SIMULATING SEISMIC STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

SHEAR WALL BUILDINGS: AN INITIAL PILOT STUDY TO IDENTIFY MODELING

AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA NEEDS
Curt B. Haselton
Assistant Professor, California State University, Chico
Chico, California, USA
John Wallace
Professor, University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California, USA
Abstract
This paper presents an initial pilot study for collapse assessment of a 12-story reinforced concrete shear
wall core building. When attempting to directly model structural collapse of reinforced concrete shear
wall buildings, there are still significant issues to overcome, so this paper focuses on identifying
important questions with respect to analytical modeling approaches and the data needed to support future
development and validation. Available data for calibrating the flexural and shear responses of the
analytical models are summarized, followed by a discussion of data needs.
This preliminary collapse assessment of the 12-story shear wall building suggests that current United
States code-conforming shear wall buildings may be susceptible to shear failure, and may also be
susceptible to flexural damage, and possibly failure, in the upper stories of the building where the
confinement reinforcing is discontinued. These failures are typically assumed to produce collapse;
however, the lack of data makes this a subjective assessment.
1 Introduction
An attempt at directly simulating the collapse of a shear wall building is presented to document remaining
research gaps and needs for both structural modeling and for supporting experimental data. This paper
starts with an overview of the 12-story case-study building, explains the structural modeling approaches
used to model flexural and shear behavior in the walls, presents sample predicted collapse modes, and
then summarizes the modeling and experimental data needs that were identified in the case-study.
2 Overview of 12-Story Case-Study Building
Figures 1 and 2 summarize the design of the 12-story case-study building that is used for illustration in
this paper. This building was designed by a practicing engineer (Hooper 2005) to be a special reinforced
concrete shear wall building according to ACI 318 (ACI 2005) for a high-seismic site of California
(seismic design category D, site class D, SM1 = 0.9g) according to ASCE/SEI 7 (2005).
3 Structural Modeling for Directly Simulating Collapse
The structural modeling platform used for this pilot study is OpenSees (OpenSees 2009) and a twodimensional model is created to model the building in the North-South direction.
3.1 The Distinction Between Local Failures and Global Collapse. When attempting to model
structural collapse, care must be taken to not equate local damage with global collapse. Such an approach
can add a great deal of conservatism in the collapse assessment process. Provided that forces can
redistribute to other components in the building, local damage will not result in global collapse. Figure 3
shows a building damaged in the February 27, 2010 Chile earthquake where extensive local damage
exists; however, no collapse was observed. In Figure 3(b), collapse did not occur despite extensive
damage to the five walls shown at the ground level. Similar observations have been noted in other
earthquakes (Wallace et al. 2008).

Figure 1. Plan view of 12-story special core wall building.

Figure 2. Cross-sectional views of I-shaped portion of wall section for a) stories 1-4, and b) stories 5-12.
There is a substantial decrease in the confining reinforcement between stories four and five.
When modeling structural collapse, the goal is to model the deterioration of each structural component
and to capture the redistribution of forces throughout the structural system as various components fail. If
this was exhaustively done, the structural model would be able to directly indicate collapse when the
building becomes dynamically unstable (as compared with the conservative approach of defining
collapse as the failure of the first component in the system). With this said, the state of the art of
collapse modeling is still far from this goal, given that our models would likely predict collapse for the
buildings noted in Figure 3.

(a) Concepcin
(b) Via del Mar
(c) Coronel
Figure 3 Shear wall buildings damaged in the February 27, 2010 Chile Earthquake
3.2 Overview of Structural Modeling Approach. There are a variety of approaches used to model
shear wall structures, though the approaches are typically not specifically aimed at directly simulating
structural collapse. Figure 4 shows a common fiber-type model of a shear wall, which is often also
referred to as a multiple-vertical-line-element model. At each story level, this model includes multiple
vertical fibers which include a mixture of concrete and reinforcing steel material, as well as a horizontal
shear spring to model the possible shear distortion of the story. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the
possible use of integration points over the height of each story.
Additionally, a rotational spring is included at the base of the wall to
account for the additional deformation caused by the inelastic rebar
strains in the footing (Massone et al. 2009).

Zero
Length

Figure 4. Overview of shear wall

structural model. The model is
composed of multiple vertical
fibers at each story, one shear
spring at each story, and a
rotational spring at the base to
account for inelastic strains in the
rebar within the footing.

3.3 Modeling Flexural Behavior. The flexural behavior is modeled

using the vertical fibers which represent the axial stress-strain
behavior of that portion of the wall, and aggregately model the
flexural behavior of the wall. These vertical fibers can be modeled in
several ways (with or without integration points, using force
interpolation or displacement interpolation, etc.). For collapse
simulation, the model must be able to deteriorate (i.e. strain soften),
which is difficult for models that include integration points for force
or displacement interpolation because (a) significant variation in the
results (e.g. axial strains) can be produced depending on the mesh and
the number of points used and (b) these types of models typically
have numerical difficulties when the components strain-soften.
Therefore, we suggest use of models where the extent of yielding
(plastic hinge length) can be controlled directly by the analyst rather
than by the use of integration points.
The modeling approaches to simulate the flexural pre-collapse
response of the wall are well-developed, and are documented in the
recent ATC-76 publication (e.g. NIST 2010; Orakcal, Massone, and
Wallace 2006; Orakcal, Wallace, and Conte 2004; etc.). However,
modeling the behavior which precipitates collapse (rebar buckling
and fracture, loss of confinement, etc.) is not well-developed due to
the lack of experimental data upon which to base model development.
There are currently several inconsistent approaches to quantifying the
flexural deformation capacity of a shear wall; two possible

approaches are shown in Table 1. The first approach is to estimate the axial strain capacity of the vertical
fibers (e.g. Scott et al. 1982), and the second approach is to use empirical relationships to estimate the
plastic rotation capacity of the wall over the plastic hinge length. In Table 1, the axial strain capacities
are converted to approximate plastic rotation capacities to allow direct comparison between the two
approaches. The comparison shows that the strain capacity approach is very sensitive (judged to be too
sensitive) to changes in confining reinforcement (between stories four and five) and the plastic rotation
capacity approach is not highly sensitive (judged to be too insensitive) to changes in confining
reinforcement. The true behavior is likely between these two extremes, so both are presented to bracket
the behavior. Note that, in more recent work (NIST 2010), it is proposed that the axial strain capacity in
the confined regions should be 0.05 rather than the value of 0.035 based on Scott et al. (1982).
In addition to the need for more reliable information regarding flexural deformation capacity (i.e. the
deformation up to failure associated with rebar buckling, etc.), information is also needed to model the
post-failure behavior of the wall (i.e. the slope of the negative stiffness after failure initiates). Typically,
the shear wall is assumed to fail abruptly once it has reached the damage state associated with collapse;
however, this approach tends to be conservative and could be substantially improved if experimental data
were available to investigate the behavior of shear walls subjected to large deformations and significant
lateral strength degradation.
Table 1. Flexural deformation capacities predicted based on experimental work of Scott, Park, and
Priestly (1982) and work by Fardis (2003).

Story

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Scott, Park, and Preistly (1982)

Fardis (2003)

Plastic curvature
Strain at stirrup
(rad/inch)
Predicted
Assume
fracture (in/in),
corresponding to
story
plastic
derived from Scott, strirrup fracture
plastic
hinge
Park, and Preistly
strain, from
rotation
length
(1982) experimental moment-curvature
capacity
(inches)**
data*
analysis at
(radians)**
expected axial load

Plastic
rotation
capacity
predicted by
Fardis
(radians)

0.0350
0.0350
0.0350
0.0350
0.0085
0.0085
0.0085
0.0085
0.0085
0.0085
0.0085
0.0085

3.0E-04
2.9E-04
2.4E-04
2.3E-04
4.8E-05
4.7E-05
4.6E-05
4.5E-05
4.5E-05
4.4E-05
4.3E-05
4.2E-05

168
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126

0.051
0.037
0.030
0.029
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005

0.032
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.015

* The strain capacities in the upper stories were judjementally reduced by 15% to account for ties not being closed.
** The PH length assumed to be story height, consistent with (Fischniger, Isakovic, and Kante 2002) and FEMA 356.

3.4 Modeling Shear Behavior. Figure 5 shows the monotonic behavior of the model used for the wall
shear behavior.

Shear
Force
Vcap
Vy

Vcr

cr y = 0.0015

cap

zero

Shear
Strain

Figure 5. Monotonic shear force-deflection behavior.

Wall shear strength decreases as the wall becomes more flexurally damaged, as shown in Figure 6
(replicated from ATC-76), though this interaction between shear and flexural behaviors is not captured in
the current model approach utilized in this study. To quantify the wall shear strength, Figure 6 shows an
approximate trend-line through the presented data, and recent work by Biskinis and Fardis (2004) has
extended this concept and created a parametric equation to predict the shear strength as a function of
flexural ductility. The relationship from Biskinis and Fardis is used for this case-study example, and the
shear strengths were computed based on an assumed flexural ductility of 20% of the ductility capacity,
based on the typical flexural damage predicted at the base of the wall prior to the onset of shear failure.
The maximum shear strength (Vcap) is taken to be 3% larger than the yield force (ATC-76; NIST 2010).
The parameters associated with cracking and the yield deformation are well-developed and are
documented in the recent ATC-76 report (NIST 2010).

Figure 6. Test data illustrating degradation of shear strength with flexural damage (from NIST 2010).

The shear deformation capacities (cap and zero) are based on a limited literature review, mostly containing
shear wall panels with aspect ratio near 1:1 (Hidalgo et al. 2002; Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov 1979;
Matsumori et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2005; Chiou et al. 2006; Sanada and Kabeyasawa 2006). The
deformation capacities found from these test data are shown in Figure 7, with rough trendlines to relate
the deformation capacity to the amount of horizontal reinforcement. This literature review is limited, just
for purposes of this pilot study, and should be extended to include the additional data that are available in
the literature.
0.020

(a)

0.018
0.016
0.014

cap

0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.9

Horizontal Reinforcement Ratio (%)

0.050

(b)

0.045
0.040
0.035

zero

0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Horizontal Reinforcement Ratio (%)

Figure 7. Shear deformation capacities for shear wall modeling.

The cyclic behavior of the shear panel should exhibit a pinched response, and should likely also include
strength deterioration with continued inelastic cycles of loading. These behaviors have not yet been
carefully calibrated; this should be done once more data are collected.
3.5 Modeling Flexural-Shear Interaction Behavior. The shear wall model used in this pilot study does
not capture the interaction between flexure and shear behaviors; this is a substantial limitation and a
needed improvement in the modeling approach. Massone, Orakcal and Wallace (2009, 2006) have
developed a shear wall model that is capable of simulating the coupled shear-flexure response, but this
model needs to be extended to simulate the coupled shear-flexure response under cyclic loading.
6

3.6 Modeling Coupling Beams. The modeling of coupling beams was not included in this pilot study,
since the building was modeled in only the North-South direction. Even so, modeling coupling beams is
an important aspect of modeling collapse of any realistic shear wall building.
3.7 Modeling Slabs and Slab-Wall Connections. This simple pilot study also did not include modeling
of the slab system. For purposes of predicting collapse, the primary concern is the possibility of failure at
the slab-wall connection resulting in the slab disconnecting from the wall, loosing ability to carry gravity
loads, and collapsing vertically.
Although damage to slab-wall connections has been observed following earthquakes (e.g., Wallace and
Moehle, 1989), the authors are not aware of cases where damage at the slab-wall interface of
conventionally reinforced slabs (with modern detailing) has resulted in collapse. However, in recent
years, the use of slip-forming for core walls has resulted in the use of alternative connections, which
could possibly be more prone to collapse. Even so, these new connections still have been shown in one
experimental study to maintain gravity loads to lateral drift ratios of at least 5% (Klemencic et al. 2008).
3.8 Accounting for Non-Simulated Failure Modes. Even when shear wall models are improved and
come closer to being able to directly simulate structural collapse, there will still be collapse mechanisms
that the models will not be able to directly capture. For such collapse mechanisms, the structural response
results should be checked in a post-processing mode to evaluate if such non-simulated collapse
mechanisms may have occurred.
One such non-simulated collapse mode is axial failure following shear failure, resulting in vertical
collapse of the wall. Wallace et al. (2008) have developed a method to estimate the lateral deformation at
axial collapse for lightly reinforced wall piers, but more experimental data would be useful to
verify/refine this method.
4 Sample Collapse Assessment Results for Case-Study Building
Figures 8 and 9 show the collapse mechanisms for the case-study building, using incremental dynamic
analysis (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) with a set of 78 far-field ground motions (Haselton and
Deierlein 2007). At each story level, the figures indicate flexural damage with circles and indicate shear
damage with rectangles.
Figure 8 shows the predicted collapse mechanisms when the flexural deformation capacities are calibrated
based on the work by Fardis et al. (2003). This shows that nearly all collapses are caused by shear failure
at the base of the wall, and in the majority of simulations, there is also substantial flexural damage in the
5th story of the building. Only 2% of the ground motions caused collapse associated with flexural hinging
at the base of the wall. Figure 9 shows the predicted collapse mechanisms when the flexural deformation
capacities are calibrated based on the work by Scott et al. (1982), and shows the possibility of collapse
caused by flexural failure at the 5th story of the building. As previously mentioned, reality is likely
somewhere between the two sets of behavior shown in Figures 8 and 9.
5 Summary of Structural Modeling Needs and Experimental Data Needs
The purpose of this paper was to discuss an attempt at directly simulating the collapse of a shear wall
building and, in doing so, to document the remaining research gaps and needs for both structural
modeling and for supporting experimental data. This section summarizes these primary remaining needs.
5.1 Overall Modeling of Coupled Shear-Flexure Behavior. The shear strength of a wall degrades as
flexural damage progresses, and this behavior needs to be captured directly in the analytical model.
Massone, Orakcal and Wallace (2009, 2006) have developed a shear wall model that is capable of
simulating the coupled shear-flexure response, but this model needs to be extended to simulate the
coupled shear-flexure responses under cyclic loading. This extended model could also include the

improvements to the flexural and shear modeling that are discussed in the remainder of the section. The
extension of this model is a critical need to enable modeling the collapse behavior of shear wall buildings.

76% of collapses
(shear failure,
substantial flexural
damage in upper story)

22% of collapses
2% of collapses
(shear failure,
(flexural failure at base)
minimal/moderate flexural
damage in upper story)

Figure 8. Predicted collapse mechanisms of 12-story special core wall building, when the flexural
deformation capacity is calibrated based on Fardis et al. (2003).

50% of collapses
(shear failure)

48% of collapses
(flexural failure in
upper story)

2% of collapses
(flexural failure at base)

Figure 9. Predicted collapse mechanisms of 12-story special core wall building, when the flexural
deformation capacity is calibrated based on Scott et al. (1982).
5.2 Flexural Behavior. Models for the pre-failure flexural behavior of shear walls are relatively welldeveloped (e.g. concrete material models, etc.). However, methods for predicting the deformation
capacity to the onset of failure (e.g. the strain or plastic rotation at the onset of rebar buckling, crushing of
boundary element and loss of confinement, etc.) and modeling the post-failure behavior (i.e. the
deformation between the onset of failure and the point of zero wall resistance) are virtually non-existent.
Some data and methods exist (some of which were summarized in this paper), but the predictions are
inconsistent. This is an area where experimental work is needed to generate the data needed to better
understand the deformation capacity of shear walls, the behavior of the walls as lateral strength
degradation occurs, and the ability of the walls to sustain gravity loads at high levels of deformation.
5.3 Shear Behavior. The results of the pilot study suggest that shear failure (initiating after some
flexural damage) is the predominant failure mode for modern special reinforced concrete core wall
buildings, so accurately modeling this behavior is critical.

Some shear strength and deformation capacity data were presented in this paper, but the literature review
was limited due to the purpose of this pilot study. The literature review should be extended to locate
relevant data, although the extent of available tests that include monitoring of deformations during lateral
strength degradation for walls subjected to axial loads is likely not significant. However, this review is
important to help identify gaps and to better identify research needs. Once the full review is completed,
then it will be clearer whether additional data are needed to model the wall shear behavior.
Using the full set of collected data, predictive equations should be created to estimate the deformation
capacities based on all of the key wall design parameters (i.e. more than just horizontal reinforcement
ratio). Such predictive equations should provide information for both the median deformation capacity
and the uncertainty in the prediction. Additionally, the cyclic behavior of the shear panel should also be
calibrated based on the data (e.g. pinching behavior, strength deterioration behavior, etc.).
Using the full set of collected data, the current methods for predicting the shear strength (as a function of
flexural ductility demand) could also be more fully evaluated. Update predictive equations could also be
created to predict the shear strength (both median and uncertainty).
5.4 Coupling Beams. Test data exist for coupling beams tested to large displacements, and such data
should be use to calibrate component models for coupling beams. More data would be useful, but should
not be prioritized above the other primary needs discussed previously. Such calibrated coupling beam
models could then be used to study the impact of coupling beams on core walls subjected to dynamic
loading and would provide important information for improving collapse predictions.
5.5 Loading Protocols for Testing. When additional experimental testing is completed, it should be
continued to large deformation levels, to clearly show the deformation at the onset of lateral strength
degradation as well as the ability of the element or system to sustain gravity loads at deformations
approaching zero lateral load strength (near zero residual strength). Additionally, it is desirable that
multiple loading protocols be used to support development of the models (see FEMA 440A 2009; section
5.3.2).
6 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of collaborators, including, but not limited to,
John Hooper (who designed the case-study structure), Charlie Kircher, Greg Deierlein, Jiro Takagi, and
Abbie Liel.
This work was supported by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) through the FEMA P-695 (ATC-63)
project and the ATC-76 project, which were funded by FEMA and NIST, respectively. The authors are
solely responsible for the accuracy of statements or interpretations contained in this publication, and no
warranty is offered with regard to the results, findings and recommendations herein, either by FEMA,
NIST, or ATC (its directors, members, or employees). These organizations and individuals do not
assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any of the
information, product or processes included in this publication.
7 References
American Concrete Institute. (2005). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-05), Farmington Hills, MI.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2005). ASCE7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, Reston, VA.
Biskinis, D.E., G.K. Roupakias and M.N. Fardis (2004). Degradation of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Members with Inelastic Cyclic Displacements, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 6, November 2004, pp.
773-783.
Chen. S, T. Matsui, T. Matsumori and T. Kabeyasawa (2005), Collapse Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structure
Under Earthquakes, US-Japan DaiDaiToku/NEES Workshop on Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete

Structures, Berkeley, California, July 7-8, 2005.

Chiou, Y.J., F.P. Hsiao, C.C. Huang, and Y.W. Liou (2006), Structural Behavior of reinforced Concrete Framed
Walls, 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference), San
Francisco, Ca., April 18-22, 2006, 10 pp.
Fardis, M. N. and Biskinis, D.E. (2003). Deformation Capacity of RC Members, as Controlled by Flexure or
Shear, Otani Symposium, 2003, pp. 511-530.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009). Recommended Methodology for Quantification of
Building System Performance and Response Parameters, FEMA P695A, Prepared for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council (Project ATC-63), Redwood City, CA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009). Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation of Seismic
Response, FEMA P440A, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council (Project ATC-62), Redwood City, CA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report No. FEMA 356, Prepared by Applied Technology Council, Prepared for
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Fischinger, M, T. Isakovic, and P. Kante (2004). Seismic Vulnerability of Lightly Reinforced Walls, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 468.
Haselton, C.B. and G.G. Deierlein (2007). Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete
Frame Buildings, PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Hidalgo, P.A., C.A. Ledezma, and R.M. Jordan (2002). Seismic Behavior of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 287-308.
Hooper, J. (2005). Personal communication regarding the design of the 12-story case-study shear wall core
building.
Massone, L.M., K. Orakcal and J.W. Wallace (2009). Modeling of Squat Structural Walls Controlled by Shear,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009.
Klemencic, R., J.A. Fry, G. Hurtado, and J.P. Moehle (2006). Performance of Post-Tensioned Slab-Core Wall
Connections, PTI Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, December 2006.
Matsumori, T., J. Kim and T. Kabeyasawa (2005), Shaking Table Test of a One-Third-Scale Model of a Six-Story
Wall-Frame R/C Structure, US-Japan DaiDaiToku/NEES Workshop on Seismic Response of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, Berkeley, California, July 7-8, 2005.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2010). Evaluation of the FEMA P695 Methodology for
Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Prepared for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council (Project ATC-76), Redwood City, CA.
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) (2009). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/ (last accessed 2009).
Orakcal, K, L.M. Massone, and J.W. Wallace (2006). Analytical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls for
Predicting Flexural and Coupled Shear-Flexural Responses, PEER Report 2006/07, Pacific Engineering Res.
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Ca.
Orakcal, K, J.W. Wallace and J.P. Conte (2004). Flexural Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls Model
Attributes, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 5, September-October 2004.
Sanada, Y. and T. Kabeyasawa (2006), Local Force Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall, 8th
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference), San Francisco,
Ca., April 18-22, 2006, 10 pp.
Scott, B. D., Park R., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982). Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping
Hoops and Low and High Strain Rates, ACI Journal, January-February 1982, No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Vallenas, J.M., V.V Bertero and E.P. Popov (1979). Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural
Walls, UCB/EERC Report 79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, Ca.
Vamvatsikos, D. and C. Allin Cornell (2002). Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 491-514.
Wallace, J.W., K.J. Elwood, and L.M. Massone (2008). Investigation of the Axial Load Capacity for Lightly
Reinforced Wall Piers, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 9, September 2008, pp. 15481557.
Wallace, J.W. and J.P. Moehle (1989). The 1985 Chile earthquake: an evaluation of structural requirements for
bearing wall buildings, UCB/EERC Report 89/05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, Ca.

10