1 ESTIMATING DRIFT CAPACITY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

2 STRUCTURAL WALLS

3 Aishwarya Puranam, Ying Wang, and Santiago Pujol

4 Biography: ACI member Aishwarya Puranam is a Graduate Student in the School of Civil

5 Engineering at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. She received her BS and MS in Civil

6 Engineering from Purdue University in 2013 and 2016, respectively.

7 Ying Wang is a Structural Engineer at WSP Global in New York, NY. She received her

8 Masters and PhD from Purdue University in 2011 and 2014 respectively.

9 ACI Fellow Santiago Pujol is a Professor in the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue

10 University. He is a member of ACI Committees 133, Disaster Reconnaissance; 314,

11 Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings; and ACI Subcommittee 318-R, High-Strength

12 Reinforcement; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. He received his

13 BSCE from National University of Colombia, Bogota, Colombia, in 1996, and his MSCE and

14 PhD from Purdue University in 1997 and 2002, respectively.

15 ABSTRACT

16 Methods to proportion special reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls are based on the

17 assumption that, unless shear failure, bond failure, or out-of-plane wall buckling control,

18 deformation capacity is limited by: 1) the ability of concrete to deform in compression, and 2)

19 the height of the region in which plastic deformations concentrate near the base of the wall.

20 Reliable means to estimate these properties are not available. Additionally, failure in a wall is

21 not always controlled by compression in the concrete as bar buckling can also limit capacity.

22 The height of the zone in which inelastic compression deformations concentrate is radically

23 different from the length along which tension reinforcement yields. Moreover, estimates of
1
 1 drift capacity obtained on the basis of conventional assumptions deviate by large margins from

2 laboratory test results. In this investigation, four methods to estimate the drift capacity of RC

3 walls controlled by flexure were evaluated using results of 51 wall tests and a specific

4 recommendation is provided.

5 Keywords: structural walls; drift capacity; plastic hinge; bar buckling; inelastic curvatures

6 INTRODUCTION

7 The conventional approach to estimate drift capacity is based on the assumption that inelastic

8 curvatures concentrate in a “hinging” region (Blume et al, 1961). This approach, often called

9 the “plastic hinge method”, assumes that unless the wall is vulnerable to shear failure or bond

10 failure, the limiting condition is associated with crushing of concrete in compression. It does

11 not account for effects of longitudinal reinforcement buckling and cyclic loading. It also

12 assumes uniform distribution of compressive strains over the “hinging” region. This approach

13 has been widely accepted and implemented to estimate drift capacity but there are no reliable

14 means to estimate: 1) the limiting compressive strain of concrete (𝜀𝑐𝑢 ) at which the capacity is

15 calculated or 2) the length of the region (𝑙𝑝 ) in which plastic deformations concentrate near the

16 base of the wall.

17 Limiting concrete strain of 0.003 has been typically used for design and is known to

18 have produced acceptable lower-bound estimates of drift capacity. But much larger values of

19 𝜀𝑐𝑢 have been observed in experimental tests (Thomsen and Wallace, 2004; Dazio, 2009;

20 Takahashi et al., 2013 and Villalobos Fernandez, 2014). There is also ambiguity involved in

21 estimating 𝑙𝑝 . Initial calibrations using data from beams suggested that 𝑙𝑝 was half of the

22 effective depth (Corley, 1966). Wallace and Moehle (1992) suggested 𝑙𝑝 varies between 0.5𝑙𝑤

23 and 𝑙𝑤 . Takahashi et al. (2013) suggested that compressive strains in the boundary element
2
 1 concentrate in a small region near the wall base. The height of this region is estimated to be 2.5

2 times the smaller of wall thickness and neutral axis depth.

3 Furthermore, observations made in Chile (Wallace et al, 2012) and laboratory

4 experiments (Escolano-Margarit et al., 2012) indicate that the height of the zone in which

5 inelastic compression deformations concentrate is radically different from the length along

6 which tension reinforcement yields.

7 The availability of a large quantity of recent experimental programs, which used dense

8 arrays of sensors, has facilitated better understanding of the behavior of structural walls

9 (Ghorbani-Renani, 2009; Dazio, 2009; Liu, 2009; Johnson, 2010; Tran, 2012; Takahashi et al.

10 2013; Villalobos Fernandez, 2014; and Wang, 2014). This investigation evaluates four methods

11 to estimate the deformation capacity of RC structural walls controlled by flexure, using

12 experimental test results.

13 Drift capacity of walls was estimated using: 1) a formulation based on concentration of

14 inelastic curvatures in the “hinging” region (Blume et al, 1961), 2) a formulation proposed by

15 Takahashi et al. (2013), 3) a formulation related to the susceptibility of longitudinal reinforcing

16 bars to buckle under load reversals proposed by Wang (2014), and 4) a formulation proposed

17 by Berry and Eberhard (2005) to estimate drift capacity of columns at the onset of bar buckling.

18 These four methods are used to compute flexural deformations, ignoring slip and shear

19 deformations. More involved methods to produce drift ratio estimates might be available, but

20 the focus of this study is on methods that do not require help from iterative algorithms.

21 Experimental test data of 51 structural walls with rectangular and I-shaped cross-

22 sections were used. The data were obtained from the ACI 445B Shear Wall Database which is

23 a compilation of experimental test data of RC structural walls subjected to lateral load.

24 Experimental results such as the maximum base shear and drift capacity were obtained from
3
 1 the load-deflection response curves. Drift capacity of walls estimated using the four methods

2 listed was compared with the measured values. The focus of this paper is on failures caused by

3 1) crushing of concrete in compression, and 2) buckling of longitudinal reinforcement. The

4 experimental results used were selected to exclude other types of failures. Other failure modes

5 observed in the field (Sritharan et al. 2014) including wall out-of-plane buckling and

6 reinforcement fracture are not considered here. This paper presents an alternative method to

7 estimate drift capacity of structural walls. In the design of structures to resist earthquake

8 demands, the designer can compare the estimated capacity with estimates of displacement

9 demand which are related to ground motion intensity and structural stiffness (and go beyond

10 the scope of the paper).

11 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

12 Predicting the drift capacity of structural walls is challenging. The conventional method to

13 compute drift capacity is based on crushing of concrete in the compression zone. Experimental

14 tests and observations from buildings damaged in earthquakes have shown that, among other

15 factors, bar buckling can be as detrimental to wall response as concrete crushing. The findings

16 of this study are helpful in estimating lower bound drift capacities of structural walls.

17 ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION

18 Experimental Test Data

19 Test results of 428 RC structural walls are summarized in the ACI 445B Structural Wall

20 Database. The database is available at https://datacenterhub.org/resources/142. Data are

21 divided into three main categories: 1) overall geometry 2) reinforcement details and material

4
 1 properties, and 3) loading information and test results. Walls for which information from all

2 three categories were available are considered here.

3 The following expressions were used to develop moment-curvature relationships for

4 the walls. A stress-strain relationship defined by Eq.1 and Eq.2 was used for longitudinal

5 steel reinforcement:

6 𝑓𝑠 = 𝐸𝜀𝑠 for 0 < 𝜀𝑠 < 𝜀𝑦 (1)

𝑓𝑢 −𝑓𝑦
7 𝑓𝑠 = 𝐸𝜀𝑦 + (𝜀 ) (𝜀𝑠 − 𝜀𝑠ℎ ) for 𝜀𝑠 > 𝜀𝑦 (2)
𝑢 −𝜀𝑠ℎ

8 Where 𝑓𝑠 = unit stress in steel rebar, 𝜀𝑠 = unit strain in steel rebar, 𝜀𝑦 = yield strain in steel rebar,

9 e sh = strain at start of strain hardening, taken as5𝜀𝑦 , 𝜀𝑢 = ultimate strain of steel rebar, taken as

10 0.15 if data were not available, and 𝐸= modulus of elasticity of steel rebar taken as 29,000 ksi.

11 Expressions by Hognestad (1951) were used to generate the stress-strain relationship for

12 concrete:

𝜀 𝜀 2
13 𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐′′ [2 𝜀𝑐 − (𝜀𝑐 ) ] for 0 < 𝜀𝑐 < 𝜀0 (3)
0 0

𝜀 −𝜀
14 𝑓𝑐 = 𝑓𝑐′′ [1 − 0.0038−𝜀
𝑐 0
0.15] for 𝜀0 ≤ 𝜀𝑐 ≤ 0.004 (4)
0

15 where 𝑓𝑐 = Unit stress in concrete, 𝜀𝑐 = unit strain in concrete, 𝑓𝑐′′ = 0.85 times the reported

2𝑓𝑐′′
16 cylinder compressive strength of concrete, and 𝜀0 = . The elastic modulus of concrete was
𝐸𝑐

17 calculated as 𝐸𝑐 = 57000√𝑓𝑐′ for 𝑓𝑐′ in psi. Tensile strength of concrete was neglected.

18 The limiting compressive strain of concrete (𝜀𝑐𝑢 ) was taken as 0.004. Neutral axis depth

19 was estimated using equilibrium and assuming strain is proportional to distance to neutral axis.

20 Flexural capacity was estimated by summing the moments of the forces about the midpoint of

21 the wall cross-section (𝑙𝑤 ⁄2)and assuming the line of action of axial load passes through that

22 point.
5
 1 A subgroup of 51 slender structural walls subjected to lateral load reversals and inferred

2 to have failed in flexure was selected for this analysis. The following criteria were used to

3 select the walls:

4 1) Height to length ratio of at least two (hw/lw > 2)

𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∗ℎ
5 2) Reached at least 80% of the calculated flexural capacity ( ≥ 0.8)
𝑀𝑛

6 3) Shear strength estimated using ACI 318-14 was larger than the maximum shear force

7 applied during the test (Vmax > Vn)

8 4) Failure modes including out-of-plane wall buckling, shear failure, and fracture of

9 longitudinal reinforcement was not reported by the researchers

10 Load-deflection response curves of specimens meeting the criteria mentioned above were

11 examined to exclude cases in which a sudden drop in load occurred prior to flexural yielding

12 (indicating the possibility of shear failure). A summary of the properties for these 51 walls is

13 presented in Tables 1-4. Figure 1 shows the calculated vs. measured flexural capacities for the

14 selected walls.

15 Measured drift capacity was extracted from measured load-deflection curves. Drift

16 capacity is defined as the drift at the intersection of horizontal line at 0.8𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 (Line A in Fig.

17 2) and the envelope to the load-deflection curve. 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the absolute maximum lateral force.

18 Drift ratio capacity is defined here as the ratio of drift capacity to wall height to loading point.

19 Drift capacity for the subgroup of 51 walls was estimated using four methods.

20 Method 1:

21 The conventional approach to estimate drift capacity is based on the assumption that

22 inelastic curvatures concentrate in a “hinging” region (Blume et al, 1961). This model has been

23 used to estimate drift capacity of walls by previous researchers (e.g. Wallace and Moehle, 1992;

6
 1 Thomsen and Wallace, 2004; Takahashi et al., 2013). The length over which inelastic curvature

2 is assumed to accumulate is commonly referred to as the length of the idealized plastic hinge

3 (𝑙𝑝 ). Plastic hinge lengths ranging from 0.5𝑙𝑤 to 𝑙𝑤 were considered here. Drift ratio capacity

4 (𝐷𝑅𝑢 ), defined as drift capacity divided by wall height, was estimated using Eq. 5a.

1 1 𝑙𝑝
5 𝐷𝑅𝑢 = ℎ [3 𝜑𝑦 ℎ2 + (𝜑𝑢 − 𝜑𝑦 )𝑙𝑝 (ℎ − 2 )] (5a)

𝜀𝑐𝑢
6 Where 𝜑𝑦 = curvature at flexural yielding, 𝜑𝑢 = limiting curvature ( ), 𝑙𝑝 = plastic hinge
𝑐

7 length, ℎ= wall height to loading point, 𝑐 = calculated neutral axis depth, and 𝜀𝑐𝑢 = limiting

8 concrete compressive strain.

9 Curvature at flexural yielding (𝜑𝑦 ) was obtained from calculated moment-curvature

10 relationships as the curvature at the intersection of the tangent to the cracked section and the

11 tangent at the point of maximum moment.

12 Fig. 3 shows drift ratio capacities calculated using Eq. 5a plotted against measured drift ratio

13 capacities.

14 Eq. 5b, a simplified version of Eq. 5a, was also used to estimate drift ratio capacity.

15 𝐷𝑅𝑢 = 𝜑𝑢 𝑙𝑝 (5b)

16 Fig. 4 shows drift ratio capacities calculated using Eq. 5b plotted against measured drift ratio

17 capacities.

18 Method 2:

19 Takahashi et al. (2013) proposed a method to calculate drift capacity of structural walls

20 based on test results of 10 RC wall specimens. Flexural drift ratio capacity was calculated using

21 Eq. 6, which is similar to Eq.5a:

22 𝐷𝑅𝑢 = 𝐷𝑅𝑦 + 𝐷𝑅𝑝 (6)

23 where 𝐷𝑅𝑦 and 𝐷𝑅𝑝 are the linear and plastic components of drift ratio capacity respectively.
7
 1
For a cantilever wall with one concentrated load at its free end, the linear component of Eq.6
2 is calculated using Eq. 7,
1
3 𝐷𝑅𝑦 = 3 𝜑𝑦 ℎ (7)

4 where 𝜑𝑦 = curvature at flexural yielding used in Method 1, ℎ= wall height to loading point

5 The second component of Eq. 6, related to plastic deformations, is calculated using Eq. 10:
𝜀𝑝
6 𝐷𝑅𝑝 = 𝑙𝑝 (8)
𝑐

7 𝜀𝑝 is defined as the plastic component of ultimate strain by Takahashi et al. (2013). In this

8 study, the value of curvature at a concrete compressive strain of 0.004 is used as the ratio of

9 𝜀𝑝 to c. Plastic hinge length 𝑙𝑝 is taken as 2.5 times the minimum of wall thickness (𝑡) and

10 neutral axis depth (𝑐). This recommendation for 𝑙𝑝 by Takahashi et al. (2013) was based on

11 uniaxial compression tests done by Markeset and Hillerborg in 1995. Fig. 5 shows drift ratio

12 capacities calculated using Eq. 6 plotted against measured drift ratio capacities.

13 Method 3:

14 A method to estimate limiting drift ratio of structural walls with longitudinal

15 reinforcement prone to buckling was proposed by Wang (2014). It is based on the idea that

16 buckling occurs when the ratio of tangential modulus of elasticity to compressive stress reaches

17 a critical value in longitudinal reinforcing bars.

18 From Euler’s work on buckling in 1757:

𝐸𝐼
19 𝑃𝑐𝑟 = 𝐶0 𝑙2 (9)

20 where 𝑃𝑐𝑟 = critical axial load, 𝐶0 = coefficient related to the restraint at bar ends, 𝑙= buckling

21 length, 𝐼 = moment of inertia of the bar, and 𝐸 = initial modulus of the bar.

8
 1 Engesser extended Euler’s expression to the non-linear range of response in 1889. Initial
𝜋
2 modulus (E) was replaced with tangential modulus (Et). For 𝐸 = 𝐸𝑡 and 𝐼 = 4 𝑟𝑏4 ,

𝑃𝑐𝑟 𝐸𝑡
3 = 𝜎𝑐𝑟 = 𝐶0 𝑙 (10)
𝐴𝑏 ( ⁄𝑟𝑏 )2

4 where 𝜎𝑐𝑟 = critical stress, 𝐴𝑏 = cross-sectional area of bar, 𝐸𝑡 = tangential modulus, 𝑟𝑏 = bar

5 radius (𝑑𝑏 /2), and 𝑙= buckling length.

6 Rearranging Eq.10 gives ratio of tangential modulus to critical stress expressed as a function

7 of the unsupported length, bar radius and coefficient 𝐶0 :

𝐸𝑡
8 = (𝑙⁄𝑟𝑏 )2 /𝐶0 (11)
𝜎𝑐𝑟

9 Bresler and Gilbert (1961) studied the variables influencing longitudinal bar buckling in

10 columns. They proposed an expression for minimum tie spacing in columns to prevent

11 longitudinal bar buckling at a stress below yield. Rodriguez et al. (1999) tried to determine a

12 relationship between tensile strain attained in a previous reversal and the conditions at the onset

13 of bar buckling. Wang (2014) suggested that bar buckling can be assumed to occur when the
𝐸𝑡
14 ratio of tangential modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing steel bars to compressive stress (𝜎 )
𝑚𝑖𝑛

𝐸𝑡
15 reaches a critical value. The ratio was inferred to decrease as the peak tensile strain
𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛

16 reached in a preceding cycle increased:

𝐸𝑡 1
17 = 4𝜀 − 1 (12)
𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛

18 A relationship between maximum tensile strain and maximum drift ratio was obtained by Wang

19 (2014) using strain measurements:

𝜀
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
1.5
20 𝐷𝑅 = { 𝜀 (13)
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
2.5

9
 1 𝐷𝑅 is the drift ratio ( drift divided by wall height) and 𝜀 is the maximum tensile strain in the

2 longitudinal reinforcing bar. Discontinuous longitudinal reinforcement refers to longitudinal

3 reinforcement with lap splices or bar cutoffs within the zone in which the reinforcement is

4 expected to yield.

5 Combining Eqs.11, 12 and 13

1
𝑙 2
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
( )
𝑟𝑏
6[ +1]
35

6 𝐷𝑅 = 1 (14)
𝑙 2
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
( )
𝑟𝑏
10[ +1]
35
{

7 where 𝑟𝑏 = bar radius (𝑑𝑏 /2) and 𝑙 = buckling length.

8 Using the recommendations and data reported in Takahashi et al. (2013) and Villalobos

9 (2014), Wang (2014) assumed the height of the region in which concrete may crush and

10 therefore the length over which bar buckling may occur (𝑙) to be the minimum of: 1) neutral

11 axis depth, 𝑐 and 2) width of the boundary element in compression, 𝑡. Neutral axis depth was

12 estimated at a concrete compressive strain of 0.004. Fig. 6 shows drift ratio capacities (DR)

13 calculated using Eq.14 plotted against measured drift ratio capacities.

14 Method 4:

15 A model to compute drift capacity at the onset of bar buckling in reinforced concrete

16 columns was proposed by Berry and Eberhard (2005). This model was calibrated using cyclic

17 tests of 62 columns with rectangular sections and 42 columns with circular sections. Although

18 the method was conceived and calibrated for columns, it is used to estimate the drift capacity

19 of walls here. Drift ratio at the onset of bar bulking is expressed in the following form:

−1
∆𝑏𝑏 𝜆 𝐿 𝑃 𝐿 𝑓𝑦 𝑑𝑏
20 = 3𝐸 𝑓𝑦 𝐷 + 𝐶0 (1 + 𝐶1 𝜌𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) (1 + 𝐶2 𝑓′ 𝐴 ) (1 + 𝐶3 𝐷 + 𝐶4 )) (15)
𝐿 𝑠 𝑐 𝑔 𝐷

10
 1 where 𝜆 = parameter for yield curvature approximation, 𝐸𝑠 = elastic modulus of longitudinal
2 reinforcement, 𝑓𝑦 = yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement, 𝐿= distance from the column
3 base to the point of contra-flexure, taken as wall height to loading point here, 𝐷= column
4 depth, taken as wall length here, 𝜌𝑒𝑓𝑓 = effective confinement ratio, 𝑃 = applied axial load, 𝐴𝑔
5 = gross area of column cross section, taken as gross area of wall cross section here, and 𝑓𝑐′ =
6 compressive strength of concrete. 𝐶0 , 𝐶1 , 𝐶2 , 𝐶3 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶4 are parameters used in deformation
7 approximations of rectangular reinforced columns as in Table 3 of Berry and Eberhard
8 (2005). The values of the parameters used here are: 𝐶0 = 1.47, 𝐶1 = 1.33, 𝐶2 = 1.88, 𝐶3 =
9 0.29, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶4 = 0.08.

Δ𝑏𝑏
10 Fig. 7 shows drift ratio capacities (𝐷𝑅 = ) calculated using Eq.15 plotted against
𝐿

11 measured drift ratio capacities.

12 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

13 Table 5 lists means and standard deviations of the ratio of calculated to measured

14 drift ratio capacity (𝐷𝑅) for the four formulations described in the previous section and all

15 the specimens listed in Table 1. Figures 3 through 7 show comparisons of calculated and

16 measured drift ratio capacities(𝐷𝑅). The most salient conclusion from these comparisons is

17 that the quality of the calculated drift capacities is not very good. The scatter in all these

18 comparisons makes it difficult to pick one formulation over the others.

19 It is interesting to note that the results from Eq. 5a and Eq. 5b are similar for all

20 “hinge” lengths considered. Eq. 5b is preferred over Eq.5a for estimating drift capacity as it

21 involves less computational effort while producing results of similar quality. The mismatch

22 between measured drift ratio capacity and estimates obtained using Eq.5a and 5b could be

23 due to: 1) concentration of inelastic deformations in concrete and 2) bar buckling. In 50% of

24 the studied walls, failure was reported to have been controlled by bar buckling and not by

25 concrete crushing. The quality of the results obtained using Eq.5a and 5b did not improve
11
 1 upon considering the effects of confinement using the formulation proposed by Roy and

2 Sozen (1965).

3 It is also interesting to note that the quality of the results does not increase

4 dramatically when the formulations by Wang (2014, Eq. 14) and Berry and Eberhard (2005,

5 Eq. 15), which were calibrated to take bar buckling into account, are used exclusively for

6 walls in which bar buckling was observed (Table 4).

7 The ratio of calculated to measured drift ratio was observed to be nearly insensitive to

8 variations in axial load ratio and longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios.

9 After a careful examination of the available data and the strengths of the formulations

10 studied (Table 5), a reasonable lower bound to wall drift ratio capacity was obtained by using

11 the minimum between Eq. 5b (with 𝑙𝑝 = 3𝑙𝑤 /4 ) and Eq. 16 (Fig. 8). This compromise also

12 happens to produce the smallest standard deviation in the ratio of calculated to measured drift

13 ratio capacity and a mean of approximately 1/2 (Table 5). The inferences made apply only

14 within the ranges defined by the maxima and minima listed in Tables 1 through 4. It should

15 also be noted that 1) roof drift ratio is smaller than maximum inter-story drift ratio, especially

16 in the linear range of response and 2) roof drift ratio exceeding 2% is undesirable for many

17 reasons including P-delta effects and safety of contents.

18

19 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

20 A subgroup of 51 RC walls was selected from a structural wall database compiled by

21 ACI Committee 445B comprising experimental data from 428 structural wall tests. The

22 selected test walls were inferred to have failed in flexure and had height-to-length ratios of at

12
 1 least two. Measured drift capacity, defined in Fig. 2, was extracted from reported load-

2 deflection curves. Drift capacity of walls was estimated using four methods.

3 The conventional approach (Eq.5a) was used to estimate drift ratio capacity, assuming

4 a limiting compressive concrete strain of 0.004:

1 1 𝑙𝑝
5 𝐷𝑅𝑢 = ℎ [3 𝜑𝑦 ℎ2 + (𝜑𝑢 − 𝜑𝑦 )𝑙𝑝 (ℎ − 2 )] (5a)

6 A simplified version of Eq.5a was also used to estimate drift ratio capacity:

7 𝐷𝑅𝑢 = 𝜑𝑢 𝑙𝑝 (5b)

8 Plastic hinge lengths ranging from 0.5 𝑙𝑤 to 𝑙𝑤 were considered. Drift ratio capacity(𝐷𝑅)

9 defined as maximum roof drift divided by wall height, estimated using Eq. 5b involved less

10 computational effort and produced results similar to those obtained using Eq.5a. In both cases,

11 no perceptible trend was observed between calculated and measured DR. The mismatch

12 between measured and computed drift capacity could be a consequence of the difficulties

13 associated with estimating 𝜀𝑐𝑢 and 𝑙𝑝 . It may also be related to the fact that, in 50% of the

14 studied walls, failure was reported to have been controlled by bar buckling and not by concrete

15 crushing as assumed in Eq.5a and Eq.5b.

16 Drift capacity of walls was also estimated using formulations proposed by Takahashi

17 et al. (2013) and Berry and Eberhard (2005) (Eq.6 and Eq.15) and a formulation proposed by

18 Wang (2014) (Eq. 14):

1
𝑙 2
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
( )
𝑟𝑏
6[ +1]
35

19 𝐷𝑅 = 1 (16)
𝑙 2
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
( )
𝑟𝑏
10[ +1]
35
{

13
 1 Eq.14 was derived assuming that failure in a structural wall is controlled by bar

2 buckling. Bar buckling is assumed to occur when the ratio of compressive stress to tangential

3 modulus of elasticity reaches a critical value. This ratio was inferred to decrease as the peak

4 tensile strain reached in a preceding cycle increased. These inferences imply that the likelihood

5 of bar buckling increases as the number of displacement cycles after flexural yielding increase.

6 It was concluded that drift limit (maximum drift divided by wall height) of a structural

7 wall governed by flexure and restrained against wall buckling may be conservatively estimated

8 as the smaller of:

9 1) The product of limiting curvature and 3/4 of wall length (Eq. 5b) and,

10 2) The limit proposed here (Eq.14) and related to the susceptibility of reinforcing bars to buckle

11 under load reversals. The inferences made apply only within the ranges defined by the maxima

12 and minima listed in Tables 1 through 4.

13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

14 The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Rautenberg, Xilin Lu, Ying Zhou, Juhua Yang, Jiang

15 Qian and Cheng Song for helping compile and process the experimental data.

16 NOTATION

17 𝐴𝑠 Cross section area of the longitudinal reinforcement

18 𝐴𝑏 Area of bar

19 𝐴𝑠𝑡 Gross sectional area of all longitudinal bars in tension

20 𝐴𝑠𝑐 Gross sectional area of all longitudinal bars in compression

21 𝑐 Neutral axis depth

22 𝐶 Compressive force of concrete

23 𝐶𝑜 Coefficient related to the restraint of the bar ends (Wang 2014)

14
 1 𝑑 Effective depth

2 D Column depth (taken as length of the wall in this analysis)

3 𝐷𝑅 Drift ratio capacity

4 𝐷𝑅𝑦 Elastic component of drift ratio capacity

5 𝐷𝑅𝑝 Plastic component of drift ratio capacity

6 𝐸 Modulus of elasticity of steel rebar

7 𝐸𝑡 Tangential modulus

8 𝑓𝑐 Concrete stress

9 𝑓𝑐′ 28-day concrete compressive stress

10 𝑓𝑐′′ 0.85 fc'

11 𝑓𝑠 Unit stress in steel rebar

12 𝑓𝑢 Ultimate stress of longitudinal reinforcement

13 𝑓𝑦 Yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement

14 ℎ Wall height

15 𝐼 Moment of intertia

16 𝑙 Buckling length

17 𝑙𝑝 Plastic hinge length

18 𝑙𝑤 Wall length

19 L Distance from the column base to the point of contra flexure (Berry and Eberhard 2005)

20 taken as wall height to load point here

21 𝑀𝑛 Nominal flexural capacity

22 P, N Applied axial load

23 𝑃𝑐𝑟 Critical axial load

15
 1 𝑟𝑏 Radius of bar ( db / 2 )

2 t Wall width (thickness)

3 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum total lateral force

4 𝛽1 Factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular compressive stress (as defined by ACI

5 318)

6 𝜀 Maximum tensile strain

7 𝜀𝑐 Concrete strain

8 𝜀𝑐𝑢 Limiting concrete strain

9 𝜀0 Concrete strain at peak stress

10 𝜀𝑝 Plastic component of ultimate strain

11 𝜀𝑠 Unit strain in steel rebar

12 𝜀𝑦 Yield strain in steel rebar

13 𝜆 Parameter for yield curvature approximation

14 𝜑𝑢 Limiting curvature

15 𝜑𝑦 Curvature at flexural yielding

16 𝜌𝑒𝑓𝑓 Effective confinement ratio (Berry and Eberhard 2005)

17 𝜎𝑐𝑟 Critical stress

18

19 REFERENCES

20 1. Berry, M.P., and Eberhard, M.O., (2005), “Practical Performance Model for Bar

21 Buckling”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 7, July 2005, pp.1060-

22 1070.

16
 1 2. Blume, J.A., Newmark, N.M., and Corning, L.H. (1961), Design of Multistory Reinforced

2 Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,

3 Illinois.

4 3. Bresler, B., and Gilbert, P.H., (1961), “Tie Requirements for Reinforced Concrete

5 Columns”

6 4. Escolano-Margarit, D., Klenke, A., Pujol, S., and Benavent-Climent, A. (2012), “Failure

7 Mechanism of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls with and without Confinement”

8 Proceedings of the Fifteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa.

9 5. Rodriguez, M.E., Botero, J.C., and Villa, J. (1999) “Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior of

10 Reinforcing Steel Including Effect of Buckling” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

11 Vol. 125, No. 6, June 1999, pp. 605-612.

12 6. Roy, H.E.H., and Sozen, M.A., (1965), “Ductility of Concrete”, Flexural Mechanics of

13 Reinforced Concrete, pp. 213-235.

14 7. Sritharan, S., Beyer, K., Henry, R.S., Chai, Y.H., Kowalsky, M., and Bull, D. (2014),

15 “Understanding Poor Seismic Performance of Concrete Walls and Design Implications”,

16 Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2014, pp. 307-334.

17 8. Takahashi, S., Yoshida, K., Ichinose, T., Sanada, Y., Matsumoto, K., Fukuyama, H., and

18 Suwada,H. (2013), “Flexural Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Wall with Limited

19 Confinement”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 1, January 2013, pp. 95-104.

20 9. Thomsen, J.H. IV, and Wallace, J.W. (2004), “Displacement-based design of slender

21 reinforced concrete structural walls – experimental verification,” Journal of Structural

22 Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, April 2004, pp. 618–630.

17
 1 10. Wallace, J.W., Massone, L.M., Bonelli, P., Dragovich, J., Lagos, R., Lüders, C., and

2 Moehle, J. (2012), “Damage and Implications for Seismic Design of RC Structural Wall

3 Buildings”, Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol. 28, No. S1, June 2012, pp. S281-S299.

4 11. Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P. (1992), “Ductility and Detailing Requirements of Bearing

5 Wall Buildings”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 6, 1625-1644.

6 12. Wang, Y. (2014), “ Effects of Web Reinforcement Discontinuities on the Seismic Response

7 of Structural Walls” Ph.D Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West

8 Lafayette, IN.

9 13. Song, C., Wang, Y., Puranam, A., and Pujol, S. (2015), "ACI 445B Shear Wall Database,"

10 <https://datacenterhub.org/resources/142> (August 26 2015)

11 TABLES AND FIGURES

12 List of Tables:

13 Table 1 – Overall Geometry

14 Table 2 – Reinforcement Ratio and Concrete Properties

15 Table 3 – Reinforcement Properties

16 Table 4 – Loading Conditions and Test Results

17 Table 5 – Comparison of Results

18
19 List of Figures:

20 Fig. 1 – Estimated vs. Measured Flexural Capacity for the subgroup of 51 walls selected

21 Fig. 2– Definition of Measured Drift Capacity

22 Fig. 3 – Measured DR vs. DR Calculated Using Eq.5a

23 Fig. 4 – Measured DR vs. DR Calculated Using Eq.5b

24 Fig. 5 – Measured DR vs. DR Calculated using Formulation (Eq.6) by Takahashi et al. (2013)
18
 1 Fig. 6 – Measured DR vs. DR Calculated using Formulation (Eq.14) by Wang (2014)

2 Fig. 7 – Measured DR vs. DR Calculated using Formulation (Eq.15) by Berry and Eberhard

3 (2005)

4 Fig.8 – Measured DR vs. DR Calculated only for Walls in which Bar Buckling was observed

3lw
5 Fig.9 – Measured DR vs. Minimum of DR calculated using Eq.5b ( l p = ) and Formulation
4

6 (Eq.14) by Wang (2014)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

19
1 Table 1- Overall Geometry
Height
Wall Web
to load Aspect Shape of
Author Specimen Label Length Thickness
pts ratio Section
(mm) (mm)
(mm)
Wang (2014) W1 1067 254 4.2 51 I
Wang (2014) W2 1067 254 4.2 51 I
Wang (2014) W3 1067 254 4.2 51 I
Wang (2014) W4 1067 254 4.2 51 I
Wang (2014) W5 1067 254 4.2 51 I
Wang (2014) W6 1067 254 4.2 51 I
Thomsen et al. (1995) RW1 3810 1219 3.1 102 R
Thomsen et al. (1995) RW2 3810 1219 3.1 102 R
Ji (2002) Ji_SW2 3000 1000 3.0 60 I
Zhou (2004) Zhou_SW1 2350 900 2.6 75 R
Zhou (2004) Zhou_SW2 2350 900 2.6 75 R
Liu et al. (2009) M05C 2540 1016 2.5 76 I
Liu et al. (2009) M10C 2540 1016 2.5 76 I
Liu et al. (2009) M15C 2540 1016 2.5 76 I
Liu et al. (2009) M20C 2540 1016 2.5 76 I
Alarcon et al. (2014) W1 1750 700 2.5 100 R
Alarcon et al. (2014) W2 1750 700 2.5 100 R
Alarcon et al. (2014) W3 1750 700 2.5 100 R
Hube et al. (2014) W4 1750 700 2.5 75 R
Hube et al. (2014) W6 1750 700 2.5 100 R
Hube et al. (2014) W7 1750 700 2.5 100 R
Hube et al. (2014) W8 1750 700 2.5 100 R
Hube et al. (2014) W9 1750 700 2.5 100 R
Oesterle et al. (1976) R1 4572 1905 2.4 102 R
Oesterle et al. (1976) B1 4572 1905 2.4 102 I
Oesterle et al. (1976) B3 4572 1905 2.4 102 I
Oesterle et al. (1976) B2 4572 1905 2.4 102 I
Oesterle et al. (1976) B5 4572 1905 2.4 102 I
Oesterle et al. (1979) B6 4572 1905 2.4 102 I
Oesterle et al. (1979) B8 4572 1905 2.4 102 I
Oesterle et al. (1979) B10 4572 1905 2.4 102 I
Dazio et al. (2009) WSH1 4560 2000 2.3 150 R
Dazio et al. (2009) WSH2 4560 2000 2.3 150 R
Dazio et al. (2009) WSH3 4560 2000 2.3 150 R
Dazio et al. (2009) WSH4 4560 2000 2.3 150 R
Dazio et al. (2009) WSH5 4560 2000 2.3 150 R
Dazio et al. (2009) WSH6 4520 2000 2.3 150 R
Villalobos (2014) WMCC 3315 1524 2.2 203 R
Villalobos (2014) WMCN 3315 1524 2.2 203 R
Villalobos (2014) W60N 3315 1524 2.2 203 R
Villalobos (2014) W60C 3315 1524 2.2 203 R
Villalobos (2014) W40C 3315 1524 2.2 203 R
Villalobos (2014) W60N2 3315 1524 2.2 203 R
Zhang et al. (2000) SW7 1500 700 2.1 100 R
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009) B2C 1140 548 2.1 84 R
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009) A2C 2700 1300 2.1 200 R
Tran (2012) RW-A20-P10-S38 2438 1219 2.0 152 R
Tran (2012) RW-A20-P10-S63 2438 1219 2.0 152 R
Johnson (2010) RWN 6096 2286 2.7 152 R
Johnson (2010) RWC 6096 2286 2.7 152 R
Johnson (2010) RWS 6096 2286 2.7 152 R
Maxima 6096 3327 4 203 -
Minima 1067 254 2 51 -
2
20
1 Table 2- Reinforcement Ratio and Concrete Properties
2
Boundary
Web Boundary Web Transverse Concrete
Transverse
Author-Specimen Label Longitudinal Longitudinal Reinforcement Compressive
Reinf. Ratio
Reinf. Ratio Reinf. Ratio Ratio Strength (MPa)
(Volume)
Wang (2014)-W1 0.79% 2.80% 0.48% 0.00% 34.7
Wang (2014)-W2 0.79% 2.80% 0.48% 0.00% 34.7
Wang (2014)-W3 0.79% 2.80% 0.48% 0.00% 32.1
Wang (2014)-W4 0.79% 2.80% 0.48% 0.00% 30.8
Wang (2014)-W5 0.79% 2.80% 0.48% 0.00% 30.1
Wang (2014)-W6 0.79% 2.80% 0.48% 0.00% 28.8
Thomsen et al. (1995)-RW1 0.30% 2.93% 0.33% 0.90% 42.1
Thomsen et al. (1995)-RW2 0.30% 2.93% 0.33% 1.00% 39.1
Ji (2002)-Ji_SW2 0.40% 4.70% 0.40% 3.30% 9.0
Zhou (2004)-Zhou_SW1 0.70% 3.72% 0.84% 1.90% 25.4
Zhou (2004)-Zhou_SW2 0.70% 3.72% 0.84% 1.90% 25.4
Liu et al. (2009)-M05C 1.47% 5.55% 1.84% 2.30% 42.3
Liu et al. (2009)-M10C 1.47% 5.55% 1.84% 2.30% 51.8
Liu et al. (2009)-M15C 1.47% 5.30% 1.84% 3.60% 73.7
Liu et al. (2009)-M20C 1.47% 5.55% 2.45% 2.30% 120.3
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W1 0.72% 0.45% 0.44% 0.00% 26.0
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W2 0.72% 0.45% 0.44% 0.00% 26.0
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W3 0.72% 0.45% 0.44% 0.00% 26.0
Hube et al. (2014)-W4 0.67% 0.49% 0.46% 0.00% 26.0
Hube et al. (2014)-W6 1.34% 0.00% 0.44% 0.00% 26.0
Hube et al. (2014)-W7 0.72% 0.45% 0.44% 0.00% 26.0
Hube et al. (2014)-W8 0.72% 0.45% 0.64% 1.16% 26.0
Hube et al. (2014)-W9 0.72% 0.45% 0.56% 0.00% 26.0
Oesterle et al. (1976)-R1 0.25% 1.47% 0.31% 0.00% 42.5
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B1 0.29% 1.11% 0.31% 0.00% 50.4
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B3 0.29% 1.11% 0.31% 1.28% 44.9
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B2 0.29% 3.67% 0.63% 0.00% 50.9
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B5 0.29% 3.67% 0.63% 1.35% 43.0
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B6 0.29% 3.67% 0.63% 0.81% 20.7
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B8 0.29% 3.67% 1.38% 1.35% 39.9
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B10 0.29% 1.97% 0.63% 1.35% 43.3
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH1 0.30% 1.32% 0.25% 1.20% 42.8
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH2 0.30% 1.32% 0.25% 1.20% 38.5
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH3 0.54% 1.54% 0.25% 0.80% 37.2
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH4 0.54% 1.54% 0.25% 0.30% 38.9
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH5 0.27% 0.67% 0.25% 0.90% 36.4
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH6 0.54% 1.54% 0.25% 1.60% 43.3
Villalobos (2014)-WMCC 0.40% 4.90% 0.55% 1.23% 29.2
Villalobos (2014)-WMCN 0.40% 4.90% 0.55% 0.00% 28.8
Villalobos (2014)-W60N 0.40% 4.90% 0.55% 0.00% 32.1
Villalobos (2014)-W60C 0.40% 4.90% 0.55% 1.23% 29.8
Villalobos (2014)-W40C 0.40% 4.90% 0.55% 1.23% 29.5
Villalobos (2014)-W60N2 0.40% 4.90% 0.55% 0.00% 30.1
Zhang et al. (2000)-SW7 0.67% 0.88% 1.01% 2.30% 27.6
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009)-B2C 0.71% 3.56% 0.67% 2.10% 39.5
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009)-A2C 0.59% 4.03% 0.59% 2.10% 23.8
Tran (2012)-RW-A20-P10-S38 0.27% 3.23% 0.27% 2.00% 44.7
Tran (2012)-RW-A20-P10-S63 0.61% 7.11% 0.61% 2.00% 46.2
Johnson (2010)-RWN 0.39% 4.41% 0.49% 2.18% 57.0
Johnson (2010)-RWC 0.39% 4.41% 0.49% 2.18% 52.9
Johnson (2010)-RWS 0.39% 4.41% 0.49% 2.18% 52.9
Maxima 1.97% 9.70% 2.45% 6.24% 120.3
Minima 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.0

21
1 Table 3- Reinforcement Properties
Yield stress of Yield stress of Ultimate stress of
Ultimate stress of
Author-Specimen Label longitudinal horizontal reinf. horizontal reinf.
longitudinal reinf. (MPa)
reinf. (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Wang (2014)-W1 552 676 572 614
Wang (2014)-W2 552 676 572 614
Wang (2014)-W3 552 676 572 614
Wang (2014)-W4 552 676 572 614
Wang (2014)-W5 552 676 572 614
Wang (2014)-W6 552 676 572 614
Thomsen et al. (1995)-RW1 434 641 448 586
Thomsen et al. (1995)-RW2 434 641 448 586
Ji (2002)-Ji_SW2 365 502 453 501
Zhou (2004)-Zhou_SW1 527 560 345 465
Zhou (2004)-Zhou_SW2 527 560 345 465
Liu et al. (2009)-M05C 447 671 458 703
Liu et al. (2009)-M10C 448 672 545 729
Liu et al. (2009)-M15C 439 704 503 755
Liu et al. (2009)-M20C 446 698 443 716
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W1 469 675 609 668
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W2 469 675 609 668
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W3 469 675 609 668
Hube et al. (2014)-W4 469 675 524 576
Hube et al. (2014)-W6 445 599 609 668
Hube et al. (2014)-W7 469 675 609 668
Hube et al. (2014)-W8 469 675 609 668
Hube et al. (2014)-W9 469 675 609 668
Oesterle et al. (1976)-R1 511 765 522 699
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B1 449 708 520 695
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B3 437 694 479 658
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B2 410 694 532 700
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B5 444 733 502 671
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B6 440 732 511 675
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B8 447 745 482 728
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B10 447 746 475 632
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH1 547 620 584 601
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH2 583 747 485 535
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH3 601 725 489 552
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH4 576 675 519 559
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH5 584 714 519 559
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH6 576 675 519 559
Villalobos (2014)-WMCC 462 655 531 683
Villalobos (2014)-WMCN 462 655 531 683
Villalobos (2014)-W60N 462 655 531 683
Villalobos (2014)-W60C 462 655 531 683
Villalobos (2014)-W40C 462 655 531 683
Villalobos (2014)-W60N2 469 668 455 710
Zhang et al. (2000)-SW7 405 607 305
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009)-B2C 450 597 450 594
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009)-A2C 437 626 452 671
Tran (2012)-RW-A20-P10-S38 472 613 516 580
Tran (2012)-RW-A20-P10-S63 477 637 443 707
Johnson (2010)-RWN 464 634 * *
Johnson (2010)-RWC 464 634 * *
Johnson (2010)-RWS 464 634 * *
Maxima 601 765 806 1010
Minima 365 502 216 317
2 *Not reported (yield stress assumed to be 420MPa, Ultimate Stress assumed to be 600MPa)

22
1 Table 4- Loading Conditions and Test Results
Max. Base Shear Measured Roof Bar Buckling
Author-Specimen Label Axial Load Ratio
(kN) Drift Capacity (mm) Reported (yes/no)
Wang (2014)-W1 0.00 19 53 Y
Wang (2014)-W2 0.00 17 43 Y
Wang (2014)-W3 0.00 19 43 Y
Wang (2014)-W4 0.00 16 43 Y
Wang (2014)-W5 0.00 19 43 Y
Wang (2014)-W6 0.00 15 32 Y
Thomsen et al. (1995)-RW1 0.08 149 70 Y
Thomsen et al. (1995)-RW2 0.08 158 85 Y
Ji (2002)-Ji_SW2 0.27 117 56 N
Zhou (2004)-Zhou_SW1 0.23 140 46 N
Zhou (2004)-Zhou_SW2 0.00 155 47 N
Liu et al. (2009)-M05C 0.08 812 38 N
Liu et al. (2009)-M10C 0.07 747 43 N
Liu et al. (2009)-M15C 0.05 818 79 N
Liu et al. (2009)-M20C 0.03 815 76 N
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W1 0.16 144 48 Y
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W2 0.26 166 31 Y
Alarcon et al. (2014)-W3 0.37 186 27 Y
Hube et al. (2014)-W4 0.16 113 44 Y
Hube et al. (2014)-W6 0.16 138 34 Y
Hube et al. (2014)-W7 0.16 149 38 Y
Hube et al. (2014)-W8 0.16 156 44 Y
Hube et al. (2014)-W9 0.16 145 43 Y
Oesterle et al. (1976)-R1 0.00 118 108 Y
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B1 0.00 271 152 Y
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B3 0.00 276 203 Y
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B2 0.00 680 127 N
Oesterle et al. (1976)-B5 0.00 762 127 N
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B6 0.14 825 76 N
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B8 0.09 978 150 N
Oesterle et al. (1979)-B10 0.09 707 133 N
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH1 0.05 336 42 N
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH2 0.06 359 65 Y
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH3 0.06 454 93 Y
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH4 0.06 443 60 Y
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH5 0.14 439 60 Y
Dazio et al. (2009)-WSH6 0.11 597 95 Y
Villalobos (2014)-WMCC 0.10 703 100 Y
Villalobos (2014)-WMCN 0.10 694 83 Y
Villalobos (2014)-W60N 0.09 707 68 Y
Villalobos (2014)-W60C 0.10 721 85 Y
Villalobos (2014)-W40C 0.10 721 85 Y
Villalobos (2014)-W60N2 0.10 756 67 Y
Zhang et al. (2000)-SW7 0.26 201 32 N
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009)-B2C 0.00 82 25 N
Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009)-A2C 0.00 429 81 N
Tran (2012)-RW-A20-P10-S38 0.08 481 76 N
Tran (2012)-RW-A20-P10-S63 0.08 742 74 N
Johnson (2010)-RWN 0.00 1140 152 N
Johnson (2010)-RWC 0.00 838 241 N
Johnson (2010)-RWS 0.00 890 127 Y
Maxima 0.37 1140 241 -
Minima 0.00 15 25 -
23
1 Table 5- Comparison of Results
2
Assumed Plastic Calculated / Measured DR
Equation # Formulation / Source
Hinge Length Mean Stdev
All specimens
Conventional / Blume
5a 1961 Lw/2 0.49 0.26
2Lw/3 0.60 0.32
3Lw/4 0.66 0.35
Lw 0.79 0.43
Conventional / Blume
5b 1961 Lw/2 0.50 0.29
2Lw/3 0.66 0.38
3Lw/4 0.75 0.43
Lw 0.99 0.58
6 Takahashi 2013 NA 0.44 0.20
14 Wang 2014 NA 0.67 0.27
Berry and Eberhard
15 2005 NA 1.52 0.60
Min. of 5b Blume 1961 and Wang
and 14 2014 3Lw/4 0.5 0.17
Specimens for which bar buckling was reported
14 Wang 2014 NA 0.68 0.26
15 Berry 2005 NA 1.38 0.33
3

24
 5,000

4,500

4,000
Estimated Flexural Capacity, Mn (kip-ft)

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

1 Maximum Applied Moment (kip-ft)

2 Fig. 1– Estimated vs. Measured Flexural Capacity for the subgroup of 51 walls selected

4 Fig. 2– Definitions of Measured Drift Ratio at Yield and Drift Ratio Capacity

25
 6% 6%

5% 5%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

Measured Drift Capacity (%)

4% 4%

3% 3%

2% 2%

1% 1%

0% 0%
0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6%

Calculated Drift Capacity (%) Calculated Drift Capacity (%)

1

lw 2lw
3 a) l p = b) l p =
2 3

6% 6%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

Measured Drift Capacity (%)

5% 5%

4% 4%

3% 3%

2% 2%

1% 1%

0% 0%
0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%) Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
4

3lw
6 c) l p = d) l p = lw
4

7 Fig.3 – Measured DR vs. DR calculated using Eq.5a

8
26
 6% 6%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

Measured Drift Capacity (%)

5% 5%

4% 4%

3% 3%

2% 2%

1% 1%

0% 0%
0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%) Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
1

lw 2lw
3 a) l p = b) l p =
2 3

6% 6%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

Measured Drift Capacity (%)

5% 5%

4% 4%

3% 3%

2% 2%

1% 1%

0% 0%
0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%) Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
4

3lw
6 c) l p = d) l p = lw
4

7 Fig.4 – Measured DR vs. DR Calculated using Eq.5b

27
 6%

5%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
1

2 Fig. 5– Measured DR vs. DR Calculated using Formulation (Eq.6) by Takahashi (2013)

6%

5%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
3

4 Fig. 6–Measured DR vs. DR Calculated using Formulation (Eq.14) by Wang (2014)

28
 6%

5%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
1

2 Fig. 7– Measured DR vs. DR Calculated using Formulation (Eq.15) by Berry (2005)

29
 6%

5%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
1

2 a) Using Formulation (Eq.14) by Wang (2014)

6%

5%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
3

4 b) Using Formulation (Eq.15) by Berry (2005)

5 Fig. 8– Measured DR vs. Calculated DR for Walls in which Bar Buckling was observed
30
 6%

5%
Measured Drift Capacity (%)

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Calculated Drift Capacity (%)
1

3lw
2 Fig. 9– Measured DR vs. Minimum of DR calculated using Eq.5b ( l p = ) and Formulation
4

3 (Eq.14) by Wang (2014)

31