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

net/publication/329544291

Recommendations for Modeling the Nonlinear Response of Slender Reinforced

Concrete Walls Using PERFORM-3D

Conference Paper · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

3 3,026

3 authors, including:

Laura Lowes Carson Baker

University of Washington Seattle Coughlin Porter Lundeen
118 PUBLICATIONS   2,228 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Performance of Chevron Concentrically Braced Frames View project

Seismic Testing and Modeling of Beam Column Joints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carson Baker on 10 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Recommendations for Modeling the Nonlinear Response of
Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls Using PERFORM-3D

Laura N Lowes, Professor

Dawn E Lehman, Professor
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Carson Baker, Structural Staff Engineer

Coughlin Porter Lundeen
Seattle, WA

Abstract that a structure will maintain lateral loading carrying capacity

when subjected to specified earthquake demands is a critical
The PERFORM-3D (www.csiamerica.com) software package component of earthquake performance assessment. Thus,
is used commonly to conduct nonlinear dynamic analyses of accurate prediction of drift capacity is particularly important.
reinforced concrete walled buildings to assess the earthquake
performance of these structures. The research presented here To better understand flexural wall failure mechanisms, which
employed an experimental data set of eight planar concrete determine wall drift capacity, the results of previous
walls that exhibit a flexure-controlled response and span a experimental investigations of wall behavior are reviewed.
range of length-to-thickness ratios, shear stress demands, axial Birely (2012) evaluated experimental data from over 60
load ratios, and longitudinal reinforcement configurations. For laboratory tests of slender (shear-span ratio greater than 2.0)
each wall specimen, a reference model was created using wall specimens and found that failure, i.e. degradation in the
typical modeling methods. Comparison of simulated and lateral load carrying capacity, of a these walls is a result of one
measured cyclic response histories show that typical modeling or more damage modes: (1) compression-buckling (CB)
techniques result in relatively inaccurate simulation of cyclic characterized by compression damage to the boundary element
response and highly inaccurate simulation of drift capacity. including crushing of boundary-element concrete and buckling
Experimental data were used to determine appropriate values of boundary element reinforcing steel (Figure 1a), (2)
for PERFORM-3D material model cyclic response parameters buckling-rupture (BR) characterized by low-cycle fatigue of
to achieve accurate simulation of cyclic response. the reinforcement, which includes buckling and subsequent
Experimental data and the results of previous research by the fracture of longitudinal steel (Figure 1b), and (3) shear. Figure
authors were used to develop recommendations for defining 2 shows the observed damage modes of the slender-wall
concrete post-peak stress-strain response to achieve accurate, database by Birely. As indicated in the plot, the majority of the
mesh-independent simulation of drift capacity. Comparison of walls exhibited a compression-controlled failure mode. It is of
simulated and measured cyclic response histories show that the note that all of the walls that exhibited compression-controlled
new modeling recommendation result in accurate, mesh failure satisfied the ACI tension-controlled design limit (ACI
independent simulation of cyclic response, including drift 318 2014); therefore, simply designing a wall to meet the
capacity. tension-control criterion does not necessarily result in tension-
controlled failure. Thus, the results of the Birely review
Introduction suggest that accurate prediction of drift capacity for walls
exhibiting flexure-controlled response requires accurate
PERFORM-3D is used commonly to assess the earthquake prediction of the compression-controlled failure mechanism,
performance of buildings that employ slender, flexure- including concrete crushing and reinforcement buckling.
controlled concrete walls to resist lateral loads. As such,
modeling parameters for use with PERFORM-3D are required Experimental Data Used for Model Development
that result in accurate prediction of concrete wall response,
including accurate prediction of the stiffness, strength, A recent, comprehensive literature review by Whitman (2015)
hysteretic response, and deformation capacity. Verification identified 22 planar wall test specimens that exhibited flexure-

1
 failure resulted from deteriorating flexural response, including
concrete crushing, bar buckling and/or bar fracture, iv) wall
specimen thickness exceeded 76 mm (3 in.), and v) data
required to fully define and evaluate a numerical model were
available in the literature. Given the objectives of the current
study, seven wall specimens were chosen for use in the current
study i) if they exhibited a compression-controlled flexural
failure and ii) to represent the full range of boundary element
detailing from no boundary element confinement to boundary
element confinement exceeding current ACI Code
(a) requirements by restraining every longitudinal bar. An eighth
specimen was chosen from the Whitman data set that exhibited
a buckling-rupture type failure.

Table 1 lists the specimens and provides design parameters of

particular interest to this study. Table 2 provides demand and
response parameters. Whitman (2015) provides additional
information of the specimens. Parameters listed in Table 1 and
2 are defined as follows:
 Wall length, lw = the in-plane length of the wall.
 Cross-Sectional Aspect Ratio (CSAR) = lw/tw, where lw is
the wall length and tw is the wall thickness.
(b)  Shear span ratio = M/(Vlw), where M is the moment
developed at the base of the wall, V is the shear developed
Figure 1: Typical Damage Modes in Slender Walls at the base of the wall and lw is the length of the wall. Note
(from Pugh et al. 2015) that the shear span ratio equals the wall aspect ratio if zero
moment is applied at the top of the wall.
 Est. No. of stories = number of stories estimated by
cv assuming a story height equal to 12 times the wall width.
Note that PERFORM-3D analyses employed a specified
number of elements per story; for the top story this number
was adjusted based on the height of the top story.
 f'c = concrete compressive strength.
 fy,BE = tensile yield strength for boundary element
longitudinal steel.
 ρlong = longitudinal reinforcement ratios for wall boundary
element, web region and gross section.
 ρvol_BE = volumetric reinforcement ratio for wall boundary
element confining reinforcement.
 Mander confinement ratio = The ratio of confined to
BR CB Shear unconfined concrete compressive strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ /𝑓𝑐′ found
using the model developed by Mander et al. (1988) as
Figure 2: Failure Modes Observed in Laboratory
presented by Paulay and Priestley (1992).
Tests of Slender Concrete Walls (from Birely 2012)
 Boundary element detailing indicates that boundary
element confining reinforcement exceeds ACI 318-14
Controlled response when tested in the laboratory under quasi-
Code requirements for a special structural wall (xSBE),
static lateral loading and that were appropriate for use in model
meets special boundary element requirements (SBE),
development. Eight wall specimens were chosen from this data
meets ordinary boundary element requirements (OBE) or
set for use in the current study. Wall specimens were included
neither (NBE); no confinement is provided for
in the Whitman data set if i) the specimen was planar
“unconfined” specimens.
(rectangular) and subjected to in-plane flexure, shear and axial
loading with lateral load applied cyclically under displacement  Axial load ratio (ALR) = P/(Agf’c), where P is the axial
control, ii) specimens were constructed of normal weight load at the base of the wall (including self-weight of the
concrete and normal strength concrete and steel, iii) specimen specimen computed assuming a unit weight of 150 lb/ft3),

2
 Ag is the gross area of the wall and f’c is the measured  y = yield drift which is the drift at first yield of
concrete compressive strength. longitudinal reinforcement as determined from a section
 Maximum shear stress demand vmax = Vb / Acv√𝑓𝑐′ , where analysis assuming zero shear deformation.
Vb is the maximum base shear developed during the test,  u = drift capacity which is the drift at which the lateral
Acv is the shear area, taken equal to the gross section area, load carrying capacity of the wall dropped to 80% of the
and f’c is the concrete compressive strength in psi. maximum, for drift demands larger than drift
 Shear demand-capacity ratio = Vb/Vn, where Vb is the corresponding the maximum strength.
maximum base shear and Vn is the shear strength  Failure mode (FM) indicates the primary mechanism
computed per ACI 318 (2014) using measured concrete causing loss of lateral load carrying capacity:
and steel strengths. compression-buckling, characterized by simultaneous
 Flexural strength ratio = Mb/Mn, where Mb is the crushing of concrete and buckling of longitudinal steel
maximum base moment developed during the test and Mn (CB) or buckling-rupture (BR), characterized by buckling
is the nominal flexural strength of the wall corresponding of reinforcing steel followed by bar rupture.
to a compressive strain of 0.003 at the extreme fiber using
measured concrete and steel strengths.

Table 1: Wall Test Specimens Used for Model Development – Design Parameters

Wall Est. Mander

Wall CSAR 𝑀𝑏 𝑓𝑐′ 𝑓𝑦,𝐵𝐸 𝜌𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝜌𝐵𝐸 Boundary Boundary
Reference Length No. of Conf.
ID 𝑙𝑤 /𝑡 𝑉𝑏 𝑙𝑤 (ksi) (ksi) (%) (%) Element Element Detail
(in.) Stories Ratio

Dazio et
WSH4 79 13.3 2.28 2.5 5.93 84.6 0.85 N/A 1.0 Unconf.
al. (2000)

Oh et al.
WR0 59 10.0 2.00 1.7 4.77 65.1 0.62 N/A 1.0 Unconf.
(2002)

Oesterle et
R1 75 18.8 2.40 3.8 6.49 74.2 0.49 1.47 1.02 NBE
al. (1976)

Wallace
and
RW1 48 12.0 3.13 3.1 4.58 63.0 1.15 2.93 1.06 NBE
Thomsen
(1995)
Wallace
and
RW2 48 12.0 3.13 3.1 6.33 63.0 1.15 2.93 1.09 NBE
Thomsen
(1995)
RW-
A20- Tran
48 8.0 2.00 1.3 6.83 68.4 1.29 3.23 1.26 SBE
P10- (2012)
S38
RW-
A20- Tran
48 8.0 2.00 1.3 7.05 69.2 2.83 7.11 1.27 SBE
P10- (2012)
S63

Dazio et
WSH6 79 13.3 2.26 2.5 6.61 79.8 0.85 1.38 1.24 xSBE
al. (2000)

3
 Table 2: Wall Test Specimens Used for Model Development – Demand and Response Parameters

𝑃 𝑉𝑏 𝑉𝑏 𝑴𝒃 𝚫𝒚 𝚫𝒖 Failure
Wall ID
𝐴𝑔 𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝑐𝑣 √𝑓 ′𝑐 𝑉𝑛 𝑴𝒏 (%) (%) Mode
WSH4 0.06 2.8 0.62 1.06 0.29 1.60 CB
WR0 0.11 3.0 0.74 1.08 0.52 2.14 CB
R1 0.00 1.1 0.23 1.17 0.17 2.30 BR
RW1 0.11 2.6 0.50 1.07 0.48 2.26 CB
RW2 0.09 2.7 0.52 1.16 0.55 2.35 CB
RW-A20-P10-S38 0.07 3.8 0.81 1.26 0.55 3.18 CB
RW-A20-P10-S63 0.07 6.3 0.91 1.13 0.66 3.00 CB
WSH6 0.11 3.6 0.83 1.11 0.31 2.04 CB

PERFORM-3D Element Formulations and Material concrete fibers overlaid with steel fiber; typically, the area
Models for Modeling Walls occupied by the reinforcing steel is “double counted” as it is
assigned both to the steel fibers and the concrete fibers. A one-
Nonlinear analysis of flexure-controlled concrete walls using dimensional nonlinear stress-strain material response model is
PERFORM-3D typically employs either the “shear wall assigned to the unconfined concrete, the confined concrete and
element” or the “general wall element”. The general wall the reinforcing steel. PERFORM-3D limits the number of
element is intended for analysis of complex reinforced fibers that can be assigned to a single wall element; thus,
concrete walls with irregular openings and was not considered multiple elements are often used along the length of the wall.
in this study. This paper considers only the shear wall element.
The shear wall element is i) intended to represent the nonlinear For assessment of wall performance under earthquake loading,
response of concrete walls subjected to in-plane axial and nonlinear one-dimensional material response models are used
lateral loading, such as the planar wall test specimens to define concrete and steel fiber response and, occasionally,
presented in the previous section, ii) can be used to simulate to define shear response. Typically, nonlinear material
nonlinear flexural response, nonlinear shear response or both, response is defined using the “YULRX” model (Figure 3) to
though flexural and shear response models are decoupled, and define the envelope to the stress-strain history; the “YULRX”
iii) is used commonly in practice. model can represent and envelope trilinear response with or
without strength loss. PERFORM-3D does not support
PERFORM-3D manuals and user guides provide detailed deterioration of the YULRX envelope due to cyclic loading;
information about the shear wall element (e.g. CSI); a brief thus, strength deterioration due to cyclic loading is implicitly
discussion of the element formulation is provided here. The included in the YULRX envelope. Thus, the YULRX envelope
element is a displacement-based 4-node macro-element with used for monotonic loading would be different (stronger or
three rotational and three translational degrees of freedom per with strength loss occurring at a larger deformation demand)
node. The macro-element formulation combines three than for cyclic loading. PERFORM-3D does support
response models to simulate wall behavior: i) a fiber-type deterioration of unloading/reloading stiffness. This is done
section model, comprising linear elastic or nonlinear concrete differently for concrete and for reinforcing steel.
and steel fibers, simulates in-plane flexural response, ii) a
uniform shear layer, with a one-dimensional linear elastic or Investigation and Calibration of the PERFORM-3D
nonlinear shear response model, simulates in-plane shear Shear Wall Element and Material Constitutive Models
response, and iii) a uniform linear-elastic plate-bending model
represents out-of-plane response. Nodal displacements and As suggested by the discussion above, building a PERFORM-
rotations are used to compute a constant in-plane shear 3D model of a reinforced concrete wall requires the engineer
deformation, a constant in-plane curvature and a constant axial to make a number of modeling decisions and input multiple
deformation; these three deformations determine the in-plane model parameters. Data from the experimental tests listed in
shear, moment and axial load developed in the wall. Table 1 were used to investigate the impact on model accuracy
of various modeling decisions and user-defined model
The fiber-type section model is used to simulate the nonlinear parameters and, ultimately, develop modeling
flexural response of the wall cross section. The user discretizes recommendations to achieve accurate simulation of stiffness,
the wall cross section into a series of unconfined and confined strength, cyclic response and deformation capacity. The

4
subsections below first present an investigation of the accuracy steel fibers were used. Concrete fibers were distributed as three
with which wall response is simulated using the “typical per boundary element and two in web; steel fibers were
modeling approach” and then present investigations of the distributed as two per boundary element and four in the web.
impact on response simulation and recommendations for i)
mesh refinement as defined by the number of elements used Unconfined and confined concrete stress-strain models were
along the length and up the height of the wall, ii) degradation defined and assigned, respectively, to web and boundary
of unloading and reloading stiffness due to cyclic loading, and element concrete fibers. The PERFORM-3D 1D concrete
iii) regularization of a material response models to minimize model was employed with the YULRX model used to define
mesh-sensitivity and provide accurate stimulation of the tension and compression envelopes. Concrete elastic
deformation capacity Table 5 near the end of the paper modulus in tension and compression was defined per ACI 318
provides modeling parameters values used all analyses as 57000√𝑓𝑐′ psi with 𝑓𝑐′ in psi. Table 3 lists the stress (F*)
presented in this paper. and strain (D*) values used to define the YULRX envelope for
compression response, with confined concrete strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ,
defined per by Mander et al. (1988) and concrete strain
capacity defined per Paulay and Priestley (1992) as
𝜀𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.004 + 1.4𝜌ℎ 𝑓𝑦ℎ 𝜀ℎ𝑚 /𝑓𝑐𝑐′ Eq. 1
where 𝜌ℎ is the volumetric ratio of confining steel and 𝑓𝑦ℎ and
𝜀ℎ𝑚 are, respectively, the yield strength and strain at maximum
strength of the confining reinforcement. Figure 4 shows typical
compressive stress-strain envelopes for unconfined and
confined concrete.

Table 3: Concrete Compression Stress-Stain

Material Model Parameters
Figure 3: Action-Deformation Envelope for DU DL DR
FY FU FR/FU
PERFORM-3D ‘YULRX’ Material Model (Figure 5.4 (in/in) (in/in) (in/in)
from the PERFORM-3D User Guide 2006) Unconfined 0.75𝑓𝑐′ 𝑓𝑐′ 0.001 0.002 0.00202 0.01
Confined 0.75𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 0.200 0.004 0.00404 𝜀𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥
Evaluation of the Reference Model

Investigation of wall modeling using PERFORM-3D started

with a reference modeling approach that was intended to
represent the modeling approach used commonly in practice.
The reference model was characterized by i) one shear wall
element used to represent the entire length of the wall, ii) two
shear wall elements used to represent the height of the first
story, where flexural yielding is expected, and one element
used to represent the entire height of upper stories, ii) no
degradation in energy dissipation or unloading/reloading
stiffness for steel, iii) no degradation in energy dissipation for
Figure 4: Typical Compressive Stress-Strain
concrete in compression, and iv) use of standard concrete and
Envelopes for Unconfined and Confined Concrete
steel stress-strain models without regularization. Table 5 lists
all model parameters used to defined the Reference model.
Reinforcing steel stress-strain models were defined and
assigned, respectively, to web and boundary element steel
The reference model employed a level of mesh refinement that
fibers. The PERFORM-3D Inelastic Steel model without
is consistent with recommendations for PERFORM-3D
buckling was employed. A single YULRX model was used to
modeling found in the literature. Two elements were used
define the stress-strain envelope for tension and compression.
vertically to represent the bottom story of the wall and one
Measured stress material properties were used to define the
element was used vertically to represent upper stories; each
YULRX envelope; where strain hardening was not well
element spanned the entire in-plan length of the wall.
defined by the available data a hardening modulus equal to
PERFORM-3D limits the number of fibers that can be used for
1.5% of the elastic modulus was assumed. Figure 5 shows a
a single element to 16. As such, eight concrete fibers and eight
typical reinforcing steel stress-strain response envelope.

5
 Investigation of Cyclic Response Parameters for
Reinforcing Steel and Concrete

The data in Figure 6 show relatively poor simulation of the

measured cyclic response history, these simulated histories
were generated using user-defined cyclic calibration factors
for reinforcing steel and concrete material models.
Specifically, PERFORM-3D allows the user to specify i) the
extent to which unloading and/or reloading stiffnesses deviate
from that associated with an elastic-plastic material with linear
hardening and ii) if this deviation is constant throughout the
load history or changes with strain demand. Different
Figure 5: Typical Stress-Strain Envelope for approaches are used for reinforcing steel and concrete, which
Reinforcing Steel exhibit very different material response.

An elastic shear material was used for the reference model. Cyclic Response Parameters for Reinforcing Steel
Shear stiffness was defined equal to 0.1GcAg per the
recommendations of the ATC 72-1 (2010) with Gc = 0.4Ec per For reinforcing steel, unloading and reloading stiffnesses are
ACI 318 and Ag taken equal to the gross area of the wall. defined by the energy dissipation factor and the stiffness
factor. The energy dissipation factor defines the extent to
Figure 6 shows the simulated and measured response histories which stiffness loss reduces energy dissipation; it equals the
for wall specimen RW1, with simulated response achieved ratio of the energy dissipated during a stress-strain cycle for
using the reference model. The most obvious observation is the material with stiffness loss to the energy dissipated without
that the reference model results in a simulated drift at onset of stiffness loss. The stiffness factor varies from negative to
lateral strength loss that is approximately double that observed positive one and determines whether unloading stiffness or
in the laboratory. Beyond this, the reference model is observed reloading stiffness or both are reduced. Figure 7 shows four
to provide a somewhat poor representation of cyclic response. possible stress-strain cycles for reinforcing steel. The dashed
In comparison with the measured response history, the lines in Loops A-C show the same stress-strain cycle with no
reference model does not simulate the gradual reduction in stiffness loss. The solid lines in Loops A-C show three possible
unloading stiffness observed in each cycle or the graduate loss stress-strain cycles with stiffness loss. All three of the stress-
of reloading stiffness observed in subsequent cycles. Similar strain cycles with stiffness loss were generated using an energy
results were observed when the reference model was used to dissipation factor of 0.5. Loops A-C, however, employ
simulate the response of other specimens. different stiffness factors: in Loop A unloading stiffness is
reduced (stiffness factor =-1), in Loop C reloading stiffness is
reduced (stiffness factor = +1) and in LoopB both unloading
and reloading stiffness are reduced (stiffness factor = 0).
Experimental data from tests of reinforcing bars (Ma et al.,
1976; Panthaki, 1991) were used to determine the energy
dissipation factor (0.75) and stiffness factor (0.5) to provide a
best fit to the experimental reinforcing steel stress-strain
histories. Figure 8 shows measured and simulated response for
a wall specimen RW-A20-P10-S38 listed in Table 1 with (a)
default cyclic material response parameters and (b) the
proposed reinforcing steel and concrete cyclic response
parameters. These data show that the calibrated cyclic
response parameters result in significantly improved
simulation of measured response; similar results were
observed for other wall specimens.

Figure 6: Load-Displacement Response for Wall

Specimen RW1 as Measured and as Simulated Using
the Reference Model

6
 reduction in unloading and reloading stiffness with increasing
compressive strain demand; the blue regions in this figure
represent energy dissipated during the unload-reload cycle.
PERFORM-3D provides a mechanism for reducing reloading
stiffness but not unloading stiffness; reduction in reloading
stiffness is defined by a user-specified relationship between
energy dissipation and compressive strain. Figure 10 shows the
(a) (b) (c) relationship between the energy factor and the reloading
stiffness. An energy factor of 1.0 results in initiation of
Figure 7: Three Options for Simulating Stiffness reloading at zero compressive strain, minimum reloading
Loss under Cyclic Loading (Modified from Figure stiffness, and maximum energy dissipation; an energy
5.14 from the PERFORM-3D User Guide 2006). dissipation factor of 0.0 results in initiation of reloading at the
maximum allowable compressive strain, a maximum reloading
stiffness and zero energy dissipation. Experimental data such
as shown in Figure 9a were used to determine appropriate
energy dissipation values as a function of maximum
compressive strain demand. Figure 11 shows data points and
the proposed energy dissipation model; Table 4 provides
proposed energy dissipation values for PERFORM-3D
material states. Figure 9 shows the simulated (b) stress-strain
history compared with the measured history (a). The proposed
model provides a good representation of the measured strain at
onset of reloading and reloading stiffness. As stated above, the
calibrated cyclic response parameters result in significantly
improved simulation of measured response (Figure 8).
(a)

(a)

(b)
(b)

Figure 8: Load-Deformation Response as Measured

and as Simulated Using (a) Default Material Models
and (b) Recommended Steel and Concrete Energy
Dissipation and Stiffness Factors

Cyclic Response Parameters for Concrete

For concrete, PERFORM-3D provides for user calibration of
the concrete cyclic response history in compression. Figure 9a Figure 9: Measured (a) and Simulated (b) Concrete
shows a typical measured cyclic stress-strain history for Compressive Stress-Strain History (Shina et al.,
concrete subjected to compressive loading. These data show 1964)

7
 analysis requires multiple analyses using different levels of
mesh refinement to verify that a “converged” solution is
achieved. For the current study, the results of previous research
were used to develop recommendations for mesh refinement in
along the length of the wall. A vertical mesh refinement study
was conducted to determine the impact of mesh refinement on
predicted performance and whether or not the standard practice
for meshing results in acceptable accuracy. Figure 12 shows
mesh configurations used in the mesh refinement studies.

Story 3

Story 2
Figure 10: Impact of PERFORM-3D Energy
Dissipation Factor on Concrete Compressive
Reloading Stiffness Story 1

Reference 2 Elements 3 Elements 4 Elements

Model per Story per Story per Story
Figure 12: Shear Wall Element Meshes Used for
Reference Model and Vertical Mesh Refinement
Study (2, 3 and 4 Elements per Story)

Horizontal Mesh Refinement

A single PERFORM-3D shear wall element simulates constant
curvature, and thus a linear vertical strain distribution, along
the in-plan length of the wall. However, experimental test data
Figure 11: Concrete Compressive Energy for planar walls show the actual vertical strain distribution is a
Dissipation Factor as a Function of Compressive planar wall to be highly nonlinear (Birely, 2012). Figure 13
Strain as Measured and as Proposed. shows the vertical strain distributions for two planar walls as
simulated using nonlinear continuum analysis (ATENA) and
Table 4: Concrete Cyclic Energy Dissipation Factors as simulated using a plane-sections-remain-plane section
Material Y U L R X model (OpenSees). One of the planar walls has a low cross-
State (yield) (ultimate) (loss) (residual) (rupture) sectional aspect ratio (CSAR = lw/t) and low shear stress
Energy demand; the other has a high CSAR and high shear stress
1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 demand. Both strain profiles suggest that the need for multiple
Factor
elements along the length of the wall to simulate a multilinear
Under tensile loading, concrete cracks at a relative low stress vertical strain distribution. Based on the data in Figure 13, it is
demand and then exhibits rapid strength loss; unloading is recommended that four shear wall elements be used along the
characterized by a “damage-type” response, with all inelastic length of the wall with one element used to model each
deformation attributed to stiffness loss and unloading resulting boundary element (vertical black line indicates location of
in zero residual deformation. This behavior is represented web-boundary element interface ) and two elements used for
exactly by the PERFORM-3D material model and mechanisms the interior web region as shown in Figure 12. All subsequent
for user calibration of this response are not provided. analyses use this level of horizontal mesh refinement.

Investigation of Mesh Refinement A single PERFORM-3D shear wall element simulates a

constant vertical strain over the height of the element;
Standard practice for modeling walls using the shear wall however, the very nearly linear moment distribution that
element is to use one or two elements per story and one or two develops in a wall between floors suggests a linear strain
elements along the length of the wall. Classical finite element distribution and the need for multiple elements per story to
represent this linear strain profile. Thus, a vertical mesh

8
refinement study was conducted; Figure 12 shows the different loss, which is subsequently referred to as drift capacity. This
meshes used in the study. Figure 14 shows simulation results, mesh sensitivity in simulation of drift capacity has been
from which it can be concluded that vertical mesh refinement observed by others (Coleman and Spacone 2001, Mohr 2007,
has minimal impact on simulated stiffness, strength of cyclic Chiaramonte 2011, Pugh et al. 2015) using a range of element
response and that for the typical model, mesh size formulations (beam-column, shell and solid) to simulate the
determines simulated deformation capacity. Similar results response of a range of reinforced concrete components (beams,
were observed for all specimens listed in Table 1. Subsequent columns, walls, and piles). Regularization of material
sections of this paper present modeling recommendations that response, using a measure of the energy dissipated in post-peak
achieve mesh-independent simulation of response, such that region of the material response curve and a mesh-dependent
mesh size does not determine simulated deformation capacity. length, has been used by others (Coleman and Spacone 2001,
Subsequent analyses use different levels of vertical mesh Chiaramonte 2011, Pugh et al. 2015) to produce mesh-
refinement as identified in Table 5. objective prediction of response. This concept is employed
here to develop recommendations for defining the concrete
stress-strain response curve used in the PERFORM-3D wall
element to achieve accurate, mesh-objective prediction of drift
capacity in walls.

Why Standard, Un-Regularized Material Models Produce

Mesh-Dependent Results
Specimen WSH4 is classified as exhibiting a compression-
buckling failure, with the measured strength loss shown in
Figure 14 resulting from concrete crushing and simultaneous
buckling of longitudinal reinforcement in the compression
region at the bottom of the wall. The simulated strength loss
Figure 13: Simulated Vertical Strain Profiles (from
shown in Figure 14 results also from crushing of the extreme
Whitman 2015)
concrete fibers in the element at the base of the wall specimen.
In the simulation, once concrete crushing results in reduced
moment capacity for the wall, deformation localizes in the
failing/softening element at the bottom of the wall.
Deformation in the softening element at the base of the wall
increases, but deformation in the elements above the critical
20% Strength Loss
bottom section drop as these elements unload. If a more refined
mesh is used to simulate response, concrete crushing still
localizes in the bottom element, but now, because the reduced-
height bottom element has the same stress-strain model as the
full-height element, the reduced-height element exhibits a
substantially smaller deformation (deformation equals the
Different levels of mesh product of strain and element height) at a given element stress
refinement results in
different displacement level / wall moment capacity. Thus, the more highly refined
capacities mesh simulates initiation of strength loss at a lower drift level
and simulates more rapid strength loss with increasing
displacement demand.

The above mesh-dependent behavior is illustrated in Figure 15.

Figure 15 shows simulation results for wall WSH4; these
Figure 14: Load-Deformation Response as Measured results were generated using the OpenSees
and as Simulated Using Different Numbers of (http:\\opensees.berkeley.edu) force-based beam-column
Elements per Story element and fiber-section model available in OpenSees with
standard, unregularized material models. Figure 15a-e show
Regularization of Material Response to Achieve simulation results for different levels of mesh refinement; for
Mesh-Independent Prediction of Drift Capacity the beam-column element mesh refinement takes the form of
increasing the number of fiber sections (integration points are
The simulated response histories presented in Figure 14 show identified as I.P. in Figure 15) used along the length of the
that mesh size affects the drift at onset of significant strength

9
 element. Figure 15a shows measured and simulated load
versus drift; the displacement at onset of strength loss and the
rate of strength loss show mesh-sensitivity similar to that
shown in Figure 14. Figure 15b,c show, respectively, the
simulated normalized curvature and maximum concrete
compressive strain distributions up the height of the wall prior
to onset of strength loss. The data in these figures show
approximately the same distribution regardless of the level of
mesh refinement; increasing mesh refinement provides a
smoother distribution and more accurate representation of the
distribution over the wall height. Figure 15d,e show,
respectively, the simulated normalized curvature and
maximum concrete compressive strain distributions up the
height of the wall prior at the onset of strength loss. The data
in these figures show very different distributions at the base of
(a) Response of WSH4 as measured and as simulated using the wall with different levels of mesh refinement. In these
OpenSees force-based beam-column elements and four levels figures, increased mesh refinement results in substantially
of mesh refinement (4, 5, 7 and 9 fiber sections per element) increased curvature and maximum concrete strain at the
bottom section of the wall where strength loss occurs. Above
the bottom section, the curvature and strain distributions are
not affected by mesh refinement. Behavior similar to that
shown in Figure 15 is observed when the PERFORM-3D wall
elements are used to simulate response.

Regularization of Concrete Material Response

Regularization of material response to mitigate mesh
sensitivity has been used for many years in continuum analysis
of concrete structures. Regularization is based on observations
from material tests that 1) damage localizes in a region within
the test specimen and that this region is approximately the
same size regardless of specimen size, and 2) the fundamental
(b) Pt. A: simulated curvature (c) Pt. A: simulated maximum material response is stress versus deformation not stress versus
distribution concrete strain distribution strain. For concrete subjected to tensile loading, damage
localizes at the crack and the fundamental material response,
which is consistent regardless of specimen size, is crack stress
versus crack width opening (a deformation measure). Concrete
fracture energy, Gf, defined as the area under the softening
portion of the tensile stress versus crack width opening history,
is considered a fundamental material property, and
standardized tests exist for measuring this quantity (CEB-FIP
1990). Jansen and Shah (1997) conducted compression tests of
concrete cylinders of varying height and showed that damage
localizes in a crushing region that is approximately the same
thickness regardless of cylinder height and that the softening
portion of the concrete compression stress versus deformation
history is approximately constant regardless of specimen
height. Jansen and Shah (1997) developed recommendations
for defining concrete crushing energy, Gfc, equal to the area
(d) Pt. B: simulated curvature (e) Pt. B:simulated maximum under the softening portion of the compression stress versus
distribution concrete strain distribution deformation history (Figure 16). Nakamura and Higai (2001)
Figure 15: Simulated Curvature and Strain Fields conducted a study similar to that of Jansen and Shah (1997),
Prior to and at Failure for Specimen WSH4 (Pugh found similar results and developed recommendations for
2012) defining Gfc. Though, it should be noted that for normal weight

10
concrete, Jansen and Shah recommend a crushing energy of and to achieve mesh-objective results, it is necessary to
0.143 kip/in while Nakamura and Higai recommend a crushing regularize the compressive strain at onset of steel strength loss.
energy of 0.457 kip/in. Here the simple buckling model proposed by Pugh et al. (2015)
for simulation of wall response using OpenSees force-based
beam-column elements with fiber-type section models was
employed. This model assumes that once concrete has reached
residual compressive strength there is minimal restraint of bar
buckling and reinforcing steel loses compressive capacity. The
regularized strain at onset of concrete compressive strength
loss is defined by Eq. 2 and Eq. 3.

10
Ucc,Lcc
9 Unconfined
8 Ycc Confined
7
Figure 16: Concrete Compression Stress versus U,L

Stress (ksi)
6
Deformation and Definition of Concrete Crushing
5
Energy, Gfc (image from Jansen and Shah (1997))
4
Y 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐
3
Given the stress versus deformation history in Figure 16 and 𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚 Rcc
2
the knowledge that the area under the stress versus 𝐺𝑓𝑐
1
deformation curve in the post-peak regime (Gfc) is constant 𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚 R
0
regardless of mesh size, regularized concrete stress-strain
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
response models for unconfined and confined concrete can be
Strain (in/in)
created for use in PERFORM-3D (Figure 17). Since there is
no localization of damage prior to achieving maximum Figure 17: Regularized Concrete Compression
strength, standard models may be employed to define the pre- Stress-Strain YULRX Envelopes for Use with
peak portion of the curves. To define the post-peak response, PERFORM-3D
unconfined concrete is assumed to have no residual strength
(strength at point R is zero) and confined concrete is assumed Unconfined Concrete Crushing Energy
to have residual strength equal to 20% of the confined Response data for walls WSH4 and WR0, which were
compressive strength (strength at Rcc = 0.2fcc = 0.2Ucc). Strain constructed entirely of unconfined concrete and exhibited
at residual strength is defined for unconfined concrete as strength loss due to concrete crushing, were used to determine
𝐺𝑓𝑐
𝑓𝑐′ (
𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚
) an appropriate value for the crushing energy of unconfined
𝜀𝑅 = 𝜀𝑢 = 𝜀𝑜 − +2 ′ Eq. 2 concrete, 𝐺𝑓𝑐 . A series of PERFORM-3D analyses of the
𝐸𝑐 𝑓𝑐
and for confined concrete as WSH4 and WR0 specimens were conducted using the
5 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐
( )
modeling recommendations presented above; for each analysis
′
𝜀𝑅 𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑢𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑜𝑐𝑐 −
0.8𝑓𝑐𝑐
+
3 𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚
′ Eq. 3 a different 𝐺𝑓𝑐 value, corresponding to a different concrete u
𝐸𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐
where 𝜀𝑅 is the strain at point R, which is often defined as and value, was used. For each analysis the simulated displacement
at 20% strength loss was recorded. Figure 18 shows the results
𝜀𝑢 in concrete material models, 𝜀𝑜 is the compressive strain at
of these analyses. Based on these results
maximum concrete strength, 𝑓𝑐′ is the concrete compressive
Gfc = 0.5 kip/in Eq. 4
strength, 𝐸𝑐 is the concrete elastic modulus at zero strain, 𝐺𝑓𝑐 is
is recommended for use in regularizing unconfined concrete
the concrete crushing energy, 𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚 is the height of the wall response in reinforced concrete walls. This value
element and the subscript cc is added in Eq. 3 to indicate approximately equal to the value recommended by Nakamura
confined concrete. and Higai (2001) for regular strength concrete and is consistent
with recommendations by Pugh et al. (2015), 0.078𝑓𝑐′ kip/in.
Regularization of Steel Material Response in Compression with 𝑓𝑐′ is ksi, for analysis of walls using fiber-type beam-
Review of experimental data (Birely 2012) shows that the column elements in OpenSees. Figure 19 shows the simulated
majority of walls tested in the laboratory exhibit strength loss response of wall specimen WSH4 with regularization of
due to simultaneous concrete crushing and reinforcement concrete compression response using Eqs. 2 and 4 and
buckling (classified as a compression-buckling failure in Table simulation of bar buckling at 𝜀𝑅 per Eq. 2; all other modeling
2). To simulate the failure mode, it is necessary to simulate parameters are listed in Table 5. The data in Figure 19 show
compression strength loss in reinforcing steel due to buckling, accurate simulation of drift capacity and no mesh sensitivity.

11
 in confined boundary elements was defined, respectively, to
fail in compression at 𝜀𝑅 defined by Eq. 2 and at 𝜀𝑅 𝑐𝑐 defined
∆𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ⁄∆𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑

by Eq. 3. For each of the walls with confined concrete,

analyses were done with two different levels of mesh
refinement. The results of these analyses (Figure 20) show
𝐾 = 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝐺𝑓𝑐 required to achieve accurate prediction of
deformation capacity ranging from 1.0 to 2.5. Given 1) that
experimental data show and traditional confined concrete
material models predict increasing concrete strain capacity
with increasing confinement and 2) the wide range of
confinement detailing for the walls in Table 1, this variation in
𝐺𝑓𝑐 (kip/in) the 𝐾 is not surprising. Figure 21 shows 𝐾 plotted versus the
Figure 18: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Drift Mander confinement ratio, 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ⁄𝑓𝑐′ , from which it can be
Capacity as a Function of Unconfined Concrete concluded that confined concrete crushing energy increases
Crushing Energy, Gfc, for Specimens WSH4 and WR0 with increasing confinement. Based on the data in Figure 21,
Modeled Using 2 and 4 Elements per Story the following model is recommended for defining 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐
𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 f′
𝐾= = 1 < 5 ( cc′ − 0.85) < 2.5 Eq. 5
𝐺𝑓𝑐 fc
which is equivalent to
f′
𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 0.5 < 2.5 ( cc′ − 0.85) < 1.25 Eq. 6
fc
where 𝑓𝑐𝑐′
is the confined concrete compressive strength
20% Strength Loss
defined by Mander et al. (1988).
∆𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ⁄∆𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑

All levels of mesh

refinement result in
the same, correct
displacement capacity

𝐾 = 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝐺𝑓𝑐
Figure 20: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Drift
Capacity as a Function Gfcc for Specimens in Table 1
Figure 19: Load-Deformation Response as Measured with Confined Concrete Exhibiting a Compression-
and as Simulated Using Regularized Material Models Buckling Failure
and Different Numbers of Elements per Story

Confined Concrete Crushing Energy

𝐾 = 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝐺𝑓𝑐

The approach used to determine unconfined concrete crushing

energy was used also to determine confined crushing energy,
𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 . A series similar analyses were performed on the five
walls in Table 1 that included confined boundary elements and
exhibited strength loss due to concrete crushing. Models were
constructed using a confined concrete material model for the
confined area of the boundary elements and an unconfined 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ⁄𝑓𝑐′
concrete material model elsewhere. Concrete material Figure 21: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Drift
response was regularized using Eqs. 2 and 3. Equation 4 was Capacity as a Function Gfcc for Specimens in Table 1
used to define unconfined concrete crushing energy and a with Confined Concrete Exhibiting a Compression-
range of confined concrete crushing energies were used. Buckling Failure
Reinforcing steel in the unconfined web region of the wall and

12
Recommendations for Modeling Flexural Walls  Displacement at yield is slightly underpredicted and
Using PERFORM results have a relatively high level of uncertainty. This is
consistent with the results of other studies (e.g. Pugh et al.
The above recommendations for modeling flexural walls using 2015) and likely results from the fact that in the laboratory
PERFORM-3D are summarized in Table 5 (Validation Study). wall test specimens often exhibit significant shrinkage
These recommendations were used to simulate the response of cracking that increases measured yield displacement
the eight walls listed in Table 1. Simulation results were (Palermo and Vecchio, 2002) and is not typically captured
evaluated on basis of the accuracy and precision with which in simulations.
maximum strength, displacement at yield, and displacement  Displacement capacity is accurately predicted for
capacity were simulated. These response quantities are defined specimen WSH6, which exhibited a buckling-rupture
as follows: i) maximum strength is defined by the maximum (BR) failure in the laboratory. This is despite the fact that
base shear achieved in either loading direction, ii) yield is the model simulates strength loss due to concrete crushing
defined by the moment, and corresponding base shear, at and reinforcement buckling but not fracture of
which a fiber-type model of the base section, assuming zero reinforcement following buckling. Accurate simulation of
shear strain, indicates first yield of longitudinal steel, and iii) displacement capacity for walls exhibiting compression-
displacement capacity is defined as the displacement at the buckling (CB) and buckling-rupture (BR) failure modes
point of applied load at which strength dropped to 80% of using models that simulate only strength loss due to
maximum strength. Figure 22 shows measured and simulated concrete crushing and bar buckling is consistent with
response histories; Table 6 provides response quantities for previous research (Pugh et al., 2015). Previous research
each wall and statistics for the data set. The data in Table 6 shows also similar drift capacities for walls exhibiting CB
and Figure 22 support the following conclusions and and BR failure modes. These results suggest that fracture
observations: of previously buckled reinforcement occurs very shortly
 Strength and displacement capacity are accurately and after buckling that results in significant strength loss.
precisely simulated using the proposed modeling
recommendations.

Table 5: Model Parameters Used for Simulations

Simulation Used to Investigate

Reference Validation
Model Cyclic Cyclic Mesh Mesh Study
Response Response Refinement Refinement
Wall specimen used for study RW1 WSH4 WSH4 WSH4 WSH 4 All Walls
Figure(s) presenting results Figure 6 Figure 8a Figure 8b Figure 14 Figure 19 Figure 22
Number elements horizontally 1 1 1 4 4 4
Number of elements vertically in yielding story 2 2 2 2, 3, 4 2,3,4 4
Number of elements vertically in non-yielding stories 1 1 1 2, 3, 4 2,3,4 1
Concrete energy dissipation factor - - Table 4 Table 4 Table 4 Table 4
Steel energy dissipation factor - - 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Steel unloading/reloading stiffness factor - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5 kip/in 0.5 kip/in 0.5 kip/in
Unconfined concrete crushing energy, Gfc - - -
(Eq. 2) (Eq. 2) (Eq. 2)
Confined concrete crushing energy, Gfcc - - Eqs. 5 & 6 - Eqs. 5 & 6 Eqs. 5 & 6
Buckling of steel modeled No No Yes No Yes Yes

13
 (a)
(e)

(b) (f)

(c) (g)

(d) (h)

Figure 22: Lateral Load Versus Deformation Histories for Walls in Table 1 as Measured and as Simulated using
Recommended Modeling Procedures

14
Table 6: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Response
Quantities Walls exhibit compression-shear
(CS) controlled response
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑠𝑖𝑚 ∆𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑,𝑠𝑖𝑚 ∆𝑢,𝑠𝑖𝑚
Specimen
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 ∆𝑢
WSH4 1.00 0.93 1.00
WR0 0.98 0.61 0.88
R1 1.03 1.41 1.21
RW1 1.00 0.77 1.03
RW2 1.02 0.55 1.11
RW-A20-P10-S38 0.95 0.82 1.00
Walls exhibit flexure-controlled
RW-A20-P10-S63 1.13 0.93 0.99 (CB or BR) response
WSH6 0.97 1.09 1.07
Average 1.02 0.89 1.03
C.O.V. 0.06 0.31 0.10
(a) Boundary Element Meets ACI Code (2014) Requirements
Limitations on Application of the Model Walls exhibit compression-shear
(CS) controlled response
Comparison of response as measured and as simulated shows
that the proposed modeling recommendations result in a model
that is appropriate for use in assessing the earthquake
performance of walls exhibiting flexure-controlled response,
with either compression- or tension-controlled failure
mechanisms. Recent research by Whitman (2015) provides
guidance on wall design characteristics that can result in walls Walls exhibit flexure-controlled
exhibiting a compression-shear failure rather than a flexure- (CB or BR) response
controlled failure. Whitman conducted nonlinear continuum-
type analysis of planar walls with a range of design
characteristics, including walls with high cross-sectional
aspect ratios (CSAR = ratio of wall length to wall thickness)
and high shear stress demands. Whitman found that walls with (b) Boundary Element Depth Extends to Neutral Axis
high cross-sectional aspect ratios and high shear demands
exhibit a compression-shear failure characterized by crushing Figure 23: Average Shear Stress Demand and Cross-
of concrete at the boundary element-web interface. Figure 23 Sectional Aspect Ratios Resulting in Flexure-
shows the range of CSARs and shear stress demand for which Controlled Versus Flexure-Shear Failure Modes for
a compression-shear rather than a flexure-controlled response Planar Walls with Boundary Elements
could be expected for (a) walls with boundary element
detailing that meets current ACI Code requirements and (b) controlled concrete walls using the PERFORM-3D
walls with boundary element confinement that extends to the (www.csiamerica.com/) software package. Recommendations
neutral axis depth. address mesh refinement as well as the definition of material
response. Regularization of the concrete compression response
Given the results of the Whitman (2015) study and that the using concrete crushing energy and element height is
PEFORM model simulates only a flexural failure mechanism, recommended to achieve accurate, mesh-objective simulation
the PEFORM model is appropriate only for use in assessing of the drift capacity of walls. Data show that without
the earthquake performance of walls that expected to exhibit regularization of material response, simulated drift at onset of
flexural failure per Figure 23. strength loss is a function of mesh size. Equations are provided
that define unconfined concrete crushing energy and confined
Summary and Conclusions concrete crushing energy as a function of confinement.
Recommendations include also the appropriate range of
The results of previous research by the authors and students at application of the model, which excludes walls with large
the University of Washington as well as experimental data cross-sectional aspect ratios and walls subjected to high shear
characterizing the response of planar walls were used to stress demands. Comparison of simulated and measured
develop recommendations for modeling planar flexure- response for a series of eight planar walls, representing a range

15
of design parameters with the recommended range of
application of the model, shows that the proposed modeling Ma, S-Y.M., V.V. Bertero and E.P. Popov (1976).
recommendations result in accurate and precise simulation of “Experimental and Analytical Studies of the Hysteretic
wall strength and displacement capacity. Comparison of Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular and T-Beams.”
simulated and measured response shows that yield Report No. EERC-76-2. Berkeley: EERC, University of
displacement is slightly under predicted (average ratio of California.
simulated to measured yield displacement in 0.89) and shows
a relatively high level of uncertainty (c.o.v. for ratio of Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R. (1988). “Observed
simulate to measured yield displacement is 31%); this is Stress-Strain Behaviour of Confined Concrete,” Journal of
consistent with the results of previous research by the authors Structural Engineering, ASCE 114(8): 1827-1849.
and others and attributed to variability of shrinkage cracking
observed in laboratory test specimens. Mehta, P.K., Monteiro, P.J.M. (1993). Concrete Structure,
Properties and Materials. Prentice-Hall.
References
Mohr, D. (2007). “Nonlinear analysis and performance based
ACI Committee 318, and American Concrete Institute. 2011. design methods for reinforced concrete coupled shear walls,”
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI MS thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
318-11) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2007.
Concrete Institute.
Nakamura, H., Higai, T. (2001). “Compressive Fracture
ACI Committee 318, and American Concrete Institute. 2014. Energy and Fracture Zone Length of Concrete,” Modeling of
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI Inelastic Behavior of RC Structures Under Seismic Loads, Eds.
318-14) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Shing, P.B. and Tanabe, T., Reston, VA: ASCE.
Concrete Institute.
Oesterle, R., Aristizabal-Ochoa, A, Carpenter, J., Russell, H.,
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2010). “Modeling and Corley, W. (1976). Earthquake resistant structural walls -
acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall tests of isolated walls, Portland Cement Association/National
buildings,” Prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Tech. Rep. No.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Redwood NSF/RA-760815.
City, California, Tech. Rep. Report No. PEER/ATC-72-1.
Oh, Y.-H., Han, S.W., Lee, L.-H. (2002). “Effect of Boundary
Birely, A.C. (2012), “Seismic performance of slender Element Details on the Seismic Deformation Capacity of
reinforced concrete walls,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Structural Walls.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Dynamics 31(8): 1583–1602.
Seattle, WA.
Palermo, D., Vecchio, F. (2002). “Behavior and analysis of
Chiaramonte, M.M. (2011). “An analysis of conventional and reinforced concrete walls subjected to reversed cyclic
improved marginal wharves” MS Thesis. University of loading,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle. 217 p. Toronto, Toronto, ON, Tech. Rep. ISBN 0-7727-7553-02,
Publication No. 2002-01, 2002
Coleman, J. and Spacone, E. (2001). “Localization issued in
force-based frame elements,” Journal of Structural Panthaki, F.D. (1991). “Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of High
Engineering, ASCE 127(11): 1257–1265. Strength and Ordinary Reinforcing Steels.” MS Thesis.
Buffalo: State University of New York.
Comite Euro-International du Beton (1993) CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990. Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N. (1992). Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley and
Dazio, A., Beyer, K. Bachmann, H. (2009). “Quasi-Static Sons.
Cyclic Tests and Plastic Hinge Analysis of RC Structural
Walls,” Engineering Structures 31(7): 1556–71. Pugh, J.S., Lowes, L.N., Lehman, D.E. (2015). “Nonlinear
line-element modeling of flexural reinforced concrete walls,”
Jansen D., Shah, S. (1997). “Effect of length on compressive Engineering Structures 104: 174-192.
strain softening of concrete,” ASCE Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 123(1): 25–35.

16
Wallace, J.W., Thomsen J.H., (1995). “Seismic Design of RC
Structural Walls. Part II: Applications.” Journal of Structural
Engineering 121(1): 88–101.

Tran, T.A. (2012). “Experimental and Analytical Studies of

Moderate Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Structural
Walls.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles.

Whitman, Z. (2015) “Investigation of Seismic Failure Modes

in Flexural Concrete Walls Using Finite Element Analysis,”
MS Thesis, University of Washington.

17

View publication stats