the dataset (527 wall tests).

In the results presented here, the flexural stiffness values are normalized by gross section flexural

stiffness (EcIg), in which Young’s modulus of concrete (Ec) is computed from Eq. 7-1 (ACI 318-

14 Equation 19.2.2.1a) for normal strength concrete (NSC) and Eq. 7-2 (ACI 363R-10) for high

strength concrete (HSC). ACI CT-13 defines high strength concrete as concrete that has a specified

compressive strength of 8000 psi or greater. However, Eq. 7-1 is intended to only be used for

concrete compressive strength up to 6000 psi. Therefore, the break point between normal and high
178
strength concrete was adopted as 6000 psi for the purpose of calculating Ec using tested f’c. Ig is

the gross section moment of inertia, for which presence of reinforcement in the cross-sections is

ignored, consistent with the Ig definition given in ACI 369-17.

(
Ec = wc1.5 33 f c' psi = wc1.5 0.043 f c' MPa ) Normal strength concrete (Eq. 7-1)

( )
Ec = 40000 f c' psi + 106 = 3320 f c' MPa + 6900 High-strength concrete (Eq. 7-2)

Where wc is unit weight of concrete, assumed to be equal to 150 pcf (24 kN/m3) and 120 pcf

(19.2 kN/m3) for normal weight and light weight concrete, respectively.

7.3. Derivation of Wall Stiffnesses from Data in the Database

In this study, uncracked and effective “cracked” flexural stiffnesses of the walls in the dataset are

derived from the experimental backbone curves, with some approximations and assumptions, as

discussed below:

7.3.1. Uncracked Flexural Stiffness

Not to be confused with the gross sectional stiffness, the uncracked “or initial” stiffness (Kuncr) is

defined as the slope of the backbone curve from origin to a point at which flexural cracking is first

observed (reported). However, the deformation at cracking point shown in Fig. 7-1 includes shear

deformation (dcr,s). Therefore, the dcr,s corresponding to the base shear at flexural cracking was

analytically computed using Eq. 7-3 (assuming no shear cracking at this loading stage and thus

using the gross shear stiffness, GgAcv) and is subtracted from the total experimental cracking

deformation (dcr,t) to obtain the cracking flexural deformation (dcr,f) using Eq. 7-4 (Fig. 7-3):

179
 Vcr hw f
δ cr ,s = (Eq. 7-3)
Acv Gg

δ cr , f = δ cr ,t − δ cr ,s (Eq. 7-4)

Where Vcr is the base shear corresponding to cracking moment of the wall (experimental), hw is

the wall height, Acv is the shear resisting (web) area of the wall (=lwtw), Gg is the gross shear

modulus taken as 0.4Ec, Ec is the concrete Young’s modulus computed from Eq. 7-1 or Eq. 7-2

using tested f’c, and f is a shape factor allowing the non-uniform distribution of shear stresses in

the cross-section and is taken as 1.2 for rectangular sections and 1.0 for flanged or barbell-shaped

sections.

The uncracked flexural stiffness (EcIuncr) is then computed as follows, for a cantilever wall (Eq. 7-

5), as an example:

Vcr hw3
Ec I uncr = (Eq. 7-5)
3δ cr , f

Fig. 7-3–Definition of uncracked flexural stiffness.

180
7.3.2. Effective “Cracked” Flexural Stiffness

The effective “cracked” stiffness (Ke) of concrete elements is typically defined as the slope of a

straight line, passing through origin and a point on the experimental backbone curve at which first

yielding of longitudinal reinforcement or the onset of concrete nonlinearity (i.e., maximum

extreme fiber concrete compressive strain of 0.002) occurs, whichever is reached first. This is

consistent with the definition of wall effective flexural stiffness given in ACI 369-17. However,

as noted earlier, UCLA-RCWalls database contains total displacement and base shear at general

yield (dy,g, Vy,g), which is defined as the point where the hysteretic loops (or the response curve in

case of monotonic loading) begin to abruptly lose stiffness, as shown in Fig. 7-3. Therefore, the

general yield does not correspond to first yielding of longitudinal bars, but rather to yielding of

most of the longitudinal bars at the boundary region in tension. Furthermore, the general yield

displacement includes shear deformation. To account for these limitations, the following two

simplifications were made:

1) The shear deformation (dy,s) corresponding to the base shear at general yield are subtracted

from the total deformation at general yield (dy,g) using Eq. 7-6 to obtain the flexural

deformations (dy,f) (curvature and bar slip/extension deformations):

δ y, f = δ y,g − δ y,s (Eq. 7-6)

Where dy,s is analytically approximated using Eq. 7-7, with an effective shear modulus of Gg/3

for all tests. This value was selected based on test results of 64 flexure-controlled walls for

which the base shear-shear displacement backbones were available in the database. This 64-

wall dataset was used to develop an effective shear modulus of Gg/3 for shear-cracked flexure-

controlled walls, as discussed later.

181
 V y,g hw f
δ y,s = (Eq. 7-7)
(
Acv Gg / 3 )
Fig. 7-4 shows the contribution of shear deformation to total deformation at general yield

against normalized shear stress at general yield and test shear span ration (M/Vlw), which

indicates that shear displacement increases with increase in shear stress and with decrease in

shear span ratio. This figure also shows that shear displacement contribution to total yield

displacement ranges from 4% to 25% on average, which is reasonable for flexure-controlled

walls.

Fig. 7-4–Contribution of shear deformation to total deformation at general yield.

2) The flexural displacements at general yield (dy,f) are reduced by 30% to approximately obtain

effective stiffness (Ke) corresponding to first yield, as illustrated in Fig. 7-5. This

approximation was verified against a subset of 20 wall tests for which the load and deformation

182
 at first yield of longitudinal reinforcement was available (i.e., first yield identified from strain

gage readings installed on longitudinal bars). Sensitivity of the results to higher and lower

reduction factors was considered and found to be limited, as discussed later. Therefore, the

effective flexural stiffness (EcIeff) is computed as follows for cantilever walls (Eq. 7-8), as an

example:

V y,g hw3
Ec I eff = (Eq. 7-8)
(
3 0.7δ y, f )

Fig. 7-5–Definition of effective first yield flexural stiffness.

The above approach to obtain EcIeff is similar to approaches used by other researchers for walls

and other concrete elements (e.g., Elwood and Eberhard, 2009; Fenwick and Bull, 2000; Paulay

and Priestley, 1992; Adebar et al., 2007) and ASCE/SEI 41-17, where effective stiffness is defined

as a the slope of a line from origin passing through a point on the response curve corresponding to

0.6 to 0.75 Vy,g.

183
7.4. Parameters Influencing Wall Flexural Stiffness

7.4.1. Uncracked Flexural Stiffness

To identify parameters that likely have a significant influence on EcIuncr, review of available

literature and a series of linear regression analyses were conducted. It was found that the most

influential parameter is axial load ratio, P/(Agf'c), with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.58, as

shown in Fig. 7-6(a). This is because presence of axial load leads to increase in cracking moment

capacity, while cracking curvature is not influenced by axial load. It can be seen from Fig. 7-6(a)

that uncracked flexural stiffness ranges (on average) from 0.50 to 1.40 of the gross section stiffness

(EcIg) as P/(Agf'c) increases from 0 to 0.60. The low values, which are mostly for walls with low to

moderate P/(Agf'c), might be due to the influence of microcracks and shrinkage. The values of

EcIuncr/EcIg > 1.0 might be due to presence of longitudinal reinforcement in the cross-section that

is ignored in computing Ig.

Concrete compressive strength (f'c) has some influence on EcIuncr because of its influence on

tension stiffening, elastic modulus, and modulus of rupture. However, the influence, with an R of

0.23, is not significant (Fig. 7-6(b)) and is already included in the P/(Agf'c) parameter.

Fig. 7-6(c) indicates that M/Vlw has a significant influence on EcIuncr; however, this is not a causal

relationship. This is due to the fact that most slender walls (with high M/Vlw) have moderate to

high axial loads, as indicated by Fig. 7-6(c). Therefore, the parameter that drives the trend in Fig.

7-6(c) is P/(Agf'c), not M/Vlw.

It should be noted that for most walls in the dataset, cracking deformation is very small (ranging

from <1 to 2.5 mm), and that accurate measurement of such small displacements is difficult.
184
Additionally, this damage state in the database is based on visual observation of first flexural

cracks reported by the authors who conducted the tests, which might include some subjectivity.

These two factors, among others, might contribute to the significant dispersion of the data.

Fig. 7-6–Influence of parameters on EcIuncr. (Note: R=correlation coefficient)

7.4.2. Effective “Cracked” Flexural Stiffness

Parameters that were found to produce low to significant influence on EcIeff are P/(Agf'c), yield

strength and quantity of longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary region (fy and rl,BE), and f'c, as

shown in Fig. 7. The influence of axial load on stiffness of concrete members is widely recognized

in many research studies and design codes/guidelines (e.g., Elwood and Eberhard, 2009; Khuntia

and Ghosh, 2004a; Fenwick and Bull, 2000; Adebar et al., 2007; NZS 3101: Part 2:2006; ACI 318-

14 Table 6.6.3.1.1b). As shown in Fig. 7-7(a), P/(Agf'c) has the strongest correlation with EcIeff,

with an R of 0.82. The trend shown in Fig. 7-7(a) is similar to that observed by Elwood and

Eberhard (2009) for columns.

185
Increase in longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the tension zone (rl,BE) results in spread of yielding

and development of secondary cracks over a larger height of the wall as opposed to a one or two

major cracks at or near the critical section. Furthermore, doubling rl,BE, assuming everything else

is constant, would be expected to have little influence on yield curvature (fy) since fy is primarily

a function of wall length and reinforcement yield strain, i.e., fy ≈ 2fy/lwEs or fy ≈ (0.0025 to

0.0035)/lw (Thomson and Wallace 2004), but would theoretically be expected to approximately

double the yield flexural strength and thereby increase EcIeff by the same amount (ATC-72, 2010).

It is this reasoning that gives rise to the concept of "stiffness is proportional to strength" (Priestley

and Kowalsky, 1998; Priestley et al., 2007; Paulay, 2002). However, the trend in Fig. 7-7(b) does

not show that big of an influence as the above concept suggests, even for slender walls. This is

likely due to: 1) the influence of other parameters (e.g., axial load) which cause large dispersion

in the data, and 2) with increase in rl,BE, the wall flexural strength increases, which results in

flexural cracking spreading over a larger zone along the wall height from the foundation support.

This stiffness loss reduces the stiffness gain due to large rl,BE in the lower portions of the wall. Fig.

7-7(c) shows that the influence of rl,BE on EcIeff is more pronounced for walls subjected to low-to-

moderate P/(Agf'c).

Yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement (fy) has a limited influence on EcIeff since fy is one of

the factors affecting both first yield moment and curvature (i.e., fy ≈ 2fy/lwEs). Walls with high

yield strength reinforcement have higher yield moment and higher yield curvature (due to higher

yield strain) and, consequently, the value of EcIeff is insensitive to changes in fy, as shown in Fig.

7-7(d).

186
Use of high strength concrete modestly increases Ec, tension stiffening, tensile strength, and wall

flexural strength. However, the impact of f'c on EcIeff/EcIg is statistically insignificant, as shown in

Fig. 7-7(e). The influence of f'c is more noticeable on EcIuncr than EcIeff.

Fig. 7-7(f) shows the combined influence of f'c, fy, and rl,BE on EcIeff, with an R of 0.29, which does

not improve the correlation compared to the influence of rl,BE alone in Fig. 7-7(b).

Fig. 7-8 presents sensitivity of EcIeff to the reduction factor used in Eq. 7-8 to convert secant

stiffness corresponding to general yield to effective stiffness corresponding to first yield. Given

the dispersion in the data and other uncertainties (i.e., modeling and loading), change in this

reduction factor does not produce significant changes. Therefore, the 0.7 reduction factor was

adopted in this study to compute EcIeff, which was backed by some limited experimental data, as

noted earlier.

187
 Fig. 7-7–Influence of key parameters on EcIeff. (Note: R=correlation coefficient)

Fig. 7-8–Sensitivity of EcIeff to the reduction factor used in Eq. 7-8: a) 0.6, b) 0.7, and c) 0.8.

7.5. Provisions and Commentary of ACI 369-17

As noted earlier, ACI 369-17 §7.2.2 Table 5 allows wall EcEIeff to be calculated as 35% of the gross

flexural stiffness (Eq. 7-9):

188
 EcEIeff = 0.35 EcEIg (Eq. 7-9)

Where EcE is modulus of elasticity of concrete evaluated using expected material properties and Ig

is the moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement.

Three alternative approaches to compute EcEIeff are given in the commentary of the standard

(C7.2.2). For flexural deformations without the effect of bond slip, EcEIeff can be calculated in

accordance with Eq. 7-10 (ACI 369-17 Eq. C5):

M yE
Ec I eff = (Eq. 7-10)
φ yE

Where MyE is the yield moment strength evaluated per ACI 318-14 using expected material

properties and applied sustained gravity axial load (NUG), and fyE is the curvature associated with

MyE and can be approximated as fyE = 2fylE/lwEs for planar walls with NUG/(Agf′cE) ≤ 0.15 and ρl ≤

0.01, where fylE and Es are the expected yield strength and Young’s modulus of the longitudinal

reinforcement, respectively. Alternatively, EcEIeff can be computed from analytical moment-

curvature analysis of the cross-section using Eq. 7-11 (ACI 369-17 Eq. C6).

M fyE
Ec I eff = (Eq. 7-11)
φ fyE

Where MfyE and ffyE are respectively the moment and curvature at first yield, defined when the

yield strain of the reinforcing steel is first reached in tension, or a concrete strain of 0.002 is reached

in compression and evaluated using expected material properties and NUG.

189
For continuous walls, ACI 369-17 C7.2.2 provides an approach for capturing the effects of bond

slip, where a reduction factor is used to modify EcEIeff of the wall in the story directly above the

wall-foundation interface (hinge region) as follows:

M fyE ⎛ h1 ⎞
Ec I eff = ⎜ ⎟ (Eq. 7-12)
φ fyE ⎝ h1 + lsp ⎠

Where h1 is the first-floor height and lsp is the strain penetration depth, which is intended to

approximate the length over which longitudinal reinforcement strains penetrate into the foundation

system and is approximated as (Eq. 7-13):

1 f ylE
lsp = d (Eq. 7-13)
48 f ' b
cE

ACI 369-17 C7.2.2 provides lower and upper bounds on EcEIeff obtained from Eq. 7-9 through Eq.

7-12, which are 0.15EcEIg and 0.5EcEIg, respectively.

Finally, ACI 369-17 §7.2.2 Table 5 allows wall shear stiffness to be calculated as “uncracked”

gross shear stiffness (Eq. 7-14):

GeffAw = GgAw = 0.4 EcAw (Eq. 7-14)

Where Gg is concrete gross shear modulus taken as 0.4EcE, and Aw is area of the wall web cross

section.

7.6. Evaluation of Provisions and Commentary of ACI 369-17

The effective flexural stiffness values (EcIeff) of the 527-wall dataset, as defined in Fig. 7-5, are

used to evaluate the ACI 369-17 stiffness provisions and recommendations summarized in the

190
preceding section. Table 7-1 presents the statistics of the predicted (calculated) EcIeff values from

Eq. 7-9 through Eq. 7-12, normalized by the EcIeff values from the 527-wall dataset (ratios of

calculated-to-experimental EcIeff values). Fig. 7-9 through Fig. 7-12 present comparison of the

calculated and the experimental EcIeff results. Discussion of the results are given below.

Fig. 7-9(a) shows that Fig. 7-9 significantly overestimates EcIeff at low axial loads (P/(Agf'c) < 0.05)

and significantly underestimates EcIeff at high axial loads (P/(Agf'c) > 0.20), with significant

dispersion (Table 7-1) because taking EcIeff as a constant fraction of EcIg ignores the influence of

key parameters highlighted earlier.

Table 7-1–Statistics of the ratios of predicted-to-experimental EcIeff/EcIg values.

Eq. 7-12
Equation Eq. 7-9 Eq. 7-10 Eq. 7-11(1) (2)
(a) (b) (3)
Mean 1.33 1.16 1.12 0.93 1.02
STDV 0.59 0.39 0.35 0.28 0.31
COV 0.44 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.30
Max 3.15 2.74 2.32 1.98 2.13
Min 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.27
Median 1.26 1.09 1.08 0.9 0.97
(1)
fyE is computed as 2fylE/lwEs
(2)
lsp calculated from Eq. 7-13 multiplied by 2.0 to account for the influence of reduced scale.
(3)
lsp calculated from Eq. 7-13 multiplied by 1.0 to account for the influence of reduced scale.

191
 Fig. 7-9–Comparison of calculated (Eq. 7-9) and experimental EcIeff.

Fig. 7-10(a) indicates that for walls with P/(Agf’c) < 0.15, use of Eq. 7-10 results in moderate

overestimation of EcIeff, with high dispersion. This is attributed to the fact that with decrease in

P/(Agf’c), depth of neutral axis reduces and, consequently, the stress in the tension reinforcement

increases, which results in larger lateral displacement contributed by bar slip/extension from the

foundation that is not captured by moment-curvature analysis of the cross-section. Motter et al.

(2018) observed 15 to 35% reduction in EcIeff as a result of slip/extension of longitudinal

reinforcement from the foundation block for walls subjected to P/(Agf'c) < 0.05. For higher P/(Agf'c)

values, the contribution of slip/extension from the foundation could approach zero (e.g., see

Elwood and Eberhard, 2009 for columns), and the wall might locate above the balance point on

the P-M interaction diagram, which would result in a reduction in nominal moment capacity.

Another factor is that the concrete stress-strain model used to compute nominal moment capacity

does not incorporate the influence of concrete confinement. Given that most walls with high

P/(Agf'c) are likely to have some level of confinement, computing nominal moment capacity

without the influence of confinement might slightly underestimate the nominal moment capacity

and, thus, result in underestimation of effective stiffness.

192
Additionally, Fig. 7-10(b) indicates that use of Eq. 7-10 for walls with high rl,BE (i.e., > 0.02)

results in a slight overestimation of EcIeff. This could be attributed to the fact that increase in rl,BE

helps spread of yielding not just over a larger height of the wall but also into the foundation support,

which means more contribution from bar slip deformation to yield displacement.

Eq. 7-11, which is based on analytical moment and curvature corresponding to first yield, produces

similar results as Eq. 7-10, as seen in Fig. 7-11 and Table 7-1, with slightly less overestimation

and dispersion at P/(Agf’c) < 0.15. This is because the results indicate that the ratios MyE to MfyE

(nominal/first yield) and fyE to ffyE are approximately the same (i.e., ≈1.24). The factors leading

to the offsets between the calculated and experimental results are discussed in the preceding

paragraphs for results from Eq. 7-10.

Fig. 7-10– Comparison of experimental and calculated (Eq. 7-10) EcIeff.

193
 Fig. 7-11– Comparison of experimental and calculated (Eq. 7-11) EcIeff.

It may not be appropriate to evaluate Eq. 7-12, which includes a reduction factor to account for

the influence of bond slip on effective stiffness, using results from the dataset described here

because: 1) the reduction factor includes h1 (first story height), while most tests in the dataset do

not have a prototype wall and the database does not include story heights, 2) walls are typically

tested in laboratories at reduced scales, where in addition to geometry, bar sizes are scaled down,

which influences the contribution of slip/extension deformation to yield deformation and,

consequently, the lsp (strain penetration depth) calculated from Eq. 7-13. To account for these

limitations, two assumptions were made: 1) h1 is taken as 7 ft, which, assuming a one half-scale

for all wall tests results in h1 =14 ft for a full-scale prototype wall, 2) the lsp calculated from Eq.

7-13 is multiplied by a factor of 2.0, assuming again a one-half scale for the walls, to account for

the reduced scale of the bars. Furthermore, the lsp calculated from Eq. 7-13 multiplied by a factor

of 1.0 was also considered to highlight the sensitivity of the results to lsp.

194
The results are presented in Table 7-1 and Fig. 7-12. Considering the assumptions made, it can be

seen that Eq. 7-12 produces results that are in good agreement with the experimental results at

P/(Agf’c) < 0.15 or 0.20. For walls with high P/(Agf’c), applying this reduction factor leads to further

underestimation of EcIeff relative to Eq. 7-10 and Eq. 7-11 because, as noted previously, these

walls likely experience no or little bar slip/extension. Therefore, no reduction factor should be

considered for such walls. Furthermore, Fig. 7-12 reveals that the results are only slightly sensitive

to the strain penetration depth (lsp).

To conclude, Eq. 7-9 through Eq. 7-11 overestimate EcIeff by 12% to 33%, with moderate

dispersions. Eq. 7-12 produces results whose median values better match the experimental results

and whose dispersion is comparable to Eq. 7-10 and Eq. 7-11; however, these equations require a

fair amount of calculations to compute EcIeff. Therefore, simplified EcIeff values are proposed in the

subsequent sections.

Fig. 7-12– Comparison of experimental and calculated (Eq. 7-12) EcIeff considering an h1 of 7 ft
for one-half scale (14 ft for full scale) where lsp calculated from Eq. 7-13 and multiplied by: (a)
2.0, (b) 1.0.

195
7.7. Proposed Models for Flexural and Shear Stiffnesses

7.7.1. Uncracked Flexural Stiffness, EcIuncr

Flexural cracking occurs where the moment demand exceeds the cracking moment strength

calculated using the modulus of rupture provided in ACI 318-14 and the expected material

properties.

Based on the results presented earlier, the model shown in Fig. 7-12 (black line) is proposed, for

which EcIuncr/EcIg ranges on average from 0.50 to 1.00 for P/(Agf’c) increasing from 0 to 0.30. This

model results in a mean and COV of 1.12 and 0.42, respectively. The results of Fig. 7-13 are

presented in a tabulated format in Table 7-2. If the walls with no axial load are excluded, the blue

trend line will move closer to the model (black line).

Fig. 7-13– Linear regression lines to the data and the proposed model for EcIuncr. (black line =
model).

196
 Table 7-2–Proposed values for uncracked wall flexural stiffness (EcIuncr)
*
P EC I uncr
Ag f 'c EC I g

≤ 0.00 0.50

≥ 0.30 1.00
* Values between those listed should be determined by
linear interpolation

As noted earlier, ACI 369-17 currently does not provide provisions to estimate wall flexural

stiffness for cases where little to no cracking is expected to occur. Such provisions, however, can

be found in other codes and documents (i.e., ACI 318-14 Table 6.6.3.1.1a; CSA A23.3-14; FEMA

356 Table 6-5; NZS 3101: Part 2:2006; Eurocode 8-2004). For comparison with the proposed

model, these existing models were reviewed and evaluated using the dataset (Table 7-3).

Table 7-3–Existing models for uncracked or minorly cracked wall flexural stiffness
ACI 318-14- FEMA NZS 3101: Part 2:2006 NZS 3101: Part 2:2006* PEER/TBI-10*
Table 6.6.3.1.1a 356 Serviceability limit Eurocode
Model Serviceability limit Proposed Model
8-2004 LATBSDC-14
CSA A23.3-14 Table 6-5 (µ=1.25) (µ=3) (Service level)

𝐸$ 𝐼&'$( 𝑃 𝑃
= 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 ≥ %0.5 + + ≥ 0.5 0.5 0.75 1.0 ≥ %0.5 + + ≥ 0.5
𝐸$ 𝐼) 𝐴) 𝑓$+ 𝐴) 𝑓$+

Mean 1.32 1.51 1.89 1.11 0.95 1.42 1.12

STDV 0.65 0.75 0.93 0.49 0.47 0.70 0.38

COV 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.49 0.49 0.42

MAX 3.65 4.17 5.21 3.09 2.60 3.91 3.42

MIN 0.42 0.48 0.60 0.37 0.30 0.45 0.39

Median 1.17 1.33 1.66 1.01 0.83 1.25 1.07

* A minor level of cracking is expected.

197
7.7.2. Effective “Cracked” Flexural Stiffness, EcIeff

As noted previously, P/(Agf’c) is the most influential parameter on wall EcIeff. Therefore, a model,

which takes the form of a piece-wise line, seems to fit the regression lines well, as shown in Fig.

7-14, where the colored lines are regression lines of the data and the black line is the simple model.

The model is also shown in a tabulated format in Table 7-4.

Fig. 7-14–Linear regression lines to the data and the proposed model for EcIeff. (black line =
model).

Table 7-4–Proposed values for effective flexural stiffness (EcIeff)

P Ec I eff *
Ag f 'c Ec I g

≤ 0.05 0.20

≥ 0.50 1.00
* Values between those listed should be determined by
linear interpolation

198
A more detailed model that includes the rl,BE as a secondary parameter in addition to axial load is

presented in Eq. 7-17 and Table 3-1. Using this refined model is slightly more accurate, especially

for walls with low to moderate axial loads. As seen in Fig. 7-15(b), the mean EcIeff for walls with

P/(Agf’c) ≤ 0.20 increases by factors of about 1.5 to 2 when rl,BE increases from 0.01 to 0.03.

Ec I eff P
= 0.1+ 1.5 + 3.5ρl ,BE ≤ 1.0 (Eq. 7-17)
Ec I g Ag f c'

Comparison of predicted (Eq. 7-17) and experimentally obtained EcIeff, along with the statistics,

are presented in Fig. 7-16. The comparison indicates that the detailed model only modestly reduces

the prediction error compared to the simplified model (Fig. 7-14).

Table 7-5–Proposed values for EcIeff as a function of P/(Agf’c) and rl,BE

P Ec I eff *
Ag f 'c
rl,BE
Ec I g

≥ 0.01 0.20
≤ 0.05
≤ 0.03 0.30

≥ 0.01 0.90
≥ 0.50
≤ 0.03 1.00
* Values between those listed should be determined by linear interpolation

199
 Fig. 7-15–Influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio (rl,BE) on EcIeff.

Fig. 7-16–Comparison of experimental and calculated EcIeff from Eq. 7-17.

200
7.7.3. Uncracked Shear Stiffness

Shear cracking is assumed to occur where the wall shear stress demand exceeds 2 fc′ (psi) . For

upper stories of a flexure controlled wall where shear demands are < 2 fc′ (psi) , it is proposed

that the shear response of the wall be modeled using the gross shear modulus (Gg) taken as 0.4EcE.

7.7.4. Cracked Shear Stiffness

The dataset of flexure-controlled wall tests described earlier was filtered to identify walls whose

base shear-shear deformation backbones were available. A reduced dataset of 64 wall tests was

obtained. For the reduced dataset, the effective shear modulus (Geff) was computed using Eq. 7-

18:

V y,g hw f
Geff = (Eq. 7-18)
Acvδ y,s

Where Vy,g and dy,s are the experimental base shear at general yield and the corresponding shear

displacement, respectively.

Fig. 7-17 shows Geff of the dataset normalized by the gross shear modulus (Gg) taken as 0.4Ec.

Note that shear stress at general yield for all walls exceeded the cracking shear strength of concrete

[Vc = 2√f’c (psi)]. Based on the results of Fig. 7-17, a constant Geff of Gg/3 is proposed to be used

to model shear response of flexure-controlled walls.

201
 Fig. 7-17–Effective shear modulus results from 64 wall tests.

7.8. Summary and Conclusions

This study involves utilizing available experimental data on RC structural walls to develop updated

stiffness provisions for seismic evaluation and retrofit of flexure-controlled reinforced concrete

structural walls in ACI 369 and ASCE 41 standards. To accomplish these objectives, a subset of

527 test of flexure-controlled walls was filtered from UCLA-RCWalls database. The datasets were

first used to evaluate the current stiffness provisions of ASCE 41-17 (ACI 369-17), and the results

revealed that 1) use of a constant value of “cracked” effective flexural stiffness (i.e, EcEIeff =

0.35EcEIg) does not adequately consider variables that influence wall effective flexural stiffness

and 2) use of 100% of the gross “uncracked” shear stiffness (0.4EcEAw) to model shear response in

flexure-controlled walls overly estimates shear stiffness. Subsequently, the dataset was studies to

identify parameters that significantly influence uncracked and cracked effective flexural and shear

stiffnesses. It was found that axial load has the greatest impact on wall flexural stiffness (uncracked

and cracked), and that longitudinal reinforcement ratio produced significant impact on cracked

202
effective flexural stiffness at low axial load ratios (i.e., <0.10 Agf’c). Based on these results, wall

flexural stiffness values (cracked and uncracked) are proposed. Based on results from a subset of

64 wall tests whose base shear-shear deformation backbones were available in the database a

constant effective shear modulus of one-third of gross shear modulus (i.e., Geff = Gg/3) is proposed

to be used to model shear response of shear-cracked flexure-controlled walls.

7.9. Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided, in part, by ATC 140 Project, and the University of California,

Los Angeles. The authors would also like to thank the other member of Working Group 3 (WG3)

of ATC 140 Project, which include Wassim Ghannoum, Garrett Hagen, Mohamed Talaat, Laura

Lowes, and Afshar Jalalian for providing thoughtful comments on the work presented. Any

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of others mentioned here.

203
7.10. References

Abdullah S. A., and Wallace J. W., 2018a. UCLA-RCWalls: A database for reinforced concrete

structural wall tests, Earthquake Spectra, submitted for review and possible publication,

Oct 26, 2018, 23pp.

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018b “UCLA-RCWalls database for reinforced concrete

structural walls,” Proceedings, 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

ACI Committee 318. (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14)

and Commentary (ACI 318R-14), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. 524

pp.

ACI Committee 363. (2010). Report on high strength concrete (Report ACI 363R-10), American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 75 pp.

ACI CT, 2013. ACI Concrete Terminology–an ACI Standard. American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, MI, 65 pp.

Adebar, P., Ibrahim, A.M.M., and Bryson, M., 2007 “Test of high-rise core wall: Effective

stiffness for seismic analysis”, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 104, pp. 549-559.

ASCE/SEI Standard 41-13, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American Society of

Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. 518 pp.

ATC, Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings, ATC-

72, Applied Technology Council, Berkeley, California, 2010.

CEN, Eurocode 8: “Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules,

Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, ENV 1998-1:2003”, Comité Européen de

Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2004.

204
CSA Committee, “Design of Concrete Structures, CSA A23.3-14”, Canadian Standards

Association, Mississauga, Canada, 2014.

Elwood, K.J., and M.O. Eberhard (2009). “Effectiveness of Reinforced Concrete Columns” ACI

Structural Journal 106 (4): 476–484.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic

rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356, Washington, U.S., 2000.

Fenwick, R., and Bull, D., 2000. What is the Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Walls, SESOC

Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2.

Khuntia, M., and Ghosh, S. K., 2004, “Flexural stiffness of reinforced concrete columns and beams:

Experimental Verification”, ACI Structural Journal, vol. 101, pp. 364-374.

Mickleborough, N.C., Ning, F., Chan C.M., 1999, “Prediction of the stiffness of reinforced

concrete shear walls under service loads,” ACI Structural Journal, 96(6), pp. 1018–1026.

Motter, C.J., Abdullah, S.A., and Wallace, J.W., 2017, “Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls

without Special Boundary Elements,” ACI Structural Journal, (submitted for publication).

Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry

Buildings, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

Priestley, M., Calvi, G., and Kowalsky, M., 2007, “Displacement-based seismic design of

structures”, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.

205
CHAPTER 8. Nonlinear Modeling Parameters for Flexure-Controlled RC Structural

Walls

8.1. Abstract

The ASCE/SEI 41 standard (and other similar recommendations or guidelines, e.g., ACI

Committee 369) represents a major advance in structural and earthquake engineering to address

the seismic hazards posed by existing buildings and mitigate those hazards through retrofit. For

nonlinear seismic evaluation of existing buildings, these standards provide modeling parameters

(e.g., effective stiffness values, deformation capacities, and strengths) to construct backbone

relations, as well as acceptance criteria to determine the adequacy. The modeling parameters and

acceptance criteria for structural concrete walls were developed based on limited experimental

data and knowledge available in the late 1990s (FEMA 273/274-1997), with minor revisions since.

As a result, the wall provisions tend to be, in many cases, inaccurate and conservative, and thus

can produce uneconomical retrofit schemes. This study involves utilizing available experimental

data and new information on performance of structural walls to develop modeling parameters and

acceptance criteria for flexure-controlled walls that will produce improved seismic assessments of

wall buildings. To accomplish these objectives, a recently developed comprehensive wall database,

known as UCLA-RCWalls, was utilized, which currently contains detailed information and test

results from more than 1100 wall tests surveyed from more than 260 programs reported in literature.

The proposed provisions include cracked and uncracked flexural and shear stiffness and updated

modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for flexure-controlled walls with conforming and

non-conforming detailing. The updates are expected to be significant contributions to the practice

of seismic evaluation and retrofit of wall buildings.

206
8.2. Experimental RC Wall Database

8.2.1. Overview

The database, called the UCLA-RCWalls database (Abdullah and Wallace, 2018a), compiles

detailed data on more than 1000 RC wall tests reported in the literature. The database includes

three major clusters of data: 1) information about the test specimen, tests setup, and axial and

lateral loading protocols, 2) test results, e.g., backbone relations and failure modes; and 3)

analytically computed data, e.g., moment-curvature relationships (c, Mn, My, φn , φ y ) and wall

shear strengths according to ACI 318-14. Fig. 8-1 shows a typical backbone curve for base shear

versus total top displacement (curvature, shear, and bar slip/extension) from a wall test. Table 8-1

provides the definition of each response point in Fig. 8-1 and the approach used to derive these

points from the experimental load-deformation relationships.

Fig. 8-1–Typical wall backbone curve contained in UCLA-RCWalls database.

207
 Table 8-1–Definition of backbone response points
Response
Definition Data Used to Define the Point
Point
The cracking load and displacement is reported for the majority of the
Represents the state at tests in the database based on information reported by the authors who
which horizontal performed the tests. However, in cases where this information is not
Cracking flexural cracks are reported, attempts were made to visually identify the cracking point on
first observed in the the load-displacement curve (i.e., the point at which a significant change
test. in stiffness is observed). If this was not possible, the cracking
information was not reported in the database.
This point is visually identified as the point where the hysteretic loops
Represents yielding (or the response curve in case of monotonic loading) begin to abruptly
of most of the lose stiffness, which ca easily be identified for tension-yielded walls
boundary longitudinal (yielding of longitudinal reinforcement), as shown in Fig. 8-1. For
General reinforcement or the compression-yielded walls (i.e., walls tested under significant axial loads
yield onset of concrete or walls with T- or L-shaped cross-section loaded with the flange in
nonlinearity in tension), stiffness degradation generally takes place in a gradual manner.
compression- It should be noted that this point does not necessarily correspond to first
controlled walls. yielding of longitudinal bars, but rather is associated with yielding of
most of the longitudinal bars in a wall.
Represents maximum This point is taken as the maximum lateral strength observed on the
Peak
lateral strength backbone.
Represents a
This point is identified as the point at which lateral strength degrades by
significant loss in
Ultimate 20% in the first cycle from peak, which is widely accepted among
lateral strength (i.e.,
researchers.
lateral failure)
This point is also visually identified as the state at which the wall reaches
its residual lateral strength (residual strength plateau, e.g., Fig. 8-2), if
Represents the any.
Residual residual lateral
strength Many wall tests, especially earlier tests (prior to 2000s), do not have
Residual point due to termination of the test before reaching residual
strength.
The Collapse point was identified based on either reported axial collapse
from the tests (e.g., Fig. 8-2 and Fig. 8-3) or observed concrete crushing
along the entire length of the wall or out-of-plane instability such that no
portion of the wall is left intact or stable to carry the applied axial load
Represents the loss of (e.g., Fig. 8-3). If axial collapse occurred at deformations smaller than
Collapse axial-load-carrying the maximum deformation reached prior to axial collapse, then the
capacity maximum deformation reached is reported as the deformation for axial
collapse (e.g., Fig. 8-3 (c))
Similar to Residual point, many wall tests, especially earlier tests (prior
to 2000s) due to termination of the test before reaching residual strength.

208
 512

Specimen RWL Quite a number of small cracks occurred during the 2.0% drift
cycle, merging together and forming wide cracks in the panel
Specimen RWL had a 20% reduction in length when region. The wide cracks had extended up to 50% of the wall
compared to the benchmark RWB to investigate the effect of height at this stage. Unlike Specimens RWB and RWT, no bar
wall length on initiation and development of out-of-plane fracture or bar buckling happened during 2.0% drift cycles,
deformations. Therefore, this specimen had larger and the out-of-plane displacement increased to about 7 mm
reinforcement ratios in the boundary regions and in the web to and 10 mm in the 1st and 3rd cycles of 2.0% drift level,
provide a flexural capacity close to the other specimens. The respectively.
over-strength moment capacity of Specimens RWB and RWT
was calculated to be 1522kNm and that of Specimen RWL The crack pattern at 2.5% drift level was similar to the one at
was 1485kNm. Figure 12 displays the lateral load-top 2.0% drift level, and the crack width had increased,
displacement response of the specimen. The failure pattern of particularly the diagonal cracks. The wide cracks in the
the specimen was pure out-of-plane instability and neither bar tension boundary region extended up to 1350 mm from the
fracture nor bar buckling was observed in the test. The out-of- base with a uniform distribution of crack width. When the load
plane deformation initiated at Point A when the specimen was was reversed from the peak of 2.5% drift cycle, the cracks in
Fig. 8-2–Reported axial collapse of a wall test reported by Altheeb (2016).
unloaded from 1.5% drift and was starting to reload in the the tension region were wide open, and were still wide when
opposite direction. The out-of-plane deformation recovered the specimen was being reloaded in the opposite direction.
completely as the specimen was reloaded in the opposite Being spaced at an average distance of 120 mm, these residual
direction. This out-of-plane displacement recovery happened cracks had an average crack width of 0.7 mm. At this stage,
at early stages of loading. During 2.5% drift cycles, the out-of- the out-of-plane deformation increased significantly in the
plane deformation did not recover completely, and the compression boundary region and was clearly visible. The out-
specimen started to exhibit residual out-of-plane displacement. of-plane deformation did not recover completely at this stage
The residual out-of-plane displacement increased with the since the compressive stresses increased in the inner face of
number of cycles and the specimen became unstable at Point the out-of-plane displacement profile (where the crack closure
B where the abrupt strength degradation was observed. initiated) along with reloading in the opposite direction and
resulted in concrete crushing in one face of the wall. The out-
Figure 13 displays the crack pattern of the specimen at of-plane deformation increased in the right boundary element
different stages of loading. The grid size was 200x200 mm for as well when the specimen was being unloaded and reloaded
this specimen. The specimen did not exhibit any cracking at 513 the positive peak of the 3.0% drift cycle. Following
towards
0.05% drift cycle. The first cracking happened at 0.06% drift the same trend as the previous cycles, the out-of-plane
during the 0.15% drift cycle at about 550 mm from the base. deformation increased up to the state where the cracks started
As it can be seen in Figure 13, the flexural cracks were closing in one face of the wall resulting in an increase of
distributed along the whole height of the specimen during the compressive stresses in this face and recovery of the out-of-
0.15% drift cycle. The crack width was almost equal plane deformation. During unloading from +3.0% drift level
throughout the wall at this stage and was about 0.04 mm. The and reloading towards -3.0% drift level, the out-of-plane
number of horizontal cracks increased significantly at 0.38% deformation increased in the left boundary region. However,
drift level. These cracks were observed mostly along the as the cracks generated in this boundary region during the
boundary regions. A considerable number of diagonal cracks +3.0% drift were wider than the previous cycle at 2.5% drift
were observed throughout the panel at this drift level, as well. level, the crack did not close and the out-of-plane deformation
Fig. 8-3–Reported axial collapse of a wall test reported by Segura and Wallace (2018a).
The distribution of crack width was almost uniform all over
the specimen which can be attributed to the fact that the
increased considerably leading to out-of-plane instability of
the wall. Figure 14 shows out-of-plane instability failure of
specimen represented the plastic hinge region of a four-storey this specimen. The measurements of out-of-plane
wall. The cracks became wider and increased in number at displacement at different stages of loading are provided in
0.15% (initial cracks) 0.5% driftat yield
0.50% (crack propagation level. During the first closely
2.5% (numerous cycle spaced
of 0.75% Instability
drift, a wide
during 3.0% drift cycle
[16].
crack (1 mm) developed at the
stage) base and extended up to 1150
cracks)
mm along the wall length (70% of the wall length).
Figure 13. Crack pattern of Specimen RWL at different drift levels - grid size 200x200 mm.
Another Drift (%)
wide crack was observed at about 200 mm from the base in -3.5 -2.5 -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5
300
the boundary region which did not extend more than 600 mm A: Initiation of out-of-plane
along the wall length. According to the lateral load-top deformation
displacement response of the specimen, this is the stage where 200 B: Out-of-plane instability
overall yielding of the specimen happened. During the 1.0%
drift cycles, the width of horizontal cracks in the boundary
region increased considerably within 600 mm from the base 100
Base Shear (kN)

and the width of diagonal central region cracks increased

within 1000 mm from the base. Cover spalling was observed
A
at the extreme compression end of the specimen during the 1 st 0
cycle of 1.0% drift.
At the peak of the 1.5% drift cycle, new horizontal cracks had -100
formed in the boundary regions between former cracks which
B
merged into wide diagonal cracks in the central region. This
can be attributed to the different bar sizes in the boundary and -200
central regions. At this stage, wide boundary cracks were
uniformly distributed within 700 mm from the base and had an
-300
average crack width of 1.3 mm. These cracks merged in the -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
panel region and resulted in diagonal cracks that had an Top Displacement (mm)
average crack width of 1.7 mm. Unlike the benchmark
Fig. 8-4–Out-of-plane instability and concrete crushing of a wall test reported by Dashti et.
Figure 14. Out-of-plane
specimen, instability
the crack widthof Specimen RWL. high within 35% of
was uniformly Figure 12. Lateral load vs. top displacement response of
the wall height from the base and was not significant at the Specimen RWL.
In literature [21, 22], asymmetric spalling of concrete coverThe initial
base only. of boundary regions, displacement
out-of-plane its asymmetric spalling
(1 mm)would not have a
has been postulated to be one of the factors contributing to
happened during noticeable
the effect
1st cycle ofon1.5% (2018).
initiation
driftandindevelopment
the west of out-of-plane
out-of-plane deformation of rectangular wallsboundary,
under cyclic deformation.
and it increased Furthermore,
in the subsequent the onset of out-of-plane
cycles.
loading. In this section, the effect of cover spalling on deformation is generally associated with unloading from a
development of out-of-plane deformation is investigated. peak displacement level. At this stage, the cracks are wide
Figure 15 shows the initiation and development of cover open and the response of the section is mainly dependent on
spalling observed in the east boundary region of Specimen the reinforcement. Therefore, any asymmetric response of
RWL. As can be seen in this figure, although 1.5% and 2.0% concrete would not be influential on the evolution of out-of-
drift levels correspond to initiation and increase of out-of- plane deformation. However, the excessive amount of out-of-
plane deformations, the cover concrete had spalled off quite plane deformation can result in formation of asymmetric cover
symmetrically at these stages. Also, considering the very spalling, which will understandably occur at the elevation with
limited area of spalled cover concrete compared to the length maximum out-of-plane deformation.
209
The following two datasets were filtered from the UCLA-RCWalls database and are later used to

propose the updated Modeling parameters:

8.2.2. Conforming Wall Dataset

Design of RC structural walls is currently governed by the requirements of ASCE 7-16 and ACI

318-14, which includes provision for special structural walls with well-detailed special boundary

elements (SBE) according ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4 for buildings assigned to Seismic Design

Category D, E, and F. Detailing requirements for SBEs have changed over the years and are likely

to keep change in the future; therefore, the UCLA-RCWalls database was filtered to obtain a

dataset of “Conforming Walls” using criteria that are less restrictive than the detailing

requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4. Both (a) general and (b) detailing criteria were used:

a) General criteria:

i. Flexure-controlled walls, i.e., V yE V@ MyE ≥ 1.15,

ii. Walls with different cross-sections were included (i.e., rectangular, barbell, H-shaped, T-

shaped, L-Shaped, or half-bar bell),

iii. Walls tested under quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading,

iv. Tests were excluded if noticeable lateral strength loss was not observed or if walls failed

due to inadequate lap-slices.

v. Walls with measured concrete compressive strength, f c' ≥ 3 ksi,

vi. Walls with ratio of measured tensile-to-yield strength for boundary longitudinal

reinforcement, fu f y ≥1.2, and

vii. Wall with web thickness, t w ≥ 3.5 in.,

b) Detailing criteria:

210
 i. A minimum of two curtains of web vertical and horizontal reinforcement,

ii. Boundary longitudinal reinforcement ratio, rLong , BE ³ 6 fc' (psi) f y ,

iii. Min ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4) area of boundary

transverse reinforcement, Ash, provided Ash,required ≥ 0.7,

iv. Ratio of vertical spacing of boundary transverse reinforcement to minimum diameter of

longitudinal boundary reinforcement, s db < 8.0, and

v. Centerline distance between laterally supported boundary longitudinal bars, hx, between

1.0 in. and 9.0 in.

Based on the above selected filters, a total of 188 wall tests were identified that included

information on lateral strength loss (i.e., 20% lateral strength loss from peak strength) and 101

of these tests had reported information on axial collapse. Histograms for various dataset

( )
parameters for the 188 tests are shown in Fig. 8-5, where P Ag f c' is the compressive axial

load normalized by the measured concrete compressive strength ( f ) and gross concrete area
c
'

( A ) , and
g
M Vlw is the ratio of base moment-to-base shear normalized by wall length ( lw ) .

A limit of 3 ksi was specified on f c' in accordance with requirements of ACI 318-14 §18.2.5

for conforming seismic systems. At least two curtains of web reinforcement were specified to

be consistent with ACI 318-14 §18.10.2.2. Walls with t w less than 3.5 in. were not included

because use of two curtains of web reinforcement along with realistic concrete cover is not

practical in such thin walls. The limit on ratio fu f y is slightly less restrictive than the limit

211
 0 0 0 0

1. 0

7
8

0
0. 9

5
1

0
0

5
2

4
5
3

3.
5

0.

10
7

2.
4

0.
8

1.
0.

-3
5

-2

-4

2.

3.
5-

5-

5-
1.
1-

4-

6-
3-

5-

7-

0-
7-

5-

0-
8-

0-

5-
9-

20

2-

3-
10

30

1-

1.

2.

3.
2.
0.

1.
0.
sv/db Ash, prov./Ash,req: X-Dir. P/(fc'Ag) (%) M/(Vlw)
60 60 60 60

No. of Specimens
40 40 40 40
of 1.25 specified in ACI 318-14 §20.2.2.5. The specified limits on s db ≤ 8.0 and
20 20 20 20
Ash, provided Ash,required ≥ 0.7 are slightly less restrictive than the current limits in ACI 318-14
0 0 0 0

12 5

20 0
15 0

0
10

10 0
5

12

20

0
15

5
30

0
00
-1

-2

0
§18.10.6.4 of 6.0 and 1.0, respectively. The limit on ρ long ,BE was included to avoid brittle
<5

7.

-2
2

-4
4

-1

-3
3
5-

<1
-1

0-

4-
0-

1-

3-
10

5-

0-

2-
15

>3
5-

15

30
10

20
7.

90
lw/b b (mm) c/b c/lw

tension failures (Lu et al., 2016), based on what was adopted in ACI 318-19 §18.10.2. ACI

318-14 §18.10.6.4e requires hx,max not exceeding the lesser of 14 in. or 2b/3; however, most of

the tests in the database were conducted at less than full scale (typically 25 to 50%). Therefore,

hx,max for the wall tests should generally be between 3.5 to 7.0 in. for the 14 in. limit. Based on

the range of hx used to filter the data, 95% of the specimens have hx ≤ 6 in., which is

reasonable, whereas the histogram for hx b presented in Fig. 8-5(f) indicates that a majority

of the tests have hx b < 3/4, which is only slightly higher than the current limit of hx b < 2/3.

50 (a) 50 (b) 80 (c) 60 (d)

No. of Specimens

40 40
60
40
30 30
40
20 20
20
20
10 10

0 0 0 0
1. 0

0
0. 9

7
8

0
1

4
5

5
2.
4

0.
8

1.
3

3.
5

0.

10
7

-2

-4
0.

-3

5-

5-

5-
1.

2.

3.
3-

5-

7-
1-

4-

6-

5-

0-
8-

0-

0-
7-

5-
9-

10

30

1-
20

2-
1.

3-
2.

3.
1.
0.

2.
0.

sv/db Min. Ash, provided/Ash,required P/(fc'Ag) (%) M/(Vlw)

60 50 60 60
(e) (f) (g) (h)
No. of Specimens

40
40 40 40
30

20
20 20 20
10

0 0 0 0
0. 75
10

0
5

0. 65

.0
0. .5
5

0
0. 3

0
-2
-1
7.
<5

-1

-3
3

5
0.

-2
2
-1

-4
-0

<1
.0
5-

0.

-0

3-
2-

4-
15

1-
10
5-

1-

10

20
15
>1
75

30
25
7.

5-

65
0.

lw/b hx/b c/b c/lw

Fig. 8-5–Histograms of the first dataset (188 tests) for walls with conforming detailing.

212
8.2.3. Non-Conforming Wall Dataset

Walls with detailing not conforming to special structural wall provisions are common in older

construction designed prior to the establishment of detailing requirements for structural walls

(which were introduced in ACI 318-77 and were updated significantly in ACI 318-83 and 318-99).

Additionally, the special detailing requirements of ACI 318 are relaxed where wall displacement

or force demands are low; however, if the boundary longitudinal reinforcement ratio exceeds 400/fy,

modest detailing is required by ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.5 (introduced in ACI 318-99 in §21.6.6.5) to

prevent bar buckling at smaller deformation demands. These walls are sometimes referred to as

walls with Ordinary Boundary Elements, or OBEs (e.g., see NIST 2011). Based on these

considerations, the following (a) general and (b) detailing criteria were used to obtain a dataset of

“Non-Conforming Walls”:

(a) General criteria:

i. Flexure-controlled walls, i.e., V yE / V@ MyE ≥ 1.15,

ii. Walls with different cross-sections were included (i.e., rectangular, barbell, I-shaped, T-

shaped, L-Shaped, or half-bar bell),

iii. Quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading, and

iv. Tests were excluded if noticeable lateral strength loss was not observed, or if walls failed

due to inadequate lap-slices.

(b) Detailing criteria:

i. Walls with one or more curtains of web vertical and horizontal reinforcement,

213
 ii. Min ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4) area of boundary

transverse reinforcement Ash, provided Ash,required < 0.7, and/or ratio of vertical spacing of

boundary transverse reinforcement to minimum diameter of longitudinal boundary

reinforcement, s db ≥ 8.0.

Based on the above selected filters, a total of 256 wall tests were identified that included

information on lateral strength loss and 118 of these tests had reported information on axial

collapse. Histograms for various dataset parameters for those 256 tests are shown in Fig. 8-6.

Fig. 8-6–Histograms of the second dataset (256 tests) for walls with non-conforming detailing.

214
8.3. Use of Total Hinge Rotation Versus Plastic Rotation

Currently, the ASCE 41-17 nonlinear deformation-based modeling parameters (i.e., Parameters a

and b) are given as plastic hinge rotations. Where a lumped plasticity model is used, the hinge

region, which is typically at or near the base of a wall, is modeled as a near-rigid spring with

effectively no elastic deformation. However, in this study, the deformation-based modeling

parameters are given as total hinge rotation capacities (Fig. 8-7), which include both the elastic

and plastic deformations of the hinge region. This approach is proposed because, by using total

hinge rotation capacities: 1) Modeling parameters are not sensitive to approaches (or assumptions)

used to calculate yield rotation, qy, 2) Modeling parameters are consistent with the total drift ratio

or chord rotation used to define modeling parameters for shear-controlled walls and coupling

beams, respectively, and 3) Modeling parameters can be converted to strain limits by dividing by

an assumed hinge length, which is convenient where fiber models are used, which is becoming

increasingly popular in engineering practice.

It should also be noted that, for the proposed backbone relation shown in Fig. 8-7, two new

Modeling parameters are introduced, Parameters c' and d', to represent the ratio of ultimate strength

to yield strength (V@Mult/V@MyE) and the total hinge rotation capacity once the lateral residual

strength is reached. Additionally, for Point C, an approximation is made such that this point has

an ordinate and abscissa that are respectively equal to the ultimate (peak) lateral strength (V@Mult)

normalized by V@MyE (i.e., Parameter c') and the total hinge rotation capacity at 20% lateral

strength loss from V@Mult (i.e., Parameter d). Based on this assumption, the value for peak strength

is defined at the hinge rotation capacity associated with 20% loss in lateral strength.

215
 Fig. 8-7–The proposed idealized backbone relation to model hinge region of flexure-controlled
walls.

The following approach was used to obtain the total hinge rotation capacities from the

experimental backbone relations. The steps are given for a typical cantilever wall test (Fig. 8-8(a)),

and a similar approach was used for panel or partial height walls. For cases where only the hinge

region of the wall was tested, or hinge rotations were measured in the tests, the approach outlined

below was not required:

a) Rotation capacity at Point C (i.e., at 20% lateral strength loss from peak strength)

i. A plastic hinge length (lp) of half the wall length (lw/2) was assumed for all walls in the

dataset (Fig. 8-8(a)).

ii. The plastic displacement, δ p , (Fig. 8-8(c)) is obtained by subtracting the elastic first yield

displacement, δ e , (Fig. 8-8(d)) from the total displacement, δ t , (Fig. 8-8(b)). The plastic

rotation capacity, θ p , is calculated as δ p divided by the wall height between the center of

the hinge (located at lw/4 from the base) and top of the wall.

216
 iii. The elastic flexural rotation contributed by the hinge region, θ h, f , (Fig. 8-8(e)) is calculated

analytically using Eq. 8-1. Fig. 8-9(a) shows the contribution of the elastic hinge rotation

to the total wall elastic rotation for the conforming wall dataset. The high values (>60%)

are for panel or partial height wall tests where only the bottom portion of the wall was

tested. The figure also shows that a significant part of the total elastic rotation is contributed

by the hinge region, which makes sense because the elastic curvature profile has a

triangular shape with the highest values at the hinge region.

M h,ave
θ h, f = lp (Eq. 8-1)
Ec I eff

Where Mh,ave is the average moment over the hinge region, and EcIeff is the effective flexural

stiffness in accordance with Chapter 7 (taken as 0.20 EcIg and 0.50 EcIg for P Ag f c' ≤ ( )
0.05 and ≥ 0.50, respectively, and linear interpolation is applied for 0.05 < P Ag f c' < ( )
0.50)

iv. The total hinge rotation capacity is calculated as the sum of θ p (item ii above and Fig.

8-8(c)) and θ h, f (item iii above and Fig. 8-8(e)). Fig. 8-9(b) shows the contribution of the

( )
hinge elastic flexural rotation to the total hinge rotation capacity θ h, f / θ t for the

conforming wall dataset. Examination of Fig. 8-9(b) reveals that for the majority of the

walls in the dataset, hinge elastic rotation contributes less than 10% of the total hinge

rotation capacity.

217
 Fig. 8-8–Displacement profiles of flexure-controlled walls.

Fig. 8-9–Histograms of the contribution of computed hinge elastic flexural rotation to a) the wall
total elastic rotation, and b) the total hinge rotation capacity.

b) Rotation capacity at Point D and E (i.e., at residual strength and axial collapse)

At these two points, the total hinge rotation capacity was calculated as the total wall displacement

(Fig. 8-8(b)) divided by the wall height between the center of the hinge and the top of the wall,

assuming a plastic hinge length of lw/2 from the base of the wall. That is, for the Point D and E,

the elastic deformation contributed by the wall above the hinge is not subtracted as was done for

Point C, that is, all wall deformation is assumed to be associated with plastic rotation concentrated

218
in the hinge region. Shear displacements at this stage are expected to be very small and thus ignored

(i.e., not subtracted from total displacement).

8.4. Evaluation of Current ASCE 41-17 Nonlinear Modeling Parameters

In this section, the Parameter a (i.e., plastic hinge rotation capacity at strength loss) of walls with

“Confined Boundaries” is evaluated using results of the conforming wall dataset to highlight the

conservatism associated with the current structural wall modeling parameters of ASCE 41. ASCE

41-17 Table 10-19 (ACI 369-17 Table 19), which gives modeling parameters for flexure-

controlled RC structural walls, is partially shown in Table 8-2.

For the walls in the conforming dataset, which satisfy the criteria for “Confined Boundary” in

Table 8-2, the plastic rotation capacities at strength loss are computed. The results, along with the

plastic hinge rotation capacities from Table 8-2 (i.e., the first four rows), are presented in Fig. 8-10.

Two primary observations result from a review of Fig. 8-10: 1) the current modeling parameters

for walls with “confined boundaries” constitute a conservative lower-bound estimate of wall

deformation capacities, and 2) the predictor variable given in the first column of the Table 8-2 (i.e.,

( )
⎡ As − A' s f yE + P ⎤ Ag f ' cE does not correlate well with parameter a and thus produces large
⎣ ⎦

dispersions.

Table 8-2–Partial view of ASCE 41-17 Table 10-19

219
 Table 10-19. Modeling Parameters and Numerical Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Procedures—Reinf
Structural Walls and Associated Components Controlled by Flexure

Accepta
Plastic Hinge Hinge Rotat
Rotation Residual
(radians) Strength Ratio Performa

Conditions a b c IO

i. Structural walls and wall segments

V
ðAs − A0s Þf y E þ P pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Confined
t w l w f 0cE Boundaryb
t w l w f cE
0
≤0.1 ≤4 Yes 0.015 0.020 0.75 0.005 0
≤0.1 ≥6 Yes 0.010 0.015 0.40 0.004 0
≥0.25 ≤4 Yes 0.009 0.012 0.60 0.003 0
≥0.25 ≥6 Yes 0.005 0.010 0.30 0.0015 0
≤0.1 ≤4 No 0.008 0.015 0.60 0.002 0
≤0.1 ≥6 No 0.006 0.010 0.30 0.002 0
≥0.25 ≤4 No 0.003 0.005 0.25 0.001 0
≥0.25 ≥6 No 0.002 0.004 0.20 0.001 0
ii. Structural wall coupling beamsc
V d e c
Longitudinal reinforcement and pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
transverse reinforcementd t w l w f 0cE
Nonprestressed longitudinal ≤3 0.025 0.050 0.75 0.010 0
reinforcement with conforming ≥6 0.020 0.040 0.50 0.005 0
transverse reinforcement
Nonprestressed longitudinal ≤3 0.020 0.035 0.50 0.006 0
reinforcement with nonconforming ≥6 0.010 0.025 0.25 0.005 0
transverse reinforcement
Diagonal reinforcement NA 0.030 0.050 0.80 0.006 0
a
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table shall be permitted.
b
A boundary element shall be considered confined where transverse reinforcement exceeds 75% of the requirem
318 and spacing of transverse reinforcement does not exceed 8db. It shall be permitted to take modeling
acceptance criteria as 80% of confined values where boundary elements have at least 50% of the requirements
and spacing of transverse reinforcement does not exceed 8db. Otherwise, boundary elements shall be conside
c
For coupling beams spanning 8 ft 0 in., with bottom reinforcement continuous into the supporting walls, acceptan
shall be permitted to be doubled for LS and CP performance.
d
Nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement consists of top and bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of th
Conforming transverse reinforcement consists of (a) closed stirrups over the entire length of the coupling beam a
and (b) strength of closed stirrups Vs ≥ 3/4 of required shear strength of the coupling beam.

Fig. 8-10–Evaluation of Parameter a given in ASCE 41-17 for walls with “confined boundaries”.

220
 ⎣ ( )
The ⎡ As − A' s f yE + P ⎤ Ag f ' cE parameter considers the impact of axial load ratio P Ag f cE′
⎦ ( )
and longitudinal reinforcement ratio and yield strength (( A − A ) f
s
'
s yE )
Ag f ' cE . Fig. 8-11(a)

( )
shows that there is no significant trend between P Ag f cE′ (ranging from 0.0 to 0.35) and wall

plastic rotation capacity at strength loss. This observation relates to the fact that P / Ag f 'c alone

does not indicate much about the stability of the compression zone, and its influence on

deformation capacity is best accounted for through neutral axis depth of a wall section, as will be

shown later. The impact of (( A − A ) f

s
'
s yE )
Ag f ' cE is shown in Fig. 8-11(b), which interestingly

shows that an increase in this parameter results in increase of plastic rotation capacity for walls

subjected to low values of shear stress vma.x / ( )

f cE′ ( psi) ≤ 4 . This is because the value of

(( A − A ) f
s
'
s yE
Ag f ' cE ) is the largest for walls with small depth of neutral axis (more

reinforcement are in tension), and deformation capacity if such walls are typically limited by bar

fracture of tension reinforcement and tend to have large deformation capacities (Segura and

Wallace, 2018b) . Fig. 8-11(b) also shows no clear trend between (( A − A ) f

s
'
s yE )
Ag f ' cE and

plastic rotation capacity for walls with high shear stresses.

Fig. 8-12 also shows that there is only a moderate trend of Parameter a as a function of P Ag f cE′ ( )
for walls subjected to low shear stresses, and no clear trend for walls subjected to high shear

stresses for walls in the second dataset (i.e., No Confined Boundaries).

221
 Fig. 8-11– Impact of axial load ratio, longitudinal reinforcement, and slenderness parameter
(lwc/b2) on plastic rotation capacity (at strength loss) for walls with conforming detailing.

Fig. 8-12– Impact of axial load ratio on plastic rotation capacity at strength loss (Parameter a) for
walls with No Confined Boundaries (note: the break points for the ASCE 41-17 trends are
approximate since x-axis does not include (As-A's)fyE/(Agf'cE)).

8.5. Modeling Parameters for Conforming Walls

The idealized backbone relation proposed to model the hinge region ( l p = lw / 2 ) of flexure-

controlled walls is presented in Fig. 8-7. The coordinates (strength ratios and total hinge rotation

capacities) of each point on the backbone are developed in the following sections using the

experimental results from the conforming wall dataset:

222
8.5.1. Point B (EcIeff and MyE)

This point corresponds to member general yield strength and requires the yield strength (MyE) and

the effective flexural stiffness (EcIeff) of the hinge region. The effective flexural stiffness values

are given in Chapter 7 and depend on the magnitude of the sustained gravity load. The calculated

yield moment strength, MyE,cal, is evaluated as defined in ACI 369.1-17 and ASCE 41-17 based on

the ACI 318-14 approach but using expected material properties. Fig. 8-13 presents the ratio of

the calculated yield moment strength (MyE,cal) to the experimental (observed) yield moment

strength (MyE,exp). It can be seen that the calculated MyE,cal accurately captures the strength at

general yield (MyE,exp) with a mean and coefficient of variation (COV) of 1.01 and 0.12,

respectively.

Fig. 8-13–Ratio of calculated-to- experimental yield moment strength (MyE,cal/MyE,exp) for the
conforming wall dataset.

8.5.2. Point C (Parameter c' and Parameter d)

As noted previously, this point has an ordinate and abscissa that are equal to the ultimate (peak)

lateral strength (V@Mult) normalized by V@MyE (i.e., Parameter c') and the total hinge rotation

223
capacity at 20% lateral strength loss from V@Mult (i.e., Parameter d), respectively. Details

Parameter c' and Parameter d are presented below:

a) Parameter c' (i.e., V@Mult/V@MyE):

Fig. 8-14 shows the ratio of the wall ultimate moment strength obtained during the test (Mult,exp) to

the calculated MyE,cal, and indicates that, on average, Mult,exp is 14% higher than MyE,cal. Therefore,

Parameter c' is taken as 1.15 (i.e., Mult =1.15 MyE) for simplicity and to be consistent with

Parameter c' for non-conforming walls, as discussed later.

Fig. 8-14–Ratio of experimental ultimate to yield moment strength (Mult,exp/MyE,cal) for the
conforming wall dataset.

b) Parameter d (i.e., total hinge rotation capacity at strength loss)

Abdullah and Wallace (2019) analyzed the Conforming Wall dataset and found that the following

parameters had a significant impact on lateral drift capacity: (1) ratio of wall neutral axis depth-

to-width of compression zone (slenderness of the compression zone), c b , (2) ratio of wall length-

to-width of compression zone (slenderness of the cross-section), lw b , (3) ratio of maximum wall

shear stress to the square root of concrete compressive strength, vmax f c' , and (4) configuration

of the boundary transverse reinforcement used, i.e., use of overlapping hoops (Fig. 8-15(i)) versus

224
a single perimeter hoop with intermediate legs of crossties (Fig. 8-15(ii)). They also concluded

that use of a combined cross-sectional slenderness parameter λb = lw c / b 2 provided an efficient

means to account for slenderness of the cross section (lw / b ) and the slenderness of the

compression zone on the cross section ( c / b ) . Parameter λb = lw c / b 2 considers the impact of

concrete and reinforcement material properties, axial load, wall cross-section geometry, and

quantities and distributions of longitudinal reinforcement at the boundary and in the web.

i) Overlapping hoops ii) Perimeter hoop with crossties

Fig. 8-15–Examples of boundary transverse reinforcement configurations.

Furthermore, Abdullah and Wallace (2019) also investigated other parameters such as the: (1) area

ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4) boundary transverse reinforcement,

Ash, provided Ash,required , (2) ratio of vertical spacing of boundary transverse reinforcement to the

diameter of the smallest longitudinal reinforcement, s db , (3) distance between laterally

supported boundary longitudinal reinforcement, hx , normalized by hx,max or width of compression

zone, b , and (4) degree of lateral support provided (support for all boundary longitudinal bars

versus every other bar). It was concluded that these detailing parameters did not significantly

impact wall lateral drift capacity (Fig. 8-16) for walls with well-detailed boundary elements. More

in-depth discussion of these parameters can be found in Abdullah and Wallace (2019).

225
 5
1.0 Ash,prov/Ash,req 1.2 1.5 s/db < 3.5
4 1.2 < Ash,prov/Ash,req 3.5 < s/db 6
Drift Capacity (%)

1
a) BE transverse reinf.: X-Dir b) Bar slenderness ratio
0
5
All bars supported 50 mm hx < 100 mm
Not all bars supported 100 mm hx 140 mm
4
Drift Capacity (%)

1
d) Spacing of BE longi. bars laterally
c) Lateral support of BE longi. bars supported
0
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
lwc/b2
lwc/b2

Fig. 8-16–Impact of some boundary element details on drift capacity of walls with special
boundary elements.

Fig. 8-17 shows variation of Parameter d of the conforming dataset as a function of the

aforementioned four significant parameters (i.e., λb = lwc / b2 , vmax / f 'c , and overlapping hoops),

with piecewise best-linear fits of the data (proposed models) to derive the updated Parameter d

values. Fig. 8-17(a) reveals that use of overlapping hoops for values of λb > 40 (i.e., walls with

slender cross-sections and large compression depths) results in a significant increase in rotation

capacity, because the behavior of walls with small compression zones ( c / b < 1 ) tends to be

controlled by bar fracture rather than flexural compression failure. It is noted that for walls with

226
overlapping hoops and high shear stresses, only three tests exist for λb > 40 (Fig. 8-17(b)). A

detailed discussion on the impact of overlapping hoops on wall deformation capacity can be found

in Abdullah and Wallace (2019) and Segura and Wallace (2018a).

Fig. 8-17–Proposed models for Parameter d for conforming flexure-controlled walls (Note: the
statistics shown are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values for the entire dataset).

8.5.3. Point D (Parameter c and d')

As shown in Fig. 8-7, this point defines the slope of the strength degrading branch of the backbone

relations and has an ordinate and abscissa that are equal to the wall residual lateral strength ratio

(Parameter c) and the rotation capacity corresponding to reaching the residual strength (Parameter

d’), respectively. The reduced subset of 101 walls that included information on axial collapse was

studied to identify parameters that influence residual strength ratio (Parameter c) and rotation

capacity (Parameter d') at Point D, as discussed below:

227
a) Parameter c
Fig. 8-18 shows the residual moment strength, Mresidual, of the dataset normalized by the yield

moment strength, MyE, (i.e., Parameter c). It is clear that residual strength does not correlate well

with the parameters such as lb and P / Ag f c′ , which significantly impact Parameter d', as is shown

next. However, from Fig. 8-18(a), it can be seen that the walls with P/Agf’c ≥ 0.2 (~ 20 walls) have

little or no residual strength, and that walls with lb > 70 have no residual strength regardless of the

level of axial load or shear stress (i.e., no or little post-peak deformation capacity). Additional

study may provide improved relations; however, the models shown in Fig. 8-18(a) are proposed

to derive Parameter c for conforming walls.

Fig. 8-18–Proposed models for Parameter c for conforming flexure-controlled walls.

b) Parameter d'
Fig. 8-19 shows that, in addition to λb = lwc / b2 , P / Ag f c′ produces a significant influence on

Parameter d'. This is because, once strength degradation starts, the level of axial load accelerates
228
the rate of deterioration such that walls with high P / Ag f c′ have a steep post-peak slope on the

backbone relation, where no or little additional deformation capacity beyond Point C is achieved
prior to axial collapse (i.e., no residual strength plateau, Fig. 8-7). Insufficient data existed to
evaluate if the use of overlapping hoops in the boundary elements would influence Parameter d'.
Therefore, lb and P / Ag f c′ are used as predictor variables to select Parameter d’ based on the

piecewise best-linear fits (models) shown on Fig. 8-19.

Fig. 8-19–Proposed models for Parameter d' for conforming flexure-controlled walls (Note: the
statistics shown are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values).

8.5.4. Point E (Axial Collapse)

As shown in Fig. 8-7, this point is assumed to have an ordinate that is equal to the wall residual

lateral strength ratio (Parameter c), whereas the abscissa is equal to the rotation capacity

corresponding to the onset of axial collapse (Parameter d).

The reduced subset of 101 walls with reported information on axial collapse was studied to identify

parameters that influence rotation capacity (Parameter d') at Point E. Similar to Parameter d',

λb = lwc / b2 and P / Ag f c′ significantly influence Parameter e. Data and the proposed models are

229
presented in Fig. 8-20. Segura and Wallace (2018a) reported that providing lateral restraint in the

form of crossties for the web longitudinal reinforcement increased the rotation capacity at axial

collapse; however, tests on walls with crossties in the web region are rare and would not allow

statistical analysis.

Fig. 8-20–Proposed models for Parameter e for conforming flexure-controlled walls (Note: the
statistics shown are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values).

8.6. Proposed Modeling Parameters for Conforming Flexure-Controlled Walls

Based on results presented in the preceding sections, updated modeling parameters for conforming

walls controlled by flexure are presented in Table 8-3. The statistics of each parameter are

presented in Table 8-4. These statistics allow users to select appropriate modeling rules and

acceptance criteria other than those recommended later in section 8.10.

230
 Table 8-3–Modeling parameters for conforming RC structural walls controlled by flexure
Conditions

𝑙- 𝑐/ 𝑤3 𝑉@6&78 d
Overlapping
+ hoops used?
𝑏1 𝐴$3 :𝑓$/

≤ 10 ≤4 YES 0.032
≤ 10 ≥6 YES 0.026
≥ 70 ≤4 YES 0.018
≥ 70 ≥6 YES 0.014
≤ 10 ≤4 NO 0.032
≤ 10 ≥6 NO 0.026
≥ 70 ≤4 NO 0.012
≥ 70 ≥6 NO 0.011

Conditions

𝑙- 𝑐/ 𝑃 C c' d' e
+
𝑏1 𝐴) 𝑓$/
≤ 10 ≤ 0.10 0.5 0.036 0.040
≤ 10 ≥ 0.20 0.1 0.030 0.032
1.15
≥ 70 ≤ 0.10 0.0 0.018 0.020
≥ 70 ≥ 0.20 0.0 0.014 0.014
Notes: See Section 8.6.1

Table 8-4–Statistics of the modeling parameters given in Table 8-3*

Standard Coefficient of
Parameter Mean Median
Deviation Variation, COV
MyE,cal /MyE 1.01 1.00 0.12 0.12
c' 1.03 1.02 0.10 0.10
c 1.15 0.84 0.97 0.84
d 0.98 0.95 0.17 0.17
d' 1.01 1.01 0.22 0.21
e 1.03 1.01 0.22 0.21
*
The statistics are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values.

231
8.6.1. Notes on Table 8-3 (Most will apply to Table 8-5 for non-conforming walls)

1. Walls should be considered conforming when they comply with the following requirements:

a) A minimum of two curtains of web vertical and horizontal reinforcement,

b) Boundary longitudinal reinforcement ratio (calculated per ACI 318-14 R18.10.6.5),

ρ ≥ 6 f c' ( psi) f y ,

c) Min area ratio of provided-to-required (per ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.4) boundary transverse

reinforcement, Ash, provided Ash,required ≥ 0.7,

d) ratio of vertical spacing of boundary transverse reinforcement to the diameter of the

smallest longitudinal reinforcement, s db ≤ 8.0,

e) Adequate lap-splice of longitudinal reinforcement.

2. New and modified notations:

a) The current tables of ASCE 41-17 use lw´tw for gross area (Ag) in the tables. This implies

that the tables are only applicable to planar walls. Therefore, the following two notations

are added:

i. Ag = gross area of wall

ii. Acv = gross area of concrete section bounded by web thickness and length of section in

the direction of shear force (= lw´tw).

b) Since c is defined as the residual strength ratio, use of 𝑐/ is recommended for depth of

neutral axis at MyE using expected material properties and axial load due to gravity loads

and earthquake effects (worst case scenario).

c) The notation b in the parameter λb =lwc/b2 is defined as width of flexural compression zone

in ACI 318. In ACI 369, it is given for section width. For a simple planar wall, b is the

232
 same as tw; however, the tables proposed are intended to apply to walls with rectangular,

flanged, and barbell cross sectional shapes (Fig. 4-8a through f). For cases with a large b,

e.g., where the barbell or flange of the wall is in compression (Fig. 4-8a through h),

deformation capacity is likely to be relatively large (low λb ); however, for cases with a

barbell or flange in tension, and a thin wall web in compression (Fig. 4-8b and e through

h), relatively large values of c b and λb are likely, and higher shear demands are also

likely; therefore, lower drift capacities are likely. For cases where b varies over c , or

where c varies over b , a representative (e.g., weighted average) value of b or c should

be used, as shown in Fig. 4-8(c), (d), (e) and (h).

3. The maximum shear demand, V@Mult, is amplified to account for the higher mode responses

using the following simplified dynamic shear amplification factor, wv, (ACI 318-19 §18.10.3):

𝑛"
𝜔3 = 0.9 + 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑛 " ≤ 6
10

𝑛"
𝜔3 = 1.3 + 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑛" > 6
30

Where 𝑛" is the number of stories above the critical section and should not be taken less than

0.007 times the wall height above the critical section (hwcs) measured in inches. This limit is

imposed on ns to account for buildings with large story heights (i.e., >12 ft. (144 in.)).

4. For overlapping hoops, the definition that has been approved for ACI 318-19 or a slightly more

relaxed definition could be adopted.

5. In ASCE 41-17 §10.7.1.1, if axial load on a wall exceeded 0.35Ag f 'c, the lateral strength and

stiffness of the wall cannot be considered. It is recommended that this limit be removed because

233
 the two datasets used to develop the new modeling parameters include walls with axial loads

up to 0.6Ag f 'c. The influence of axial load is accounted for with the lwc/b2 term.

6. For asymmetric walls (e.g., T-shaped, L-shaped, or half barbell walls, or walls with different

quantities of reinforcement or different configuration of transverse reinforcement boundary

elements), the user should produce backbones for both directions of loading (asymmetric

backbone). However, for axial collapse, T-shaped and L-shaped walls are unlikely to lose axial

load carrying capacities because tests observations have shown that the flange remains mostly

intact unless it is subjected to bi-directional loading. Similarly, for wing walls (walls with a

column at or near the center of the wall, if the column is well confined (spirally reinforced

columns), they might not lose axial load carrying capacity. Such walls might be common in

old construction (pre1980s).

7. Since different conditions are used for Parameter d and Parameters d' and e, Parameter d' and

e should not be taken greater than Parameter d. In rare cases, this might happen.

8.7. Modeling Parameters for Non-Conforming Walls

Similar to conforming walls, the coordinates (strength ratios and total hinge rotation capacities) of

each response point on the idealized backbone relation (Fig. 8-7) are developed in the following

sections using the experimental results from the non-conforming wall dataset:

8.7.1. Point B (EcIeff and MyE)

This point corresponds to member general yield strength and requires the yield strength (MyE) and

the effective flexural stiffness (EcIeff) of the hinge region. The effective flexural stiffness values

are given in Chapter 7 and depend on the magnitude of the sustained gravity load. The calculated

234
yield moment strength, MyE,cal, is evaluated as defined in ACI 369.1-17 and ASCE 41-17 based on

the ACI 318-14 approach but using expected material properties.

Fig. 8-21 presents the ratio the calculated yield moment strength (MyE,cal) to the experimental

(observed) yield moment strength (MyE,exp) for the non-conforming dataset. It can be seen that the

calculated MyE on average only slightly underpredicts the yield moment strength (MyE,exp), except

for walls with P / Ag f c′ > 0.40. Given that non-conforming walls encountered in practice

typically have axial loads below 0.2Agf’c, taking strength at Point B as MyE,cal is proposed, similar

to conforming walls.

Fig. 8-21–Ratio of calculated-to- experimental yield moment strength (MyE,cal/MyE,exp) for the
non-conforming wall dataset.

8.7.2. Point C (Parameter c' and Parameter d)

a) Parameter c' (i.e., V@Mult/V@MyE):

Fig. 8-22 presents the ratio of the ultimate moment strength obtained during the test (Mult,exp) to

the calculated MyE,cal for the non-conforming dataset, which shows that, on average, Mult,exp is 18%

235
higher than MyE,cal. This value is slightly larger than that of conforming walls. Based on these

results and results of the conforming wall dataset, Parameter c' is taken as 1.15 (Mult =1.15 MyE).

Fig. 8-22– Ratio of experimental ultimate-to-yield moment strength (Mult,exp/MyE,cal) for the non-
conforming wall dataset.

b) Parameter d (i.e., total hinge rotation capacity at strength loss):

The non-conforming wall dataset was studied to highlight parameters that influence Parameter d.

Fig. 8-23 shows variation of Parameter d against λb = lwc / b2 for three levels P / Ag f c′ . and wall

shear stress ratio ( vmax / f c′ ). It is clear that, similar to conforming walls, Parameter d is highly

influenced by λb = lwc / b2 , but the influence of P / Ag f c′ and vmax / f c′ is not clear. As noted

previously, P / Ag f 'c does not correlate well with wall lateral deformation capacity at 20% lateral

strength loss (Fig. 8-23(a)). Fig. 8-23(b) shows that the impact of vmax / f c′ is not as apparent as

it was for walls in the conforming wall dataset, which might suggest that walls with non-

conforming detailing might fail due to lack of proper detailing before the negative impact of shear

236
stress takes effect. It is also noted that there are relatively few walls in the dataset with high shear

stresses ( vmax / f 'c > 6) at λb = lwc / b2 > 20 (Fig. 8-23(b)).

Fig. 8-23–Impact of λb = lwc / b2 , P / Ag f c′ , and vmax / f c′ on Parameter d for walls with

non-conforming detailing.

Additionally, performing a series of linear regression analyses were conducted on the non-

conforming dataset and revealed that detailing parameters such as provided Ash, s/db, and rlong,BE

play an important role in Parameter d, as shown in Fig. 8-24. It is noted that rlong,BE is computed

in accordance with ACI 318-14 R18.10.6.5, and the dataset includes walls with rlong,BE ≥ 0.004

(see Fig. 8-21 and Fig. 8-22). Walls with very low rlong,BE and low P / Ag f c′ could have

significantly less deformation capacity because such walls may develop one or two major cracks

at or near the base with little or no secondary cracks, which leads to strain concentration at the

major cracks and eventual bar fracture.

237
 Fig. 8-24–Impact detailing parameters on Parameter d of non-conforming walls.

Fig. 8-25 shows the combined impact of Ash and s/db along with the proposed models for Parameter

d. It can be seen that the dispersion of the data at lb < 20 is significant. In this region, walls tend

to have different flexure-failure modes. For example, walls with slender cross-sections (lw/b > 12)

and small compression zones (c/b < 1.5) tend to be limited by tensile strains that develop in the

boundary longitudinal reinforcement (e.g., T-shaped wall loaded with the flange in compression),

where providing additional transverse reinfrcement does not result in increased deformation

capacity. These walls typically have rotation capacities larger than 0.02 unless they are reinforced

with brittle (non-ductile) longitudinal reinforcement, or their longitudinal reinforcement ratio in

the boundary region is small (i.e., < 0.0025). On the other hand, for walls that have squat cross-

sections (lw/b < 8) and moderate compression demands (c/b > 2), which most of the non-

confroming walls fall into this category (Fig. 8-6), the deformation capacity tends to be limited by

flexure compression failures, for which increased transverse reinforcement and bar restraint would

likely lead to increased deformation capacity by providing improved lateral restraint against rebar

buckling. Walls with lb > 60, which are characterized with slender cross-sections and high

compression demands (i.e., thin walls), are typically controlled by brittle compression failures

and/or out-of-plane instability.

238
Fig. 8-25 also shows walls with one curtain of web reinforcement, which, except for seven walls,

all had no transverse reinofrcenent within the boundary region. Fig. 8-25 reveals that walls with

one curtain of web reinforcement have rotation capacities comparable to those with two curtains

of web reinforcement. Therefore, it is proposed that walls with one curtain of web reinfrocement

be treated similar to walls with two curtains of web reinfrocement.

8.7.3. Point D (Parameter c and d')

Fig. 8-26 shows the residual moment strength of the dataset normalized by MyE (i.e., Parameter c),

and reveals that, similar to conforming walls, Parameter c does not correlate well with the

parameters that significantly impact Parameter d' (as shown next) such as lb and P / Ag f c′ . In the

absence of additional studies, the piecewise best-linear fits (models) shown in Fig. 8-26 are

proposed to derive Parameter c for non-conforming walls.

Fig. 8-25–Proposed models for Parameter d for non-conforming walls as a function of Ash ratio
and s/db.

239

Fig. 8-26–Proposed models for Parameter c for non-conforming flexure-controlled walls.

Additionally, similar to conforming walls, λb = lwc / b2 , P / Ag f c′ were found to have a significant

influence on Parameter d’, as shown in Fig. 8-27. Therefore, these two parameters are used as

predictors for selecting Parameter d’ based on the models shown in Fig. 8-27.

8.7.4. Point E (Axial Collapse)

Similar to Parameter d', λb = lwc / b2 and P / Ag f c′ significantly influence Parameter e. The

results of the dataset, along with the proposed models, are presented in Fig. 8-28.

240

Fig. 8-27–Proposed models for Parameter d' for non-conforming flexure-controlled walls.

Fig. 8-28–Proposed models for Parameter e for conforming flexure-controlled walls.

8.8. Wall with Low Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratios

As noted previously, the non-conforming dataset contains walls with longitudinal reinforcement

ratios in the boundary region ( ρl ,BE ) equal to, or greater than, 0.0025 (minimum web longitudinal

241
reinforcement ratio of ACI 318-14). However, walls with distributed longitudinal reinforcement

ratios < 0.0025 are found in buildings constructed prior 1970s (i.e., prior to establishment of

modern seismic building codes). Furthermore, walls with longitudinal reinforcement ratios <

0.0015 are currently treated as force-controlled components/actions (ASCE 41-17 §10.7.2.3),

which makes it virtually impossible to meet the strictly defined performance objectives at the BSE-

2E hazard level when no ductility capacity is permitted, especially in wall buildings since the

strength limit is reached at exceptionally low drift demands.

To address this issue, the database was filtered to identify walls with distributed longitudinal

reinforcement ratios (ratio of area of total longitudinal reinforcement to gross concrete area

perpendicular to the reinforcement), ρlw , < 0.0025, where ρlw is ratio of area of total longitudinal

reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement in a wall or wall

segment)and a subset of 11 walls were identified with 0.001< ρlw < 0.0025. For those 11 wall tests,

only data up lateral strength loss is available (i.e., Parameter d). The limited data are presented in

Fig. 8-29 along with the models of Fig. 8-25 (non-conforming walls with longitudinal

reinforcement ratio ≥ 0.0025). This figure suggests that non-conforming walls with such low

longitudinal reinforcement ratios can perform significantly worse than those with higher

reinforcement ratios when subjected to relatively low compression demands (i.e., lwc / b2 < 10),

for which the failure mode is typically more tension-fracture of longitudinal bars due to the

significant tensile strains expected to be developed in the extreme tension bars. This figure also

reveals that walls with ρlw < 0.0025 and moderate-to-high compression demands perform similar

to the data presented in Fig. 8-25 (i.e., walls with ρlw ≥ 0.0025) because the deformation capacity

of such walls is not particularly limited by tension-fracture of longitudinal bars, but rather by

242
concrete crushing and bar buckling. Therefore, the following is proposed until further data and

information on walls with ρlw < 0.0025 become available.

The models presented in Fig. 8-25, Fig. 8-27, and Fig. 8-28 do not apply to walls with ρlw < 0.001

and a reduction factor should be applied for ρlw between 0.001 and 0.0025 and for low values of

the parameter lwc / b2 . A reduction factor of 0.4 for ρlw = 0.001 and lwc / b2 ≤ 10 and 1.0 for

ρlw = 0.0025 and lwc / b2 ≥ 20 should be applied to the hinge rotation capacity values obtained

from models shown in Fig. 8-25, Fig. 8-27, and Fig. 8-28. Linear interpolation of the reduction

factor with respect to ρlw and lwc / b2 should be permitted for intermediate values. This proposed

approach is shown in Fig. 8-29 (broken red line) with the limited test data and models of Fig. 8-25.

Fig. 8-29–Proposed model for Parameter d of flexure-controlled walls with ρlw < 0.0025.

8.9. Proposed Modeling Parameters for Non-Conforming Flexure-Controlled Walls

Based on results presented in the preceding sections, updated modeling parameters for non-

conforming walls controlled by flexure are given in Table 8-5. The statistics of the parameters are

243
given in Table 8-6. These statistics allow users to select appropriate modeling rules and acceptance

criteria other than those recommended later in section 8.10.

Table 8-5–Modeling parameters for non-conforming RC structural walls controlled by flexure

Conditions
𝑙- 𝑐/ d
Detailing
𝑏1
Ash, provided s
≤ 10 ≥ 0.5 and ≤9 0.034
Ash,required db
Ash, provided s
≤ 10 < 0.2 and > 15 0.019
Ash,required db
Ash, provided s
≥60 ≥ 0.5 and ≤9 0.010
Ash,required db
Ash, provided s
≥ 60 < 0.2 and > 15 0.008
Ash,required db

Conditions
𝑃
𝑙- 𝑐/ c c' d' e
+
𝑏1 𝐴) 𝑓$/
≤ 10 ≤ 0.10 0.4 0.032 0.035

≤ 10 ≥ 0.20 0.1 0.020 0.021

1.15
≥ 60 ≤ 0.10 0.0 0.015 0.015
≥ 60 ≥ 0.20 0.0 0.010 0.010
Notes: See section 8.9.1

244
 Table 8-6–Statistics of the modeling parameters given in Table 8-5*

Standard Coefficient of
Parameter Mean Median
Deviation Variation
MyE,cal /MyE 0.97 0.97 0.14 0.14
c' 1.03 0.97 0.15 0.15
c 1.22 1.00 0.95 0.78
d 0.95 0.93 0.22 0.23
d' 1.01 0.97 0.24 0.24
e 1.01 1.02 0.21 0.21
*
The statistics are for the ratios of predicted-to-experimental values.

8.9.1. Notes on Table 8-5 (in addition to the applicable notes on Table 8-3)

1. Walls should be considered non-conforming when they do not satisfy all the requirements of

conforming walls.

2. If values of both Ash,provided/Ash,required and s/db fall between or outside the limits given in the

table, linear interpolation should independently be performed for both Ash,provided/Ash,required and

s/db, and the lower resulting value of Parameter d should be taken.

3. Values of Ash,provided/Ash,required and s/db should be provided over a horizontal distance that

extends from extreme compression fiber at least cE /2.

4. The d, d’, and e parameters in this table do not apply to walls with ρlw lower than 0.001 and

a reduction factor should be applied for ρlw between 0.001 and 0.0025 ( ρlw = ratio of area of

total longitudinal reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement in

a wall or wall segment) and for low values of parameter lwc / b2 . A reduction factor of 0.4

for ρlw = 0.001 and lwc / b2 ≤ 10 and 1.0 for ρlw = 0.0025 and lwc / b2 ≥ 20 should be

245
 applied to the hinge rotation capacity values obtained from this table. Linear interpolation of

the reduction factor with respect to ρlw and lwc / b2 should be permitted for intermediate

values.

5. Interpolation between table of conforming and non-conforming walls is not allowed.

6. This table applies to walls with either one or multiple curtains of web reinforcement.

7. Since different conditions are used for Parameter d and Parameters d' and e, Parameter d' and

e should not be taken greater than Parameter d. In rare cases, this might happen.

8.10. Acceptance Criteria for Non-linear and Linear Procedures

8.10.1. General

Acceptance criteria are limiting values of deformation demands for deformation-controlled actions

and strength demands for force-controlled actions, which are used to determine the conformance

of a structure with the design requirements or performance objectives. ASCE 41-17 § 7.5.1

requires that prior to selecting component acceptance criteria (AC) for acceptability of force and

deformation actions, each component that affects the lateral stiffness or distribution of lateral

forces in the building, or are loaded as a result of lateral deformation of the building should be

classified as primary or secondary, and each action should be classified as deformation-controlled

(ductile) or force-controlled (nonductile). In general, a structural component that is required to

resist seismic forces and accommodate the associated seismic deformations for the structure to

achieve the selected performance level are classified as primary (e.g., the lateral force resisting

system of the building), whereas a structural component that only needs to accommodate seismic

deformations and is not required to resist seismic forces for the structure to achieve the selected

performance level is permitted to be classified as secondary (the gravity system of the building).

246
In all cases, the engineer needs to verify that gravity load-carrying capacity of the structural system

is not compromised, regardless of the designation of primary and secondary components.

Currently, there is no AC for walls as secondary components in ASCE 41-17. This could be

because walls typically provide add considerably or reliably to the lateral resistance of the building

against seismic induced demands.

ASCE 41-17 §7.5.1.2 gives guidance on classifying actions as either deformation controlled or

force controlled. In general, deformation-controlled actions are those for which the component can

undergo measurable inelastic deformations without compromising the ability to maintain its load-

carrying capacity, whereas force-controlled actions are those for which the component loses its

load-carrying capacity once the elastic limit (yield strength) is exceeded (no ductility). In ASCE

41-17, actions are defined as deformation-controlled by the standard if linear and nonlinear AC

are designated to them. In cases, where linear and nonlinear AC are not specified in the standard,

actions should be classified as force controlled, unless component testing is performed to

demonstrate otherwise. Currently, both shear and flexure actions in RC structural walls are treated

as deformation-controlled actions, with AC specified for linear approaches in the form of

deformation-based m-factors and for nonlinear approaches in the form of plastic hinge

rotations. Other actions, such as axial, based shear sliding, as well as shear in walls with a

transverse reinforcement ratio < 0.0015 (ASCE 41-17 § 10.7.2.3) and flexure in walls where the

cracking moment strength exceeds the yield strength (ASCE 41-17 § 10.7.2.3), are currently

treated as force-controlled actions, unless component testing is performed to demonstrate

otherwise. The AC proposed herein in do not result in changes to the designation of force and

deformation-controlled actions.

247
8.10.2. Distribution of Data for Parameters d and e

Fig. 8-30 presents the distributed of the data for the ratios of experimental-to-predicted d and e,

along with normal and lognormal distributions associated with the means and standard deviations

of the data. It can be seen that the data are better fit using a lognormal distribution. The data for

Parameter e is not as well-fit using a lognormal distribution as Parameter d, and using normal

distribution is not much better, either. This could be a limitation of the data set size (smaller) and

the selected bin widths. For both distributions, the lower tail is more important, since this is the

side of the distribution that affects the AC. For Parameter d, the lognormal distribution does a

better job capturing that lower tail than the normal distribution. Furthermore, to be consistent with

distributions used for other component in the standard and to avoid negative values of AC,

lognormal distribution is assumed for deriving the AC, as shown below.

8.10.3. Proposed Acceptance Criteria (AC) for Nonlinear Procedures

The ASCE 41-17 §7.6.3 standard provides a procedure for defining AC based on experimental

data. For both primary and secondary components, the standard defines AC for the Immediate

Occupancy (IO) performance objective as the deformation at which permanent, visible damage

occurred in the experiments (acceptable damage), but not greater than 2/3 of the deformation limit

(AC) for Life Safety (LS). For both secondary and primary members, ASCE 41-17 §7.6.3 defines

AC as 75% of Parameter e for LS and 100% of Parameter e for collapse prevention (CP). It is

important to note that the current modeling parameters in the standard were selected very

conservatively, as shown before; therefore, by taking AC as fractions of Parameter e or d, the

standard in essence aims at deformation limits smaller than values at which lateral strength loss or

axial failure occurs. Therefore, for more severe performance objectives (i.e., LS and CP), for which

structural stability and safety are of significant concern, ensuring a fixed probability of exceeding

248
the deformation corresponding to the onset of lateral-strength degradation (Parameter d) or the

onset of axial failure (Parameter e) is more appropriate and is consistent with performance

objective of columns in ACI 369-17 (Ghannoum and Matamoros, 2014). As a result, the following

acceptance criteria for nonlinear procedures are recommended for RC structural walls:

40 35
Data Data
35 Normal 30 Normal
30 Lognormal Lognormal
25

Frequency
Frequency

25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5 5

0 0
2 5 9 3 6 0 3 1 2 4 5 6
0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Bins for dexp/dpre Bins for eexp/epre
(a) Conforming Walls

45 35
Data Data
40 Normal 30 Normal
35 Lognormal Lognormal
25
30
Frequency
Frequency

25 20

20 15
15
10
10
5
5
0 0
2 1 9 8 7 5 4 5 6 7 9 0
0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5
Bins for dexp/dpre Bins for eexp/epre

(b) Non-Conforming Walls

Fig. 8-30–Distribution of ratios of experimental-to-predicted d and e, along with normal and
lognormal distributions associated with the means and standard deviations of the data

249
1. It is proposed here that AC for IO be based on a percentage of the plastic hinge rotation value

(d - θy) plus the yield rotation. A conservative value of θy + 0.10 (d - θy) is selected as the

limiting deformation at which a reinforced concrete wall is deemed to need repair and no longer

satisfy the IO performance objective.

2. For LS of primary members, it is proposed that total hinge rotations should not exceed the 20th

percentile of Parameter d. For a member critical to the stability of a structure, satisfying the

AC for LS would indicate an 80% level of confidence that the member under consideration

has not initiated lateral strength degradation.

3. For CP of primary members, it is proposed that total hinge rotations should not exceed the 35th

percentile of Parameter d.

4. For LS of secondary members, it is proposed that total hinge rotations should not exceed the

10th percentile of Parameter e nor be less than AC for LS of primary members. Due to the

more critical nature of the behavioral milestone identified by Parameter e, a lower percentile

was selected for this AC than for primary members.

5. For CP of secondary members, total hinge rotations should not exceed the 25th percentile of

Parameter e nor be less than AC for CP of primary members.

6. In all case, the AC for primary members should not be larger than those for secondary members.

Based on the above approach and assuming lognormal distribution for Parameters d and e, Table

8-7 and Table 8-8 present AC for conforming walls, where Table 8-7 uses the actual medians of

the data for Parameters d and e (biased models), and Table 8-8 uses the medians rounded to 1.0

250
(unbiased models). Similarly, the results for non-conforming walls are presented in Table 8-9 and

Table 8-10.

Table 8-7–Acceptance criteria for conforming structural walls: biased models are used
Performance Component
Percentile Percentage Acceptance Criteria
Level Type
Primary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
IO
Secondary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
Primary 20th of d 91% 0.91d
LS
Secondary 10th of e 74% 0.74e ≥ 0.91d
Primary 35th of d 98% 0.98d
CP
Secondary 25th of e 85% 0.85e ≥ 0.98d

Table 8-8–Acceptance criteria for conforming structural walls: unbiased models are used
Performance Component
Percentile Percentage Acceptance Criteria
Level Type
Primary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
IO
Secondary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
Primary 20th of d 86.7% 0.87d
LS
Secondary 10th of e 74% 0.74e ≥ 0.87d
Primary 35th of d 93.6% 0.94d
CP
Secondary 25th of e 85.9% 0.86e ≥ 0.94d

Table 8-9–Acceptance criteria for non-conforming structural walls: biased models are used
Performance Component
Percentile Percentage Acceptance Criteria
Level Type
Primary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
IO
Secondary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
Primary 20th of d 90.5% 0.91d
LS
Secondary 10th of e 74.9% 0.75e ≥ 0.91d
Primary 35th of d 99.6% 1.00d
CP
Secondary 25th of e 85.10% 0.85e ≥ 1.00d

251
Table 8-10–Acceptance criteria for non-conforming structural walls: unbiased models are used
Performance Component
Percentile Percentage Acceptance Criteria
Level Type
Primary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
IO
Secondary - - θy+0.1(d - θy)
Primary 20th of d 84.3% 0.84d
LS
Secondary 10th of e 76.4% 0.76e ≥ 0.84d
Primary 35th of d 92.2% 0.92d
CP
Secondary 25th of e 86.8% 0.87e ≥ 0.92d

The impact of ignoring possible bias in the models for Parameter d on the AC results in lower

(conservative) allowable rotation values for the AC. This may be conservative. The difference is

about 4% for the conforming walls and about 7% for the non-conforming walls. The impact of

ignoring possible bias in the models for Parameter e on the AC results in about the same allowable

rotation values for the AC (≈1% difference). Since the medians and dispersions of Parameter d

and e are close for conforming and non-conforming walls, a single set of AC for both conforming

and non-conforming walls might be appropriate. Table 8-11 presents a recommended set of AC

for both conforming and non-conforming walls. Approximate location of AC on the backbone

relation is shown in Fig. 8-31.

Table 8-11–Recommended acceptance criteria for conforming and non-conforming flexure-

controlled concrete structural walls.
Performance Level Component Type Acceptance Criteria

IO Primary and Secondary θy+0.1(d - θy)

Primary 0.90d
LS
Secondary 0.75e ≥ 0.90d
Primary 1.00d
CP
Secondary 0.85e ≥ 1.00d

252
 Fig. 8-31–Approximate location of AC on backbone relation.

8.10.4. Proposed Acceptance Criteria (AC) for Linear Procedures– m-factors

As noted in the previous section, for AC in nonlinear procedures, deformation limits are used.

However, for the AC in the linear procedures, these deformation limits are converted to m-factors,

defined as component capacity modification factors to account for the expected ductility associated

with the action at the selected performance level. Since drift and deformation demands are not

explicitly evaluated for ASCE 41 linear procedures, the m-factors are used as a proxy for limiting

allowable drifts and deformations.

Provisions ASCE 41-17 §7.6.3 stipulate that m-factors be selected based on the nonlinear modeling

parameters d and e from experimental data according to the relationships shown in Table 8-12.

Because these m-factors are defined in terms of nonlinear modeling parameters d and e, the

relationships in Table 8-12 are applicable to all types of walls, regardless of level of detailing.

253
 Table 8-12–m-factors for reinforced concrete walls based on provisions of ASCE 41-17 §7.6.3
Performance Level
Component Type
IO LS CP

3 ⎛ d nl ⎞ 9 ⎛ d nl ⎞ 9 ⎛ enl ⎞
Primary ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
8⎝ θy ⎠ 16 ⎝ θ y ⎠ 16 ⎝ θ y ⎠

3 ⎛ enl ⎞ 9 ⎛ enl ⎞ 3 ⎛ enl ⎞

Secondary ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
8⎝ θy ⎠ 16 ⎝ θ y ⎠ 4 ⎝ θy ⎠

The yield rotation (θy) in Table 8-12 is the average hinge rotation corresponding to the first yield

of longitudinal reinforcement and is computed from sectional analysis of the wall as yield

curvature (fy) times the hinge length (lp). Fig. 8-32 presents variation of yield curvature computed

from sectional analysis for a dataset of 978 walls versus wall length (lw). A best fit model in the

form of fy = 0.00375/ lw results in a mean of 1.02 and a coefficient of variation of 0.21. The upper-

and lower-bounds shown in Fig. 8-32 represent roughly the mean plus and minus two standard

deviations, respectively. Assuming an lp of lw/2 and uniform distribution of curvature over lp, a

mean value of hinge yield rotation (θy) of 0.188% can be obtained. For the purpose of obtaining

m-factors, it might be more appropriate to use the upper-bound yield curvature, which results in a

θy of 0.25%, producing conservative values of m-factors. It is noted that these yield rotation values

do not take into account the increase in yield rotation (flexibility) as a result of bar slip/extension

into the foundation, which could increase θy by another 5% to 20% for walls with low-to-moderate

axial loads (more axial load results in less bar slip/extension).

254
Fig. 8-32–Yield curvature (fy) computed from sectional analysis as a function of wall length (lw).

8.11. Summary and Conclusions

This study involves utilizing the available experimental data and new information on performance

of structural walls to develop updated modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for seismic

evaluation and retrofit of flexure-controlled reinforced concrete structural walls. The current

ASCE 41-17 nonlinear deformation-based modeling parameters (i.e., Parameters a and b) are

given as plastic hinge rotations. Where a lumped plasticity model is used, the hinge region, which

is typically at or near the base of a wall, is modeled as a near-rigid spring with effectively no elastic

deformation. However, in this study, the deformation-based modeling parameters are given as total

hinge rotation capacities, which include both the elastic and plastic deformations of the hinge

region (lw/2). This approach is proposed because, by using total hinge rotation capacities: 1)

Modeling parameters are not sensitive to approaches (or assumptions) used to calculate yield

rotation, qy, 2) Modeling parameters are consistent with the total drift ratio or chord rotation used

to define modeling parameters for shear-controlled walls and coupling beams, respectively, and 3)
255
Modeling parameters can be converted to strain limits by dividing by an assumed hinge length,

which is convenient where fiber models are used, which is becoming increasingly popular in

engineering practice.

To accomplish these objectives, two subsets of data were filtered from UCLA-RCWalls database,

one for walls with conforming “or special” detailing and the other for walls with non-conforming

“or ordinary” detailing. The datasets were first used to evaluate the current modeling parameters

of ASCE 41-17 (ACI 369-17), and the results revealed that the current modeling parameters for

walls constitute a conservative lower-bound estimate of wall deformation capacities, and that the

( )
predictor variable ⎡ As − A' s f yE + P ⎤ Ag f ' cE used to select modeling parameters does not
⎣ ⎦

correlate well with the modeling parameters and thus produces large dispersions. Subsequently,

the two datasets were studies extensively to identify parameters that have moderate to significant

influence on each modeling parameter on the backbone relation. Based on the results, two sets of

modeling parameters are proposed, one for walls with conforming “or special” detailing and the

other for walls with non-conforming “or ordinary” detailing. The proposed modeling parameters

produce dispersions are that very low (coefficient of variation ranging from 0.18 to 0.25). The

updates are expected to be significant contributions to the practice of seismic evaluation and

retrofit of wall buildings.

8.12. Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided, in part, by ATC 140 Project, and the University of California,

Los Angeles. The authors would also like to thank the other member of Working Group 3 (WG3)

of ATC 140 Project, which include Wassim Ghannoum, Garrett Hagen, Mohamed Talaat, Laura

256
Lowes, and Afshar Jalalian for providing thoughtful comments on the work presented. Any

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of others mentioned here.

257
8.13. References

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018a “UCLA-RCWalls database for reinforced concrete

structural walls,” Proceedings, 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

Abdullah, S. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2018b, “A Reliability-Based Deformation Capacity Model

for ACI 318 Compliant Special Structural Walls,” Proceedings, 2018 Structural Engineers

Association of California (SEAOC) Convention, Palm Springs, CA.

Abdullah S. A., Wallace J. W., 2019, “Drift capacity of RC structural walls with special boundary

elements,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 183–194.

ACI Committee 318. (2014). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and

Commentary (ACI 318), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. 524 pp.

ASCE Standards ASCE/SEI 41-17 “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings

(ASCE/SEI 41-17),” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 576 pp.

ASCE/SEI Standards, 2016, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

(ASCE/SEI 7-16),” American Society for Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 690 pp.

Birely, A., Lowes, L., and Lehman, D., 2014, “Evaluation of ASCE 41 Modeling Parameters for

Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” ACI Special Publication (SP-297–4).

FEMA 273, 1997, Guidelines to the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Ghannoum W.M., Matamoros A.B., 2014, “Nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance

criteria for concrete columns,” ACI Special Publication, 297, pp. 1-24.

258
Lu, Y., Gultom, R., Henry, R. S., Ma, Q. T., 2016 “Testing of RC walls to investigate proposed

minimum vertical reinforcement limits in NZS 3101:2006 (A3)”, Proceedings of the 2016

NZSEE Annual Conference, Christchurch, April 1-3.

NIST, 2011. Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete Special Structural Walls and Coupling

Beams: A Guide for Practicing Engineers, NIST GCR 11-917-11 REV-1, NEHRP

Consultants Joint Venture, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,

Maryland

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018a, “Seismic performance limitations and detailing of

slender reinforced concrete walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 3, pp. 849-860.

Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018b, “Impact of geometry and detailing on drift capacity of

slender walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 3, pp. 885–896.

Tran, T. A. (2012). “Experimental and analytical studies of moderate aspect ratio reinforced

concrete structural walls.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Univ. of California, Los Angeles.

Wallace, J. W., “Slender Wall Behavior and Modeling,” PEER/EERI Technical Seminar Series,

New Information on the Seismic Performance of Existing Concrete Buildings, 2006.

see www.eeri.org/

259
CHAPTER 9. Conclusions and Recommendations

The main body of this dissertation consists of seven distinct and yet closely related chapters.

Detailed conclusions and recommendations are outlined in each chapter; however, the key

conclusions and recommendations are summarized below:

1. A comprehensive and large relational database of RC wall tests known as UCLA-RCWalls

was developed that currently contains detailed and parameterized information and test results

of over 1100 wall tests surveyed from more than 260 experimental programs reported in the

literature around the world. The database can serve as a valuable resource for the

structural/earthquake engineering community to assess behavior of RC walls against a wide

range of design parameters, develop empirical models that capture data trends, validate

analytical studies, and identify gaps in the available experimental data and guide future test

programs on RC structural walls.

2. Displacement capacity of ACI 31-14 code-compliant walls is primarily a function of

parameters that are not adequately addressed in ACI 318-14 code, such as wall cross-section

(
geometry ( lw b) , neutral axis depth ( c b ) , wall shear stress demand vmax )
f c' , as well as

the configuration of the boundary transverse reinforcement (use of overlapping hoops versus

a single perimeter hoop with supplemental crosstie legs). Based on these variables, drift

capacity of walls with special boundary elements (SBEs) varies roughly by a factor of 3,

ranging from approximately 0.012 to 0.035. In general, lower drift capacities result for walls

with lw b ≥15, c b ≥ 3.0, and wall shear stress levels approaching the ACI 318-14 limit of

( )
10 f c' psi 0.83 f c' MPa for an individual wall.

260
3. The underlying premise of the ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-14 provisions is that special structural

walls satisfying the provisions of ACI 318-14 §18.10.6.2 through §18.10.6.4 possess adequate

drift capacity to exceed the expected drift demand determined from ASCE 7-10 analysis

procedures. However, results presented in this study show that this assumption is not always

correct, and that, in some case, the intended performance objectives may not be achieved. To

address this deficiency, a new reliability-based design methodology is proposed where a drift

demand-capacity ratio (DDCR) check is performed to provide a low probability (i.e., 10% or

lower) that roof drift demands exceed roof drift capacity at strength loss for the DE level

shaking. In general, walls with slender cross sections ( lw b > 15) , large neutral axis depth

relative to width of flexural compression zone ( c b > 3) , shear stresses approaching the ACI

( )
318 §18.10.4.4 limit 10 f c' , and roof drift demands approaching the maximum story drift

allowed by ASCE 7-10 are screened out for redesign.

4. Drift capacity of flexure-controlled structural walls asscoiated with axial failure is strongly

impacted by λb = lwc / b2 and P / Ag f c' . This is because, once strength degradation initiates, the

level of axial load accelerates the rate of deterioration such that walls with high P / Ag f c′ have

a steep post-peak slope on the backbone relation, where little to no additional deformation

capacity beyond the deformation at initiation of lateral strength loss is achieved prior to axial

failure (i.e., no residual strength plateau). For shear-controlled walls, a shear friction model is

calibrated and validated to predict drift capacity at axial failure, and a simplified model that is

only based on axial load ratio is also provided.

261
5. Analysis of reported failure modes of about 1000 wall tests indicated that the flexure- and

shear-controlled walls have a shear-to-flexure strength ratio (Vn/V@Mn) > 1.0 and < 1.0,

respectively, whereas walls with failure modes reported as flexure-shear are mainly scattered

between 0.7 < Vn/V@Mn < 1.3.

6. Axial load has the greatest impact on wall flexural stiffness (uncracked and cracked), and that

longitudinal reinforcement ratio produced significant impact on cracked effective flexural

stiffness at low axial load ratios (i.e., < 0.10Agf’c). For axial loads ranging from 0.05 to

0.50Agf’c, cracked effective stiffness (EcIeff) increases from 0.20 to 1.0 of the gross section

stiffness (EcIg). Uncracked flexural stiffness (EcIuncr) varies from 0.50 to 1.0 EcIg for axial load

increasing from zero to 0.30Agf’c. Furthermore, based on results from a subset of 64 wall tests,

a constant effective shear modulus of one-third of gross shear modulus (i.e., Geff = Gg/3) is

proposed for use to model shear response of shear-cracked flexure-controlled walls.

7. The results presented herein revealed that the current modeling parameters of ASCE 41-17

(ACI 369-17) for flexure-controlled structural walls constitute a conservative lower-bound

estimate of wall deformation capacities, and the predictor variable

( )
⎡ As − A' s f yE + P ⎤ Ag f ' cE used to select modeling parameters does not correlate well with
⎣ ⎦

the modeling parameters. Based on the results of large datasets for flexure-controlled walls,

two sets of modeling parameters are proposed, one for walls with conforming “or special”

detailing and the other for walls with non-conforming “or ordinary” detailing. The proposed

modeling parameters, except for Parameter c, produce dispersions are that very low

(coefficient of variation ranging from 0.18 to 0.25). The updated deformation-based modeling

262
parameters are given as total hinge rotations over a plastic hinge length of half the wall length

(lw/2).

263
APPENDIX A – References of Data in UCLA-RCWalls Database

This appendix presents all the references where information on the wall tests in UCLA-

RCWalls database are reported and that were available to the author:

Program References
Abdulridha, A., and Palermo D., 2014, "Response of a hybrid-SMA reinforced
concrete shear wall," Proceedings of 10th U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska.
Abdulridha, A., and Palermo D., 2017, "Behavior and modelling of hybrid
Abdulridha and SMA-steel reinforced concrete slender shear wall," Engineering Structures, Vol.
Palermo 2014 147, pp. 77–89.
Maciel, M., Palermo, D., Abdulridha, A., 2016, "Seismic Response of SMA
Reinforced Shear Walls," Special Topics in Structural Dynamics, Volume 6,
Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-29910-5_19
Adajar, J.C., Yamaguchi, T., and Imai, H.,1995, "Seismic Behavior of Precast
Shear Wall with Bar Splices Confine to Spiral Steel," Proceedings of the Japan
Adajar et al., Concrete Institute, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 285-290.
1995 Adajar, J.C., Yamaguchi,1996, "New Connection Method for Precast Shear
Wall," Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June
23-28, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 590.
Adebar, P., Ibrahim, A. M. M., and Bryson, M., 2007, "Test of High-Rise Core
Adebar Wall: Effective Stiffness for Seismic Analysis," ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
104, No. 2, pp. 549-559.
Alarcon, C., Hube, M.A., and De la Llera, J.C., 2014, "Effect of axial loads in
the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete walls with unconfined wall
boundaries," Engineering Structures, Vol. 73, pp. 13–23.
Alarcon 2013
Alarcon, C., and Hube, 2013, "Influence of Axial Load in the Seismic Behavior
of Reinforce Concrete Walls with Non-seismic Detailing," PhD Dissertation,
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Ali, A., and Wight, J.K., 1990, "Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls with
Staggered Opening Configurations under Reversed Cyclic Loading," Report No.
Ali and WIght
UMCE 90-05, University of Michigan, Ana Arbor, Michigan.
1990
Ali, A., and Wight, J.K., 1991, "RC Structural Walls with Staggered Door
Openings," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, pp. 1514-1531.
Almeida, J., Prodan, O., Rosso, and A., Beyer, K., 2017, "Tests on Thin
Reinforced Concrete Walls Subjected to In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Cyclic
Loading," Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 323-345.
Almeida, J., and Beyer, K., 2014, "Seismic Behavior of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Buildings with Thin Walls," Final Report for Stiftung zur Förderung
Almeida et al der Denkmalpflege, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne.
2014 Rosso, A., Almeida, J., and Beyer, K., 2015, "Stability of thin reinforced
concrete walls under cyclic loads: state-of-the art and new experimental
findings," Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 455-484.
Almeida, J., Rosso, A., Beyer, K., and Sritharan, S., 2014, "New experimental
findings on the stability of thin reinforced concrete walls," 5th Portuguese
Conference on Structural Engineering, Nov. 26-28, Lisbon, Portugal.
264
 Almeida J., Prodan, O., Rosso, A., and Beyer, K., 2017, "Tests on Thin
Reinforced Concrete Walls Subjected to In-plane and Out-of-plane Cyclic
Loading," Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 323-345.
Albidah, A., 2016, "Vulnerability and Risks of Collapse of Structural Concrete
Albidah 2016 Walls in Regions of Low to Moderate Seismicity," PhD Dissertation, The
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Altheeb, H., 2016, "Seismic Drift Capacity of Lightly Reinforced Concrete
Altheeb 2016 Shear Walls," PhD Dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne,
Australia.
Altin, S., Kopraman, Y., and Baran, M., 2013, "Strengthening of RC walls using
externally bonding of steel strips," Engineering Structures, Vol. 49, pp. 686-695.
Altin et al.,
Altin, S., Anil, O., Kopraman, Y., and Kara, M., 2013, "Hysteretic behavior of
2013
RC shear walls strengthened with CFRP strips," Elsevier, Composites: Part B,
Vol. 44, pp. 321-329.
Anoda, J., 2014, "Effect of Construction Joint and Arrangement of Vertical Bars
on Slip Behavior of Shear Walls," Master’s Thesis, Nagoya Institute of
Technology, Nagoya, Japan. (in Japanese)
Matsuba, M., Hosona, J., Anoda, E., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose, T., 2015, "An
Experimental Study on the Effect of Construction Joint and Bar Arrangement on
the Slip Behavior of RC Shear Walls: Part 1 Outline of Experiment and Load-
Ichinose 2014
Displacement Relationship," Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. 218, No.53,
pp. 157-160. (in Japanese)
Hosona, J., Anoda, E., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose, T., 2015, "The Effect of
Construction Joint and Arrangement of Bars on the Slip Behavior of Shear
Walls," Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 355-
360. (in Japanese)
Athanasopoulou, A., 2010, "Shear Strength and Drift Capacity of Reinforced
Concrete and High-Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete Low-Rise Walls
Subjected to Displacement Reversals," PhD Dissertation, The University of
Athanasopoulou
Michigan, Ana Arbore, Michigan.
2010
Athanasopoulou, A., and Parra-Montesinos, G., 2013, "Experimental Study on
the Seismic Behavior of High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Low-
Rise Walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol.110, No. 5, pp. 767-777
Bae, Y., Tanizawa, K., Yun, K., and Kabeyasawa, S., 2010, "Experimental study
Bae et al., 2010 on structural characteristics of columns with sleeve walls," Proceedings of the
Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.115-120. (in Japanese)
Baek, J., and Park, H., 2015, "Shear-Friction Strength of RC Walls with 550
Baek and Park
MPa Bars," Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on Earthquake
2015
Engineering, Nov. 6-8, Sydney, Australia, Paper No. 180.
Baek, J., Park, H., and Yim, S., 2014, "Applicability of Grade 550 MPa Shear
Baek et al., Bars in RC Walls with Aspect Ratio of 2.0," Proceedings of the 2nd
2014 International Conference on Advances in Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering (ACSEE), Oct. 25-26, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 135-139.
Baek, J., Park, H., and Yim, S., 2014, "Behavior of RC Walls with Different
Baek et al., Steel Grades and Aspect Ratio of 2.0," Proceedings of the 2015 World Congress
2015 on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics, August 25-29, Incheon,
Korea.
Baek, J., Park, H., and Yim, S., 2017, "Cyclic Loading Test for Walls of Aspect
Baek et al.,
Ratio 1.0 and 0.5 with Grade 550 MPa (80 ksi) Shear Reinforcing Bars," ACI
2017
Structural Journal, Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 969-982.

265
 Baek, J., Park, H., Choi, K., Seo, M., and Chung, L.., 2018, "Minimum Shear
Baek et al.,
Reinforcement of Slender Walls with Grade 500 MPa (72.5 ksi) Reinforcing
2018
Bars," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 761-774.
Barda, F., 1972, " Shear Strength of Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements,"
Barda 1972
PhD Dissertation, Lehigh University Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Barda et al., Barda, F., Hanson, J., and Corley, W., 1977, "Shear Strength of Low-Rise Walls
1977 with Boundary Elements," ACI Special Publication, SP 53-8, pp. 149-202.
Bertero, V.V., Popov, E.P., Wang, T.Y., and Vallenas, J., 1977, "Seismic Design
Implication of Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,"
Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, January
10-14, New Delhi, India, pp. 1898-1904.
Wang, T. Y., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., 1975, "Hysteric Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Framed Walls," Report No. EERC 75-23, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Wang, T. Y., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., 1975, "Hysteric Behavior of
Bertero et al.,
Reinforced Concrete Framed Walls," Report No. EERC 75-23, Earthquake
1973
Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Iliya, R., and Bertero, V. V., 1980, "Effects of Amount and Arrangement of
Wall- Panel Reinforcement on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Walls," Report No. UCB/EERC- 80/04, University of California Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA.
Vallenas, J. M., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E.P., 1979, "Hysteretic Behavior of
reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," Report No. UCB/EERC-79/20,
University of california Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Bimschas, M., 2010, "Displacement Based Seismic Assessment of Existing
Bridges in Regions of Moderate Seismicity," PhD Dissertation, Institute of
Structural Engineering Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich,
Bimschas 2010 Switzerland.
Bimschas, M., and Dazio, A., 2008, "Large Scale Quasi-Static Cyclic Test of
Existing Bridge Piers," Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Oct. 12-17, Beijing, China.
Lowes, L., Lehman, D., and Birely, A., 2011, "Behavior, Analysis, and Design
of Complex Wall Systems: Planar Wall Testing Program Summary Document,"
University of Washington, Seattle and University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, Illinois.
Birely, A., 2011, "Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls," A Proposal to PhD Dissertation, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA.
Birely, A. C., 2012, "Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls," PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Birely Birely, A., Lehman, D., Lowes, L., Kuchma, D., Hart, C., and Marley, K., 2008,
"Investigation of the Seismic Behavior and Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls," Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Oct. 12-17, Beijing, China.
Brown, P., Ji, J., Oyen, P., Sterns, A., Lehman, D., Lowes, N., Kuchma, and D.,
Zhang, J., 2006, "Investigation of the Seismic Behavior and Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, April 18-22, San Francisco, California,
USA, Paper No. 532.

266
 Brown, P., Ji, J., Oyen, P., Sterns, A., Lehman, D., Lowes, N., Kuchma, and D.,
Zhang, J., 2012, "Earthquake response of slender planar concrete walls with
modern detailing," Engineering Structures, Vol. 43, pp 31-47.
Lehman, D., Lowes, L., Birely, A., Kuchma, D., Hart, C., and Marley, K., 2009,
"Investigation of the Seismic Response of Slender Concrete Walls,"
Presentation.
Lafolie F., and Bouchon M.,1992, "Behavior of reinforced concrete walls
subjected to alternating dynamic loads," Proceedings of the 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 19-24, 1992, Madrid, Spain.
Bouchon, M., Orbovic, N., and Foure, B., 2004, "Tests on Reinforced Concrete
Low-Rise Shear Walls Under Static Cyclic Loading", Proceedings of 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, Paper No. 257.
Bouchon et al.,
Gantenbein, F., Queval, J. C., Epstein, A., Dalbera, J., and Duretz, C., 1991,
2004
"Experimental Study on Concrete shear Wall Behavior under Seismic Loading,"
Proceedings of the International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology ( IASMiRT), Aug. 18, Tokyo, Japan, pp 315-320.
Gantenbein, F., Queval, J.C., and Epstein, A., 1991, "Experimental Study on
Concrete Shear Wall Behavior Under Seismic Loading," Proceedings of the 11th
Internal Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Aug. 18-
23, Tokyo, Japan.
Brueggen, B. L., 2009, “Performance of T-shaped Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls under Multi-Directional Loading,” PhD Dissertation,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Brueggen 2009 Aaleti, S., Brueggen, B.L., Johnson, B., French, C.E., and Sritharan, S., 2013, "
Cyclic Response of Reinforced Concrete Walls with Different Anchorage
Details: Experimental Investigation," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
139, No. 7, pp. 1181-1191.
Liu, X., Burgueño, R., Egleston, and Hines, E.M., 2009, “Inelastic Web
Crushing Performance Limits of High-Strength-Concrete Structural Walls,"
Research Report CEE-RR – 2009/03, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Liu, X., 2010, "Inelastic Web Crushing Performance Limits of High-Strength-
Concrete Structural Walls," PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Burgueno et al., Lansing, Michigan.
2010 Brugueno, R., Liu, X., and Hines, E., 2010, "Inelastic Web Crushing
Performance Limits of High-Strength-Concrete-Structural Walls," Research
Report No. CEE-RR-2010/11, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.
Brugueno, R., Liu, X., and Hines, E., 2014, "Web Crushing Capacity of High-
Strength Concrete Structural Walls: Experimental Study," ACI Structural
Journal, Vol 111, No.4, pp 235-246.
Cao, W., Xue, S., and Zhang, J., 2002, "Seismic Performance of RC Shear Walls
Cao et al., 2002 with Concealed Bracing," Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.
1-13.
Cao, W., Wang, M., Wang, S., Zhang, J., and Zeng, B., 2008, "Aseismic
research of composite shear wall and core walls with rectangular concrete filled
Cao et al., 2008
steel tube columns," Engineering Mechanics, Vol 25, Sup. 1, pp. 58-70. (in
Chinese)

267
 Cao, W., Wang, M., Zeng, B., Zhang, J., 2011, "Seismic Experimental Research
of Concrete Filled Steel Tube Columns-Concrete Composite Shear Wall,"
Research Report funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China,
College of Architecture and Civil Engineering , Beijing University of
Technology, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)
Cao, W., Zhang, Y., Zhang J., Wang, M., and Chang, W., 2008, "Study on
Seismic Performance of Shear Walls with Concealed Steel Truss," Beijing
University of Technology, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)
Cao, W., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., and Wang, M., 2009, "Experimental study on
Cao et al., and seismic behavior of mid-rise RC shear wall with concealed truss," Frontiers of
Cao et al, 2009 Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, Vol 3, No. 4, pp. 370-377.
Zhang, J., Cao, W., Wang, Z., and Yang, Y., 2008, " Study on seismic behavior
of mid-rise RC composite shear walls with concealed truss under high axial
compression," Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 25, Sup. 2, pp. 158-163. (In
Chinese)
Li, L., Xue, S., and Cao, W., 2010, "Experimental study on seismic behavior of
Cao et al., 2010 high strength RC shear wall incorporated with formed steel," Journal of Beijing
University of Technology, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 920-927.
Cardenas, A., and Magura, D., 1972, "Strength of High-Rise Shear Walls-
Rectangular Cross Section," ACI Special Publication, SP 36-7, pp. 119-150.
Cardenas et al., Cardenas, A., Hanson, J., Corley, W., and Hognestad, E., 1973, "Design
1972 Provisions for Shear Walls," ACI Journal, Title No. 7-23, pp. 221-230.
Wood, S., 1989, "Minimum Tensile Reinforcement Requirements in Walls,"
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 4, pp. 582-591.
Correal, J., Harran, C., Carrilo, J., Reyes, J., and Hermida, G., 2018,
"Performance of hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete for low-rise housing with thin
Carrillo and walls," Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 185, pp. 519-529.
Alococer 2013 Miguel, F., 2008, "Seismic Behavior of Concrete Walls Rehabilitated with Glass
and Resin Fiber," Master's Thesis, The National Polytechnic Institute of Mexico.
(in Spanish)
Carvajal, O. and Pollner, E., 1983, “Reinforced concrete walls with minimal
Carvajal and reinforcement (Muros de Concreto Reforzados con Armadura Minima),” Boletin
Poller 1983 Tecnico, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Ingenieria, Ano 21 (72-
73), Enero-Diciembre, pp. 5-36 (in Spanish)
Chen, X. Y., 2005, “Effect of Confinement on the Response of Ductile Shear
Chen
Walls,” Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Chen, Q., 2002, "Elastoplastic analysis of reinforced concrete double-limb shear
wall," PhD Dissertation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. (In Chinese)
Chen, Q., Qian, J., and Li, G., 2004, "Static elastic-plastic analysis of shear
walls with macro-model," China Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.
35-46. (In Chinese)
Lin, Q., 2013, "A tall building based on OpenSees Earthquake catastrophe
Chen and Qian analysis," Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China. (In Chinese)
Yong, W., and Jiaru Q., 2005,"Nonlinear time-history analysis of shear wall
using SAP2000 program," Journal of Tsinghua University (Natural Science
Edition), Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 740 -744 (in Chinese)
Qin, C., Jiaru, Q., 2002, "Static inelastic analysis of RC shear walls,"
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 94-99.

268
 Cheng, M., Hung, S., Lequesne, R., and Lepage, A., "Earthquake-Resistant
Cheng et al.,
Squat Walls Reinforced with High- Strength Steel," ACI Structural Journal, Vol
2016
113, No. 5, pp. 1065-1076
Chiou, Y.J., Mo, Y.L., Hsiao, F.P., Liou, Y.W., and Sheu, M.S., 2003,
"Experimental and Analytical Studies on Large-Scale Reinforced Concrete
Framed Shear Walls," ACI Special Publication, SP 211–10, pp. 201-221.
Chiou et al.,
Chiou, Y.J., Mo, Y.L., Hsiao, F.P., Liou, Y.W., and Sheu, M.S., 2003,
2003
"Experimental and Analytical Studies on Large-Scale Reinforced Concrete
Framed Shear Walls," Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Choi, Y.C., Choi, H.K., and Choi, C.S., 2008, "A Study on Retrofit Method of
Shear Wall by New Openings," Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea
Structure & Construction, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 71-78. (in Korean)
Bae, B., Choi, Y. C., Choi, C.S, and Choi, H. K., 2010, "Shear Strength
Choi et al., Reduction Ratio of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Openings," Journal of
2008 the Korea Concrete Institute, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 451-460. (in Korean)
Bae, B., Choi, H.K., and Choi C.S., 2010, "Evaluation of Shear Strength
Reduction Ratio of Reinforced Concrete Shear walls with Openings,"
Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Building Asia (SB10
Seoul), Feb. 24-26, Seoul, Korea.
Choi et al., Choi, H., K., 2017, "Experimental Study on Shear Wall with Slab and
2017 Openings," International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 451-471.
Chong, X., Xie, L., Ye, Jiang, Q., and Wang, D., 2017, "Experimental Study on
Cong et
the Seismic Performance of Superimposed RC Shear Walls with Enhanced
al.,2017
Horizontal Joints," Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol, 23, NO. 1, pp. 1-17.
Choun, Y., S., 2013, "Evaluation of Shear Resisting Capacity of a Conventional
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Steel or Polyamide Fiber Reinforcement,"
Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 001-
Choun and Park
007. (in Korean)
2015
Choun, Y., S., and Park, J., 2015, "Evaluation of Seismic Shear Capacity of
Prestressed Concrete Containment Vessels with Fiber Reinforcement," Nuclear
Engineering and Technology, Vol 47, pp. 756-765.
Christidis, K.I., and Trezos, K., G., 2017, "Experimental investigation of
existing non-conforming RC shear walls," Engineering Structures, Vol. 140, pp.
26-38.
Christidis, K., Trezos, K., G., and Vougioukas, E., 2013, "Seismic assessment of
existing RC shear walls non-compliant with current code provisions," Magazine
of Concrete Research, Vol. 65, No. 18, pp. 1059-1072.
Christidis, K., Vougioukas, E., and Trezos, K., 2014, "Deformation Capacity of
Older Shear Walls: Experimental Assessment and Comparison with Eurocode 8-
Christidis et al., Part 3 Provisions," Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake
2010 Engineering and Seismology, Aug. 24-29, Istanbul, Turkey.
Christidis, K.I., Anagnostopoulou, V.V., Trezos, K.G., and Zeris, C.A., 2015,
"Deformation Capacity of Non-Conforming RC Shear Walls: Analytical and
Numerical Estimation- Test Verification," Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, May 25-27, Crete Island, Greece.
Papaionnoud, D. S., 2013, "Experimental investigation of the behavior of
inadequately reinforced concrete walls," Master’s Thesis, National Technical
University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 135 pp.

269
 Chu, M., Liu, J., and Sun, Z., 2017, "Experimental study on mechanical
behaviors of new shear walls built with precast concrete hollow molds,"
European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1349692.
Sun, Z., Mao, Y., Liu, J., Zhao, Q., and Chu, M., 2014, "Experimental Study on
Assembled Monolithic Concrete Shear Walls Built with Precast Two-Way
Hollow Slabs," The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 161-165.
Chu, M. J., Liu, J. L., Cui, H. C., Hou J. Q., and Zhou Y. L., & Zhang Z. Y.,
Chu et al.,
2013, "Experimental study on shear behavior of assembled monolithic concrete
2011, 2013,
shear walls built with precast two-way hollow slabs," Engineering Mechanics,
2017
Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 219–228.
Sun, Z.S., Liu, J., and Chu, M., 2013, "Experimental Study on Behaviors of
Adaptive-slit Shear Walls," The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 7, pp.
189-195.
Chu, M.J., Fend, P., Ye, L.P., and Hou, J.Q., 2011, "Experimental Study on
Shear Behaviors of Cold-Formed Thin-Walled Steel Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls with Different Details," Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 45-
55.
Chun, Y., S., 2012, "Seismic Evaluation of RC Special Shear Wall with
Improved Reinforcement Details in Boundary Elements," Land and Housing
Institute Journal, Vol., No. 2, pp. 195-202.
Chun, Y. S., Kim, S. Y., and Lee, 2011, "Detailed development of quasi-special
Chun et al., shear wall to alleviate structural system height limitation," Research Report
2011 2011-56, Korea Institute of Land and Housing, 270 pp.
Chun, Y., S., Lee, K., H., Lee, H., W., Park, Y., E., and Song, J., K., 2013,
"Seismic Performance of Special Shear Wall Structural System with Effectively
Reduced Reinforcement Detail," Journal of Korea Concrete Institute, Vol 25,
No. 3, pp. 271-281
Chun, Y., S., 2015, "Seismic Performance of Special Shear Wall with the
Different Hoop Reinforcement Detail and Spacing in the Boundary Element,"
Land and Housing Institute Journal, Vol 6, No. 6, pp. 11-19.
Chun 2013
Chun, Y. S., 2013, "Experimental Study to Revise Reinforcement Details of
Special Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," Research Report 2013, Korea
Institute of Land and Housing, 248 pp.
Chun, Y., S., and Park, J., Y., 2016, "Seismic Performance of Special Shear
Wall with Modified Details in Boundary Element Depending on Axial Load
Ratio," Land and Housing Institute Journal, Vol 7, No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Chun et al.,
2015 Chun, Y. S., Park, J. Y., and Lee, S. W., 2015, "Development of Nonlinear
Hysteresis by Member for Introducing Performance-Based Design Method (1)
Focusing on Shear Wall and Shear Wall Connection Beam," Research Report
2015-63, Korea Institute of Land and Housing, 116 pp.
Rosso, A., Almeida, J., and Beyer, K., 2015, "Stability of thin reinforced
Correal et al.,
concrete walls under cyclic loads: state-of-the art and new experimental
2017
findings," Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol 14, No. 2, pp. 455-484.
Cortés-Puentes, W. L., and Palermo, D., 2017, “SMA tension brace for
retrofitting concrete shear walls,” Engineering Structures, Vol. 140, pp. 177–
Cortes-Puentes 188.
2017 Cortes Puentes, W.L., 2017, "Seismic Retrofit of Squat Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls Using Shape Memory Alloys," PhD Dissertation, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
270
 Cortes-Puentes, W.L., and Palmero, D., 2018, "Seismic Retrofit of Concrete
Shear Walls with SMA Tension Braces," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
144, No. 2, 04017200.
Cortes-Puentes, W.L., and Palmero, D., 2018, "Performance of pre-1970s Squat
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.
45, No. 11, pp. 922-935.
Dabbagh, H., "Strength and Ductility of High-Strength Concrete Shear Walls
Dabbagh 2005 Under Reversed Cyclic Loading," PhD Dissertation, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Fabian, A., Stoian, V., and Dan, D., 2010 "Composite Steel- Concrete Shear
Walls with Steel Encased Profiles. Numerical Analysis," Annals of the
University of Oradea, Constructions and Hydroedility Facilities, Romania, pp.
107-112
Dan, D., Fabian, A., and Stoian, V., 2011, "Theoretical and experimental study
on composite steel–concrete shear walls with vertical steel encased profiles,"
Journal of Construction Steel Research, Vol. 67, pp. 800-813.
Dan, D., Fabian, A., and Stoian, V., 2012, "Experimental study on composite
steel-concrete shear walls with vertical steel encased profiles," Proceedings of
Dan et al., 2011
the Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas (STESSA), Jan. 9-11,
Santiago, Chile, pp. 639-644.
Boita, I.E., Dan, D., and Stoian, V., 2017, "Seismic Behavior of Composite Steel
Fibre Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Proceedings of IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering, 245. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022006
Dan, D., Nagy-Gyorgy, T., Stoian, V., Fabian, A., and Demeter, I., 2012, "FRP
Composites for Seismic Retrofitting of Steel-Concrete Shear Walls with Steel
Encased Profiles," Proceedings of the Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic
Areas (STESSA), Jan. 9-11, Santiago, Chile.
Dashti, F., Dhakal, R.P., and Pampanin, S., 2018, "Inelastic Strain Gradients in
Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," Proceedings of the 16th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June 18-21, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Dasti, F., Dhakal, R.P., and Pampanin, S., 2015, "Development of out-of-plane
instability in rectangular RC structural walls," New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Conference, April 10-12, Rotorua, New
Dashti et al., Zealand.
2017 Dasti, F., Dhakal, R.P., Pampanin, S., 2017, "An Experimental Study on Out-of-
Plane Deformations of Rectangular Structural Walls Subject to In-Plane
Loading," Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake, Jan. 9-13,
Santiago, Chile.
Dashti, F., Dhakal, R.P., Pampanin, S., 2017, "Tests on Slender Ductile
Structural Walls Designed According to New Zealand Standard," Bulletin of the
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 504-516.
Belmouden, y., Lestuzzi, P., 2007, "Analytical model for predicting nonlinear
reversed cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls," Engineering
Structures, Vol. 29, pp. 1263-1276.
Dazio, A., Wenk, T., and Bachmann, H., 1999 "Tests on RC walls under cyclic-
Dazio et al.,
static action," Report No. 239, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal
1999
Institute of Technology Zurich, 157 pp.
Dazio, A., Beyer, K., Bachmann, H., 2009, "Quasi-static cyclic tests and plastic
hinge analysis of RC structural walls," Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, pp.
1556-1571.

271
 Lu, Y., and Huang, L., 2015, "Influence of Confining Stirrups on Deformation
Capacity of RC Concrete Walls with Flexure Failure." Engineering Mechanics.
DOI: 10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2013.10.0961
Deng, K., Pan, P., Shi, Y., Miao, Q., Li, W., Wang, T., 2012, "Quasi-Static Test
of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall with Low Concrete Strength and
Deng et al., Reinforcement Ratio." China Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 213-217.
2013 Pan, P., Deng, K., Shi, Y., Miao, Q., Li, W., Wang, T., 2013, "Experimental
Study on Single Side Strengthening of Low-Reinforced Shear Wall,"
Earthquake Resistant Engineering and Retrofitting, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 68- 74.
Pan, P., Deng, K., Shi, Y., Miao, Q., Li, W., Wang, T., 2013, "Experimental
Study on Single Side Strengthening of Low-Reinforced Shear Wall."
Earthquake Resistant Engineering and Retrofitting, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 55- 60.
Deng, K., Pan, P., Wang, H., Shen, S., 2017, "Experimental study on slotted RC
Deng et al.,
wall with steel energy dissipation links for seismic protection of buildings,"
2017
Engineering Structures, Vol 145, pp. 1-11
Deng, M., Liang, X., and Yang, K., 2008, “Experimental study on seismic
behavior of high-performance concrete shear wall with new strategy of
transverse confining stirrups,” Proceedings, 14th World Conference on
Deng et al.,
Earthquake Engineering, Oct. 12-17, Beijing, China.
2008
Kou, J.L., Lian, X., Qian, L., Deng, M., 2013, "Nonlinear Analysis and Study on
Allowable Value for Seismic Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Shear Walls,"
Engineering Mechanics, vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 232-239.
El-Azizy, O., Shedid, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., and Drysdale, R., 2015,
“Experimental evaluation of the seismic performance of reinforced concrete
structural walls with different end configurations,” Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 101, pp. 246–263.
El-Azizy
El-Azizy, O., Shedid, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., and Drysdale, R., 2012, “Proposed
Experimental Study to Compare the Seismic Performance of reinforced
Concrete and Reinforced Masonry Structural Walls,” 15th International Brick
and Block Masonry Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil.
Effendy, E., Liao, W.I., Song, G., Mo, Y.L., Loh, C.H., 2006, "Seismic
Behavior of Low-Rise Shear Walls With SMA Bars," 10th Biennial
Effendy et al.,
International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in
2006
Challenging Environments and Second NASA/ARO/ASCE Workshop on
Granular Materials in Lunar and Martian Exploration.
Elnady, M.M.E., 2008, "Seismic Rehabilitation of RC Structural Walls," PhD
Elnady 2008
Dissertation, McMaster University, Canada.
El-Sokkary, H., Galal, K., 2013, "Seismic Behavior of RC Shear Walls
Strengthened with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer," Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 603-613.
El-Sokkary, H., Galal, K., 2012, "Cyclic Tests on FRP-Retrofitted RC Shear
El-Sokkary and
Wall Panels," Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Galal 2012
Engineering, Sept. 24-28, Lisbon, Portugal.
El-Sokkary, H., 2012, "Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
using Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites," PhD Dissertation, Concordia
University.
Fang, X., Li, Z., Wei, H., Jiang, Y., 2011, " Experimental Study on Seismic
Fang et al., Behavior of High-Performance Concrete Shear Wall with High Reinforcement
2011 Ratio Boundary Elements," Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 32, No. 12, pp.
145-153.

272
 Frvashany, F.E., Foster S.J., Rangan, B. V., 2008, " Strength and Deformation
Farvashany et
of High-Strength Concrete Shear walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 105, No.
al., 2008
1, pp. 21-29.
Furukawa, J., Arakawa, G., Ogawa, M., Ichikawa, M., Kakeo, T., 2003, "
Experimental Study on Bending Structural Performance of Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls: Part 1 Test Plan and Outline of Results," Summaries of technical
papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan. C-2, Structures IV,
Furukawa et al., pp. 317-318. (in Japanese)
2003 Arakawa, G., Furukawa, J., Ichikawa, M., Ogawa, M., Kakeo, T., 2003,
"Experimental Study on Flexural Behavior Of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls.
Part 2: Discussion of Test Results," Summaries of technical papers of Annual
Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan. C-2, Structures IV, pp. 319-320. (in
Japanese)
Ghorbani-Renani, I., Velev, N., Tremblay, R., Palermo, D., Massicotte, B., and
Leger, P., 2009, “Modeling and testing influence of scaling effects on inelastic
Ghorbani-
response of shear walls,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 358–367.
Renani et al.
Ghorbanirenani, I., 2010, "Experimental and numerical Investigations of Higher
2009
Mode Effects of Seismic Inelastic Response of Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls," PhD Dissertation, Écpele Polytechnique De Montreal.
Paulay, T., Goodsir, W.J., 1985, "The Ductility of Structural Walls," Bulletin of
The New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol 18, No. 3,
pp. 250-269.
Goodsir, W.J., 1985, "The Design of Coupled Frame-Wall Structures for
Goodsir 1985
Seismic Actions," PhD Dissertation, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Paulay, T., Priestley, J.N., 1993, "Stability of Ductile Structural Walls," ACI
Journal, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 385-392.
Greifenhagen, C., 2006, "Seismic Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Concrete
Squat Shear Walls,"PhD Dissertation, École Polytechnique Federale De
Greifenhagen
Lausanne.
2006
Greifenhagen, C., Lestuzzi, P., 2005, "Static cyclic tests on lightly reinforced
concrete shear walls," Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, pp. 1703-1712.
Gupta and Gupta, A., Rangan, B.V., 1998, "High-Strength Concrete Structural Walls," ACI
Rangan 1998 Structural Journal, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 194-203.
Ha, S. S., Yun, H. D., Choi, C. S., Oh, Y. H., Yi, L. H., and Lee, L. H, 2011,
“Experimental study of structural capacity evaluation of RC t-shape walls with
the confinement effect,” Journal of the Korea Concrete Institute, Vol. 2001,
Ha et la., 2001 No.11, pp. 191–196. (in Korean)
Choi, C., Ha, S., Lee, L., Oh, Y., Yun, H., 2004, "Evaluation of Deformation
Capacity for RC T-Shaped Cantilever Walls," Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 397–414
Habibi, F., Seikh, S.A., Orbovic, N., Panesar, D.K., Vecchio, F.J., 2015, "Alkali
Aggregate Reaction in Nuclear Concrete Structures: Part3: Structural Shear
Wall Elements," 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Habibi et al.,
Technology, Manchester, United Kingdom, Division I.
2018
Habibi, F., Sheikh, S.A., Becchio, F., Panesar, D.K., 2018, "Effects of Alkali-
Silica Reaction on Concrete Squat Shear Walls," ACI Structural Journal, V. 115,
No. 5, pp. 1329-1339.

273
 Chen, X.W., Han, X.I., 2011, "Research and Development of the Shear Wall
Nonlinear Macro-Element," Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 111-
123.
Han, X., Chen, X., Jack, C., Mao, G., Wu, P., 2008, "Numerical Analysis of
Han et al., 2008 Cyclic Loading Test of Shear Walls based on OpenSEES," The 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Chen, X., Han, X., 2011, "Research on Deformation Limit State of Components
of Shear-Wall Structure and Development of the Computing Platform," PhD
Dissertation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Hannewald, P., Bimschas, M., Dazio, A., 2013, "Quasi-static cyclic tests on RC
bridge piers with detailing deficiencies," IBK Report No. 352. Institut für
Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zürich.
Hannewald, P., Beyer, K., 2013, "Plastic hinge models for the displacement-
based assessment of wall-type bridge piers with poor detailing," Vienna
Hannewald et
Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural
al., 2013
Dynamics.
Hannewald, P., Beyer, K., 2012, "Plastic hinge models for the seismic
assessment of reinforced concrete wall-type piers with detailing deficiencies,"
Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sept. 24-28,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Hidalgo, P.A., Jordan, R.M., Martinez, M.P., 2000, "Development and use of an
Analytical Model to Predict the Inelastic Seismic Behavior of Shear Wall,
Reinforced Concrete Buildings," Proceedings of 12th WCEE, New Zealand.
Hidalgo, P.A., Ledezma, C.A., Jordan, M., 2002, "Seismic Behavior of Squat
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Earthquake Spectra, Volume 18, No. 2, pp.
287–308.
Hidalgo et al., Larenas, J. L., 1994, "Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Walls Failing in
1999 Shear (Comportamiento Sísmico de Muros de Hormigón Armado que Fallan por
Esfuerzos de Corte),"Master's Thesis, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile,
Santiago, Chile, 163 pp. (in Spanish)
Ledezma, C., 1999, "Shear strength of reinforced concrete shear walls
(Resistencia al esfuerzo de corte de muros de hormigón armado),"Master's
Thesis, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile, 135 pp. (in
Spanish)
Hines, E. M., Seible, F., and Priestley, M. J. N., 2002, “Seismic Performance of
Hollow Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly Confined Corner
Elements–Phase I: Flexural Tests, and Phase II: Shear Tests,” Structural
Systems Research Project 99/15, University of California, San Diego, CA, 266
pp.
Hines, E.M., Seible, F., 2004, "Web Crushing Capacity of Hollow Rectangular
Bridge Piers," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp, 569-579.
Hines et al.,
Hines, E.M., Seible, F., Priestly, M.J.N., 2002, "Seismic Performance of Hollow
2002
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly-Confined Boundary
Elements Phase I: Flexural Tests, Phase II: Shear Tests," Structural Systems
Research Project, Report No. SSRP- 99/15, UCSD.
Hines, E.M., Dazio, A., Seible, F., 2002, "Seismic Performance of Hollow
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Piers with Highly-Confined Boundary
Elements Phase III: Web Crushing Tests," Structural Systems Research Project,
Report No. SSRP-2001/27.

274
 Hiotakis, S., 2004, "Repair and Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls for Earthquake Resistance Using Externally Bonded Carbon Fibre Sheets
and a Novel Anchor System," Master of Applied Science, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Ontariom Canada
Cruz-Noguez, C.A., Hassan, A., Lau, D.T., Woods, J., Shaheen, I., 2014,
Hiotakis 2004 "Seismic Retrofit of Deficient RC Shear Walls with FRP Tow Sheets,"
Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska.
Lau, D.T., Cruzo-Noguez, C.A., 2013, "Developments on Seismic Retrofit of
RC Shear Walls with FRP," 5th International Conference on Advances in
Experimental Structural Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hirashi, H., Tosai, H., Kawashima, S., Inoue, Y., 1989, "Experimental study on
toughness after bending yielding of multi-story shear walls with flat incidental
columns," Architectural Institute of japan Structural Papers, Vol 395, pp 48-59.
Hiraishi et al.
Hirashi, H., Shiohara, H., Kawashima, T., Tomatsuri, H., Kurosawa, A., Budo,
1984
Y., 1988, "Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Multistory Shear
Walls with Flanged Cross Section," Proceedings of 9th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Aug. 2-6, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
Minami, N., Nakachi, T., 2008, "Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Finite Element
Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Walls Enhanced by Transverse Confining
Steel," The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Hiraishi, H., Teshigawara, M., Kawashima, T., Nakachi, T., Tubosaki, H.,
Oguma, M., 1988, " Experimental Study on Deformation Capacity of Wall
Hiraishi et al.,
Columns After Flexural Yielding," Proceedings of 9th World Conference on
1988
Earthquake Engineering, Aug. 2-6, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
Hiraishi, H., Inai, E., Nakachi, T., Kawashima, T., Teshigawara, M., 1990,
"Experimental Study on Deformation Capacity Beyond Flexural Yielding of
Wall Columns," Architecture Institute of Japan’s Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, , Report No. 410, pp. 41-52. (in Japanese)
Hiraishi, H., Yoshimura, M., Isoishi. H., Nakata, S., 1983, "Planar Tests on
Hiraishi et al,
Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Assemblies," Building Research Institute,
1983
Ministry of Construction, Paper No. 98.
Hirosawa, M., 1975, "Past Experimental Results on Reinforced Concrete Shear
Hirosawa 1975 Walls and Analysis on them," Report No. 6, Building Research Institute,
Ministry of Construction, Japan, 279 pp. (in Japanese)
Kuang, J.S., Ho, Y., 2013, "Inherent Ductility of Non-seismically Designed and
Detailed Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," HKIE Transactions, Vol. 14, No.1,
pp. 7-12.
Kuang, J.S., Ho, Y.B., 2007, "Enhancing ductility of non-seismically designed
RC shear walls," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and
Ho 2006 and
Buildings 160, Issue SB3, pp. 139-149.
Ho and Kuang
Kuang, J.S., Ho, Y.B., 2008, "Seismic Behavior and Ductility of Squat
2006
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Non-Seismic Detailing," ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 105, No. 2 pp. 225-231.
Ho, Y.B., 2006, "Enhancing the Ductility of Non-Seismically Designed
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Master’s Thesis, The Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
Holden, T.J., 2001, "A Comparison of the Seismic Performance of Precast Wall
Holden 2001 Construction: Emulation and Hybrid Approaches," M.Eng. Report, University of
Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand.

275
 Holden, T., Restrepo, J., Mander, J.B., 2003, "Seismic Performance of Precast
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Walls," Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol 129, No. 3, pp. 286-296.
Hosoya, H., 2007, “Structural performance of RC rectangular section core
walls,” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 313–318.
(in Japanese)
Hosoya, H., and Oka, Y., 2006, "Study on Structural Performance of R/C
Rectangular Section Core Walls: Part 1: Experiment on Variables in a Confined
Hosoya 2007 Area," Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architecture
Institute of Japan, Vol. C-2, pp. 169-170. (in Japanese)
Kishimoto, T., Hosoya, H., Oka, Y., 2008, "Study on structural performance of
R/C rectangular section core walls (Part 3 and 4)," Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting, Architecture Institute of Japan, Vol. C-2, 355-358.
(in Japanese)
Hou, H., Ma, T., Qu, Z., Cui, S., Shi, L., Fu, W., Cheng, J., Zhu, W., 2016,
Hou et al., 2016 "Quasi-Static Experimental Study on Prefabricated Superimposed Ribbed
Reinforced Integral Shear Wall," Building Structure, Vol. 46, No. 10, pp. 14-19.
Hsio, F.P., Wang, J.C., Chiou, Y.J., 2008, "Shear Strengthening of Reinforced
Hsiao et al., Concrete Framed Shear Walls Using CFRP Strips," The 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Hu, G., 2004, "Experimental study on seismic behavior of short-limb shear wall
structures with conversion layer," Master's Thesis, Tongji University. (in
Chinese)
La, H., Li, S., Jin, G., Hu, G., Huang, D., 2005, "Tests and finite element
analysis of earthquake resistant capability of shallow-section shear walls on
Hu 2004
transfer floor of a tall building," Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, Vol 25, No. 2, pp. 77-81.
Zhou, Y., and Lu, X., 2008, "SLDRCE database on static tests of structural
members and joint assemblies," State key laboratory of disaster reduction in
civil engineering. Shanghai, China: Tongji University; 2008. (in Chinese)
Huq, M.S., Weber-Kamin, A.S., Lequesne, R.D., Lepage, A., 2017, "High-
Strength Steel Bars in Reinforced Concrete Walls: Influence of Steel
Mechanical Properties on Deformation Capacity," Conference: 16th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE 2017, At Chile.
Huq 2017
Huq, M.S., Lepage, A., Lequesne, R.D., Weber-Kamin, A.S., Ameen, S., 2017,
"Influence of Mechanical Properties of High Strength Steel on Deformation
Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Walls," 16th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Santiago Chile.
Idosako, Y., Sakashita, M., Tani, M., Nishiyama, M., 2017, "Bi-Directional
Lateral Loading Tests on RC Shear-Dominant Walls," Journal of Structural and
Idosaka et al., Construction Engineering, AIJ, Vol 82, No. 735, pp. 683-692.
2017 Sakashita, M, 2008, "Study on Lateral Load Resisting Mechanism of Reinforced
Concrete Shear-dominant Walls Subjected to Bi-directional Loading," Report,
National Research Institute of Building and Entrepreneurship.
Imanishi, T., 1996, "Post-Yield Behaviors of Multi-Story Reinforced Concrete
Imanishi 1996 Shear Walls Subjected to bilateral Deformations Under Axial Loading," 11th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 404.

276
 Imanishi T., Nishinaga, M., Itakura, Y., and Morita, S., 1996, "An experimental
study on the bending failure behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls
subjected to horizontal loads in two directions," Proceedings of the Japan
Concrete Institute, Vol. 18, No., 2, pp. 1055-1060.
Ireland, M., 2007, "Development of a Selective Weakening Approach for the
Ireland, 2007 Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," Master’s Thesis,
University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand.
Ibrahim, A. M. M., 2000, "Linear and Nonlinear Flexural Stiffness Models for
Concrete Walls in High Rise Buildings," PhD Dissertation, The University of
British Columbia.
Ibrahim Ireland, M.G., Pampanin, S., and Bull, D.K., 2007, "Experimental Investigations
of a Selective Weakening Approach for the Seismic Retrofit of R.C. Walls,"
Proceedings of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE)
Conference, pp. 1-8
Islam, Md. S., Saito, T., 2015, "Displacement Based Evaluation for
Islam and Saito Confinement Requirement of Boundary Elements of Shear Wall and Retrofit
2015 Design Using Carbon Fiber Sheet (CFS)," International Institute of Seismology
and Earthquake Engineering, Building Research Institute, Vol. 49, pp. 21-38.
Jeon, S.H., Park, J.H., 2016 "Experimental Assessment of Numerical Models for
Jeon and Park reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Deficient Details,"
2016 Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.
211-222. (in Korean)
Ji, S., 2002, "Elastoplastic time-history response analysis of high-rise reinforced
concrete frame-shear structure under earthquake action," Master's Thesis, Tongji
University. (in Chinese)
Ji 2002
Zhou, Y., and Lu, X., 2008, "SLDRCE database on static tests of structural
members and joint assemblies," State key laboratory of disaster reduction in
civil engineering. Shanghai, China: Tongji University; 2008. (in Chinese)
Ji, X.D., Qian, J.R., 2015, "Study of Earthquake-Resilient Coupled Shear
Walls", Engineering Mechanics,
Ji et al., 2012 Qian, J., Ziang, Z., Ji, X., 2012, "Behavior of steel tube-reinforced concrete
composite walls subjected to high axial force and cyclic loading," Engineering
Structures, Vol 36, pp. 173-184.
Ji, X., Qian, Y., Lu, X., 2015, "Seismic behavior and modeling of steel
Ji et al., 2015 reinforced concrete (SRC) walls," Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 44, pp. 955–972.
Ji, S., 2002, "Elastoplastic time-history response analysis of high-rise reinforced
Jiang 1999 concrete frame-shear structure under earthquake action," Master's Thesis, Tongji
University.
Jiang, H., Ying, Y., Wang, B., 2011, "Experimental Investigation on Damage
Behavior of RC Shear Walls," Advanced Materials Research, Vols 250-253, pp.
Jiang et al., 2407-2411
2011 Jiang, h., Wang, B., Lu, X., 2013, "Experimental Study on Damage Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Subjected to Cyclic Loads," Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol 17, No.7, pp. 958-971,
Aaleti, S., 2009, "Behavior of rectangular concrete walls subjected to simulated
Johnson 2007
seismic loading," PhD Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

277
 Aaleti, S., Brueggen, B.L., Johnson, B., French, C.E., and Sritharan, S., 2013, "
Cyclic Response of Reinforced Concrete Walls with Different Anchorage
Details: Experimental Investigation," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
139, No. 7, pp. 1181-1191.
Waugh, J., Aaleti, S., Sritharan, S., and Zhao, J., 2008, "Nonlinear Analysis of
Rectangular and T-Shaped Concrete Walls," ISU- ERI-Ames Report ERI-09327
Submitted to the National Science Foundation, Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa.
Johnson, B., 2010, “Anchorage detailing effects on lateral deformation
components of R/C shear walls,” Master Thesis, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kabeyasawa, T., Hiraishi, H., 1998, "Tests and Analyses of high-Strength
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in Japan," ACI Special Publication, SP 176-
13, pp. 281-310.
Kabeyasawa, T., and Matsumoto, K., 1994, "Experimental Study on Strength
and Deformability of High Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Report,
Kabeyasawa 253 pp.
and Matsumoto Kabeyasawa, T., and Matsumoto, K., 1992 "Tests and analyses of ultra- high
1992 strength reinforced concrete shear walls," Proceedings of the 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 19-24, Madrid, Spain, 3291-3296.
Matsumoto, K., and Kabeyasawa, T., 1990, "Experimental Study on Strength
and Deformability of High Strength Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,"
Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 545-550. (in
Japanese)
Milev, J.I., 1996, "Two-Dimensional Analytical Model of Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls," Proceedings of the11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, June 23-28, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 320.
Kabeyasawa et Chen, S., Kabeyasawa, T., 200, "Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall
al, 1996 for Nonlinear Analysis," 12th WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kabeyasawa, T., Ohkubo, T., Nakamura, Y., 1996, "Tests and Analysis of
Hybrid Wall Systems," Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, June 23-28, Acapulco, Mexico
Kabeyasawa, T., Kabeyasawa, T., Kabeyasawa, T., Kim, Y., Tojo, Y., 2007,
"Experimental study on shape and reinforcing of RC walls: Part1: Effect of
boundary," Summaries of technical papers of Annual Meeting Architectural
Kabeyasawa et Institute of Japan. C-2, Structures IV, pp. 461-462. (in Japanese)
al., 2007 Kabeyasawa, T., Tojo, Y., Kim, Y., Kabeyasawa, T., Igarashi, S., 2016, "Tests
of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Strengthened Using Polyester Sheet,"
Proceedings of 8th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, December 5-
7, Singapore, Paper Number 182.
Kabeyasawa, T., Kabeyasawa, T., Tojo, Y., and Kabeyasawa, T., 2008,
"Experimental study on columns with wing walls failing in shear," Proceedings
of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 115-120. (in Japanese)
Kabeyasawa et
Kabeyasawa, T., Kabeyasawa, T., Kim, Y., Kabeyasawa, T., bae, K., 2009,
al., 2008
"Test on Reinforced Concrete Columns with Wing Walls for Hyper-Earthquake
Resistant System," Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Advances in
Experimental Structural Engineering, Oct, San Francisco.
Sato, M., Kabeyasawa, T., Kim, Y., and Fukuyama, H., 2012, "Experimental
Kabeyasawa et
study on RC shear walls subjected to bi-directional loading," Proceedings of the
al., 2012
Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.115-120. (in Japanese)

278
 Kabeyasawa, T., Kato, S., Sato, m., Kabeyasawa, T., Fukuayana, H., Tani, M.,
Kim, Y., Hosokawa, Y., 2014, "Effects of Bi-Direction Lateral Loading on the
Strength and Deformability of Reinforced Concrete Walls with/ without
Boundary Columns," Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska.
Kang, S.M., Kim, O.K., Parl, H.G., 2013, "Cyclic Loading test for emulative
Kang et al.,
precast concrete walls with partially reduced rebar section," Engineering
2013
Structures, Vol. 56, pp. 1645-1657.
Ghobarah, A., Khalil, A.A., 2004, "Seismic Rehabilitation of Reinforced
Concrete Walls Using Fibre Composites," Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Khalil 2005 Khalil, A.A., 2005, "REhabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Structural Wall
Using Fibre Composites," PhD Dissertation, McMaster University.
Khalil, A., Ghobarah, A., 2003, "Behavior of Rehabilitated Structural Walls,"
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 371-391.
Kimura, H., and Ishikawa, Y., 2006, "Study on structural performance of
Kimura and
rectangular cross section R/C walls," Proceedings of the Japan Concrete
Ishikawa 2006
Institute, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 469-474. (in Japanese)
Kimaru, H., Sugano, S., 1996, "Seismic Behavior of high Strength Concrete
Kimaru and
Slender Wall Under High Axial Load," Proceedings of 11th World Conference
Sugano 1996
on Earthquake Engineering, June 23-28, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 653.
Kimaru, H., Yasuo, E., Kawai, T., Sumi, A., Matsumoto, T., 1996, "23256
Kimura et al. Bending Shear Test of Multi-story Shear Wall Using High Strength Concrete
1996 under High Axial Force: Part 1: Outline of Experiment," Architectural Institute
of Japan, pp. 511-512.
Kono, S., Sakamoto, K., Sakashita, M., Mukai, T., Tani, M., Fukuyama, H.,
2012, "Effects of boundary columns on the seismic behavior of cantilever
structural walls," 15th WCEE, Lisboa.
Sokamoto, K., Sakashita, M., Kono, S., Tani, M., 2012, "Influence of frame
column and end restraint reinforcement on ultimate deformation performance of
shear wall," Concrete Engineering Annual Proceedings, Vol 34, No. 2, pp. 379-
384.
Kono et al.,
Kono, S., Taleb, R., Sakashita, M., Tani, M., Mukai, T., Fukuyama, H., 2013,
2012
"Effect of Boundary Area Confinement on the Ultimate Flexural Drift Capacity
of Cantilever Structural Walls," Proceeding the 6th Civil Engineering
Conference in Asia Region: Embracing the Future through Sustainability.
Taleb, R., Kono, S., Sakashita, M., Tani, M., 2014, "Effects of Boundary
Regions Confinement on the Seismic PErformance of Flexural RC Structural
Walls," Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Aug. 24-29, Istanbul, Turkey.
Taleb, R., Kono, S., Tani, M., Sakashita, M., 2014, "Effects of End Region
Confinement on Seismic Performance of RC Cantilever Walls," Proceedings of
the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25,
Kono et al., Anchorage, Alaska.
2014 Kono, S., Tani, M., Mukai, T., Fukuyama, H., Taleb, R., Sakashita, M., 2014,
"Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Walls for a Performance Based
Design," Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Aug. 24-29, Istanbul, Turkey.

279
 Zygouris, N., Kotsovos, G.M., Cotsovos, D.M., Kotsovos, M.D., 2015, "Design
for earthquake-resistant reinforced concrete structural walls," Meccanica, Col
Kotsovos et al., 50, No. 2, pp. 295-309.
2011 Kotsovos, G.M., Kotsovos, M.D., Cotsovos, D.M., Kounadis, A.N., 2011,
"Seismic behavior of RC walls: an attempt to reduce reinforcement congestion,"
Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 63, Issue 4, pp. 235–246
Hitoshi, K., Inada, Y., Sakaguchi, N., Yamanobe, K., Koda, S., 1990, "Structural
Kumagai et al.,
behavior of high strength concrete shear walls," Summaries of technical papers
1990
of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan. Structures II, pp. 611-612.
Layssi, H., 2013, "Seismic Retrofit of Deficient Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls," PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Layssi, H., Mitchell, D., 2002,"Experiments on Seismic Retrofit and Repair of
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Proceedings of 6th International Conference
Layssi 2013
on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, CICE 2012.
Layssi, H., Cook, W.D., Mitchell, D., 2012, "Seismic Response and CFRP
Retrofit of Poorly Detailed Shear Walls," Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol 16, No, 3, pp. 332-339.
Lefas, L.D., Kotsovos, M.D., 1990, "Strength and Deformation Characteristics
Lefas and of Reinforced Concrete Walls under Load Reversals," ACI Structural Journal,
Kotsovos 1990 Vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 716-726.
and Lefas et al., Lefas, L.D., Kotsovos, M.D., Ambraseys, N.N., 1990, "Behavior of Reinforced
1990a Concrete Structural Walls: Strength, Deformation Characteristics, and Failure
Mechanism," ACI Structural Journal, Vol 87, No. 1, pp. 23-31.
Li, H., Li, B., 2002, "Experimental study on Seismic Restoring Performance of
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 32, No.
5, pp. 728-732.
Li, H.N., Li, B., 2004, "Experimental Study on Seismic Reporting Performance
Li and Li 2002 of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Li,B., Li,H., 2010, "Research on Quasi-Static Test of Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls with Different Shear-Span Ratio," Industrial Construction, Vol. 40, No. 9,
pp. 32-36.
Li, B., Zhao, Y., Pan, Z., 2015, "Seismic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete
Li et al., 2015 structural walls with openings," Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol 67, No.
14, pp. 843-854.
Li, J., Wung, L., Lu, Z., Wang, Y., 2017, "Experimental study of L‐shaped
Li et al., 2017 precast RC shear walls with middle cast‐in‐situ joint," Structural Design Tall
Special Buildings, Vol 27, No. 1, e1457, DOI: 10.1002/tal.1457
Huang, C.L., 2011, "Studies on the Seismic Behaviors of Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls," PhD. Dissertation, National Taipei University of Technology.
Li et al., 2011 Li, Y.F., Huang, C.L., Lin, C.T., Hsu, T.H., 2011, "A Study on the High Seismic
Performance of RC Structural Walls under Reversed Cyclic Loading," Advances
in Structural Engineering, Vol 15, No. 7, pp. 1239-1252.
Yang, L.P., Yu, S.L., Zhang, Q.L., Cui, J.C., 2016, "Aseismic Behavior of
Superimposed Shear Walls under Different Axial Load Ratios," Journal of
Vibration and Shock, Vol 35, No. 9, pp. 227-239.
Lian et al., 2009
Jiang, Q., Ye, X., Lian, X., Chang, L., Wang, D., 2010, "Analysis on Energy
Dissipation of Superimposed Slab Shear Walls," Journal of Jiangsu University,
Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 483-487.

280
 Lian,X., Ye,X., Jiang, Q., Wang, D., 2010, "A New Green Resident Structure
System: The Superimposed Slab Shear Walls System," Industrial Construction,
Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 79-92.
Liang, X., Che, J., Yang, P., Deng, M., 2013, "Seismic Behavior of High-
Strength Concrete Structural Walls with Edge Columns," ACI Structural
Journal, Vol, 110, No. 6, pp. 953-964.
Cui, X., Liang, X., Yang, P., 2013, "Seismic Behavior of High-Performance
Liang et al.,
Concrete Shear Wall with End Columns," Industrial Construction, Vol. 443,
2013
No., 2, pp. 1-8.
Liang, X., Yang, P., Cui, X., Deng, M., Zhang, X., 2010, "Experimental Studies
on Seismic behavior of High Strength Concrete Shear Wall with Boundary
Columns," Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 31., No.1, pp. 23-32.
Liu, G.R., Song, Y.P., Qu, F.I., 2010, "Post-fire cyclic behavior of reinforced
concrete shear walls," J. Cent. South Univ. Technol., Vol 17, pp. 1103-1108.
Liu et al., 2010 Lui. G., Song, Y., Qu, F., 2011, "Experimental study on seismic behavior of
reinforced concrete shear walls after fire," Journal of Dalian University of
Technology, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 555-560.
Liu, J., Chen, Y., Guo, Z., Zhang, J., 2013, "Test on Seismic Performance of
Precast Concrete Shear Wall with U-shaped closed Reinforcements Connected
in horizontal Joints," Journal of Southeast University, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 565-
570.
Liu et al., 2013
Chen, Y., Liu, J., Guo, Z., Zhang, J., 2013, "Test on Seismic Performance of
Precast Shear Wall with Reinforcements Grouted in holes and Spliced Indirectly
in Horizontal Connections," Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, Vol. 45,
No. 6, pp. 83-89.
Lombard, J.C., 1997, "Seismic Strengthening and Repair of Reinforced
Concrete Shear walls using Externally Bonded Carbon Fiber Tow Sheets,"
Master’s Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Lombard, J., Lau, D.T., Humar, J.L., Foo, S., Ceung, M.S., 2000, "Seismic
Strengthening and Repair of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," 12th WCEE
Auckland, New Zealand.
Lombard 1999 Lau, D.T., Cruz-Noguez, C.A., 2013, "Development on Seismic Retrofit of RC
Shear Walls with FRP," 5th International Conference on Advances in
Experimental Structural Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cruz-Noguez, C.A., Hassan, A., Lau, D.T., Woods, J., Shaheen, I., "Seismic
Retrofit of Deficient RC Shear Walls with FRP Tow Sheets," Proceedings of the
10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Loo, T., Wee, D., 2017, "Seismic Axial Collapse of Short Shear Span
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," PhD. Dissertation, University of Hong
Kong.
Looi, D.T.W., Su, R.K.L., 2017, "Predictive Seismic Shear Capacity Model of
Rectangular Squat Shear Walls in Flexural and Shear Zones," Proceedings of the
Looi and Su
16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, January 9-13, Santiago,
2017
Chile.
Looi, D.T.W., Su, R.K.L., 2018, "Seismic axial collapse of short shear span RC
shear walls above transfer structure," Proceedings of 14th International
Conference on Concrete Engineering and Technology, Aug. 8-9, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.

281
 Looi, D.T.W., Su, R.K.L., 2018, "Seismic Axial collapse of short shear
Damaged Heavily Reinforced Shear Walls Experiencing Cyclic Tension-
Compression Excursions: A Modified Mohr's Axial Capacity Model," Journal of
Earthquake Engineering.
Looi, D.T.W., Su, R.K.L., Cheng, B., Tsang, H.H., 2017, "Effects of axial load
on seismic performance of reinforced concrete walls with short shear span,"
Engineering Structures, Vol. 151, pp. 312-326.
Lopes, M.S., 2001, "Experimental Shear-Dominated Response of RC Walls Part
I: Objectives, methodology and results," Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, pp.
229-239.
Lopes, M.S., 2001, "Experimental Shear-Dominated Response of RC Walls Part
II: Discussion of Results and Design Implications," Engineering Structures, Vol.
23, pp. 564-574.
Lopes, M.S., and Elnashai, A.S., 1992, "A New Experimental set-up for high
Lopes 2000
shear loading of reinforced concrete walls," Proceedings of the 10th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 19-24, Madrid, Spain.
Lu, H., 2004, “Effect of Concrete Strength on the Response of Ductile Shear
Walls,” Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Lu, X., and Wu, H., 2017, “Study on seismic performance of prestressed precast
concrete walls through cyclic lateral loading test,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol. 69, No. 17, pp. 878–891.
Lu, X., Jiang, H., 2016, "Recent Study on Seismic Performance and Response
Control of Tall Buildings," Proceedings of the International Association for
Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) Congress.
Lu, X., Wu, H., 2017, "Study on seismic performance of prestressed precast
concrete walls through cyclic lateral loading test," Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol. 16, No. 17, pp. 1-14.
Dang, X., Lu, X., Zhou, Y., 2014, "Experimental Study and Numerical
Simulation of Self-Centering Shear Walls with Horizontal Bottom Slit,"
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, Vol 34, No 4, pp.154-161.
Lu, X., Dang, X., Quin, j., Zhou, Y., Jiang, H., "Experimental Study of Self-
Centering Shear Walls with Horizontal Bottom Slits," Journal of Structural
Lu and Mao
Engineering, Vol. 143, Issue 3.
2014 and Lu et
Wu, H., Jiang, H., Shi, W., Li, J., 2016, "Experimental Study on Seismic
al., 2014 and
Performance of Prestressed Precast Concrete Shear Walls," Journal of Building
2016
Structures, Vol 37, No. 5, pp. 208-217.
Mao, Y., Lu, X., 2014, "Quasi-Static Cyclic Test of RC Shear Wall with
Replaceable foot Parts," Journal of Central South University (Science and
Technology), Vol. 45, No 6, pp. 2029-2040.
Lu, X., Mao, Y., Chen, Y., Zhao, Y., 2014, "Earthquake Resilience of Tall
Buildings Using Replaceable Energy Dissipation Members," Proceedings of the
10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Wu, Hao, Lu, X., Zhang, Q., 2015, "Experimental Behavior of Unbonded Post-
tensioned Precast Concrete Shear Walls for Seismic Regions," Proceedings of
the 5th Structural Engineers World Congress, At Singapore.
Henry, R.S., Lu, Y., Seifi, P., Ingham, J.M., 2015, "Recent Research to Improve
the Seismic Performance of Lightly Reinforced and Precast Concrete Walls,"
Lu et al., 2017
Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Building an Earthquake-Resilient Pacific, Sydney, Australia.

282
 Lu, Y., 2017, "Seismic Design of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Walls," PhD.
Dissertation, The University of Auckland.
Lu, Y., Henry, R.S., Ma, Q.T., 2014, "Numerical Modelling and Testing of
Concrete Walls with Minimum Vertical Reinforcement," Proceedings of New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Conference, March 21-
23, Auckland, New Zealand.
Lu, Y., Henry, R.S., Ma, Q.T., 2014, "Modelling and Experimental Plan of
Reinforced Concrete Walls with Minimum Vertical Reinforcement,"
Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska.
Lu, Y., Henry, R.S., Gultom, R., Ma, Q.T., 2015, "Experimental testing and
modelling of reinforced concrete walls with minimum vertical reinforcement,"
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Conference, April
10-12, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Lu, Y., Henry, R.S., Gultom, R., Ma, Q.T., 2017, "Cyclic Testing of Reinforced
Concrete Walls with Distributed Minimum Vertical Reinforcement," Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol 143, No. 5.
Rocks, J.F., 2012, "large Scale Testing of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced
Concrete Walls," Master's Thesis, University of Buffalo, State University of
New York.
Luna, B.N., 2015, "Seismic Response of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete
Walls for Building and Safety-Related Nuclear Application," PhD Dissertation,
University of Buffalo, State University of New York.
Luna, B.N., Rivera, J.P., Rocks, J.F., Goksu, C., Whittaker, A.S., 2013, "Seismic
Luna 2015 Performance of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," SMiRT-
22, San Francisco, California.
Lu.N., Rivera, J.P, Whittaker, A.S., 2015, "Seismic Behavior of Low-Aspect-
Ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 112, No.
5, pp. 593-604.
Rivera, J.P., Luna, B.N., Whittaker, A.S., 2018, "Seismic Damage Assessment
of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Technical Report
MCEER-18-0003.
Ma, G., 2015, "Seismic performance tests and calculation theory for recycled
aggregate thermal insulation concrete (RATIC) shear wall" PhD Dissertation,
Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan, China, 137 pp. (in Chinese)
Ma 2015
Ma, G., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., and Li, Z. 2015, "Seismic behavior of recycled
aggregate thermal insulation concrete shear walls," Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 145-162.
Ma, H., Zhang, H.M., and Zhai, Y.Q. 2013, "Experimental Study on Seismic
Performance of RC Shear Wall and High-strength Rebars," Journal from of
International Efforts in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, pp. 505-512.
Ma et al., 2013
Li, Z., Song, Y., Zhang, H., Xie, Y., and Ma, H. 2014, "Study of Seismic
Performance of RC Shear Wall With 1000 MPa High-Strength Rebars," Journal
of Industrial Construction, Vol. 44, No. 12, pp. 57-62.
Maeda et al., Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H. 1998, "Test Analyses of High-Strength
1986 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in Japan," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 176,
(Kabeyasawa) No. 13, pp. 281-310.
Maeda et al., "Examination of the effect of prior damage on ultimate strength by
Maeda et al.,
seismic wall test," Report, Tohoku University, Japan, 48 pp. (in Japanese)
2017
https://www.nsr.go.jp/data/000215343.pdf

283
 Maeda, M., Koike, T., Hosoya, N., Susuki, Y., Tsurugar, K., and Nimura, A.
2017, "Damage and Residual Seismic Performance Evaluation Of Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls," Proceedings, 16th World Conference on Earthquake,
Santiago, Chile, 9-13 January, No. 1971.
Maeda, M., Hosoya, N., Koiike, T., Hanzawa, M., Ogata, Y., and Jin, K. 2017,
"Static Loading Test On Seismic Capacity Of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
In Nuclear Power Plant Part 2 Evaluation Of Damage And Residual Capacity,"
Proceedings, SMiRT-24 BEXCO, Busan, Korea, 20-25 August.
Hube, M.A., Marihuen, A., De la Liera, J.C., and Stojadinovic, B. 2014,
"Experimental Campaign of Reinforced Concrete Walls with Non-Seismic
Detailing," Proceedings, 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska.
Hube, M.A., Marihuen, A., De la Liera, J.C., and Stojadinovic, B. 2014,
Marihuen 2014
"Seismic behavior of slender reinforced concrete walls," Proceedings,
ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 80, pp. 377-388.
Marihuén, A, 2014, "Seismic behavior of slender reinforced concrete walls,"
Master’s Thesis, Pontificia Universad Católica de Chile, Chile, 133 pp. (in
Spanish)
Nagy-Gyorgy, T., Mosoarca, M., Solan, V., Gergely, H., and Dan, D. 2005,
"Retrofit of reinforced concrete shear walls with cfrp composites," Article from
Symposium 'Keep Concrete Attractive, Budapest, pp. 1-6.
Mosoarca, M., and Stolan, V. 2012, "Seismic Energy Dissipation In Structural
Reinforced Concrete Walls With Staggered Openings," Journal of Applied
Engineering Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 15, pp. 71-78.
Marius, M. 2013, "Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls with
Marius 2012 regular and staggered openings after the strong earthquakes between 2009 and
2011," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 34, pp. 537-
565.
Mosoarca, M. 2014, "Failure analysis of RC shear walls with staggered
openings under seismic loads," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering Failure
Analysis, Vol. 41, pp. 48-64.
Mosoarca, M. 2014, "Bearing Structures in Architecture," PhD Dissertation,
The Polytechnic University of Timisoara, Timișoara, Romania, pp. 1-159.
Orakcal, K., Massone, L.M., and Wallace, J.W. 2009, "Shear Strength of Lightly
Reinforced Wall Piers and Spandrels," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 43,
pp. 455-465.
Sanchez, L. 2006, "RC Wall Shear- Flexure Interaction: Analytical and
Massone 2006 Experimental Responses," PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles, United States, pp. 1-398.
Massone, L. 2009, "Strength prediction of squat structural walls via calibration
of a shear-flexure interaction model," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 32, pp. 922-932.
Matsubara, S., Sanada, Y., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose, T., 2012, "Experimental
study on the effect of structural details of the compression zone on the
deformation performance of a bending fracture bearing wall," Proceedings of the
Matsubara et Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 361-366. (in Japanese)
al., 2012 Kono, S., Kabeyasawa, T., Sanada, Y., Sakashita, M., Nishiyama, M., Ichinose,
T., Takahashi, S., Tani, M., and Fukuyama, H. 2012 "Seismic Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls based on the Japanese Domestic Research
Efforts," Research Report, pp. 1-11.

284
 Matsubara, S., Sanada, Y., Tani, M., Takahashi, S., Ichinose, T., and Fukuyama,
H., 2013, “Structural parameters of confined area affect flexural deformation
capacity of shear walls that fail in bending with concrete crushing,” Journal of
Structural and Construction Engineering, Vol. 78, No. 691, pp. 1593–1602. (in
Japanese)
Yamamoto, N., Sanada, Y., ad Matsubara, S. 2014, "Tests and Analyses for
Seismic Performance Evaluation Of R/C Shear Walls Fail in Bending with
Concrete Crushing," Proceedings of the10th US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska.
Matsui, T., Saito, T., and Reyna, R. 2014, "Basic Study on Reinforced Concrete
Matsui et al.,
Shear Walls Without Boundary Columns Retrofitted by Carbon Fiber Sheets,"
2014
Journal of Disaster Research, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 1008-1014.
Matsui, T., Saito, T., and Reyna, R. 2017, "Structural Performance of
Matsui et al., Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Walls Retrofitted by Carbon Fiber Sheets,"
2017 Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake, Santiago, Chile, 9-13
January 2017.
Mehmood, T., Warnitchai, P., and Hssain, K. 2015, "Seismic evaluation of
Mehmood et al.,
flexural-shear dominated RC walls in moderate seismic regions," Magazine of
2015
Concrete Research, Vol. 67, No. 18, pp. 1003-1015.
Mestyanek, J.M. 1986, "The Earthquake Resistance of Reinforced Concrete
Mestyanek
Structural Walls of Limited Ductility," Master Dissertation, University of
1986
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 1-239.
Mickleborough, N.C., Ning, F., and Chan C.M. 1999, "Prediction of Stiffness of
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls under Service Loads," ACI Structural Journal,
Mickleborough Vol. 96, No. 113, pp. 1018-1026.
et al., 1999 Ning, Feng., Mickleborough, N.C., and Chan, C.M. 2001, "Service load
response prediction of reinforced concrete flexural members," Journal of
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Mitchell and Chen, C.Y. 2005, "Effect of Confinement on the Response of Ductile Shear
Chen 2005 & Walls," PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, pp. 1-116.
Mitchell and Liu, H. 2004, "Effect of Concrete Strength on the Response of Ductile Shear
Liu 2004 Walls," PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, pp. 1-101.
Mobeen, S., 2002, “Cyclic Tests of Shear Walls Confined with Double Head
Studs,” Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmoton, AB, Canada.
Mobeen 2002
Mobeen, S.S., Elwi, A.E., and Ghali, A. 2005, "Double-Headed Studs in Shear
walls," Concrete International Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 59-63.
Mohamed, N.A.A.R. 2013, "Strength and Drift Capacity of GFRP-Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls," PhD Dissertation, University of Sherbrooke, Quebec,
Canada, pp. 1-155.
Mohamed, N., Farghaly, A.S., Benmokrane, B., Neale, K.W. 2012, "Cyclic
Load Behavior of GFRP Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall: Experimental
Approach," Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced
Mohamed 2013
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Ontario Canada, 22-25 May
2012, pp. 1-8.
Mohamed, N., Farghaly, A.S., Benmokrane, B., and Neale, K.W. 2014,
"Experimental Investigation of Concrete Shear Walls Reinforced with Glass
Fiber–Reinforced Bars under Lateral Cyclic Loading," Journal of Composites
for Construction, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. A40140011-A401400111.

285
 Mohammadi-Doostdar, H. 1994, "Behavior and Design of Earthquake Resistant
Mohammadi-
Low-Rise Shear Walls," PhD Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Doostdar 1994
Canada, pp. 1-250.
Morgan, B J., Hiraishi, H., and Corley W. G., 1986, "US-Japan quasi-static test
Morgan et al., of isolated wall planar reinforced concrete structure," Report to National Science
1986 Foundation, submitted by Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Motter, C. 2014, "Large-Scale Testing of Steel-Reinforced Concrete (SRC)
Coupling Beams Embedded into Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," PhD
Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, California, pp. 1-344.
Motter 2017
Motter, C., Abdullah, S.A., and Wallace, J.W. 2018, "Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls without Special Boundary Elements," ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 115, No. 55, pp. 723-733.
Mun, J. H., Yang, K. H., and Lee, Y., 2016, “Seismic tests on heavyweight
concrete shear walls with wire ropes as lateral reinforcement,” ACI Structural
Mun et al., Journal, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 665–675.
2016 Mun, J.H., Yang, K.H., and Song, J.K. 2017, "Shear Behavior of Squat
Heavyweight Concrete Shear Walls with Construction Joints," ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 114, No. 83, pp. 1019-1029.
Murakami, H., and Ikawa, N., 2010, “Development of RC Multi-story Shear
Murakami and
Wall Structure-Part1 Experimental Study on Structural Performance” Konoike
Ikawa 2010
Group Technical Research Report, pp. 27-38. (in Japanese)
Nagae, T., Tahara, K., Matsumori, T., Shiohara, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Kono, S.,
Nishiyama, M., Wallace, J., Ghannoum, W., Moehle, J., Sause, R., Keller, W.,
and Tuna, Z. 2011, "Design and Instrumentation of the 2010 E-Defense Four-
Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-Tensioned Concrete Buildings," Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, pp. 1-234.
Nagae, T., Matsumori, T., Shiohara, H., Kaheyasawa, T., Kono, S., Nishiyama,
M., Moehle, J., Wallace, J., Sause, R., and Ghannouum, W. 2010, "The 2010 E-
Defense Shaking Table Test On Four-Story Reinforced Concrete And Post-
Tensioned Concrete Buildings," Proceedings of the10th U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska.
Nagae, T., Ghannoum, W.M., Kwon, J., Tahara, K., Fukuyama, K., Matsumori,
T., Shiohara, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Kono, S., Nishiyama, M., Sause, R., Wallace,
Nagae et al.,
J.W., and Moehle, J.P. 2015, "Design Implications of Large-Scale Shake-Table
2011
Test on Four-Story Reinforced Concrete Building," ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
112, No. 12, pp. 135-146.
Tuna, Z., Gavridou, S., Wallace, J.W., Nagae, T., and Matsumori, T. 2012,
"2010 E-Defense Four-Story Reinforced Concrete and Post-Tensioned Buildings
– Preliminary Comparative Study of Experimental and Analytical Results,"
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sept.
24-28, Lisbon, Portugal.
Tuna, Z., Wallace, J.W., Gavridou, S., Nagae, T., and Matsumori, T. 2014,
"2010 E‐Defense Four‐Story RC And Pt Buildings ‐ Comparative Study of
Experimental and Analytical Results," Proceedings of the 10th US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 1-
21.
Nagashima, T., et al., 'Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls using
Nagashima et
high strength concrete (in Japanese),' Proceedings of the Japan Concrete
al., 1993
Institute, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1155- 1160(1993).

286
 Minami, N., and Nakachi, T. 2008, "Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis on Reinforced Concrete Walls Enhanced by Transverse
Confining Steel," Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
Minami, N., and Nakachi, T. 2008, "Finite Element Analysis on Reinforced
Concrete Wall Columns Enhanced by Transverse Confining Steel," Fukui
Nakachi et al., University of Technology, Fukui, Japan, pp. 179-184.
1990 Makita, T., Nakachi, T., hayakawa, Y., and Toda, T., 1990, "Experimental Study
on Flexural Type RC Shear Walls in High-Rise Construction," Proceedings of
the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 551-556. (in Japanese)
Nakachi, T., Toda, T., and Makita, T. 1992, "Experimental study on deformation
capacity of reinforced concrete shear walls after flexural yielding," Proceedings
of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, July 19-24, Madrid,
Spain, pp. 3231-3236.
Kanechika, M., Kobayashi, A., Kato, M., Sakanishi, M., Suzuki, N., et al, 1989,
"Application Of high strength rebar for RC shear wall part-1," Summaries of
technical papers of annual meeting of AIJ. Structures II, pp. 567–568. (in
Nakamura et Japanese).
al., 2009 Nakamura, N., Tsunashima, N., Nakano, T., and Tachibana, E. 2009,
"Analytical study on energy consumption and damage to cylindrical and I-
shaped reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to cyclic loading," ELSEVIER
Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, pp. 999-1009.
Niroomandi, A., Pampanin, S., Dhakal, R.P., and Soleymani Ashtiani, M. 2018,
"Experimental Study on Slender Rectangular RC Walls Under Bi-Directional
Loading," Proceedings of the 11th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Niroomandi et Engineering, Los Angeles, California, June 25-29.
al., 2018 Niroomandi, A., Pampanin, S., Dhakal, R.P., Soleymani Ashtiani, M., and De
La Torre, C. 2018, "Rectangular RC Walls Under Bi-Directional Loading:
Recent Experimental and Numerical Findings," Proceedings of New Zealand
Concrete Industry Conference, October 11-13, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Fiorato, A.E., Oesterle, R.G., and Corley, W.G. 1983, "Behavior of Earthquake
Resistant Structural Walls Before and After Repair," ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 80, No. 5, pp. 403-413.
Corley, W.G., Fiorato, A.E., and Oesterle, R.G. 1981, "Structural Walls,"
Research Report, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 77-132.
Fiorato, A.E., Oesterle, R.G., and Corley V.G. 1977, "Ductility of Structural
Walls for Design of Earthquake Resistant Buildings," Research Report, Vol. 72,
No. 1, pp. 2797-2802.
Fiorato, A.E., Oesterle, R.G., and Corley, W.G. 1983, "Behavior of Earthquake
Oesterle et al., Resistant Structural Walls Before and After Repair," ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 80, No. 5, pp. 403-413.
Wood, S. 1989, "Minimum Tensile Reinforcement Requirements in Walls," ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 86, No. 56, pp. 582-591.
Wood, S., 1986, "Observed Behavior of Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls
Subjected to Cyclic Loading," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 127, No. 11, pp.
453-477.
Oesterle, R.G., 1986, “Inelastic Analysis for In-Plane Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls,” PhD Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston,
Illinois, June 1986, 332 pp. 1-329.

287
 Oesterle, R. G., Fiorato, A. E., Johal, L. S., Carpenter, J. E., Russell, H. G., and
Corley, W. G., 1976, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Tests of Isolated
Walls,” Report to National Science Foundation (GI-43880), Construction
Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 315 pp. 1-
232.
Oesterle, R. G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., Russell, H. G., and
Corley, W. G., 1979, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Phase II,” Report
to National Science Foundation (ENV77-15333), Construction Technology
Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 331 pp.1-207.
Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., Aristizabal-Ochoa, and Corley, W.G. 1980,
"Hysteretic Response of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 63, No. 11, pp. 243- 273.
Oesterle, R.G., Fiorato, A.E., and Corley, W.G. 1980b, "Reinforcement Details
for Earthquake-Resistant Structural Walls," Concrete International Journal,
Vol. 2, No. 12, pp. 55-66.
Oesterle, R.G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.D., Shiu, K.N., and Corley, W.G. 1984,
"Web Crushing of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," ACI Journal, Vol. 81,
No. 22, pp. 231-241.
Kono, S., Obara, T., Taleb, R., and Watanabe, H. 2015, "Simulation of drift
capacity of RC walls with different section configurations," Proceedings of the
10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sydney, Australia, pp. 181-
188.
Yuniarsyah, E., Kono, S., Tani, M., Taleb, R., Sugimoto, K., and Mukai, T.
2016, "Damage evaluation of lightly reinforced concrete walls in moment
resisting frames under seismic loading," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 132, pp. 349-371.
Tani, M., Mukai, T., Ogura, M., Taleb, R., and Kono, S. 2014, "Full-Scale
Experiment on Non-Structural RC Walls Focused on Failure of Modes and
Damage Mitigation," Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Aug. 24-29, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 1-
12.
Ogura et al.
Yuniarsyah, E., Taleb, R., Watanabe, H., Kono, S., Tani, M., and Mukai, T.
2014
2015, "Experimental Study On Residual Damage Of Full-Scale RC Non-
Structural Wall Specimens Part 3: Experimental Program For Improved
Specimens," Proceedings, Architectural Institute of Japan Annual Meeting, At
Yokohama, Japan, pp. 129-130.
Taleb, R., Yuniarsyah, E., Watanbe, H., Kono, S., Tani, M., and Mukai, T. 2015,
"Experimental Study On Residual Damage Of Full-Scale RC Non-Structural
Wall Specimens Part 4: Experimental Results For Improved Specimens,"
Proceedings, Architectural Institute of Japan Annual Meeting, At Yokohama,
Japan, pp. 131-132.
Yuniarsyah, E., Kono, S., Tani, M., Taleb, R., Watanabe, H., Obara, T., and
Mukai, T. 2017, "Experimental study of lightly reinforced concrete walls
upgraded with various schemes under seismic loading," ELSEVIER Journal of
Engineering Structures, Vol. 138, pp. 1-15.
Oh, Y. H., 1998, "Evaluation of the response modification factor for shear walls
Oh 1998 in apartment buildings," PhD Dissertation, Hanyang University, 289 pp. (in
Korean).

288
 Han, S. W., Oh, Y.-H., and Lee, L.-H, 1999, "Evaluation of Deformation
Capacity According to the Lateral Reinforcement of Wall Ends," Journal of the
Korean Concrete Institute, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 101-112. (in Korean)
Oh, Y.H., Han, S.W., and Lee, L.H. 2002, "Effect of boundary element details
on the seismic deformation capacity of structural walls," Article in Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp. 1583-1602.
Han, S.W., Oh, Y.H., and Lee, L.H. 2002, "Seismic behavior of structural walls
with specific details," Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 54, No. 5, pp. 333-
345.
Oh, Y.H., Han, S.W., and Choi, Y.S. 2006, "Evaluation and Improvement of
Deformation Capacities of Shear Walls Using Displacement-Based Seismic
Design," International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp. 55-61.
Ishimura. K., Odajima, M., Irino, K., and Hashiba, T. 1991, "Study on Reactor
Building Structure Using Ultrahigh Strength Materials, Part 1: Summary of
Research," ELSEVIER Journal on Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. H, No.
1, pp. 359-364.
Kabeyasawa, T., and Hiraishi, H. 1998, "Test Analyses of High-Strength
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls In Japan," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 176,
No. 13, pp. 281-310.
Okamoto, S., et al., 'Study on reactor building structure using ultrahigh strength
Okamoto et al.,
materials: Part 1. Bending shear test of RC shear wall - Outline (in Japanese),'
1990
Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting, Architectural Institute of
Japan, Cll, 1469- 1470(1990).
Uchiyama, T., Ishimura, K., Takahashi, T., and Hirade, T. 1991, "Study on
Reatcor Building Structure Using Ultrahigh Strength Materials Part 4 Bending
Shear Tests of RC Shear Walls," Research Report, Vol. H, No. 1, pp. 377-382.
Iwashita, K., Ishimura, K., Kurihara, K., and Imai, M. 1991, "Study on Reactor
Building Structure Using Ultrahigh Strength Materials Part 5 Nonlinear
Analysis of RC Shear Wall," Research Report, Vol. H, No. 1, pp. 383-388.
Leiva, G. 2004, "Experimental Evaluation of Damage of Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls Subjected to High Levels of Cyclic Actions," Proceedings of
the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada.
Oyarzo Vera, C. 2006, "Damage Evaluation in R/C Shear Walls Using the
Oyarzo 2006
Damage Index of Park & Ang," Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Sept. 3-8, Geneva, Switzerland.
Oyarzo, C. (2003), Evaluación Del Daño En Muros De Hormigón Armado
Sometidos a Altas Demandas De Ductilidad. Memoria para optar al título de
Ingeniero Civil, UTFSM, Valparaíso, Chile.
Vecchio, F., Haro de la Pena, O., Bucci, F., and Palermo, D. 2002, "Behavior of
Repaired Cyclically Loaded Shear Walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No.
34, pp. 327-334.
Palermo and Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. 2002, "Behavior and Analysis of Reinforced
Vecchio 2002 Concrete Walls Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading," Research Report, May
2002, pp. 1-351.
Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. 2002, "Behavior of Three-Dimensional Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 9, pp. 81-89.

289
 Park, H., Lee, J., Shin, H., and Baek, J. 2013, "Cyclic Loading Test for Shear
Strength of Low-rise RC Walls with Grade 550 MPa Bars," Journal of the
Korea Concrete Institute, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 601~612.
Park, H., Lee, J., Shin, H., and Baek, J. 2014, "Shear Strength of Low-rise RC
Park et al., 2013 Walls with Grade 550 MPa Bars," Proceedings, 2014 International Conference
on Geological and Civil Engineering, Vol. 62, No. 7, pp. 34-39.
Park, H., Baek, J., Lee, J., and Shin, H. 2013, "Cyclic Loading Tests for Shear
Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Walls with Grade 550 MPa Bars,"
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 112, No. 24, pp. 299-310.
Paterson, J. 2001, "Seismic Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Shear walls,"
Master Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. pp. 1-123.
Paterson 2001 Paterson, J., and Mitchell, D. 2003, "Seismic Retrofit of Shear Walls with
Headed Bars and Carbon Fiber Wrap," ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 129, No. 5, pp. 606-614.
Peng, Y., 2014, "Strength and deformation capacity of squat recycled concrete
walls under cyclic loading," PhD Dissertation, China University of Mining and
Technology, Xuzhou, China, 109 pp. (in Chinese)
Peng 2014
Peng, Y., Wu, H., and Zhuge, Y. 2015, "Strength and drift capacity of squat
recycled concrete shear walls under cyclic loading," ELSEVIER Journal on
Engineering Structures, Vol. 100, pp. 356-369.
Peng, X. 2011, "Study of Torsional Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Walls,"
PhD Dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, pp. 1-189.
Peng and Wong
2011 Peng, X., and Wong, Y. 2016, "Experimental study on reinforced concrete walls
under combined flexure, shear and torsion," Magazine of Concrete Research,
Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 459-471.
Peng, Y., 2010, "Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Pre-cast
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," MS Thesis, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
Peng et al., China, 137 pp. (in Chinese)
2015 Peng, Y.Y., Qian, J.R., and Yang, Y.H. 2015, "Cyclic performance of precast
concrete shear walls with a mortar–sleeve connection for longitudinal steel
bars," Journal of Materials and Structures, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 1-15.
Elnashai, A., Pilakoutas, K., and Ambraseys, N. 1989, "Experimental
BehaviorOf Reinforced Concrete Walls Under Earthquake Loading," Article in
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 389 407.
Pilakoutas, K. 1990, "Earthquake Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete
Walls," PhD Dissertation, Imperial College of Science Technology and
Medicine, University of London, South Kensington, London, pp. 1-360.
Pilakoutas 1990
Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A. 1995, "Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Cantilever Walls, Part 1: Experimental Results," ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
92, No. 25, pp. 271-281.
Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A. 1995, "Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Cantilever Walls, Part II: Discussions and Theoretical Comparisons," ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 41, pp. 425-433.
Pilette, C.F. 1988, "Behavior of Earthquake Resistant Squat Shear Walls,"
Pilette 1988
Master Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 1-130.
Pollalis 2018 ???

290
 Puranam, A., and Pujol, S. 2017, "Minimum Flexural Reinforcement In
Puranam and
Reinforced Concrete Walls," Proceedings, 16th World Conference on
Pujol 2017
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Vol. 2017, No. 1059, pp. 1-9.
Nguyen, K., Brun, M., Limam, A., Ferrier, E., and Michel, L. 2013, "Local and
Non-Local Approaches for simulating CFRP-reinforced concrete shear walls
under monotonic loads," Proceedings of the 5th ECCOMAS Thematic
Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Kos Island, Greece, 12–14 June 2013.
Nguyen, K., Brun, M., Limam, A., Ferrier, E., and Michel, L. 2013, "Pushover
experiment and numerical analyses on CFRP-retrofit concrete shear walls with
Qazi 2013 different aspect ratios," ELSVIER Journal of Composite Structures, Vol. 113,
No. 1, pp. 403-418.
Qazi, S., 2014, "Mechanical behavior of RC walls under seismic activity
strengthened with CFRP," European Journal of Environmental and Civil
Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 1-191.
Qazi, S., Michel, L., and Ferrier, E. 2013, "Mechanical behavior of RC walls
under seismic activity strengthened with CFRP," European Journal of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 1-191.
Qian, J., Yang, X., Qin, H., Peng, Y., Zhang, J., and Li, J. 2011, "Tests on
seismic behavior of pre-cast shear walls with various methods of vertical
reinforcement splicing," Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 51-
Qian et al., 59.
2011 Qian, J., Yang, X., Qin, H., Peng, Y., Zhang, J., and Li, J. 2011, "Tests on
seismic behavior of pre-cast shear walls with various methods of vertical
reinforcement splicing," Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 51-
59.
Parulekar, Y., Rastogi, R., Reddy, G., Bhasin, V., and Vaze, K.K. 2012,
"Assessing Safety of Shear Walls: An Experimental, Analytical and
Probabilistic Study," Article in Industrial Safety and Lifecycle Engineering, pp.
589-610.
Parulekar, T.m., Reddy, G.R., Singh, R.K., Gopalkrishnan, N., and Ramarao,
G.V. 2016, "Seismic performance evaluation of mid-rise shear walls:
experiments and analysis," Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 291-312.
Ramarao, G.V., Gopalakrishnan, N., Jaya, K., Muthumani, K., Reddy G.R., and
Rama Rao et Parulekar, Y.M. 2015, "Studies on Nonlinear Behavior of Shear Walls of
al., 2014 Medium Aspect Ratio under Monotonic and Cyclic Loading," ASCE Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 040142011-
0401420114.
Rama Rao, G.V., Gopalakrishnan, N., Jaya, K.P., and Dhaduk, R. 2016, "Studies
on ductility of shear walls," Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 6,
pp. 540-549.
Reddy, A., Charles, S., Priya, C., Rama Rao, G.V., Gopalakrishnan, N., and
Rao, A. 2013, "Damage Detection of Cyclically Loaded Concrete Shear Wall
using EMI Technique," Journal of Structural Durability and Health Monitoring,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 325-347.
Ramarozatovo, R., Hosono, J., Kawai, T., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose, T. "
Ramarozatovo Effects of construction joints and axial loads on slip behavior of RC shear walls-
et al., 2016 Chapter 2 Outline of Experiment," Nagoya Institute of Technology Nagoya,
Japan. (in Japanese)

291
 Ramarozatovo, R., Hosono, J., Kawai, T., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose, T. "
Effects of construction joints and axial loads on slip behavior of RC shear walls-
Chapter 3 Experimental Results," Nagoya Institute of Technology Nagoya,
Japan. (in Japanese)
Ramarozatovo, R., Hosono, J., Kawai, T., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose, T. 2016,
"Effects of construction joints and axial loads on slip behavior of RC shear
walls," Proceedings, The 5th International Congress on Engineering and
Information, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 1-12.
Ramarozatovo, R., Hosono, J., Kawai, T., Takahashi, S., and Ichinose, T. 2016a,
"Effects of construction joints and axial loads on slip behavior of RC shear
walls," International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and
Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Raongjant, W., 2007, "Seismic Behavior of Lightweight Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls," PhD Dissertation, Leibniz University Hannover, Germany, 138
pp.
Raongjant 2007
Raongjant, W., and Jing, M. 2009, "Analysis Modelling of Seismic Behavior of
Lightweight Concrete Shear Walls," Proceedings, 2009 International Multi
Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Riva, P., and Franchi, A. 2001, "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Walls with
Riva and
Welded Wire Mesh Subjected to Cyclic Loading," ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
Franchi 2001
98, No. 31, pp. 324-334.
Saito, H., Kikuchi, R., Kanechika, M., and Okamoto, K. 1989, "Experimental
Saito et al.,
Study of the Effect of Concrete Strength of Shear Wall Behavior," Article from
1989
NC State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 227-232.
Kabeyasawa, T., and Kiraishi, H. 1998, "Tests and Analyses of High-Strength
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls in Japan," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 176,
Saitoh et al., No. 13, pp. 281-310.
1990 Saitoh, F., Kuramoto, H. and Minami, K., 'Shear behavior of shear walls using
high strength concrete (in Japanese),' Summaries of technical papers of annual
meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Cll, 605-606(1990).
Salonikios T. N., 1998, "Experimental investigation of the behavior of R/C walls
with aspect ratio 1, 1.5 reinforced by conventional and non-conventional type of
reinforcement, under seismic loading," PhD Dissertation, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Greece, 297 pp. (in Greek)
Salonikios, T. 2002, "Shear strength and deformation patterns of R/C walls with
aspect ratio 1.0 and 1.5 designed to Eurocode 8 (EC8)," ELSEVIER Journal of
Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Salonikios, T. 2007, "Analytical Prediction of the Inelastic Response of RC
Walls with Low Aspect Ratio," ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
133, No. 6, pp. 844-854.
Salonikios 1998
Salonikios, T., Tegos, I., Kappos, A., and Penelis G. 1996, "Squat RC Walls
Under Inelastic Reversals," Proceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, June 23-28, Acapulco, Mexico, pp. 1-8.
Salonikios, T., Kappos, A., Tegos, I., and Penelis, G. 1999, "Cyclic Load
Behavior of Low-Slenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls: Design Basis and
Test Results," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 73, pp. 649-660.
Salonikios, T., Kappos, A., Tegos, I., and Penelis, G. 2000, "Cyclic Load
Behavior of Low-Slenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls: Failure Modes,
Strength and Deformation Analysis, and Design Implications," ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 97, No. 15, pp. 132-142.

292
 Murase, M., Kaburiyazawa, T., Sanada, A., and Igarashi, S., 2005, "Study on
seismic reinforcement of reinforced concrete walls using polyester fiber sheet,"
Sanada and Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 1075-1080. (in
Kabeyasawa Japanese)
2006 Sanada, T., and Kabeyasawa, T. 2006, "Local Force Characteristics of
Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall," Proceedings, 8th U.S. National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2006, No. 324, pp. 1-10.
Sanada, Y., Takahashi, H., and Toyama, H. 2012, "Seismic Strengthening of
Sanada et al.,
Boundary Columns in R/C Shear Walls," Proceedings, 15th World Conference
2012
on Earthquake Engineering, Sept. 24-28, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 1-10.
Sato, s., Ogata, T., Yoshizaki, S., Kanata, K., Yamaguchi, T., Nakayama, T.,
Inada, T., and Kadoriku J. 1989, "Behavior of Shear Wall Using Various Yield
Sato et al., 1989
Strength of Rebar Part 1: An Experimental Study," Article from NC State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 233-238.
Segura, C. L., 2017, “Seismic Performance Limitations and Reinforcement
Detailing of Slender RC Structural Walls,” PhD Dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 238 pp.
Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018a, “Seismic performance limitations and
detailing of slender RC walls,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 115, No. 03, pp.
849-860.
Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2018b, “Impact of geometry and detailing on
drift capacity of slender walls,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 115, No. 03, pp.
Segura 2017 885-896.
Segura, C. L., and Wallace, W. J., 2015, “Experimental study on the seismic
performance of thin reinforced concrete structural walls” Structural Engineering
Frontier Conference, March 18-19, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama,
Japan.
Segura, C. L., Wallace, W. J., Arteta, C.A., and Moehle, J. P., 2016,
"Deformation capacity of thin reinforced concrete shear walls," New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Technical Conference, April 1-3,
Christchurch, NZ.
Seo et al., "Hysteretic Behavior of Recycle R/C Shear Wall with Various
Transverse Reinforce in Boundary Element," Report. (in Korean)
Seo, S., Yoon, S., and Cho, Y. 2007, "Strength and Hysteretic Characteristics of
RC Shear Wall with Boundary Elements," Proceedings of the Korea Concrete
Seo et al., 2007 Institute Conference, pp. 69-73. (in Korean)
Seo, S., Oh, T.G., Kim, K.T., and Yoon, S.J. 2010, "Hysteretic Behavior of RC
Shear Wall with Various Lateral Reinforcements in Boundary Columns for
Cyclic Lateral Load, " Jornal of the Korea Concrete Institute, Vol. 22, No. 2,
pp. 357-366.
Shaingchin, S., Lukkunaprasit, P., and Wood, S. 2006, "Influence of diagonal
Shaingchin et
web reinforcement on cyclic behavior of structural walls," ELSEVIER Journal of
al., 2006
Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 498-510.
Shegay, A., Motter, C., Henry, R., and Elwood, K. 2018, "Impact of Axial Load
and Detailing on the Seismic Response of Rectangular Walls," ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 144, No. 8, pp. 1-110.
Shegay 2017 Sheygay, A., Motter, C., Henry, R., and Eldwood, K. 2006, "Large Scale
Testing Of A Reinforced Concrete Wall Designed To The Amended Version Of
Nzs3101," The New Zealand Concrete Industry Conference 2016, Auckland,
New Zealand, pp. 1-9.

293
 Sheygay, A., Motter, C., Henry, R., and Eldwood, K. 2017, "Modeling of RC
Walls with Ductile Detailing Subjected to High Axial Loads," Proceedings, 16th
World Conference on Earthquake, Santiago Chile, pp. 1-11.
Shegay, A., Motter, C., Henry, R., amd E;dwppd L. 2017, "Experimental Study
on Reinforced Concrete Walls with High Axial Loads," Proceedings, 2017 New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, Auckland, New
Zealand, pp. 1-9.
Shegay, A., Motter, C., Eldwood, K., Henry, R., Lehman, D., and Lowes, L.
2018, "Impact of Axial Load on the Seismic Response of Rectangular Walls,"
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 144, No. 8, pp. 040181241-
0401812414.
Shen, D., Yang, Q., Jiao, Y., Cui, Z., and Zhang, J. 2016, "Experimental
Shen et al., investigations on reinforced concrete shear walls strengthened with basalt fiber-
2017 reinforced polymers under cyclic load," ELSEVIER Article on Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 136, pp. 217-229.
Shimazaki, K. 2009, "Damage-Free Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Good
Repairability," Article of Dept. of Architecture and Building Engineering,
Kanagawa University, Japan, pp. 1-6.
Shimazaki, K., 2008, “Reinforced concrete shear walls with de-bonded diagonal
Shimazaki 2008 reinforcements for the damage-less reinforced concrete building,” Proceedings,
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oct. 12-17, Beijing, China.
Hirata, N., and Shimizaki, K. 2009, "An Experimental Study on Damage-Free
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with De-Bonded Diagonal Reinforcements,"
Structural Engineering Article, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Daniel, J., Shiu, K., and Corley, W. 1986, "Openings in Earthquake-Resistant
Structural Walls," ASCE Library, Vol. 112, No. 7, pp. 1660-1676.
Shiu, K. N., Daniel, J. I., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., and Corley,
Shui et al, 1981 W. G., 1981, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls–Tests of Walls with and
Without Openings,” Report to National Science Foundation (R/D 1679),
Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association. Skokie,
IL.
Sittipunt, C., and Wood, C. 2000, "Development of Reinforcement Details to
Improve the Cyclic Response of Slender Structural Walls," Proceedings, 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1-
Sittipunt and
6.
Wood 2000
Sittipunt, C., Wood, S., Lukkunaprasit, P., and Pattararattanakul, P. 2001,
"Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls with Diagonal Web
Reinforcement," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 554-562.
Solak, A., Tama, Y., Yilmaz, S., Kaplan, H. 2015, "Experimental study on
Solak et al.,
behavior of anchored external shear wall panel connections," Article in Bulletin
2015
Of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 3065–3081.
Sosa, D., Arévalo, D., Mora, E., Correa, M., Albuja, D., and Gómez, C. 2017,
Sosa et al., "Experimental and Analytical Study of Slender Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall
2017 under Cyclic In-Plane Lateral Load," Hindawi Journal of Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2017, No. 4020563, pp. 1-14.
Sun, J., Qiu, H., Yang, Y., and Lu, B. 2015, "Experimental and analytical
studies on the deformability of a precast RC shear wall involving bolted
Sun et al., 2015
connections," Science China Article on Technological Sciences, Vol .58, No. 8,
pp. 1439–1448.

294
 Sun, Jian., Qiu, H., and Lu, Y. 2016, "Experimental study and associated
numerical simulation of horizontally connected precast shear wall assembly,"
Article on The Structural Design of Tall And Special Buildings, Vol. 25, No. 13,
pp. 659-678.
Sun, J., Qiu, H., Tan, Z., and Yang, Y. 2016b, "Experimental Study on
Mechanical Behaviorof Rectangular Precast Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall
Utilizing Bolted Connections," Journal of Building Structures, Vol. 37, No. 3,
pp. 67-75.
Sun, J., Qiu, H., and Lu, Y. 2016c, "Experimental study and associated
numerical simulation of horizontally-connected precast shear wall assembly"
Article on The Structural Design of Tall And Special Buildings, Vol. 25, No. 13,
pp. 659-678.
Synge, A.J., Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. 1980, "Ductility of Squat Shear
Walls," Research Report, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
Synge and pp. 1-142.
Paulay 1980 Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N., and Paulay, T. 1982, "Ductility in Earthquake
Resisting Squat Shear walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 257-
269.
Tabata, T., et al. (2003). Experimental study on structural performance of R/C
Tabata et al.,
walls under high flexural stress. Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute.
2003
25:2, 625-630. (in Japanese)
Toshio MATSUMOTO, Hiroshi NISHIHARA and Taku TABATA, 2004,
Tabata et al., "Development of Slab Type High-Rise Residential Building- Part 3 Bending
2004 shear loading test on bearing walls with precast concrete boundary columns".
vol. 10.
Taghdi, M., Bruneau, M., and Saatcioglu, M. 1998, "Seismic retrofit of non-
ductile concrete and masonry walls by steel-strips bracing," Proceedings, 11th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France, pp. 1-11.
Taghdi, M. 1998, "Seismic Retrofit of Low-Rise Masonry and Concrete Walls
Taghdi 1998 by Steel Strips," PhD Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, pp.
1-214.
Taghdi, M., Bruneau, M., and Saatcioglu, M. 2000, "Seismic retrofit of non-
ductile concrete and masonry walls by steel-strips bracing," ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 9, pp. 1-9.
Yoshida, K., Takahashi, Y., Sanada, E., and Ichinose, T. 2010, "Flexural
deformation performance of RC shear wall with one side column," Proceedings
of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 421-426.
Yoshida, K. 2009, "Flexural Deformation Capacity of RC Wall with One Side
Column," Master Dissertation, Nagoya Institute of Technology Graduate
School, Nagoya, Japan.
Takahashi et al.,
Takahashi, Y., Yoshida, K., Ichinose, T., Sanada, E., and Matsumoto, K. 2011,
2011
"Flexural deformation capacity of RC shear walls without column on
compressive side," Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 76, No.
660, pp. 371-377.
Takahashi, Y., 2011, "Conditions for omitting frame columns of reinforced
concrete shear walls," PhD Dissertation, Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Nagoya, Japan, pp. 1-116.

295
 Takahashi, S., Ichinose, T., Izumi, N., Sanada, Y., Matsubara, S., Fukuyama, H.,
and Suwada, H. 2012, "Experimental Verification on Flexural Drift Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Wall with Limited Confinement," Proceedings, 15th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sept. 24-28, Lisbon, Portugal,
pp. 1-10.
Takahashi, S., Yoshida, K., Ichinose, T., Sanada, Y., Matsumoto, K., Fukuyama,
H., and Suwada H. 2013, "Flexural Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Wall
with Limited Confinement,"ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 110, No. 1, pp. 95-
104.
Matsubara, S., Sanada, Y., Tani, M., Takahashi, S., Ichinose, T., and Fukuyama,
H. 2013, "Structural Parameters of Confined Area Affect Flexural Deformation
Capacity of Shear Walls that Fail in Bending with Concrete Crushing," Article
in Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Vol. 78, No. 691, pp.
1593-1602.
Takara, S., Yamakawa, T., and Yamashiro, K. 2008, "Experimental and
Takara et al., Analytical Investigation of Seismic Retrofit For RC Framed Shear Walls,"
2008 Proceedings, The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing,
China, pp. 1-8.
Takeda, T., Yamanaka, H., Yamada, T., Tano, K., and Yabuuchi, K. 1999,
"Experimental study on the bending properties of high-strength reinforced
concrete shear walls," Article from Japanese Society of Architecture Society
Takeda et al., Academic Lectures, No. 23186, pp. 371-372.
1999 Tano, K., Yamanaka, H., Yamada, T., Yabuuchi, K., and Takeda, T. 1999,
"Experimental study on the bending properties of Takayumi steel rebar
reinforced concrete shear walls," Article from Japanese Society of Architecture
Society Academic Lectures, No. 23187, pp. 373-374.
Takenaka, H., Hamada, S., Kikuta, S., and Ishioka, T., 2012, “experimental
study of l-shaped three-dimensional shear walls for high-rise reinforced concrete
buildings” Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 391–
Takenaka et al., 396. (in Japanese)
2012 Takenaka, H., Hamada, S., Kikuta, S., Watabe, T., Ishioka, T., Oota, Y., and
Denno, S. 2012, "Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Reinforced
Concrete L-Shaped Core Structural Wall Using Super High-rise Buildings,"
Toda Corporation Technical Research Report, Vol. 38, pp. 1-7.
Tanabe, Y., Ishikawa, Y., Iida, M., and Hassan, U. 2011, "Experimental study
Tanabe et al.,
on solid core wall using high-strength concrete," Research Report, Vol. 33, No.
2011
2, pp. 385-390.
Kono, S., Tani, M., Mukai, T., Fukuyama, H., Taleb, R., and Sakashita, M.,
2014, "Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Walls for a Performance Based
Design," Proceedings, Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering
and Seismology, Aug. 24-29, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 1-10.
Tani, M. 2013, "Fundamental Study on Sliding Shear Failure of Reinforced
Tani 2012
Concrete Bearing Walls," MAKENHI Journal, No. 24760464, pp. 1-4. (in
Japanese)
Tani, M. 2013, "Fundamental Study on Sliding Shear Failure of Reinforced
Concrete Bearing Walls," Article from International Institute of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, pp. 45-46. (in Japanese)
Tasnimi, A. A., 2000, "Strength and deformation of mid-rise shear walls under
Tasnimi 2000 load reversal," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 22, No. 4,
pp. 311-322.

296
 Teng, S., and Chandra, J. 2016, "Cyclic Shear Behavior of High-Strength
Teng and
Concrete Structural Walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 113, No. 6, pp. 1335-
Chandra 2016
1345.
Gutiérrez, S., 2012, " Study of the behavior of short concrete walls with axial
load using a shear-flexure interaction model," PhD Dissertation, University of
Chile, Santiago, Chile, 110 pp.
Terzioglu, T., 2008, "Experimental evaluation of the lateral load behavior of
Terzioglu 2011 squat structural walls," Master Dissertation, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul,
Turkey, pp. 1-155.
Terzioglu, T., Orakcal, K., and Massone, L., 2018, "Cyclic lateral load behavior
of squat reinforced concrete walls," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 160, No. 1, pp. 147-160.
Thomsen, J. H. IV, and Wallace, J. W., 1995, "Displacement-based design of
reinforced concrete structural walls: an experimental investigation of walls with
rectangular and T-shaped cross-sections," Report of Research Sponsored by
NSF, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States, pp. 1-353.
Thomsen, J. H. IV, and Wallace, J. W., 2004, “Displacement-based design of
slender reinforced concrete structural walls—experimental verification,” Journal
Thomsen and of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 618–630.
Wallace 1995 Wallace, J.W., and Orakcal, K. 1995, "Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling,"
Presentation on Structural Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles,
California, United States, pp. 1-58.
Orakcal, K., Massone, L., and Wallace, J.W. 2006, "Analytical Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Walls for Predicting Flexural and Coupled–Shear-Flexural
Responses," Article of Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of
California, Los Angeles, California, United States, pp. 1-213.
Tomazevic, M., Capuder, F., Lutman, M., and Petkovic, L. 1995, "Influence of
Distribution of Reinforcement on Seismic Behavior of RC Shear Walls,"
Proceedings, 7th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal,
Tomazevic et Canada, pp. 689-696.
al., 1995 Tomazevic, M., Capuder, F., Lutman, M., and Petkovic, L. 1996, "Seismic
behavior of RC shear-walls: an experimental study," Proceedings of the 11th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June 23-28, Acapulco, Mexico,
pp. 1-8.
Tran, T. 2012, "Experimental and Analytical Studies of Moderate Aspect Ratio
Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," PhD Dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles, California, United States, pp. 1-300.
Tran, T. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2012, “Experimental Study of Nonlinear
Flexural and Shear Deformations of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 112, No. 6, pp. 196-206.
Tran, T. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2012b, “Experimental study of the lateral load
response of moderate aspect ratio reinforced concrete structural walls," Report
Tran 2012
2012/12, UCLA Structural & Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory (UCLA-
SGEL), University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Tran, T. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2014, "Cyclic behavior of special reinforced
concrete shear walls," Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 1-12.
Tran, T. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2015, "Cyclic Testing of Moderate-Aspect-
Ratio Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 112,
No. 6, pp. 653-665.

297
 Tran, T., Motter, C., Segura, C., and Wallace, J. 2017, "Strength and
deformation capacity of shear walls," Proceedings, 16th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, January 09-13, Santiago Chile, pp. 2-10.
Cho, S., Lee, L., Tupper, B., and Mitchell, D. 2000, "Ductile concrete walls with
steel ends," Proceedings, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1-8.
Cho, S., Tupper, B., Cook, W., and Mitchell, D. 2004, "Structural Steel
Tupper 1999 Boundary Elements for Ductile Concrete Walls," ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 5, pp. 1-7.
Tupper, B. 1999, "Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Walls with Steel
Boundary Elements," Master Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 95
pp.
Escolano-Margarit, D., Klenke, A., Pujol, S., and Benavent-Climent, A., 2012,
"Failure Mechanism of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls with and without
Confinement," Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Sept. 24-28, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 1-9
Fernandez, E. 2014, "Seismic Response of Structural Walls with Geometric and
Villalobos 2014
Reinforcement Discontinuities," PhD Dissertation, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana, pp. 1-306.
Villalobos, E., and Pujol, S. 2014, "Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete
Walls with Lap Splices," Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, July 21-25, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 1-11.
Wang, Z., Liu, W., Lu, J., and Wei, W. 2011, "Test of Composite Reinforced
Wang et al.,
Concrete Shear Walls Without Opening Under Cyclic Loading," Journal of
2011
Nanjing University of Technology, Nanjing, China, pp. 6-11.
Wang, R., Shen, X., Zhang, W., and Ma, W. 2012, "Experimental Study on
Wang et al., Force Transmission Properties of the Horizontal and Vertical Connections of
2012 Superimposed Wall Panels," Industrial Construction Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4,
pp. 51-55. (in Chinese)
Wang, M., Song, X., and Wang, Z. 2013, "Experimental study on seismic
Wang et al., performance of high damping concrete shear wall with concealed bracings,"
2013 Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 33, No. 5,
154-161. (in Chinese)
Wang, Z., Liu, W., Zhai, W., Li, X., Xu, Q., and Wang, Y, "Experimental study
Wang et al., on seismic behavior of new type reinforced concrete composite shear
2015 wall,"Journal of Central South University, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 1410-1419. (in
Chinese)
Wasiewicz Wasiewicz, Z. 1988, "Sliding Shear in Low Rise Shear Walls under Lateral
1988 Load Reversals," Master Dissertation, University of Ottawa, Canada, pp. 1-127.
Wiradinata Wiradinata, S. 1985, "Behavior of Squat Walls Subjected to Load Reversals,"
1985 Master Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, pp. 1-171.
Wong, S. 2005, "Seismic performance of reinforced concrete wall structures
under high axial load with particular application to low-to moderate seismic
regions," Master Dissertation, University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong
Wong 2005 Kong, pp. 1-249.
Su, R., and Wong, S. 2006, "Seismic behavior of slender reinforced concrete
shear walls under high axial load ratio," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 1957-1965.

298
 Woods, J. 2014, "Seismic Retrofit of Deficient Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
using Fibre-reinforced Polymer Sheets: Experimental Study and Anchor
Design," Master Dissertation, Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Ottawa, ON, pp. 1-134.
Woods, J., Lau, D., Cruz-Noguez, C. 2016, "In-Plane Seismic Strengthening of
Woods et al., Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Using Externally Bonded CFRP
2016 and 2017 Sheets," ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.
1943-1953.
Woods, J., Lau, D., Cruz-Noguez, C. 2016, "In-Plane Seismic Strengthening of
Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Using Externally Bonded CFRP
Sheets," ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp.
1943-1953.
He, J., Zhu, Z., and Dong, J. 2017, "Research on seismic performance of precast
concrete shear wall structure," Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, Vol.
39, No. 4, pp. 124-130. (in Chinese)
Wu, D., Liang, S., Guo, Z., and Xiao, Q. 2015, "Bending bearing capacity
calculation of the improved steel grouted connecting precast wall," Journal of
Harbin Institute of Technology, Vol. 47, No. 12, pp. 112-116. (in Chinese)
Wu et al., 2015 Wu, D., Liang, S., Guo, Z., Zhu, X., and Fu, Q., 2016b, “Flexural Capacity
Calculation Approach for Precast Grouted Shear Wall Influenced by Joint
Interface Displacements," Hindawi Journal on Advances in Materials Science
and Engineering, Vol. 2015, No. 120759, pp. 1-11.
Wu, D., Liang, S., Guo, Z., Zhu, X., and Fu, Q., 2016, “The development and
experimental test of a new pore-forming grouted precast shear wall connector,”
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.1462–1472.
Li, B., and Lim, C. 2010, "Tests on Seismically Damaged Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls Repaired Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymers," ASCE Journal of
Composites for Structures, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 597-608.
Li, Bing., Pan, Z., and Xiang, W. 2016, "Experimental Evaluation of Seismic
Xiang 2009 Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls with Limited Ductility Reinforcing
Details," Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 313-331.
Xiang, W. 2009,"Seismic Performance of RC Structural Squat Walls with
Limited Transverse Reinforcement," PhD Dissertation, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, pp. 1-281.
Xiao, S., 2005, "Experimental report on seismic behavior of shear wall with
inclined steel reinforced concrete (steel column)" Dalian University of
Technology, China, 77 pp. (in Chinese)
Xiao, S., Li, H., and Zhang, H. 2006, "Experimental Study on Aseismic
Characteristics of RC Shear Walls with Diagonal Profile-Steel Bracings,"
Proceedings, 10th Biennial International Conference on Engineering,
Xiao 2005
Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments and Second
NASA/ARO/ASCE Workshop on Granular Materials in Lunar and Martian
Explorati, Texas, United States, pp. 170-176.
Xiao, S., Li, H., Zhao, Y., and Zhang, J. 2007, "Seismic Damage Characteristics
of RC Shear Wall with Diagonal Profile Steel Braces by Experiment," Key
Engineering Materials Journal, Vol. 340-341, No. 2, pp. 1115-1120.
Xiao, Q., and Guo, Z. 2014, "Quasi⁃static test for double⁃wall precast concrete
Xiao and Guo
short⁃leg shear walls," Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, Vol. 46, No.
2014
12, pp. 84-88. (in Chinese)

299
 Xiao, Q., and Guo, Z., 2014a, “Low-cyclic reversed loading test for double-wall
precast concrete shear wall,” Journal of Southeast University, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.
826–831. (in Chinese)
Xiao, Z., Li, K., and Jiang, F. 2004, "Research on the seismic behavior of HPC
Xiao et al. 2004 shear walls after fire," Article in Materials and Structures, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.
506-512.
Chen, T., Xiao, C., Tian, C., and Xu, P. 2009, "Experimental study on Press-
bending behavior of composite shear wall with high axial compression ratio,"
China Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 1-8. (in Chinese)
Xiao, C., Tian, C., Chen, T., and Jiang, D. 2012, "Compression-bending
Xiao et al., Behavior of Steel Plate Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with High Axial
2009 Compression Ratio," Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Sept. 24-28, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 21-30.
Xiao, C., Jiang, D., Xu, Z., and Chen, T. 2012b, "Seismic Behavior of Steel
Plate Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls," Proceedings, CTBUH 2012 9th World
Congress, Shanghai, China, pp. 671-678.
Xiao, J., Xie, Q., Li, Z., and Wang, W. 2016, "Fire Resistance and Post-fire
Xiao et al.,
Seismic Behavior of High Strength Concrete Shear Walls," Article in Fire
2016
Technology, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 55-86.
Yamakawa, T., Irami, S., Tamaki, Y., Matsunaga, S., and Hamada, A. 1993,
"An Experimental Study on Damage Affecting Aseismatic Behavior of
Yamakawa et
Structural Walls under Chloride Attack Environment in the Semitropical
al., 1993
Region," Bulletin of Faculty of Engineering, University of the Ryukyus,
Okinawa, Japan, No. 46, pp. 114-130. (in Japanese)
Zhang, W., Zhang, L, and Yan, S. 2008, "Test seismic behavior of high-strength
steel of high strength concrete wall," Journal of Seh nyang Jianzhu University,
Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 119-123. (in Japanese)
Yan et al., 2008 Yan, S., Zhang, L., and Zhang, Y. 2008, "Seismic Performances of High-
strength Concrete Shear Walls Reinforced with High-strength Rebars,"
Proceedings, 11th Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference
on Engineering, Long Beach, California, pp. 1-8.
Yang, W., Zheng, S., Zhang, D., Sun, L., and Gan, C. 2016, "Seismic behaviors
of squat reinforced concrete shear walls under freeze-thaw cycles: A pilot
Yan et al., 2016
experimental study," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 124,
No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Yanagisawa, N., Kamide, M., Kanoh, Y. et al., 'Study on high strength
reinforced concrete shear walls: Part 1 Outline of tests; Part 2 Deformability and
maximum strength (in Japanese),' Summaries of technical papers of annual
Yanagisawa et
meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Cll, 347-350(1992).
al., 1992
Takagi, H., 2001, "Shear Reinforcement Limits for Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls made of High-Strength Materials" Concrete Research and Technology,
Vol.12 No.2 May 2001, pp. 13-26.
Yanez, F., Park, R., and Paulay, T. 1991, "Seismic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Structural Walls with Regular and Irregular Openings," Proceedings,
Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, pp.
Yanez et al.,
67-78.
1991
Yanez, F., Park, R., and Paulay, T, 1992, "Seismic behavior of walls with
irregular openings," Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, July 19-24, Madrid, Spain, pp. 3303-3306.

300
 Xu, G., Wang, Z., Wu, B., Bursi, O., Tan, X., Yang, Q., and Wen, L. 2017,
"Seismic performance of precast shear wall with sleeves connection based on
experimental and numerical studies," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering
Structures, Vol. 150, No. 1, pp. 347-358.
Yang, Q. 2015,"Experimental study on seismic behavior of full-scale precast
Yang and Wu
shear wall box module," Master Dissertation, Harbin Institute of Technology,
2015
Heilongjiang Sheng, China, pp. 1-83.
Wan, L., Xu, G., Yang, Q., Wen, L., Yu, Z., Tan, X., Jia, D., and Wu, B. 2016,
"Quasi-Static Test of Seismic Behavior of Shear Wall With Stirrup Bolted By
Vertical Reinforcement in Vertical Connections," China Academic Journal, Vol.
46, No. 4, pp. 60-64.
Yang, W., Zheng, S., Zhang, D., Sun, L., and Gan, C. 2016, "Seismic behaviors
Yang et al., of squat reinforced concrete shear walls under freeze-thaw cycles: A pilot
2016 experimental study," ELSEVIER Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 124,
No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Yoshida N., Matsuzaki Y., Fukumaya H., and Hayashida N., 1998, "A Study on
Retrofitting of Shear Wall with Continuous Fiber Sheet" Proceedings of
Concrete Engineering Annual Report, Vol., 20, No. 1, pp. 485-490. (in
Yoshida et al., Japanese)
1998 Yoshida N., Matsuzaki Y., Fukumaya H., and Hayashida N., 1998, "A Study on
Retrofitting of Shear Wall with Continuous Fiber Sheet" Proceedings of
Concrete Engineering Annual Report, Vol., 20, No. 1, pp. 485-490. (in
Japanese)
Yu, Q., Xu, K., Xu, Z., Fang, Y., and Lu, X. 2016, "Seismic Behavior of Precast
Shear Walls with Vertical Reinforcements Overlap Grouted in Constraint
Sleeve, "Technical Journal of the Faculty of Engineering University of Zulia,
Yu et al., 2016 Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 207-217.
Yu, Q., Gong, X., Fang, Y., Xu, Z., and Lu, X. 2016b, "Grouted Sleeve Lapping
Connector and Component Performance Tests," Technical Journal of the Faculty
of Engineering University of Zulia, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 136-145.
Yuksel, S. 2014, "Experimental Behavior of Rectangular Shear Walls Subjected
to Low Axial Loads," ATINER's Conference Paper Series, No: CIV2014-0965.
Yuksel 2014 Yuksel, S. 2014b, "Structural Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Shear Walls of
Tunnel Form Buildings," IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 34-37.
Yun H. D., 1994, "Seismic Performance of High Strength Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls," PhD Dissertation, Hanyang University, 365 pp. (in Korean)
Yun, H., Choi, C., and Lee, L. 2004, "Earthquake Performance of High-Strength
Concrete Structural Walls with Boundary Elements," Proceedings, 13th World
Yun 1994
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1-
18.
Yun, H., Choi, C., and Lee, L. 2004b, "Behavior of high-strength concrete
flexural walls," Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, pp.37-48.
Zhou, Y., and Lu, X., 2008, "SLDRCE database on static tests of structural
members and joint assemblies," State key laboratory of disaster reduction in
civil engineering. Shanghai, China: Tongji University; 2008. (in Chinese)
Zhang 2007 Zhang, H., Liu, Song., Duan, Y., and Du, Q. 2013, "Nonlinear analysis of RC
shear walls by vector form intrinsic finite element method," Proceedings, The
2013 World Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
Jeju, Korea, pp. 1486-1502.

301
 Zhang, H. 2007, "Shear wall R11," National Key Laboratory of Civil
Engineering Disaster Prevention of Tongji University, Vol. 29, pp. 169-188.
Zhang, S., Lu, Xilin., and Zhang, H. 2009, "Experimental and Analytical Studies
on the Ultimate Displacement of RC Shear Walls," China Civil Engineering
Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 11-16.
Zhang, H., Lu, X., Duan, Y., and Zhu, Y. 2014, "Experimental Study on Failure
Mechanism of RC Walls with Different Boundary Elements under Vertical and
Lateral Loads," Article in Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp. 361-379.
Zhang, Z. 2015, "Seismic Behavior of Non-Rectangular RC Walls with Inferior
Details Subjected to Loading from Different Direction," PhD Dissertation,
Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang, China.
Zhang, Z., and Li, B., 2014, "Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Slender L-
Shaped and T-shaped RC Structural Walls," Proceedings, 2nd European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Aug. 24-29, Istanbul,
Turkey, pp. 1-11.
Zhang 2015
Zhang, Z., and Li, Bing. 2016, "Seismic Performance Assessment of Slender T-
Shaped Reinforced Concrete Walls," Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
20, No. 8, pp. 1342-1369.
Zhang, Z., Li, Bing., and Qian, K. 2016, "Experimental Investigations on
Seismically Damaged Nonrectangular Reinforced-Concrete Structural Walls
Repaired by FRPs," ASCE Journal of Composite Construction, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp. 11-14.
Zhang, H., Lu, X., Duan, Y., and Li, J. 2011, "Experimental Study and
Numerical Simulation of Partially Prefabricated Laminated Composite RC
Walls," Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 967-979.
Zhang, H., Lu, X., Duan, Y., and Li, J. 2012, "Seismic Behavior of the Partially
Prefabricated Laminated RC Walls Under Different Axial Ratios," Proceedings,
15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sept. 24-28, Lisbon,
Zhang and Liu
Portugal, pp. 1-10
2012
Zhang, H., and Liu, S., 2012, "Seismic behavior study of the laminated RC
Shear Walls under Low-reversed Cyclical Experiment," Science paper Online,
pp. 1-8. (in Chinese)
Li, J., Wang, Y., Lu, Z., and Li, J. 2017, "Experimental Study and Numerical
Simulation of a Laminated Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall with a Vertical
Seam," Applied Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 1-22.
Zhang, Y., and Wang, Z., 2000, “Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear
Zhang and
walls subjected to high axial loading,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No., 5,
Wang 2000
pp. 739–750.
Zhang, H., Lu, X., and Wu, X. 2009, "Cyclic Loading Experiment and
Numerical Simulation of RC Walls," Proceedings, 2009 World Congress on
Computer Science and Information Engineering, Jan. 12-14, Shanghai, China,
Zhang et al., pp. 642-647.
2010 Zhang, H., Lu, X., and Wu, X., 2009, "Experimental Study and Numerical
Simulation of the Reinforced Concrete Walls with Different Stirrup in the
Boundary Element," Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 447-454.

302
 Zhang, H., Lu, X, Duan, Y., and Zhu, Y., 2014, "Experimental Study on Failure
Mechanism of RC Walls with Different Boundary Elements under Vertical and
Lateral Loads," Journal in Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp. 361-379.
Zhang, H., Lu, X., Liang, L., and Wenqing, C., 2007, "Influence of boundary
element on seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls," Journal of
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 92-98.
(in Chinese)
Zhang, J., Cai, C., Cao, W., Li, W., and Wu, M., 2016, "Research of Seismic
Zhang et al., Behavior of Mid-rise RC Shear Wall with Single Row of Steel Bars and Inclined
2016 Reinforcement" Journal of Beijing University of Technology, Vol. 42, No. 11,
pp. 1681-1690. (in Chinese)
Zhang, Q., Bai, L., Liang, X., and Xiong, E., 2016, "Experimental study on
Zhang et al.,
seismic behavior of steel tube confined high-strength concrete shear walls,"
2016b
Journal of Vibroengineering, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 2263-2277.
Zhang, W., et al., "Master's Thesis Presentation–Personal Communication"
Zhang Q2
Beijing University of Technology
Zhao, Z., Fan, G., He, X., and Liu, X. 2018, "Seismic Performance of Steel
Zhao et al.,
Tube-high Strength Concrete Squat Walls," Proceedings of IOP Conference
2018
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, pp. 1-10.
Zheng, S., Hou, P., Li, L., Wang, B., Yu, F., and Zhang, H. 2012, "Experimental
study of the damage of RC shear walls under low cycle reversed loading," China
Zheng et al., Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 52-59. (in Chinese)
2012 Zheng, S., Hou, P., Li, L., Wang, B., Yu, F., and Zhang, H. 2012, "Experimental
study of the damage of RC shear walls under low cycle reversed loading," China
Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 52-59. (in Chinese)
Zheng, S., Qin, Q., Yang, W., Gan, C., and Zhang, Y., and Ding S. 2015,
Zheng et al., "Experimental research on the seismic behaviors of squat RC shear walls under
2015 offshore atmospheric environment," Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology,
Vol. 47, No. 12, pp. 64-69. (in Chinese)
Zhi, Q., Song, J., and Guo, Z., 2015. "Experimental study on behavior of precast
shear wall using post-cast at the connection" Proceedings, 5th International
Zhi et. al. 2015
Conference on Civil Engineering and Transportation (ICCET 2015), Nov. 28-
29, Nanjing, China. pp. 1089-1092.
Liao, W., Zhong, J., Lin, C., Mo, Y., and Loh, C. 2004, " Experimental studies
of high seismic performance shear walls," Proceedings, 13th World Conference
Zhong et al., on Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 1-13.
2009 Zhong, J., Mo, Y., and Liao, W. 2009, "Reversed Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls with Diagonal Steel Grids," ACI Special Publication, SP-
265-3, pp. 47-72.
Zhou, G., Sun, H., and Zhou, D. 2010. "Experimental research on earthquake-
resistant behavior of reinforced concrete shear-walls," Journal of Shandong
Jianzhu University, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 41-45. (in Chinese)
Zhou 2004
Zhou, Z., 2009, “Experimental study and analysis on aseismic performance of
mid-rise recycled aggregate concrete shear wall," Journal of Beijing University
of Technology, Vol. 26, No.2, pp. 1-81. (in Chinese)
Zhang, J., Cao, W., Zhu, H., and Dong H. 2010, "Study on seismic behavior of
mid-rise recycled aggregate concrete shear wall," Journal of Beijing University
Zhu 2009
of Technology and Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering,
Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 270-285. (in Chinese)

303
 Liu, H., Tan, Z., and Yoshioka, B. 2015, "Anti-seismic Property of Recycled
Concrete Middle-high-rise Shear Wall," Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Research and Developments, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 66-73.
Zhang, Y., and Zhang, L. 2013, “Low-Cyclic Reversed Load Test on New
Precast Concrete," Journal of Shenyang Jianzhu University (Natural Science),
Vol. 30, No.5, pp. 125-130. (in Chinese)
Tang, Lei., 2015, “Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of New Precast Concrete
Shear Wall,” Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Civil Engineering
Zhu and Ghuo and Transportation (ICCET 2015), Nanjing, China, pp. 322-324.
2013 Xiao, Q., and Guo, Z., 2014, “Low-cyclic reversed loading test for double-wall
precast concrete shear wall,” Journal of Southeast University, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.
826–831. (in Chinese)
Zhi, Q., Song, J., and Guo, Z., 2016, “Experiments on Hybrid Precast Concrete
Shear Walls Emulating Monolithic Construction with Different Amounts of
Posttensioned Strands and Different Debond Lengths of Grouted
Zhu and Ghuo Reinforcements,” Article in Advances in Materials Science and Engineering,
2016 Vol. 2016, No. 5, pp. 11-13.
Zhi, Q., Song, J., and Guo, Z., 2017, “Experimental Study on Emulative Hybrid
Precast Concrete Shear Walls,” Korean Society of Civil Engineers (KSCE)
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 2017, No. 1, pp. 329-338.
Zygouris, N. S., Kotsovos, M. D., and Kotsovos, G. M., 2013, “Effect of
transverse reinforcement on short structural wall behavior,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 65, No. 17, pp. 1034–1043.
Zygouris, N. S., Kotsovos, M. D., and Kotsovos, G. M., 2014, “Design for
Zygouris et al., earthquake-resistant reinforced concrete structural walls,” Proceedings, 8th
2013 German-Greek-Polish Symposium Recent Advances in Mechanics September
09-13, Goslar, Germany.
Zygouris, N. S., Kotsovos, M. D., and Kotsovos, G. M., 2015, “Design for
earthquake-resistant short RC structural walls,” Article in Earthquake and
Structures, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 713–732.

304