Deformation Capacity and Performance-Based Seismic Design

for Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls

Ying Zhou*1, Dan Zhang2, Zhihua Huang3 and Dan Li4

1
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, P.R. China
2
Doctoral Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, P.R. China
3
Doctor, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, P.R. China
4
Master Student, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, P.R. China

Abstract
Deformation capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls is mainly influenced by concrete
confinement at the boundaries of shear walls, axial force ratio and wall aspect ratio. In this paper, the
relationship among the wall boundary transverse reinforcement characteristic value λ vw, the axial force ratio
n, the wall aspect ratio r and the ultimate displacement ∆uw is established first. Then, the relationship between
λ vw − n − r − ∆uw is verified against the results of 71 RC shear wall experiments conducted by eight different
research institutions. Based on the established relationship, the performance-based seismic design (PBSD)
method for RC shear walls is proposed. According to the method presented in the paper, the amount of
transverse reinforcement at wall boundaries could be determined, if the inter-storey drift demand θ and the
damage index Dw are predetermined. The use of the proposed PBSD method, which may guide future RC
shear wall design, is illustrated in detail by an example.

Keywords: RC shear wall; deformation capacity; performance-based seismic design

1. Introduction indicate that the strain capacity of boundary concrete

Reinforced concrete shear walls are one of the most
critical structural elements of mid-rise and high-rise
structures, as they typically serve to resist the majority
of lateral seismic loads. The deformation capacity of
RC shear walls, measured by the ultimate deformation
Δuw, significantly influences the seismic behavior of
the entire structure. Therefore, investigation of the
relationship between deformation capacity and other
related parameters of RC shear walls is of major
importance to performance-based seismic design for
RC shear walls.
There are various factors that influence the
deformation capacity of RC shear walls including
boundary confinements, axial force ratio, wall aspect
ratio (sometimes represented as shear span ratio),
etc. Boundary confinement is one of the dominating
parameters co n tr o llin g th e d amag e mo d e a n d
deformation capacity of RC shear walls. Experiments
*Contact Author: Ying Zhou, Professor,
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road,
Shanghai 200092, P.R. China
Tel: +86-21-6598-6157 Fax: +86-21-6598-2668
E-mail: yingzhou@tongji.edu.cn
( Received April 10, 2013 ; accepted November 11, 2013 )
could be increased by enhancing the constraint level of
the boundary element (usually quantified as the wall-
boundary transverse reinforcement characteristic value
λ vw), which as a result improves the wall deformation
ductility. The axial force ratio n is another fundamental
parameter that influences the failure mode and
deformation capacity of RC shear walls as it directly
changes the relative compression depth of the cross
section of the wall. The wall aspect ratio r is a crucial
parameter among those that influence the failure mode
of the structure. It is verified experimentally that
flexural failure usually occurs when wall aspect ratio r
is greater than 2; flexural-shear failure happens when
r is between 1 and 2; and shear failure predominates
when r is less than 1.
The deformation capacity design of RC shear walls
seeks to establish a relationship between deformation
and deformation-affecting factors. In this paper, the λ vw
− n − r − ∆uw relationship is set up so that the PBSD
of RC shear walls can be realized by calculating the
transverse reinforcement at the boundaries in light of
the anticipated deformation demands.
2. λ vw − n − r − ∆uw Relationship for RC Shear Walls
It was proposed by Mander et al. (1988) and
summarized by Paulay and Priestly (1992) that the

Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering/January 2014/215 209

ultimate compressive strain ε cu of confined concrete
could be obtained by the equation below:
(1)
In this equation, ρ v is the ratio of the volume of
transverse confining steel to the volume of confined
concrete core; f yh is the yield stress of transverse
stirrups; and ε cm is the ultimate tension strain of
transverse stirrups. The confined concrete strength is f cc
= kf c, where k is a strength enhancement coefficient that
depends on the transverse reinforcement characteristic
value λ vw. This parameter is defined as follows:
whereas for the concrete strength grade C80, it is set
at 0.94. Linear interpolation is used to obtain a 1 for
concrete with a strength between that of C50 and C80.
Generally, RC shear walls are symmetrically
reinforced at both ends, therefore As = As'. Assuming a 1
= 1.0 and l w ≈ l w0, Eq. 6 could be simplified to:
(7)
Axial force ratio is defined as n = N/(f c t w l w ),
therefore:
(8)

Letting ρ w fyw / fc = kf, we get:

(2)

According to Lu et al. (2005), when the (9)

reinforcement characteristic value is 0.023~0.523
(which is representative of most of the common design Substituting Eq. 9 into Eq. 5 and rearranging gives
practices), parameter k varies between 1.12~1.62.
Solving for ρv in Eq. 1 and substituting it into Eq. 2
gives: (10)

(3)

The ultimate compressive strain can be expressed as:

(4)

In Eq. 4, f uw is the ultimate curvature of the wall

cross section; xn is the practical compression depth of
cross section; xn = ξnlw0 , ξn is the actual compression
depth coefficient, lw0 is the effective height of wall
cross section, and d' is the distance between the inner
edge of transverse stirrups and the edge of the concrete
compressive region. Substituting Eq. 4 into Eq. 3 gives
the following expression:

(5)

In the computing model of rectangular cross section

shear walls, as shown in Fig.1., the force equilibrium Fig.1. Equilibrium Requirements for Rectangular Wall Cross
equation of the ultimate state is: Section (Wallace, 1992)

When the longitudinal steel in the shear wall such as

(6)
In the above equation, As and As' are the tensile and
compressive reinforcement area at wall boundaries; fy
and fy' are the tensile and compressive reinforcement
yield stress at wall boundaries; ρ w is the distributed
steel ratio; t w is the thickness of the shear wall; lw is
the length of the wall; f yw is the yield stress of the
compressive strength; a 1 is the equivalent stress
diagram coefficient. When the concrete strength grade
is less than or equivalent to C50, a 1 is taken as 1.0
the one shown in Fig.2.(a) has just yielded, the cross
section curvature can be assumed to approximately
follow a linear distribution along the height of the
wall, as illustrated in Fig.2.(b). When the bottom
cross section reaches its ultimate state, the curvature
distribution follows that illustrated in Fig.2.(c). In
order to simplify the calculation of wall displacement,
Park and Paulay (1975) proposed the equivalent plastic
hinge length concept, which assumes that there is a
section of length l pw within which the curvature is
identical with the maximum plastic curvature of the

210 JAABE vol.13 no.1 January 2014 Ying Zhou

bottom cross section. Supposing structural components
rotate with the centre point of the equivalent plastic
hinge region as the plastic rotation centre before they
reach the ultimate state, the ultimate deformation ∆uw
could be equated as:
(11)
Fig.2. Curvature of Shear Walls
Kowalsky et al. (2001) put forward a theory that the
plastic hinge length of shear walls could be regarded
as half of the cross section height when processing
the performance-based seismic design of shear walls,
namely:
(12)
Priestley and Kowalsky (1998) recommended the
shear wall yield curvature empirical formula as:
(13)
Thus the yield curvature of shear walls could be
approximated as:
(14)
Substituting Eq. 12 and Eq. 14 into Eq. 11 and
rearranging, gives:
(15)
If the reinforcement yield strain is assumed to be ε y =
0.0018, Eq. 15 can be simplified to:
(16)
According to the strength enhancement coefficient
k and the data range of the ultimate tensile strain ε sm
of confined transverse stirrups, the value of k/(1.4ε sm)
usually varies from 6 to 12. For simplification and a
design safety margin, k/(1.4ε sm) in Eq. 10 is taken as 20.
JAABE vol.13 no.1 January 2014 Ying Zhou
Substituting Eq. 16 into Eq. 10, gives,
(17)
So far the λ vw − n − r − ∆uw relationship has been
established, and will next be verified by experiments in
the section to follow.
3. Verification of λ vw − n − r − ∆uw Relationship
As RC shear walls can effectively resist lateral
force, they are increasingly used in high-rise buildings.
Su b s t a n t i a l e x p e ri m e n t a l re s e a rc h o n re gul ar
rectangular cross section RC shear walls has been
carried out by institutions at home and abroad. In this
paper, experimental data from 71 tested shear wall
specimens are collected from eight institutions which
are Tongji University (Zhang, 2007; Zhang and Lu,
2007; Jiang and Lu, 1997; Zhou, 2004; Zhang and
Zhou, 2004), Dalian University of Technology (Li
and Li, 2004), Tsinghua University (Li et al., 2002;
Chen et al., 2004; Zhang, 1996), Beijing University Of
Technology (Cao et al., 2008), Shenyang Architectural
University (Cui et al., 2004), Hanyang University,
Korea (Oh et al., 2002), Imperial College of Science
and Technology, London (Lefas et al., 1990) and
Clarkson University, America (Thomsen and Wallace,
2004). All the data from these experiments are
tabulated in Table 1. In Fig.3., the key parameters of
these 71 RC shear walls are summarized graphically.
The wall aspect ratio r ranges from 0.5 to 3.0; the axial
force n from 0 to 0.857; the ultimate displacement
ratio θ uw ranges from 0.48% to 2.86%; the ultimate
curvature φ uw ranges from 0.90 to 9.26×10-5mm-1; and
the transverse reinforcement characteristic value λ vw,e
ranges from 0.046 to 0.333. These data typically cover
regular conditions in current construction.
Following the process described in the previous
section, the wall boundary transverse reinforcement
characteristic value could be calculated as theoretic
value λ vw,c. It is demonstrated in Fig.4. that when taking
the theoretic value λ vw,c and experimental value λ vw,e
of the transverse reinforcement characteristic value
as x-axis and y-axis separately, the dots are uniformly
and bilaterally distributed along the y=x line. The
ratio of λ vw,c / λ vw,e ranges from 0.11 to 3.93, averagely
as 0.95 and the variation coefficient of the ratio is
0.70. The main reason for the discreteness lies in the
experimental data from different institutions.
211
Table 1. Experimental Data of Shear Walls
-5 -1
Specimen r kf n ∆uw (mm) θ uw (%) φ uw (10 mm ) λ vw,e
1 SW2.0-11) 2.0 0.051 0.300 41.91 2.10 4.60 0.073
2 SW2.0-21) 2.0 0.051 0.300 40.80 2.04 4.47 0.073
3 SW2.0-31) 2.0 0.031 0.300 37.91 1.90 4.14 0.073
4 SW-12) 1.9 0.089 0.400 15.47 0.81 1.71 0.198
5 SW-22) 1.9 0.098 0.200 25.67 1.35 2.95 0.217
6 SW13) 2.1 0.088 0.133 52.80 2.51 5.50 0.139
7 SW23) 2.1 0.061 0.115 46.60 2.22 4.83 0.106
8 SW33) 2.1 0.077 0.133 40.80 1.94 4.20 0.123
9 SW43) 2.1 0.098 0.133 57.60 2.74 6.01 0.123
10 SW53) 2.1 0.085 0.115 47.20 2.25 4.89 0.120
11 SW63) 2.1 0.098 0.133 43.20 2.06 4.46 0.123
12 SW73) 1.6 0.076 0.106 42.40 2.65 6.19 0.123
13 SW83) 1.6 0.076 0.106 32.00 2.00 4.65 0.108
14 SW93) 1.6 0.097 0.106 32.00 2.00 4.65 0.123
15 SW103) 2.1 0.098 0.133 44.60 2.12 4.61 0.328
16 SSW-24) 0.5 0.180 0.100 6.14 0.79 2.14 0.333
17 SSW-34) 0.5 0.180 0.200 7.38 0.95 2.56 0.333
18 SSW-T4) 2.8 0.111 0.100 57.06 2.04 4.10 0.171
19 SW116) 1.0 0.270 0.000 8.25 1.10 3.96 0.120
20 SW126) 1.0 0.257 0.100 8.86 1.18 4.25 0.115
21 SW136) 1.0 0.334 0.200 8.88 1.18 4.26 0.149
22 SW146) 1.0 0.335 0.000 11.21 1.49 5.37 0.150
23 SW156) 1.0 0.320 0.100 8.05 1.07 3.87 0.143
24 SW166) 1.0 0.257 0.200 5.78 0.77 2.79 0.115
25 SW176) 1.0 0.292 0.000 10.75 1.43 5.15 0.130
26 SW216) 2.0 0.343 0.000 20.61 1.59 5.28 0.110
27 SW226) 2.0 0.273 0.100 15.30 1.18 3.85 0.088
28 SW236) 2.0 0.289 0.200 13.19 1.01 3.28 0.093
29 SW246) 2.0 0.304 0.000 18.13 1.39 4.61 0.098
30 SW256) 2.0 0.306 0.200 9.47 0.73 2.27 0.098
31 SW266) 2.0 0.488 0.000 20.94 1.61 5.37 0.157
32 SJ-17) 1.0 0.059 0.100 16.96 2.42 9.29 0.130
33 SJ-27) 1.0 0.059 0.200 14.63 2.09 8.02 0.130
34 SJ-37) 1.0 0.059 0.300 14.27 2.04 7.82 0.130
35 SJ-47) 1.5 0.059 0.100 28.20 2.69 9.11 0.130
36 SJ-57) 1.5 0.059 0.200 23.80 2.27 7.67 0.130
37 SJ-67) 1.5 0.059 0.300 21.98 2.09 7.07 0.130
38 SJ-77) 2.0 0.059 0.100 35.45 2.53 8.00 0.130
39 SJ-87) 2.0 0.059 0.200 34.97 2.50 7.89 0.130
40 SJ-97) 2.0 0.059 0.300 32.63 2.33 7.34 0.130
41 CW-18) 1.9 0.064 0.260 17.50 0.92 1.96 0.260
42 CW-28) 1.9 0.062 0.360 11.10 0.58 1.18 0.190
43 CW-38) 1.9 0.071 0.400 12.90 0.68 1.40 0.210
44 WR-2011) 2.0 0.040 0.100 53.40 1.78 2.59 0.103
45 WR-1011) 2.0 0.040 0.100 85.90 2.86 4.24 0.205
46 RW115) 3.0 0.050 0.100 69.90 1.91 3.07 0.175
47 RW215) 3.0 0.050 0.100 79.20 2.16 3.58 0.199
48 SW1-117) 2.0 0.113 0.214 16.91 0.85 1.74 0.286
49 SW1-217) 2.0 0.113 0.428 17.18 0.86 1.78 0.286
50 SW1-317) 2.0 0.113 0.642 22.16 1.11 2.34 0.286
51 SW1-417) 2.0 0.113 0.857 11.25 0.56 1.10 0.286
52 SW2-117) 1.0 0.059 0.640 7.92 0.79 2.15 0.149
53 SW2-217) 1.5 0.059 0.640 9.64 0.64 1.47 0.149
54 SW4-117) 2.0 0.059 0.640 11.92 0.60 1.17 0.149
55 SW4-217) 2.0 0.059 0.640 11.89 0.59 1.17 0.149
56 SW4-317) 2.0 0.059 0.640 9.54 0.48 0.90 0.149
57 SW4-417) 2.0 0.059 0.640 16.92 0.85 1.74 0.149
58 SW5-117) 2.0 0.059 0.640 11.16 0.56 1.09 0.138
59 SW5-317) 2.0 0.059 0.640 16.33 0.82 1.68 0.169
60 SW6-117) 2.0 0.059 0.640 16.94 0.85 1.75 0.047
61 SW6-317) 2.0 0.059 0.640 20.66 1.03 2.17 0.199
62 SW-218) 1.9 0.068 0.160 35.50 2.22 5.83 0.046
63 SW-318) 1.9 0.068 0.160 36.30 2.27 5.97 0.135
64 SW1-119) 1.0 0.089 0.100 13.86 1.85 6.62 0.229
65 SW2-119) 1.5 0.081 0.110 21.32 1.90 5.97 0.208

212 JAABE vol.13 no.1 January 2014 Ying Zhou

 -5 -1
Specimen r kf n ∆uw (mm) θ uw (%) φ uw (10 mm ) λ vw,e
66 SW3-119) 2.0 0.068 0.130 33.80 2.25 6.62 0.174
67 SW-720) 2.5 0.073 0.280 31.69 1.81 5.31 0.296
68 SW-820) 2.5 0.067 0.400 21.96 1.25 3.55 0.271
69 SW-920) 2.5 0.062 0.280 28.60 1.63 4.75 0.168
70 SW-121) 2.5 0.085 0.100 46.10 2.05 4.72 0.181
71 SW-221) 2.5 0.085 0.200 46.40 2.06 4.75 0.181

Fig.3. Experimental Data Distribution of Shear Walls

So Eq. 17 could be rewritten as:

(19)
Suppose that the shear wall inter-storey drift angle
demand is:
(20)
Substituting Eq. 21 into Eq. 20 and rearranging gives

Fig.4. Comparison between the Calculation Results λ vw,c and the
Experimental Data λ vw,e
4. Performance-based Seismic Design of RC Shear
Walls
Suppose the shear wall deformation demand is ∆ w,
and define the damage index of shear walls D w as
below:
(18)
(21)
Now the performance-based seismic design of
shear walls is applicable using Eq. 21. It is also clear
that the option of the damage index of shear walls is
involved. In this paper, the damage index based on four
performance levels suggested by Zhang and Lu (2007)
is employed, as illustrated in Table 2.
The performance-based seismic design of RC shear
walls procedure is illustrated in Fig.5. and the design
example is presented next.

JAABE vol.13 no.1 January 2014 Ying Zhou 213

Table 2. Performance Levels and Damage Indices of Shear Walls
Condition Description Dw
A handful of slight cracks emerge on the surface of shear walls; the crack width is less than
Function Intact 0~0.1
1mm and the length less than 10mm.
A handful of cracks emerge on the surface of shear walls; the crack width is less than 1mm
Slightly Faulted 0.1~0.4
and the length less than 10mm.
Some major cracks emerge; the crack width is less than 2mm and the length less than
Moderately Faulted 0.4~0.6
100mm. Corner concrete begins to fall off.
Penetrating cracks wider than 2mm emerge on the surface; relative rotation occurs in the
Not yet Collapsed wall. Surface concrete falls off dramatically; longitudinal reinforcement exposed but not yet 0.6~0.9
buckled.

Fig.6. Reinforcement of a Shear Wall (mm)

= 0.174
5. Determine the wall-boundary transverse
reinforcement ratio ρ v = 1.58% , and consequently
determine the transverse stirrup Φ14@100 mm.
Similarly, for the same RC shear wall from the
previous example when the damage index is selected to
be Dw = 0.8 and the inter-storey drift demand calculated
as θ = 1/100, engineers could determine the transverse
reinforcement characteristic value λ vw = 0.302. This is
equivalent to wall boundary transverse reinforcement
ratio ρ v = 2.75%, and therefore engineers would choose
Φ18@100 mm as transverse reinforcement.

Fig.5. Flow Chart of the Performance-Based Seismic Design of
RC Shear Walls
Given the grade C40-concrete wall with a height,
width and thickness of 4000mm, 3200mm and 300mm,
respectively; which has 450mm-long boundary
confinement on both sides, and the reinforcement
determined by the first stage of the design as illustrated
in Fig.6., performance-based seismic design proceeds
as below:
1. Suppose the damage index of the shear wall
Dw=0.4;
2. Calculate the inter-story drift demand θ of the
storey in the shear wall (refer to Zhou et al. 2012),
which in this example is determined to be 1/300;
3. Calculate n=0.5 and wall aspect ratio r=h w/l w
=4000/3200=1.25;
4. Determine the wall-boundary transverse
reinforcement characteristic value λ vw using Eq. 21:
5. Conclusions
Properly designed RC shear walls largely influence
the safety of buildings under earthquakes and it is
important to use performance-based seismic design in
RC shear wall design. The deformation capacity design
of structural members is required in performance-
based design, in order to build a relationship
between member deformations and the deformation-
related parameters. The deformation capacity of RC
shear walls is dominated by boundary confinement
conditions, axial force ratio, and wall aspect ratio. In
this paper, the relationship among the wall-boundary
transverse reinforcement characteristic value λ vw, axial
force ratio n, wall aspect ratio r and shear wall ultimate
displacement ∆uw is established, namely the λ vw − n − r
− ∆uw equation. The theoretical values of λ vw computed
with this equation are compared with 71 shear wall
experiments carried out by eight research institutes to
verify the proposed λ vw − n − r − ∆uw equation. On the
basis of the equation, a performance-based seismic
design method for RC shear walls is presented. Using

214 JAABE vol.13 no.1 January 2014 Ying Zhou

this method, designers could calculate the transverse 16) Wallace, J. W. (1992) New methodology for seismic design of RC
shear walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 120 (3), pp.863-
reinforcement at shear wall boundaries in light of the
884.
anticipated deformation requirement, provided that the 17) Zhang, H. M. (2007) Research and development of performance-
inter-storey drift demand θ and damage index Dw are based seismic design theory and method. Ph.D. dissertation of
given. Tongji University. (In Chinese)
18) Zhang, H. M. and Lu, X. L. (2007) Experiment study on seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete walls strengthened by bonded
Acknowledgements
steel. Structural Engineers, 23 (1), pp.72-76. (In Chinese)
This work was financially supported by the National 19) Zhang, Z. and Zhou, K. R. (2004) Experimental study on seismic
Natural Science Foundation of China (51322803), behavior of high-performance concrete shear walls with various
National Basic Research Program of China aspect ratios. Structural Engineers, 21 (2), pp.62-68. (In Chinese)
(2014CB049100), and Shanghai Rising-Star Program 20) Zhang, Y. F. (1996) Experimental study on reinforced concrete
shear walls seismic performance under high axial force ratio.
(13QA1403700).
Master Degree Thesis of Tsinghua University. (In Chinese)
21) Zhou, G. Q. (2004) Research on the stress-strain hysteresis relation
References of high-rise buildings and its property. Master Degree Thesis of
1) Cao, W. L., Sun, T. B., Yang, X. M. et al. (2008) Experimental Tongji University. (In Chinese)
study on seismic performance of high-rise shear wall with bi- 22) Zhou, Y., Lu, X. L. and Huang, Z. H. (2012) Study on R-μ-T
directional single row of steel bars. World Earthquake Engineering, models in predicting the displacement demand of a hybrid
24 (3), pp.14-19. (In Chinese) structure. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering,
2) Chen, Q., Qian, J. R. and Li, G. Q. (2004) Static elastic-plastic 11 (1), pp.161-168.
analysis of shear walls with macro-model. China Civil Engineering
Journal, 37 (3), pp.35-43. (In Chinese)
3) Cui, X. G., Liu, Y. J., Guo, F. et al. (2004) Experiment analysis
of reinforced concrete shear wall with the cold-rolled ribbed
reinforcement. Journal of Shenyang Architectural and Civil
Engineering Institute (Natural Science Edition), 20 (2), pp.103-
106. (In Chinese)
4) Jiang, H. J. and Lu, X. L. (1997) Experimental study on low
cyclic reversed loading of vertical energy dissipation shear walls.
Engineering Mechanics, A02, pp.649-654. (In Chinese)
5) Kowalsky, M. J. et al. (2001) RC structural walls designed
according to UBC and displacement-based methods. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 127 (5), pp.506-515.
6) Lefas, I. D., Kotsovos, M. D. and Ambraseys, N. N. (1990)
Behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls: strength,
deformation characteristics and failure mechanism. ACI Structural
Journal, 87 (1), pp.23-31.
7) Li, H. N. and Li, B. (2004) Experimental study on seismic
restoring performance of reinforced concrete shear walls. Journal
of Building Structures, 25 (5), pp.35-42. (In Chinese)
8) Li, G. Q., Qian, J. R. and Gu, W. L. (2002) Study on seismic
behavior of shear walls with cold-rolled ribbed welded steel fabric.
Building Structures, 32 (10), pp.29-33. (In Chinese)
9) Lu, X. L., Zhou, D. S. and Jiang, H. J. (2005) Deformation
capacity and performance-based seismic design method for
RC frame columns. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 25 (6), pp.53-61. (In Chinese)
10) Mander, J. B, Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. (1988) Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 114 (8), pp.1804-1826.
11) Oh, Y. H., Han, S. W. and Lee, L. H. (2002) Effect of boundary
element details on the seismic deformation capacity of structural
walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31 (8),
pp.1583-1602.
12) Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1975) Reinforced Concrete Structures.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
13) Paulay, T. and Priestly, M. J. N. (1992) Seismic design of
reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
14) Priestley, M. J. N and Kowalsky, M. J. (1998) Aspects of drift
and ductility capacity of rectangular cantilever structural walls.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 31 (2), pp.73-85.
15) Thomsen IV, J. H. and Wallace, J. W. (2004) Displacement-
based design of slender reinforced concrete structural walls—
experimental verification. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130
(4), pp.618-630.

JAABE vol.13 no.1 January 2014 Ying Zhou 215