Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling

John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles

with contributions from

Dr. Kutay Orakcal
University of California, Los Angeles
Presentation Overview
FEMA 356 Requirements
! General requirements
! Modeling approaches
" Beam-column, fiber, general
! Stiffness, strength
Experimental Results
! Model Assessment
" Rectangular, T-shaped cross sections
! FEMA backbone relations
" Flexure dominant walls
2
FEMA 356
Nonlinear Modeling for Buildings with
Slender RC Walls

3
FEMA 356 RC Walls
General Considerations 6.8.2.1
! Represent stiffness, strength, and
deformation capacity
! Model all potential failure modes anywhere
along the wall (member) height
! Interaction with other structural and
nonstructural elements shall be considered

! So, we must consider any and everything

4
Wall Modeling Approaches
Equivalent beam-column model
! hw/lw ! 3

Modified equivalent beam-column

! Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5)
! Flanged walls (hw/lw " 3.5)
Multiple-line-element and Fiber models
! Concrete and rebar material models
General wall model

5
Equivalent Beam-Column Model
Column at
hw/lw ! 3: wall
centroid
Wall
! Use of equivalent beam-
column permitted
! Neutral axis migration not
considered Rigid end
! Interaction with in- and out- Beams zones for
of-plane elements not beam
properly considered
! Axial load Impacts
" Stiffness (EI)
" Strength (P-M) Hinges
! L- or T-shaped walls
" Where to locate the
element? Acolumn $ twlw
" Elastic centroid?
% 1 3&
I column $ # cracking ' twlw (
)12 * 6
Modified Beam - Column Model
Rectangular walls (hw/lw " 2.5)
& Flanged walls (hw/lw " 3.5):
Column at
wall
Use of modified Wall centroid

beam-column element
with added shear spring Shear
Beams spring

Nonlinear flexure/shear
are uncoupled using this
approach Hinges

7
Modified Beam - Column Model
Shear force deformation properties

Deformation-controlled component
a b-a
IO LS CP
B
1.0 / Vy 0
C +y $ 1 h
1 , G $ 0.4 E - A 22
V 3 c c 4
/ 1 0
Vn Gc $ Ec 1 2 and . 5 0.2
3 1 6 2. 4
D
0.2
E c
A

+y/h +/h
8
Fiber Section Model
Actual cross section

Concrete Fibers

Steel Fibers

! Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated;

however,
! Nonlinear strains tend to concentrate in a single element, thus, typically
use an element length that is approximately equal to the plastic hinge
length (e.g., 0.5lw). Might need to calibrate them first (this is essential).
! Calibration of fiber model with test results, or at least a plastic hinge
model, is needed to impose a reality check on the element size and
integration points used.
9
Materials Maximum permissible
compressive strain for
Limit state
unconfined concrete
associated
Unconfined Concrete (FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1)
with crack
7 = 0.002 or 0.005 width
Stress (ksi)

% 27 / 7 02 &
f c $ f c' ' c 8 1 c 2 ( 9 f c'
') 7 0 3 7 0 4 (*
Linear descending branch defined by:
,7 0 $ 0.002; f c' - and , 7 c 85 $ 0.0038; 0.85f c' -

Strain
In the absence of cylinder stress-strain tests, Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE, JSE,
1992) recommend relation based on work by Hognestad.
10
Materials
Confined Concrete (FEMA 356 6.4.3.1)
! Use appropriate model, e.g.:
" Saatcioglu & Razvi (ASCE JSE, 1992, 1995)
" Mander (ASCE JSE, 1988)
" Modified Kent & Park (ASCE JSE, 1982)
! For reference
! FEMA 356 Qualifications:
" Maximum usable compression strain based on
experimental evidence and consider limitations
posed by hoop fracture and longitudinal bar
buckling.

11
Materials
Steel Material:
Maximum usable strain limits per
FEMA 356 S6.4.3.1

7 = 0.02 7 = 0.05
Stress (ksi)

Strain
12
General Wall Models/FE Models
e.g., RAM-PERFORM:
! Flexure - fiber model (2-directions)
! Shear - Trilinear backbone relation
! Flexibility to model complex wall
geometry
! Mesh refinement issues

Flexure/Axial Shear

Concentration of nonlinear
Deformations in one element
13
Stiffness Modeling
FEMA 356 Section 6.8.2.2 Use Table 6.5
! Uncracked: EIeffective = 0.8EIg
! Cracked: EIeffective = 0.5EIg
0.75EcIg 0.5EcIg
MOMENT

30 x 2 ft Wall Section
16 - #14 Boundary
#6@12" Web

P=0.30Agf'c
P=0.20Agf'c
1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.4EcIg P=0.10Agf'c

CURVATURE
Wallace, et al., 4NCEE, Vol. 2, pp 359-368, 1990. 14
Response Correlation Studies
! Ten Story Building in San Jose, California
! Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof
! Moderate Intensity Ground Motions Loma Prieta

4.53 m (14.88 ft) 5 @ 10.97 m (36 ft)

8.84 m (29 ft)

1.68 m
8.84 m (29 ft) (5.5 ft)

PLAN VIEW: CSMIP BUILDING 57356

15
 Response Correlation Studies
! Ten Story Building in San Jose, California
! Instrumented: Base, 6th Floor, and Roof
! Moderate Intensity Ground Motions Loma Prieta

1.5
Displacement (in.)

Analysis - 0.5Ig
Measured

-1.5
0 10 20 30
Time (sec)
16
Strength Requirements
ACI 318 Provisions
! Pn- Mn
" For extreme fiber compression strain of 7c =0.003.
! Vn
" ACI 318-99,02,05 Equation 21-7

Vn $ Acv %# c f c' 6 :t f y &

) *
# c $ 3.0 for hw / lw " 1.5 Linear interpolation
allowed for intermediate
# c $ 2.0 for hw / lw ! 2.0 values

17
Definition of Wall Cross Section
Cross-Section Definition
0.25hw
beff
As' ,bound 6 As' , flange As
As ,bound 6 As , flange As'
Flexural strength
! Consider all vertical reinforcement within web
and within the effective flange width
Consider the influence of openings on
the strength and detailing requirements
! ACI 318-02, 05 Appendix A Strut & Tie Approach
18
Behavior of Flanged Walls
Flange Compression versus Tension

As
beff beff
As ,bound 6 As , flange
7t
7t
7c 7c
Flange Compression Flange Tension
Low compressive strain Large compressive strain
Large curvature capacity Less curvature capacity
Mn & Vu similar rectangle M n ; Vu ; 19
Experimental Results
RW2 & TW1: ~ scale tests

Displacement-based design Uncoupled design

Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

20
 Experimental Results
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.09Agf'c
vu,max = 4.85<f'c
Lateral Load (kips)

40 P = 0.07Agf'c
vu,max = 2.32<f'c

0 Abrupt
RW2
Lateral
Strength loss
-40 Due to
TW1 buckling;
TW1
RW2 Axial load
Maintained
-80
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Top Displacement (in.)
21
Experimental Results
RW2 & TW2: ~ scale tests
Displacement-based design of T-shape

Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004.

22
 Experimental Results
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.075Agf'c
vu,max = 5.5<f'c
Lateral Load (kips)

40 P = 0.07Agf'c
vu,max = 2.32<f'c

0 Lateral
RW2 strength loss
due to lateral
-40 Instability due
TW2 to spalling;
RW2 Axial load
TW2
-80 maintained
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Top Displacement (in.)
23
Model Assessment
Comparison of Analytical and
Experimental results

24
 MVLE (Fiber) Model
5
Rigid Beam
6 4
m
.
.
(1-c)h .
.
h
k1 k2 . . kH . . . . . k n .
2
ch
1
2
3 1 Rigid Beam
RC WALL WALL MODEL
Basic assumptions:
Plane sections (rigid rotation of top/bottom beams
Uniaxial material relations (vertical spring elements)
MVLE Model versus Fiber Model:
Similar to a fiber model except with constant curvature
over the element height (vs linear for fiber model)
Orakcal, Wallace, Conte; ACI SJ, Sept-Oct 2004. 25
 Material (Uni-axial) Models
(7= 'c , =f 'c)
>y E1= bE0

Compression
r
Stress, >

E0
O 7y
R
O (70, 0)
Tension
Not to scale
(70+ 7t , ft)

Strain, 7
Reinforcing Steel :
Menegotto and Pinto (1973)
Filippou et al. (1984)
# Simple but effective
# Degradation of
cyclic curvature
Strain, 7
Concrete :
Chang and Mander (1994)
# Generalized (can be updated)
# Allows refined calibration
# Gap and tension stiffening
26
Model Assessment
$ Approximately 1/4 scale
$ Aspect ratio = 3
$ Displacement based
evaluation for detailing
provided at the wall
boundaries
$ 12 ft tall, 4 ft long, 4
inches thick
$ #3 vertical steel, 3/16
hoops/ties
$ #2 deformed web steel
$ Constant axial load
$ Cyclic lateral
displacements applied at
the top of the walls
27
 Instrumentation
Extensive instrumentation provided to measure
wall response at various locations
Wire Potentiometers
Wire Potentiometers
(X configuration)
(horizontal displacement)

Rigid Steel Strain Gage Levels

RW2
Reference
Frame Wire Potentiometers
(vertical displacement)

LVDT's

Concrete Strain Gages

Linear Potentiometers
(Pedestal Movement)

Massone & Wallace; ACI SJ, Jan-Feb 2004. 28

Applied Lateral Displacement
80 2
RW2
40 1
Top Displacement (mm)

0 0
-1

Drift Ratio (%)

-40
Applied displacement -2
-80 Pedestal movement excluded
80 Pedestal movement and
shear deformations excluded 2
40 1
0 0

-40 -1
TW2 -2
-80

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Data Point Number

29
Model Details RW2
1219 mm
3 @ 51 mm 153 mm 3 @ 191 mm 153 mm 3 @ 51 mm
19 mm 19 mm
8 - #3 bars #2 bars (db=6.35 mm) Hoops (db=4.76 mm)
(db=9.53 mm) @ 191 mm @ 76 mm 19 mm

102 mm 64 mm

19 mm

uniaxial element # : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

m=16
.
.
(1-c)h .
.
h
k1 k2 . . kH . . . . . k n .
2
ch
1

30
Model Details TW2
1219 mm
3 @ 51 mm 3 @ 51 mm
153 mm 3 @ 191 mm 153 mm
19 mm 19 mm
19 mm
19 mm

64 mm 12-19
3 @ 51 mm
19 mm 8 - #3 bars 11
(db=9.53 mm)
102 mm 10

+
#2 bars (db=6.35 mm)
@ 191 mm 9
Hoops (db=4.76 mm)
@ 76 mm
8
3 @ 140 mm
#2 bars (db=6.35 mm)
@ 140 mm
7
1219 mm

-
6
102 mm 2 - #2 bars (db=6.35 mm)
5
Hoops and cross-ties (db=4.76 mm) 4
@ 38 mm
3

4 @ 102 mm 2
8 - #3 bars
(db=9.53 mm)

Hoops (db=4.76 mm) uniaxial element # : 1

@ 32 mm
19 mm
102 mm 31
Concrete Model - Unconfined
50

40
Stress (MPa)

30

Test Results
20 1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
10 4th Story

Analytical (Unconfined)
0

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Strain
32
Concrete Model - Confined
70

60 TW2 Web

50
RW2
Stress (MPa)

40

30
TW2 Flange
Unconfined Model
20
Mander et al. (1988)
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992)
10

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Strain
33
Concrete Model - Tension
2.5
2.5
(7t ,ft )
2 2

r 1.5
Stress (MPa)

1.5 1

0.5

1 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

0.5
Chang and Mander (1994)
Belarbi and Hsu (1994)
0

0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025

Strain
34
Reinforcement Material Model
600
500
Tension
400
#3 (RW2 & TW2 Flange)
300
#3 (TW2 Web)
200 #2 (TW2 Web)
Stress (MPa)

100 700
#2 (RW2 & TW2 Flange)
600
0
500
-100
Compression 400
-200 Test Results
300
#3 #3 rebar
-300 200
#2 #2 rebar
-400 100 4.76 mm wire
-500 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-600

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Strain
35
 Model Assessment RW2
Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
200
Pax 5 0.07Ag=f 'c Test
150 Analysis
Plat , +top
Lateral Load, Plat (kN)

100
RW2
50

-50
500
Pax (kN)

-100 400
300
200
-150 100
0
-200
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Top Flexural Displacement, +top (mm)

36
Model Assessment RW2
Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
5
RW2
4
Top
Story Number

Applied Lateral
1 Drift Levels:
1.5%
0.75% 2.0% Test
1.0 % 2.5% Analysis
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)
37
 Model Assessment RW2
0.02

0.01 RW2 (First Story)

Rotation
(rad)

-0.01
0.008 FEMA 356 CP limit
15 Test
Analysis 2.0%
Displacement

10
1.5%
5
(mm)

0
-5
-10
-15
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Data Point
Results based on recommended values for material parameters; however,
results could vary, maybe significantly, for different element lengths and
material parameters (particularly if no strain hardening) 38
 Model Assessment RW2
0.035

0.03 RW2 Concrete Strain Gage

Boundary Zone LVDT 2.0%
0.025
Analysis
Concrete Strain

0.02 1.5% 1.5%

0.015
1.0% 1.0%
0.01
0.75%
0.005 0.5%
0.25%
0

-0.005

-0.01
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Data Point

Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE). 39
 Model Assessment RW2
0.035

0.03 RW2 Concrete Strain Gage

Boundary Zone LVDT 2.0%
0.025
Analysis
Concrete Strain

0.02 1.5% 1.5%

0.015
1.0% 1.0%
0.01
0.75%
0.005 0.5%
0.25%
0

-0.005

-0.01
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Data Point

Orakcal & Wallace; ACI SJ, in-press for publication in 2006 (see 13WCEE). 40
Model Assessment TW2
Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

400 Pax 5 0.075Ag=f 'c Test C

300 Plat , +top Analysis
Lateral Load, Plat (kN)

T
200
TW2
100

0
T
-100

-200 C
Pax (kN)
750
500
-300
250
-400 0

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Top Flexural Displacement, +top (mm)

41
Model Assessment TW2
Lateral Flexural Drift (%)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
5
TW2
4
Top
Story Number

T
3
C
C
2
T
Applied Lateral
1 Drift Levels:
1.5%
0.75% 2.0% Test
1.0 % 2.5% Analysis
0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm)
42
Model Assessment TW2
Flange Concrete Strain (LVDTs)
0.025
2.5%
TW2
0.02
C
Test
2.0%
0.015 Analysis T
2.5%
0.5% 2.0%
0.01
1.0%
2.0%
0.005 T
7y
2.5%
C
0

-0.005
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
Distance along Flange from Web (mm)
43
 Model Assessment Stability
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.09Agf'c
Lateral Load (kips)

vu,max = 4.85<f'c
40 P = 0.075Agf'c
vu,max = 5.5<f'c

-40
TW1
TW2
-80
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Top Displacement (in.)

TW1 Abrupt failure due to buckling

TW2 Lateral instability due to spalling
and large compression

44
 Model Assessment - Stability

Rebar Buckling at Wall Boundary Rebar Fracture Following

Buckling at Wall Boundary
Instabilities, such as rebar buckling and lateral web buckling, and rebar fracture
are typically not considered in models; therefore, engineering judgment is required.
Loss of lateral-load capacity does not necessarily mean loss of axial load capacity 45
FEMA 356 Table 6-18

46
FEMA 356 Table 6-18

47
FEMA 356 Modeling Parameters
WALL RW2:
As $ As' & P $ 0.07 Ag f c' & Hoops @ 2" o.c.
2(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 6"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(5 ksi / 63 ksi)
s 9 1.2" Non-conforming

WALL TW2: Flange Compression

As $ 8 - #3 A s' $ 10 - #3 and 4 - #2 f y 5 63 ksi & Hoops/Ties @ s=4"
No special detailing required: Conforming
,A 8 A - f
s
'
s y 6P
$
%) 80.42 in 2 *& , 63 ksi -
6 0.075(2) $ 0.127
twlw f c' 4"(48")( ! 6 ksi)
Vu 40 kips
$ $ 2.7
twlw f c' 4"(48") 6000 /1000

48
FEMA 356 Modeling Parameters
WALL TW2: Flange Tension
As' $ 8 - #3 & 2 - #2 A s $ 24 - #3 and 8 - #2 & f y 5 63 ksi
Hoops/Ties @ s=1.25" (5 legs and 2 legs)
5(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 16"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi) s 9 1.0 "
2(0.027 in 2 ) $ 0.09( s )(hc $ 2.5"6 3 / 8"6 3 /16")(6 ksi / 63 ksi) s 9 2.1"
! Conforming

,A 8 A - f
s
'
s y 6P
$
?16(0.11) 6 6(0.049) @ , 63 ksi -
6 0.075(2) $ 0.26
twlw f c' 4"(48")( ! 6 ksi)
Vu 80 kips
$ $ 5.4
t w lw f c 4"(48") 6000 /1000
'

49
FEMA 356 Modeling Parameters
Tables 6-18 (partial):

Model Parameters, Radians

Walls Controlled by Flexure

'
( As 8 As ) f y 6 P Conf. V Plastic Plastic Residual
twlw fc' ' Hinge Hinge Strength
Bound. twlw fc
a b c
TW2
" 0.1 Yes "3 0.015 0.02 0.75 Flange Comp
" 0.1 No "3 0.008 0.015 0.60 RW2
TW2
! 0.25 Yes !6 0.005 0.010 0.30 Flange Tension
! 0.25 No !6 0.002 0.004 0.20

50
FEMA Backbone Relation RW2
Mn
Plateral $ $ 29.4 kips
hw
% , Plateral hload
3
- &
Ay $ ' (
') 3Ec , 0.5 I g - (*
29.4k (150")3
$ ksi in 4
$ 0.41"
3(4000 )(18, 432 )
A a $ 0.008(144") $ 1.15"
A b $ 0.015(144") $ 2.16"
Presidual $ 0.6(29.4k ) $ 17.6 kips
51
FEMA Backbone Relations TW2
Flange Compression Flange Tension
Mn Mn
Plateral $ $ 40.2 kips Plateral $ $ 77.0 kips
hw hw
% , Plateral hload
3
- & % , Plateral hload
3
- &
Ay $ ' ( Ay $ ' (
') 3Ec , 0.5I g - (* ') 3Ec , 0.5 I g - (*
40.2k (150")3 77.0k (150")3
$ $ 4
in 4
ksi
3(4400 )(40, 700 ) 3(4400ksi )(40, 700in )
$ 0.25" $ 0.48"
I g $ 2.2 , I g - y =34.5" I g $ 2.2 , I g - y =34.5"
4 x 48 4 x 48

A a $ 0.015(144") $ 2.16" A a $ 0.005(144") $ 0.72"

A b $ 0.020(144") $ 2.88" A b $ 0.010(144") $ 1.44"
Presidual $ 0.75(40.2k ) $ 30.2 kips Presidual $ 0.30(77.0k ) $ 23.1 kips
52
Backbone Curve RW2
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
40
P = 0.07Agf'c
Lateral Load (kips)

vu,max = 2.2<f'c psi

Lateral Load (kN)

20 100
FEMA 356 NC/C

0 0
NC C
, M n / hw -, hw -
3

Ay $
-20 3Ec I cr
-100
Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=29.4k
-40
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Top Displacement (in.)
53
Backbone Curve TW2
Lateral Drift (%)
-2.8 -1.4 0.0 1.4 2.8
80
P = 0.075Agf'c vu,max = 2.7<f'c psi
Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=40.2k
200
Lateral Load (kips)

Lateral Load (kN)

40

0 0
, M n / hw -, hw -
3

Ay $
-40 3Ec I cr -200
Plat@Mn(7c=0.003)=77.0k
-80 FEMA 356 Conforming -400
vu,max = 5.4<f'c psi
-120
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Top Displacement (in.) 54
 Cantilever Wall Tests
Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]

Conforming
h = 3.3 m
P=10%, V=3
= 10.83 ft

Conforming
P=10%, V=6

(3.94)
WALL Goodsir, 1985:
As $ As' & P $ 0.163 f c' A g & Assume conforming (59)
3 3
PL (70k )(130") Vu 70k
Ay $ $ $ 0.4" (10.0mm) $ $ 4.6
3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12 twlw f c' (4")(59") 3750 psi
A a 5 0.01(3300mm) $ 33mm A b 5 0.015(3300mm) $ 50mm
55
 Cantilever Wall Tests
Paulay, EERI, 2(4), 1986 [Goodsir, PhD 1985 NZ]

Conforming
h = 3.3 m
P=10%, V=3
= 10.83 ft

Conforming
P=10%, V=6

WALL Goodsir, 1985:

As $ As' & P $ 0.12 f c' A g & Assume conforming
PL3 (70k )(130")3 Vu 70k
Ay $ $ $ 0.4" (10.0mm) $ $ 4.6
3Ec 0.5 I g 3(~ 3750ksi )(0.5)(4")(59")3 /12 twlw f c' (4")(59") 3750 psi
A a 5 0.01(3300mm) $ 33mm A b 5 0.015(3300mm) $ 50mm
56
Summary
FEMA 356 Backbone Curves
! In general, quite conservative
! This appears to be especially true for cases where
moderate detailing is provided around boundary bars
! Possible reformat
" Compute neutral axis depth
" If s <12db over c/2, then modest ductility
" If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is ~1/2 of ACI 318-05,
then moderate ductility
" If s < 8db and transverse steel ratio is > 3/4 of ACI 318-05,
then high ductility
" Do not reduce deformation capacity for shear stress below 5
roots fc

57
Shear Design
Wall shear studies
! Aktan & Bertero, ASCE, JSE, Aug. 1985
! Paulay, EERI 1996; Wallace, ASCE, JSE, 1994.
! Eberhard & Sozen, ASCE JSE, Feb. 1993
Design Recommendations
! Based on Mpr at hinge region
! Uniform lateral force distribution
/ M pr 0 Paulay, 1986
Vwall $ Bv 1 2 Vu Bv $ 0.9 6 n /10
3 Mu 4
Vwall $ Vlim it 6 , Dm $ 0.3-,W $ weight -, Ae $ EPA - Eberhard, 1993
58
Slender Wall Behavior & Modeling

John Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles

With contributions from

Dr. Kutay Orakcal
University of California, Los Angeles