Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

DUCTILE DESIGN OF SLENDER

REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL
WALLS
Sriram Aaleti1, Hongbo Dai2 and Sri Sritharan3

ABSTRACT

Slender reinforced concrete structural walls are commonly used in mid- to high-rise buildings as
a main lateral load resisting element in earthquake regions. Past research has shown these walls
to be efficient and effective in limiting the building lateral drifts due to their large in-plane
stiffness. However, the damage sustained by concrete walls in recent earthquakes have
demonstrated that current design requirements of these walls may need modifications, which is
further supported by a NEES experimental study completed on slender concrete walls. To further
understand the behavior of concrete walls and address the shortcomings of the current design
requirements, an analytical study was conducted on slender rectangular concrete walls designed
according to ACI 318-11.
First, a simplified computational method to estimate force-displacement response of a structural
wall, utilizing the moment-curvature relationship, was developed and validated using
experimental data. Next, the influence of the following six design parameters on the structural
behavior of slender rectangular walls was investigated: aspect ratio; longitudinal reinforcement
ratio; volume ratio of spiral reinforcement in wall boundary elements; length of confined wall
boundary elements; axial loading ratio; and distribution of longitudinal reinforcement. The
results of the analytical study found that the current code requirements for boundary element
length and amount of the transverse reinforcement are not sufficient and need to be increased for
improved performance. More details of the analysis and design recommendations to improve the
performance of concrete walls are presented in this paper.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487; Email: saaleti@eng.ua.edu
2
Graduate Student Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011

Aaleti. S, Dai. H., and Sritharan, S. Ductile Design Of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls. Proceedings
of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage,
AK, 2014.
 DUCTILE DESIGN OF SLENDER REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL WALLS
Sriram Aaleti1 , Hongbo Dai2 and Sri Sritharan3

ABSTRACT

Slender reinforced concrete structural walls are commonly used in mid- to high-rise buildings as a
main lateral load resisting element in earthquake regions. Past research has shown these walls to
be efficient and effective in limiting the building lateral drifts due to their large in-plane stiffness.
However, the damage sustained by concrete walls in recent earthquakes have demonstrated that
current design requirements of these walls may need modifications, which is further supported by
a NEES experimental study completed on slender concrete walls. To further understand the
behavior of concrete walls and address the shortcomings of the current design requirements, an
analytical study was conducted on slender rectangular concrete walls designed according to ACI
318-11.
First, a simplified computational method to estimate force-displacement response of a structural
wall, utilizing the moment-curvature relationship, was developed and validated using experimental
data. Next, the influence of the following six design parameters on the structural behavior of
slender rectangular walls was investigated: aspect ratio; longitudinal reinforcement ratio; volume
ratio of spiral reinforcement in wall boundary elements; length of confined wall boundary
elements; axial loading ratio; and distribution of longitudinal reinforcement. The results of the
analytical study found that the current code requirements for boundary element length and amount
of the transverse reinforcement are not sufficient and need to be increased for improved
performance. More details of the analysis and design recommendations to improve the
performance of concrete walls are presented in this paper..

Introduction

Reinforced concrete structural walls are one of the most commonly employed lateral-load
resisting system for mid- and high-rise buildings. They have relatively high in-plane stiffness,
which helps in limiting inter-story drifts leading to reduced structural damage under lateral loads.
Additionally, the concrete walls can be easily incorporated into architectural layout of buildings
with minimal impact to the functional space. The relatively superior performance of the
buildings consisted of structural walls as the primary lateral loading system in previous
earthquakes is well documented in the literature [1]. However, the recent 2010 Chilean and the
2011 Christchurch earthquake resulted in severe damage to concrete walls in numerous buildings
leading to partial or complete collapse of buildings [2, 3]. This has led to necessity for

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487; Email: saaleti@eng.ua.edu
2
Graduate Student Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011

Aaleti. S, Dai. H., and Sritharan, S. Ductile Design Of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls. Proceedings
of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage,
AK, 2014.
examination of the expected performance of the concrete walls in the United States designed in
compliance with current ACI 318 code. Also, in recent experimental study done by Aaleti et al.
[4] and Brueggen [5] on rectangular and T-shaped reinforced concrete walls designed accordance
with the ACI 318-08 [6], has exposed some unexpected observations such as fracture of
confinement reinforcement and sliding along shear cracks. Similar failure modes were observed
in the field in during Christchurch and Chilean earthquakes.

In modern seismic design, concrete structures are designed to provide sufficient strength
and adequate flexural ductility without experiencing any brittle failures due to insufficient shear
capacity or inadequate reinforcement anchorage length, and sliding shear capacity at the wall-to-
foundation interface. The structural system ductility under lateral loading is considered as a
measure of the structural performance and plays a significant role in the current day design
codes. Therefore, to ensure adequate ductility, modern design codes adopt the capacity design
philosophy [7] for design and detailing of reinforced concrete structural walls. The specially
designed walls undergo inelastic deformations and dissipate seismic energy through flexural
yielding of the reinforcement, along with the prevention of aforementioned undesirable failure
mechanisms. As per this philosophy, the locations of plastic hinges (i.e., critical regions) in the
walls are preselected and detailed carefully by providing adequate transverse confining
reinforcement to accommodate significant inelastic deformations and providing the necessary
ductility without compromising the structural integrity. Large inelastic deformations in the
plastic hinge regions dissipate significant amounts of energy and thus provide a significantly
effective damping mechanism for the structural system to reduce the structural force demands.
The current ACI 318-11 [8] code, implicitly implements the capacity design philosophy to
achieve the ductile performance of concrete walls by requiring a stringent detailing requirements
for the special structural walls in Chapter 21. The design and detailing requirements in the
current ACI 318-11 also implicitly considers the displacement-based design [9], relating the
system level ductility to the local damage (section level response) in the critical regions.
Therefore, the expected performance of the structural walls designed and detailed according to
the current ACI 318 is dependent on the accuracy of estimating the global force vs. Displacement
response using the sectional level response. In keeping with the observed performance and
failures of code compliance structural walls in the recent earthquakes and experimental studies,
this paper suggests modifications to design requirements based on simplified analytical models
developed using moment-curvature analysis for global response prediction and validated using
experimental studies. The modifications provide a consistent improved performance of structural
walls.

Concrete Wall Behavior and Design Requirements

Reinforced concrete walls are designed to carry flexural, shear and axial loads under earthquake
loads. These design force demands influences the geometry of the wall along with layout of
longitudinal reinforcing steel, horizontal reinforcing steel, and confinement steel placed in the
boundary regions of the wall. The force-displacement behavior of a structural wall depends on
the ratio of wall height to wall length, which defines the wall aspect ratio (AR). When the AR is
greater than 2.0, the walls are classified as slender walls and the flexural deformation is
considered to be the prominent contributor to their lateral displacements. However, it is
important to realize that, slender structural walls undergo several other deformation modes when
subjected to lateral loads, including shear deformation mode, and deformation due to strain
penetration in the form of rotation at the wall base. The slender structural walls designed in
compliance with design code requirements will experience flexural yielding of longitudinal
reinforcement with development of horizontal flexural cracks in the boundary regions of the wall
and diagonal shear cracks within the web of the wall. These walls typically fail due to fracture of
longitudinal steel or due to compressive failure of a boundary region (crushing of core concrete
or buckling of longitudinal steel).

Force-Displacement Response

The force-displacement behavior of slender reinforced concrete structural walls can be

accurately predicted by accounting the individual contributions of different deformation modes.
Several analytical models using 3D solid (brick) elements [10], 2D shell elements [11, 12],
macro model elements [13] and fiber based beam-column elements [14] were used to predict the
observed lateral load behavior of concrete walls. All these models captured the overall behavior
of the walls with reasonable accuracy as long as shear and strain penetration deformations were
taken into consideration. However, the above analytical models require significant computational
time and cant be easily used for design purposes. A simplified analytical method based on the
plastic hinge length and moment-curvature analysis is proposed to estimate the lateral-load
response of concrete walls. The curvature distribution along the height of the wall can be
idealized as shown in Fig.1. The flexural deformation at the top of the cantilever wall can be
estimated by double integrating the curvature along the height of the wall. The plastic component
of the flexural deformation is calculated by multiplying the height of the wall with the plastic
rotation at the base of the wall. The large inelastic strains in the longitudinal steel at the wall-to-
foundation interface caused an additional flexibility, which can be included along with the
flexural deformation as shown in Eqn. 1.

Figure 1. Curvature distribution along the wall height

 1 2
f sp e hw2 e Lsp hw p Lp hw (1)
3 3
Where Lp = plastic hinge length; Lsp 0.15 f y dbl ; dbl diameter of longitudinal bar ; e =elastic
curvature; p = plastic curvature
The shear deformation in slender concrete walls is estimated using the empirical equation
developed by Beyer et al. [15] as shown in Eqn.2. This empirical equation was developed based
on a series of experimental and analytical studies of slender reinforced concrete walls under
seismic loading,
m 1
s 1.5 f (2)
tan hw
Where, f = total flexural deformation; s = shear deformation; m = axial strain at the center of
wall section, = curvature of the wall, = crack angle.
The crack angle value is estimated using Eqn.3,
jd A f
tan 1 fl bw sw yw 90o (3)
V s
Where, jd = lever arm between the compression and tensile resultant; V = the shear force; fl = the
tensile strength orthogonal to the crack; bw = the wall thickness; Asw = the area of shear
reinforcement; s = spacing of shear reinforcement; and fyw = the yield strength of shear
reinforcement.
The total deformation at the top of the cantilever wall can be estimated using Eqn.4,
1 2 m 1
u f sp sh e hw2 e Lsp hw p Lp hw 1 1.5 (4)
3 3 tan hw

The empirical equations available in literature to estimate the plastic hinge length in rectangular
walls based on experimental results are shown in Table 1. As presented in the previous section,
for a given rectangular concrete wall, the plastic hinge length calculations significantly influence
the estimation of the force-displacement response of that wall in the inelastic region. In order to
obtain an accurate force-displacement relationship from moment-curvature response of a wall
section, a realistic value or empirical equation to compute the plastic hinge length is required.

Table 1 Empirical equations for the plastic hinge length for rectangular walls

Proposer name Plastic hinge length (Lp)

1. Paulay & Priestley, 1992 [7] 0.2 lw + 0.044 hw
2. Priestley et al., 1996 [16] 0.08 hw + 0.15 fy dbl
3. Panagiotakos & Fardis, 2001 [17] 0.12 hw +0.014 fy dbl
4. Kowalski, 2001 [18] 0.5 lw
5. Wallace, 2004 [9] 0.33 lw
6. Bohl & Adebar, 2011 [19] (0.2lw + 0.05hw)(1 1.5P/ Ag) < 0.8Lw
lw= length of wall; hw = height of wall; fy = yield strength of longitudinal steel;
P = axial load; fc = concrete strength; Ag= wall cross-section area
The accuracy of the above plastic hinge length equations in predicting the force-displacement
behavior of reinforced concrete walls using the Eqn.4, is evaluated using the using the
experimental results from RWN [4] and RW1 [20]. The cross-section details of RWN and RW1
are shown in Fig. 2. The moment-curvature responses for the walls were estimated using a zero
length fiber-based beam-column element in OpenSEES [21]. The stress-strain behavior of
confined concrete in the boundary elements and the longitudinal reinforcement was modeled
using Concrete 07 and Steel 02 material models respectively. The equivalent bilinear moment-
curvature curve is determined as described by Priestley et al. (2007) [22].

Figure 2. Cross-section details for RW1 [9] and RWN [4]

Table 2. Comparison of experimental and estimated displacements for RWN and RW1 at first-
yield and ultimate displacements
Plastic hinge equation RWN RW1
y (in.) (% u (in.) (% y (in.) (% u (in.) (%
error) error) error) error)
Experimental 1.109 6.08 0.486 2.57
1. Paulay & Priestley, 1992 0.852 (16.4%) 6.275 (3.2%) 0.49 (7.3%) 3.755 (46.1%)
2. Priestley et al., 1996 0.872 (14.4%) 6.458 (6.2%) 0.509 (10.7%) 3.997 (55.5%)
3. Panagiotakos & Fardis, 2001 0.806 (20.9%) 6.719 (10.55) 0.47(3.3%) 4.291 (67%)
4. Kowalski, 2001 0.801 (21.4%) 9.135 (50.2%) 0.468 (2.9%) 5.622 (118.8%)
5. Wallace et al., 2004 0.801 (21.4%) 6.443 (6%) 0.468 (2.9%) 3.922(52.6%)
6. Bohl & Adebar, 2011 0.801 (21.4%) 6.619 (8.9%) 0.468 (2.9%) 4.122 (60.4%)

The comparison of estimated displacements with the experimental values at yield and failure of
the specimens using the different plastic hinge lengths are presented in Table 2. The ultimate
displacement of RW1 was significantly overestimated (46% to 119%), when compared to RWN
(3.2% to 10.5%) using the empirical equations for the plastic hinge lengths. The discrepancy can
be due to not accounting the influence of axial load on the plastic hinge length. To address this
issue, the experimental test results from six rectangular walls found in the literature including
RWN by Aaleti etal. [4], RW1 and RW2 by Wallace et al. [20], and WSH3, WSH5 and WSH6
by Dazio et al. (2009) [23], were considered. The longitudinal steel ratio (l) and axial load ratio
(P/Agfc) are varied among these specimens from 0.4% to 2.22% and 0 to 12.5% respectively.
Comparing the experimental displacement capacity for these walls with the predicted
displacements at the ultimate condition, the plastic hinge length was estimated. The plastic hinge
length can be represented using Equation 5.
0.6 P
Lp 0.07hw 1 10e l 0.15 f y dbl 0.01hw 0.15 f y dbl
A f '
(5)

g c
Where l = longitudinal steel ratio (in %).

The force-displacement responses for the aforementioned six walls were estimated from the
moment-curvature of the critical section using Eq.4. The comparison of predicted responses with
experimental responses is shown in Fig 3. The simplified method using Eq.4, with the plastic
hinge length given by Eq.5, captured the force-displacement response accurately. The estimated
ultimate displacement capacities for the walls were with in the 5% of the measured values.

Figure 3 Comparison of predicted and experiemental force-dispalcement of reinfroced concrete

walls

Current ACI 318-11 Requirement and Parametric Study

Chapter 21 in the ACI 318-11 [8] provides the minimum requirements for special reinforced
concrete walls in seismic regions. The majority of longitudinal reinforcement is typically located
in boundary elements at the wall ends with a minimum reinforcement distributed along the wall
between the boundaries. The benefit of this arrangement is that it increases the moment
resistance of the walls for a given reinforcement area. The ACI 318 requires that volumetric ratio
of distributed horizontal, and longitudinal steel in the web, must be at least 0.0025 with spacing
not exceeding 18 inches (21.9.2.1, 21.9.2.2) and must be provided in at least two layers. Also,
special boundary elements must be provided if the neutral axis depth, c, is equal to or exceeds
lw
, where lw is length of the wall, hw is the height of the wall and u is the design
600 u hw
displacement of the wall. The in-plane length of special boundary elements must extend at least
c-0.1lw and c/2 for the load conditions associated with the calculation of c. Also, the boundary
elements are provided with confinement steel to allow the concrete in those regions to sustain
large compressive strains at higher displacements without losing the load carrying capacity.
ACI318 requires the cross-sectional area of rectangular hoop reinforcement, Ash must be at least
0.09sbc f c'' f yt . In recent experimental investigations on reinforced concrete walls designed in
compliance with current design codes, hoop failures and significant degradation of wall region
between the boundaries, leading to unsatisfactory performance at higher ductility were observed
[4, 24]. In light of those observations, an analytical study was done to examine the adequacy of
the current code requirements using a series of prototype walls designed in compliance with
current codes. Several design parameters such longitudinal steel ratio (l), boundary element
length (lbe), transverse steel ratio in boundary elements (transverse), distribution of longitudinal
steel, axial load were considered. The details of the prototype walls are presented in Table 3. The
prototype walls were 15ft long, 12 in. thick and 37.5 ft. tall and designed for 1.5% lateral drift.
All the walls were designed with 4 ksi concrete and grade60 steel. Set1 to Set3 walls were
designed with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios (from 1% to 2.2%) meeting all the
requirements of ACI 318-11. Each set consisted of 4 walls with varied axial load ratios (from 0
to 0.15). Set1D to Set3D walls were designed by uniformly distributing the longitudinal
reinforcement from corresponding walls in Set1 to Set3. More details and design calculations
for prototype walls are presented in Dai (2012) [25].

The force-displacement response for the walls was estimated using the simplified method
described in previous section. The moment-curvature response for all the sections was estimated
using a zero-length beam column element in the OpenSEES software [21]. The confined
concrete behavior in the boundary elements was modeled using Manders model [26] represented
by Concrete07 material model available in the OpenSEES [21]. The failure of the section was
dictated by either fracture of reinforcement or the crushing of concrete. The failure strains of
0.06 in/in. and crushing strain by Manders model was used as the limiting strains for
reinforcement and concrete respectively. The predicted ultimate displacement and the concrete
strains at the inside edge of the boundary elements are listed in the Table 3. The concrete strains
at the inside edge of the boundary element are found to be in the order of 0.004 in./in. to 0.009
in./in., which is close to crushing strain of unconfined concrete (concrete in the web region),
indicating possible failure at the section adjacent to the boundary element. Similar damage was
observed in recent tests on rectangular walls [4, 24], where significant distress in the web region
concrete adjacent to boundary elements was observed. The observed damage in the experimental
wall tests is shown in Fig.4. Also, with walls with higher axial stress ratio and distributed steel,
the ultimate condition was dictated by the crushing of concrete, indicating insufficient
confinement steel ratio. These observations indicate that the boundary element length and
confinement steel ratio should be increased compared to code required value to mitigate such
failures.

Based on the analysis results from the Set-1 to Set-3 walls, the confined boundary
element length (lbe) was increased horizontally, until the strain in at the inside edge of boundary
element is equal to 0.0015 in./in. This value for the concrete strain was chosen to account for
cyclic loading and shear cracking in the web regions. A new set of walls (Set1R to Set 3R) were
designed with increased boundary element length and their behavior was predicted using the
simplified method. The overall performance of these walls in terms of over strength, ductility
was stable and consistent compared to Set1-Set3 walls. Set1DRR-Set3DRR walls included the
increased boundary element length along with increased confinement steel area. Increasing the
confinement by 30% prevented crushing of concrete in the boundary elements, especially walls
with distributed reinforcement. However, it should be noted that the increase in the confinement
was only necessary for wall with axial stress ratios less than 10%.

Table 3 Summary of prototype walls details and analytical results

$
Predicted
Axial load Pattern of conc
l (%) transverse lbe ##
ult (in.)#
ratios Rebar At B.E
inside edge
12.3 in. 29.6 in. Concentrated 8.4 in. 0.004-
SET1 2.21 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum
(ACI 318) in B.E 11.2 in. 0.006
10.1 in. 26.5 in. Concentrated 6.8 in. 0.0028-
SET2 1.62 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum
(ACI 318) in B.E 10.3 in. 0.009
10 in. 28.5 in. Concentrated 4.6 in. 0.002-
SET3 1.02 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum
(ACI 318) in B.E 8.95 in. 0.0085
24.9 in. 44.5 in. Uniformly
SET1D 2.21 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum NA 0.008
(ACI 318) distributed
17.8 in. 40.4 in. Uniformly
SET2D 1.62 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum NA 0.01
(ACI 318) distributed
13.3 in. 35 in. Uniformly
SET3D 1.02 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum NA 0.01
(ACI 318) distributed
18.8 in. 40.5 in. Concentrated 9.3 in.
SET1R 2.21 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum < 0.0012
(> ACI 318) in B.E 11.1 in.
13.5 in. 44.2 in. Concentrated 7.63 in.
SET2R 1.62 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum < 0.0014
(> ACI 318) in B.E 10.27 in.
13.4 in. 43.2 in. Concentrated 5.0 in.
SET3R 1.02 0,0.5,1,015 ACI minimum < 0.0015
( > ACI 318) in B.E 8.95 in.
10%, 20%, 30%
39.4 in. 58 in. Uniformly
SET1DRR 2.21 0,0.5,1,015 more than ACI NA < 0.0015
( > ACI 318) distributed
minimum
10%, 20%, 30%
39.1 in. 60.5 in. Uniformly
SET2DRR 1.62 0,0.5,1,015 more than ACI NA < 0.0015
( >ACI 318) distributed
minimum
10%, 20%, 30%
22.6 in. 58.3 in. Uniformly
SET3DRR 1.02 0,0.5,1,015 more than ACI NA < 0.0015
( >ACI 318) distributed
minimum
# ult is the displacement corresponding to fracture of reinforcement (strain = 0.06) [22] or crushing of
concrete in the boundary element. Crushing strain estimated using Manders model [26]
* transverse = ACI minimum = minimum reinforcement required by ACI 318-11 (eqn 21-5)
## Boundary element length (lbe) = ACI 318 = required length eqn 21.9.6.4 (a) section
$
Strain in concrete at the inside edge of the boundary element
 Figure 4 Damage in RWN and TUB walls outside the boundary element region

Conclusions

A simplified computational method to estimate the force-displacement response of reinforced

concrete walls from the moment-curvature was proposed and validated using experimental wall
tests. The proposed method was able to estimate the ultimate displacement capacity of walls
within 5% accuracy. The adequacy of the current ACI 318 requirements for special structural
walls was evaluated using the lateral load performance of 48 walls designed in compliance with
current code requirements. Based on the analytical study following conclusions are derived.

The boundary element length required by ACI 318-11 is not adequate for the slender
concrete walls, especially for walls with high axial stress ratio. The boundary element
length around 0.18 lw was found to provide better performance for most of the walls
analyzed in this paper
The amount of confinement required by ACI 318-11was found to be insufficient for walls
with distributed reinforcement and high axial stress ratio. Based on the analysis, it is
suggested to increase the required confinement steel area by 20% to 30% from the current
requirements.
Distribution of the longitudinal steel along the length of the wall didnt cause significant
drop in capacity. The change was found to be less than 10%. However, based on the
experimental test results from the literature cited in this paper, the distribution of steel
improved overall performance of slender walls.

References

1. Fintel M. Performance of buildings with shear walls in earthquakes of the last thirty years, PCI Journal
40(3), 1995, pp 62-80.
2. Sritharan S., Beyer K, Henry SR, Chai YH, Kowalsky M, Bull D. Advancing Seismic Design of Concrete
Walls through Integration of Field Observations and Research Findings,
3. Wallace JW, Massone LM, Bonelli P., Dragovich J., Lagos R., Lders C., and Moehle J. Damage and
Implications for Seismic Design of RC Structural Wall Buildings. Earthquake Spectra 28(S1), 2012,S281-
S299
4. Aaleti, S., Brueggen, B., Johnson, B., French, C., and Sritharan, S. (2013). Cyclic Response of Reinforced
Concrete Walls with Different Anchorage Details: Experimental Investigation." J. Struct. Eng. 139,
SPECIAL ISSUE: NEES 1: Advances in Earthquake Engineering, 1181-1191
5. Brueggen BL. Performance of T-shaped Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls under Multi-Directional
Loading. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, August 2009.
6. ACI Committee 318, 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08). American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
7. Paulay T. and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings.
New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc.
8. ACI Committee 318, 2011. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11). American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
9. Thomsen IV, J.H., and Wallace W.J. (2004). Displacement-Based Design of Slender Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls-Experimental Verification, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 4, ASCE
10. Moaveni, B., He, X., Conte, J., and Restrepo, J. (2006). System Identification of a Seven-Story Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall Building Slice Tested on the UCSD-NEES Shake Table, NEES/UCSD Workshop on
Analytical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls, San Diego, CA December 2006.
11. Sittipunt, C., and Wood, S.L. (1993). Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls. Report
to the National Science Foundation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, December 1993.
12. Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F.J. (2004). Compression Filed Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to
Reversed Loading: Verification, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp.155-164.
13. Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J.W. (2006). Flexural Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls: Experimental
Verification, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp.196-205.
14. Martinelli, P., and Filippou, F. (2006). Numerical Simulation of the Shake Table Test of a Full Scale,
Seven Story Shear Wall Specimen, Proceedings of NEES/UCSD Workshop on Analytical Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Walls, San Diego, CA December 2006.
15. Beyer, K., Dazio, A., and Priestley, M.J.N. (2011). Shear Deformations of Slender Reinforced Concrete
Walls under Seismic Loading, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 108, No. 2.
16. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
17. Panagiorakos, T.B., and Fardis, M.N. (2001). "Deformations of Reinforced Concrete Members at Yielding
and Ultimate", ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp.135-148.
18. Kowalski, M. J. (2001). "RC Structural Walls Designed according to UBC and Displacement-based
Methods", ASCE structural Journal, Vol. 127, No. 5, pp.506-516.
19. Bohl, A., and Adebar, P. (2011). "Plastic Hinge Lengths in High-Rise Concrete Shear Walls", ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp.148-157.
20. Thomsen IV, J.H., and Wallace W.J. (1995). "Displacement-based Design of Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls: Experimental Studies of Walls with Rectangular and T-shaped Cross Sections", Report to
the National Science Foundation, Department of Civil Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.
21. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). (2010). User Manual 2.2.0, available at:
http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
22. Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement based seismic design of
structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
23. Dazio, A., Beyer, K., Bachmann, H. (2009). "Quasi-static Cyclic Tests and Plastic Hinge Analysis of RC
Structural Walls", Engineering Structures 31, pp. 1556-1571.
24. Beyer, K., Dazio, A. and Priestley, M. J. N., 2008. Quasi-static cyclic tests of two U-shaped reinforced
concrete walls, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12(7), 1023-1053.
25. Dai, H. 2012. An Investigation of Ductile Design of Slender Concrete Structural Walls, MS Thesis, Iowa
State University, Ames. IA, 134 pp.
26. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988). Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined
Concrete, ASCE structural Journal, Vol. 114, No. 8, pp.1804-1826.