ORCS Title no. 87-83 TECHNICAL PAP Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: Strength, Deformation Characteristics, and Failure Mechanism RG loannis D. Lefas, Michael D. Kotsovos, and Nicholas N. Ambraseys. Thirteen large-scale wal models were tested under the combined ae- tion ofa constant axial anda horizontal load monotonically increas- ing to faire. The alm ofthe tests has been to investigate the effect Of parameters such a the height-fo-width ratio, the aval load, the ‘concrete strength, and the amount of web horizontal reinforcement ‘on wall behavior. The resulls obtained have helped t0 identify the ‘causes of wall failure and have demonstrated that the concepts un- ‘derlying current ACI Bullding Code provisions for the design of walls ‘are in conflict withthe observed structural behavior. It has been ‘ound that shear resistance ls assoclated with triaxial compressive siress conditions that develop in the compressive zone of the section 10 the base of the wall rather than the strength ofthe tensile zone of ‘his section. eywords: ail loads; deformation; fate mechanisms; Neural stength: cored cont her seal sre tactural Sig; wal: Reinforced concrete structural walls are widely con- sidered to provide an efficient bracing system and to offer great potential for both lateral load resistance and drift control. However, current design methods for walls!” are based on a) theoretical concepts and as- sumptions which, in many cases, are incompatible with fundamental concrete properties, and b) empirical expressions derived originally for beams by using test results usually exhibiting a broad scatter. Clearly, de- sign procedures based on a fundamental understanding of wall behavior would be preferable to the present methods. The behavior of walls under different loading histo- ries has been extensively studied by experiment.“ However, uncertainties related to the causes of the de- pendence of the observed behavior on parameters such as the web reinforcement, cross-sectional shape, axial compression, etc., still remain. For example, the extent of the role of horizontal and vertical reinforcement in safeguarding against shear is still vague, whereas it is not clear why walls with a barbell or flanged section exhibit a shear resistance significantly higher than that of a rectangular section with the same amount and de- tailing of web reinforcement. Experimental evidence is also inconclusive regarding the effect of the axial ‘ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1990 compression on the strength and deformational re- sponse of the wall. ‘While current design is based on uniaxial stress-strain ‘material characteristics, recent work has shown that the actual ultimate limit state behavior of a reinforced con- ‘rete (RC) structural element can only be explained by considering the multiaxial stress conditions that are al- ways present in a structure.” It has also been recently found that wall shear capacity as predicted by the truss analogy concept often considerably overestimates that established by experiment." In fact, it was analyti- cally demonstrated that wall resistance is associated with the strength of the concrete in the compressive zone in the region where the maximum bending mo- ‘ment develops and not, as widely believed, in the ten- sile zone of this region. To this end, this paper is intended to a) verify exper- imentally the validity of the previously mentioned ana- lytical findings for the case of RC walls, and b) provide answers to some of the uncertainties related to wall behavior. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ‘The work forms part of a comprehensive investiga- tion of the causes of failure of reinforced concrete structural walls. It aims primarily at identi cepts that could form a sound theoretical basis for the development of simple and rational design procedures. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ‘The experimental work described in the following volves the testing of 13 structural walls with constant thickness b and a height-to-width ratio h/1 varying be- tween 1 and 2. Such walls are considered to represent “BET Siac! Journal, V7, No.1 Jasuary Fbraey 1990. Received July tH, and fviewed under Taste pubteation policies, grmap® amet Conte. Al tt reed og Shemale nl pring aba om he op rape ‘ACL Straturel Journal i rected By Sul 1, 1950 23,‘ACI member loans D, Laas a resrh asso nthe Department of Ci Eninerng, Imperial Coleg of Scene, Technology and Medicine, London, [Enlond. He pruate from the National Tecaial Unies of Athens ond ‘bined hi MSc ond PRD deres rom Imperl College, London. He eu= ‘ent caeing out postdoctoral earch om te nonlinear modeling 0 rl Joncd concrete crue abt fo cee loading. His earch iter a0 ‘onerawide range af topes elated 0 stracarel end earthquake engineering. Miche D.Kotovos i lecturer nthe Department of Civil Eglneering, I eri Colge of Sconce and Teckoly. Landon, England. Hs rach fies cover a wide rong of operated fo cont sutures and echo (ony sch ox fracture mechan, constitutive relationships, fie element eal ‘i, model esting, end desian procedures. ‘Mehler N. Ambrasey is Profesor and Head ofthe Engineering Seomolory ‘nd Eathquoke Enginecring Scion, Deparment of Civ Engineering, Impe- ‘Fal Calg of Since, Techrolog ond Medicine, Landon, Ergland His main ‘search nee arin dam design and engineering sesmoly jent bars Table 1 — Properties of reintorc ‘Ubimate srenath Type Tos MP 8 mm high-tenile bar 565 (625 mm high-tnsile bar 20 10 “4mm mild-stel bar 20 0 the critical story element of a structural wall system with a rectangular cross section. Attention was focused into a) the manner in which the compressive forces are transmitted to the supports, and b) the effect of ver cal force on the strength, stiffness, and deformation characteristics of walls subjected to monotonically i creasing horizontal load up to incipient failure. Wall details Two types of walls were tested in the program; Type I(K/I = 1), which were 750 mm wide x 750 mm high x 70 mm thick,* and Type II (h/1 = 2), which were 650 Tram = 10094 in Fig. 1 — Geometry and reinforcement detail imens (1 mm = 0.0394 in.) 24 Table 2 — Concrete mix proportions by weight Proportions by weight 45MPamix_| _30MPa mix 10mm agaresate 3s Coarse sand 2.00 “Fine sand 089) ‘Cement 1.00 Free water 0.68 "Specimen SWE 1m = 0.033 In | MPa = 148 ps 1mm wide x 1300 mm high x 65 mm thick. In all cases, the walls were monolithically connected to an upper and a lower beam. The upper beam (1150 mm long x 150 mm deep x 200 mm thick) functioned as both the clement through which axial and horizontal loads were applied to the walls and as a cage for the anchorage of the vertical bars. The lower beam (1150 mm long x 300 mm deep x 200 mm thick) was utilized to clamp down the specimens to the laboratory loor, simulating a rigid foundation. Fig. 1 shows the nominal dimensions of test speci- mens together with the arrangement of vertical and horizontal reinforcement. The vertical and horizontal d high-tensile deformed steel bars of 8 and 6.25 mm diameter, respectively. Ad tional horizontal reinforcement in the form of stirrups confined the wall edges. Mild steel bars of 4 mm di- ameter were used for this purpose. Yield f and ulti- rate f, strength characteristics of the steel bars used are summarized in Table 1. Full details of the conerete mixes used for the walls are given in Table 2, whereas the cube strength f, at the day of testing is given in Table 3. Table 3 also includes the percentages of reinforce- ment used for each of the specimens. Vertical rein- forcement was designed in compliance with the recom- mendations of the ACI Building Code! for a given (@) Type I and (b) Type II wall spec- ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1990Table 3 — Experimental data and principal results of walls tested in the program snes} te, | cal Peal cae | fa |” Viel aa fal safe] |, tel fe Ei swe [vo | 240 [310 | 120 | er | 0 | 00 [3s cons [iol] oe [rofs.so| osu [ass] v1.21 [1.465 sa ‘igforcement the vGhume ofthe ores ‘Prematae fire Tino = ROU TAN = 025 hip: 1 MPa = 145 pl combination of axial force and bending moment at the base of the wall. Except for Walls SW17 and SW26, horizontal reinforcement was also designed in compl ance with the recommendations of the ACI Building Code to safeguard against shear failure. In an attempt to test the validity of current shear design provisions, the horizontal reinforcement for Walls SW17 and ‘SW26 was significantly less than that specified by the ‘code; in all other respects the wall reinforcement was similar to that of the other Type I and II walls, respectively. Testing procedure and loading sequence Each wall was subjected to a combination of axial and horizontal loading using the testing rig shown in Fig. 2. A constant axial load was first applied through ‘a spreader beam at the centers of the edge members of the walls. Three levels of constant axial load were adopted in the testing program; they corresponded to 0.0, 0.1, and 0.2 of the uniaxial compressive strength of the wall cross section that is equal to 0.85f.. b1. These load lev- ls might be considered representative of the amount of axial load at the base of the wall of a single story, a ‘medium-height, and a high-rise building, respectively. After the total constant axial force was applied, the specimen was incrementally loaded with horizontal load at a rate of 0.04 KN/sec. At each load increment, the load was maintained constant for at least 2 min to monitor load and deformation response of the wall, mark the cracks, and take photographs of the crack pattern. Pressure transducers in the hydraulic supply line of the rams provided the means of accurate mea~ ACI Structural Journal | January-February 1990 (rss concrete eno hooial seston af wal web = rao o esi: volume of coaoement iL pty : fe = = ord bens reer aon fo? el i} bo [Co] Fig. 2 — Schematic representation of the test rig: (a) elevation and (b) plan view (1 t = 2.242 kips) surement of the applied load. Deformation response ‘was monitored by linear variable displacement trans- ducers (LVDTs) calibrated before each test. Seven LVDTS positioned at selected wall elevations measured the in-plane and out-of-plane horizontal displacements. Three additional LVDTs were used to monitor vertical displacements. Two of them were used to measure con- traction and extension of the wall edge members at the top of the wall, with the third engaged in monitoring any rotation of the lower foundation beam. Strain gages were employed to measure steel strains of the longitudinal reinforcing bars at the four corners of the wall edges and near the foundation beam. 25Table 4 — Code predicted and measured values of ultimate horizontal load for walls tested in the program ACISIER ‘Shear srength Flexural strength ‘Upper Specimen |“ Yi/fe | V+ ¥.|_¥,_| timit | Experiment swit_|_ 213.6792 | 3079 [300.3] 290.7 | 250 swi2 | 2.072938 | 46.8 [300.3] 2955 | 340 ‘swis_|_268.47297.7_| 466.7 [300.3| 2578 | 330 swie | 208.7/2433 | 379.1 [300.3] 261.5 | _ 265 swis | 245.27279.0 | «6.3 |300.3| 2644 320 swis [2872/3189 | soz |300.3| 29.2 35s swi7 | 2117/2469 | 18 | 99.7] 279.2 | 2072 swat_| 92/0 | 2184 [1s.8| 2106 | 127 sw | _1io.z7/i2as | 225 [175.8] 300 | 150 swas_|_121a/is43 | 252.7 [1758] 223.4 | 180 swos | 920/072 | 2210 [15.8] 248 | 120 swas | 1183/1309 | a492 [17s| 2170] 150 swas | 849/990 | 1236 | mal ima] 12 Tl values ae in KN; TEN = 0235 ip Fig. 3 — Horizontal load versus top horizontal dis- placement curves for all Type I walls (1 kN = 0.225 ‘kip; T mm = 0.0394 in.) ‘The measured values of the applied loads, displace- ‘ments, and strains were recorded by a computer logger. On the range of voltages employed, the resolution was 0.01 mV and the accuracy was +0.0138 percent, while the measuring speed was just over 10 channels per sec. TEST RESULTS ‘The main results of the tests together with informa- tion necessary for their interpretation are given in T: bles 3 and 4 and Fig. 3 through 14. Fig. 3 through 6 present, in the form of horizontal load versus displace- ment curves, the top horizontal and top vertical dis- placements of all walls tested in the program. Table 3 contains information on the actual F, and the normal- 26 Fig. 4 — Horizontal load versus top horizontal dis- placement curves for all Type I walls (1 kN = 0.225 kip; mm = 0.0594 in.) Fig. 5 — Horizontal load versus top vertical displace ‘ment curves for all Type I walls: (a) extension and (b) contraction (1 KN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) ized » = F,/(b10.85f,) axial load applied to the spec- mens as well as information on the horizontal load Fy, the top horizontal displacement 6, and the drift index (ie., the ratio of top horizontal displacement to wall height) 7 of the specimens at the load levels corre- sponding to: 2. Initiation of flexural cracking b. Initiation of inclined cracking . First yield of the tensile reinforcement . Ultimate limit state The table also includes values of ultimate boundary shear stress Yu» normalized with respect to f? and Vf, where fis equal to 0.85/,. Shear stress is defined as the ratio of the horizontal load to the gross horizontal cross-sectional area of the wall. Fig. 7 and 8 show the pattern of variation of secant stiffness with increasing horizontal load for Type I and II walls, respectively, while Fig. 9 illustrates typical variations of tensile (pos- itive) and compressive (negative) steel strains with in- creasing horizontal load for both types of wall. Significant stages of cracking process and behavior ‘up to incipient failure, exhibited by Type I and II walls, ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1990Fig. 6 — Horizontal load versus top vertical displace- ‘ment curves for all Type II walls: (a) extension and (b) contraction (1 KN = 0 .225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) PL sme meet if gt i on Fig. 8 — Variation of secant stiffness with horizontal load expressed in terms of both force and stress units Sor Type I walls (1 KN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 in; ! MPa = 145 psi) Fig. 7 — Variation of secant stiffness with horizontal load expressed in terms of both force and stress units for Type I walls (1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 mm = 0.0394 “in.; TMPa = 145 psi) are shown in Fig. 10 and 11. Representative modes of failure of Type I and Type II walls under different ax- ial load conditions are shown in Fig. 12 and 13, and Table 4 summarizes ACI Building Code predictions for wall strength and compares them with the experimen- tally established load-carrying capacity of the walls. Fi- nally, a schematic representation of the mechanism that leads to the observed mode of failure is given in Fig. 4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Before discussing the main results of the investiga- tion, it is interesting to note that the out-of-plane placements and the base rotation values recorded dur- ing testing were negligible. Such results are considered to indicate that the walls were essentially subjected to the intended boundary conditions, i.e, in-plane actions at the top and nearly fully restrained displacements at the bottom. Strength and deformation characteristics Table 3 and Fig. 3 and 4 indicate that, for the same level of normalized vertical load », the horizontal load- ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1990 Fig. 9 — Variation of average strain of the longitudinal reinforcement with varying horizontal load for speci- ‘mens: (a) SW17, (b) SW22, (c) SW23, and (d) SW 26 (1 KN = 0.225 kip.) carrying capacity of each type of the walls tested is similar. Table 3 also indicates that the horizontal load sustained by the Type I walls with » equal ¢o 0.1 and 0.2 was higher than that of the walls subjected to hori- zontal load only by about 25 and 30 percent, respec- tively. A similar, but more pronounced, increase in strength characterized the slender (Type II) walls sub- jected to combined axial and horizontal loading. The arS5KN 100 KN 200 kN Fig. 11 — Significant stages of cracking process exhibited by Type I walls (1 KN = 0.225 kip) lower strength exhibited by Wall SW25 was due to the unintended eccentricity of the vertical and horizontal loads that occurred when the spherical seating used to transfer the axial loading on the wall unexpectedly moved during testing. As information included in Table 4 indicates, speci mens with higher uniaxial compressive concrete strength exhibited similar horizontal load-carrying ca- pacity, if subjected to the same level of normalized ax- ial load. Differences in concrete strength as high as 35 percent (see Specimen SW26 versus Specimen SW24) resulted in almost negligible variation in wall strength. Such small differences in strength might indicate that strength and deformational characteristics of the walls are not significantly affected by the variability of the concrete strength. It may also be noted in Table 3 that, for the same level of normalized axial load, the values of the ulti- mate boundary shear stress normalized with respect to 28 either ff or VF exhibit a variability significantly larger than that of the test results. Since these normalizing factors provide a measure of the uniaxial strength of concrete in compression and tension, respectively, such variability may be considered to indicate that uniaxial stress conditions cannot adequately describe the ulti- mate stress conditions within the failure zones of the specimens, The deformational response of the walls was found to be distinctly nonlinear in all cases (see Fig. 3 and 4). Axial load appears not only to increase the lateral stiff- ness, but also to reduce the recorded values of horizon- tal displacement at the ultimate state. The rate of re- duction in displacement with increasing axial load for ‘Type II walls was higher than that for Type I walls. Al- though the recorded values of top horizontal displace- ment differed significantly between Type I and Type II walls, the difference in the corresponding drift indexes at the ultimate load level was small (see Table 3). ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1990Fig. 5 and 6 indicate that, as expected, the axial compressive load affects the vertical displacement of the wall edges. It is clear that the elongation of the ten- Fig. 12 — Typical mode of failure of Type I walls ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1990 sile edge of the wall becomes smaller as the axial load increases, while the reverse is true for the shortening of the compressive edge of the wall. Such behavior im- plies that the higher the axial load, the larger the depth of the wall neutral axis prior to failure. It is interesting to note in Fig. 3 and 4 that, in con- trast with what would normally be expected, Specimens SWI7 and SW26, respectively, exhibited strength and deformation characteristics similar to those of the Type Land II specimens (which were subjected to horizontal spite of the fact that the former speci- ig. 13 — Typical mode of failure of Type If walls FiTh Fig. 14 — Schematic representation of failure mecha- nism of the walls mens contained almost half the amount of horizontal reinforcement contained in the latter. The reason for such behavior is discussed in detail ater. Stiffness and strain measurements For both types of wall tested, the level of axial force was found to significantly affect secant stiffness as in- dicated in Fig. 7 and 8. However, the v cant stiffness values with increasing normal load is less pronounced for Type II walls. With the ex- ception of Specimen SW13, Type I walls exhibited an enhancement in stiffness of approximately 65 and 100 percent at almost all intermediate levels of horizontal Toading when » increased from 0 to 0.1 and 0.2, respec: tively. The higher deformability exhibited by Specimen SSWI3 is attributed to the damage suffered by the lower foundation beam during the clamping procedure. In contrast to this behavior, the stiffness of Type II walls only slightly increased with the normalized axial load » increasing from 0.1 to 0.2. However, for both »=0.1 ‘and »~0.2, the stiffness values were approximately 70 percent higher than those for the specimens subjected to horizontal load only. Furthermore, in all cases the secant stiffness corre- sponding to ultimate strength was approximately equal to between 20 and 30 percent, the stiffness correspond- ing to the uncracked phase of the wall. Calculated val- tues of secant stiffness for the uncracked wall phase are also included in Fig. 7 and 8, They were obtained by using the current one-dimensional idealization of wall ‘elements adopted by most codes. The figures indicate a Poor correlation between calculated and experimental values, the correlation being poorer for Type I walls. Apparently, the idealization is not valid for the case of reinforced concrete walls. The strain gage readings indicated that, except for ‘Wall SW25, the vertical reinforcement in all other cases exhibited considerable post-yield deformations prior to failure. It is interesting to note in Fig. 9(a) that Speci- men SW17, which contained only 60 percent of the horizontal reinforcement recommended by the ACI Building Code, also exhibited ductile behavior. An in- crease in the normalized axial load from 0.0 t0 0.2 not alter the maximum compressive strain of the rein- forcement while it led to a drop of the maximum re- 30 corded tensile stel strain, as Fig. 9(0), 9), and 9(2) il lustrate for typical cases of Type II walls. It is also ‘worth noting that the values of the neutral axis depth calculated by using strain measurements are in compli- lance with the values calculated by using the measured crack depth, Fracture processes and failure modes Flexural cracks initially appeared near the bottom third of the tensile edge of Type I walls, after the ap- plication of 15 percent of the ultimate horizontal load (ee Fig. 10). The first inclined crack appeared as the level of applied horizontal load reached 40 percent of its ultimate value; at this stage, flexural cracking had already spread at a slight inclination within the wall ‘web. Further loading caused new flexural and inclined cracks to develop and to almost reach the wall com- pressive edge. Beyond a load level of 80 percent of the failure load, the crack pattern underwent insignificant changes up to the stage when progressive splitting of the concrete cover of the compressive edge and near- vertical propagation of the inclined crack in the com- pressive zone were noted. As Fig. 12 shows, vertical cracking eventually caused failure of the compressive zone, and this led to a drop of the horizontal load-car- rying capacity of the specimens. The presence of axial load resulted in a wider crushing band due to the larger depth of neutral axis but web cracking was less exten- For Type II walls, much the same cracking pattern was observed (see Fig. 11). The only noticeable differ- ‘ences include fewer inclined cracks occurring at a later load stage, the absence of cracking at the top third of the wall for high levels of applied axial load, and the fact that the near-vertical crack, which eventually led to ire, formed between the deepest flexural 13). teresting to note that one load stage prior to failure the width of the major flexural cracks became considerable. In fact, the average crack width reached 0.8 and 1.2 mm for Type I and II walls, respectively. Such crack widths should have resulted to insignifi- cant, if any, shear resistance of the concrete region be- low the neutral axis due to aggregate interlock. Causes of wall resistance and failure mechanism As Table 4 indicates, the observed maximum hori- zontal load sustained by the walls tested exceeded, by a significant margin, the lower of the values of horizon- fal load corresponding to either flexural capacity or shear strength, as defined by the ACI Building Code (assuming a capacity reduction factor ¢= 1.0). It should be noted that even the utilization of the strain- hardening characteristics for the steel resulted in a con- servative estimate of the flexural strength while the ACI expressions for shear predicted that Specimens SW13, SWIS, and SW16 should have failed in shear due to crushing of the inclined concrete struts assumed by the truss model. (On the other hand, although ACI predicted that the horizontal load corresponding to flexural capacity was ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1990ificantly lower than that corresponding to shear strength, Specimen SW26 reached its shear capacity and failed in a ductile flexural manner [see Fig. 9(d)]. Spec- imen SW17 also failed in a ductile manner in spite of the fact that it contained about half the horizontal web reinforcement specified by ACI to safeguard against shear failure, Such behavior indicates that, in contrast to what is widely believed, the horizontal web rein- forcement does not have a significant effect on shear capacity, and certainly that effect cannot be described by the truss analogy concept. Fig. 12 and 13 indicate that collapse of the specimens occurred due to failure of the compressive zone. The presence of axial load only delayed the occurrence of such a failure, and thus further increased the wall ca- pacity. In all walls at their ultimate limit state, the deepest of either the inclined (for Type I walls) or flex- ural (for Type II walls) cracks reduced the depth of the compressive zone to a small value. In spite of its small depth, the compressive zone appears to be the main contributor to shear resistance since, as discussed ear- jer, neither the horizontal web reinforcement nor ag- ‘regate interlock were found to significantly affect the ‘maximum load-carrying capacity of the walls tested. ‘The high shear resistance of the compressive zone has been attributed to the development of triaxial compres- sive stress conditions in regions subjected to critical combinations of axial compressive and shear forces.” Triaxial compressive stresses have been found to de- velop in such regions due to the volume dilation that characterizes concrete when stressed in compression above a critical level. Volume dilation may be re- strained either by concrete in adjacent regions, for the case of plain concrete, or mainly by confining rein- forcement, such as that used in the edges of the walls tested. Failure under such compressive stress condi- tions is characterized by cracking in the direction of the maximum principal compressive stress, and this ex- plains the near-vertical splitting of the compressive zone Of the wall indicated in Fig. 12 and 13. Fig. 14 illustrates schematically the mechanism pro- ing shear resistance to the lower part of the com- pressive zone of the wall. A part of the horizontal component of the triaxial compressive state of stress counteracts the tensile forces that develop in the pres- cence of high shear forces. As a result, the compressive force within the compressive zone needs not to be sig- nificantly inclined to balance the boundary shear force. CONCLUSIONS 1. For all cases investigated, it was found that while axial compression reduces both vertical and horizontal displacement, it also causes an increase in horizontal load-carrying capacity and secant stiffness characteris- ies; this observed increase becomes more pronounced with increasing height-to-width ratio. 2. In contrast to what is widely believed, the hori- zontal web reinforcement does not appear to have a significant effect on shear capacity. Certainly, since the ACI Structural Journal / January-February 1990 reduction of the web horizontal reinforcement to al- ‘most half the value specified by building codes does not affect the failure load, this effect is not accounted for by the truss analogy concept. 3. The strength and deformational response of the walls were found to be independent of the uniaxial concrete strength characteristics within a range of 30 to 55 MPa. 4, Failure of the walls occurred due to nearly vertical splitting of the compressive zone in the region of the tip of the inclined (Type I) or the deepest flexural (Type I) crack, followed by splitting of the whole compressive zone. The failure region was more extensive with de- creasing height-to-width ratio and increasing axial load. 5. Shear resistance appears to be associated with the development of triaxial compressive stress conditions within the compressive zone near the base of the wall where the flexural moment attains its maximum value. REFERENCES ACI Commitee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Rein- forced Concrete (ACI 318-83)," American Concrete Institute, De- wot, 1983, 11 pp. 2. Tentative Provisions forthe Development of Seismic Regula- tions for Bulldings." ATC Publication No. ATC 3-06/NSF Publico- tion No. 78-8/NBS Special Publication No. $10, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978, 508 pp. 3. Uniform Building Code, international Conference of Building ‘Officials, Whiter, 198, 817 pp. 4. Barda, Flix; Hanson, John M.; and Corley, W. Gene, "She Strength of Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements," Relnforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, SP-S3, American Concrete In- stitute, Detroit, 1977, pp. 149-202. 5. Cardenas, Alex E., and Magura, Donald D., “Strength of High Rise Shear Walls—Rectangular Cross Section,” Response of Mult- story Conerete Structures to Lateral Fores, SP-36, American Con- ‘rete Insitute, Dettoit, 1973, pp. 119-131 H. Ga; and Corley, W. G., “Strength ‘of Low-Rise Sirctural Walls,” Reinforced Concrete Structures Sub- Jected to Wind and Earthquake Fores, SP-63, American Concrete Tasttute, Detroit, 1980, pp. 221-24. 17. Maier, J., and Tallimann, B., “Bruchversuche an Stablbeton- scheiben,” Institut far Baustatie und Konstructon, Eifgenossishe ‘Technische Hochschule, Zirich, 1985, 130 pp. 3. Oesterle, R. G.; Forato, A. E. Aristzabal-Ochoa, J. D.; and Corley, W. G., “Hysteretc Response of Reinforced Concrete Struc: tural Walls." Reinforeed Concrete Structures Subjected 10 Wind and Earthquake Forces, SP-63, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1980, pp. 20-273 9. Aktan, Ahmet E., and Bertero, Vitelmo V., “RC Structural Walls: Seismic Design for Shear,” Journal of Structural Engineer ing, ASCE, V. 111, No. 8, Aus. 1985, pp. 1775-1791 10, Kotiovos, Michael D., "Consideration of Triaxial Stress Con- Aitons in Design: A Necessity," ACT Structural Journal, V.84, No. 3, May-June 1987 pp. 266-273. 1. Lefas, 1. D., and Kotsovos, M. D., “Behaviour of Reinforced ‘Concrete Walls: A’New Interpretation,” Proceedings, [ABSE Collo- 4quium on Computational Mechanics of Concrete Structures—Ad- ‘vances and Applications, Delft, 1987, pp. 455-462 12 Lefas, I D., “Behaviour of Reinforced Conerete Walls and Is Implication for Ultimate Limit State Design,” PAD Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 1988, 330 pp. 13, Kotsovos, Michael D., “Compressive Force Patch Concept: Basis for Reinforced Concrete Ultimate Limit State Design,” ACT Structural Journal, V.88, No.1, Jan-Feb. 1988, pp. 68-75. 31