Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Out-of-Plane Response of In-Plane-Loaded Ductile

Structural Walls: State-of-the-Art and Classification
of the Observed Mechanisms

Farhad Dashti, Rajesh P. Dhakal & Stefano Pampanin

To cite this article: Farhad Dashti, Rajesh P. Dhakal & Stefano Pampanin (2020): Out-of-Plane
Response of In-Plane-Loaded Ductile Structural Walls: State-of-the-Art and Classification of the
Observed Mechanisms, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2020.1713928

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1713928

Published online: 28 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 186

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1713928

Out-of-Plane Response of In-Plane-Loaded Ductile Structural

Walls: State-of-the-Art and Classification of the Observed
Mechanisms
a b b,c
Farhad Dashti , Rajesh P. Dhakal , and Stefano Pampanin
a
Quake Centre, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; bDepartment of Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; cDepartment of Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Following observations of out-of-plane instability in slender ductile struc- Received 26 April 2019
tural walls in some recent earthquakes, this mode of wall failure has been Accepted 7 January 2020
and is being investigated by several research groups. Analytical, numer- KEYWORDS
ical and experimental investigations have been conducted to study this RC Structural Walls; Out-of
failure mechanism as well as its controlling parameters. Both singly -Plane Instability; Numerical
reinforced and doubly reinforced concrete walls have been studied Simulation; Experimental
under unidirectional and bidirectional loading. A simplified approach Investigation; Different
making use of concrete columns representing boundary zones of rectan- Modes of Instability
gular walls has also been used to reduce the computational and experi-
mental costs of the research programs. This paper provides a state-of-the-
art on the research conducted on this failure mechanism and the corre-
sponding findings, with the main focus on the walls with rectangular
cross-sections and under unidirectional loading. The out-of-plane
response of walls is classified into five different modes and the likely
forms of force-displacement and out-of-plane displacement history plots
corresponding to each mode are discussed.

1. Introduction
According to the observations made in recent earthquakes in Chile and New Zealand,
lateral instability (also referred to as out-of-plane buckling) of rectangular walls was one of
the failure patterns that raised concerns about the performance of shear wall buildings
designed using modern codes (Sritharan et al. 2014). Prior to the Chile earthquake, this
failure mechanism had only been primarily observed in laboratory tests (Beattie 2004;
Goodsir 1985; Johnson 2010; Oesterle et al. 1976; Thomsen and Wallace 1995). Out-of-
plane buckling or instability due to in-plane loads refers to buckling of an end region of
a wall section, where development of large tensile strains followed by a load reversal can
result in exertion of large compressive actions on reinforcing bars of a cracked section,
thus providing a critical situation for instability of the section. This failure mode (i.e.,
instability) can be exacerbated by any inherent eccentricities in the load application in
addition to non-uniformity of material response (e.g., reinforcement yielding) along the
wall thickness. Observations of this mode of failure in two wall experiments, which were

CONTACT Farhad Dashti farhad.dashti@canterbury.ac.nz Quake Centre, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,

New Zealand
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 F. DASHTI ET AL.

not designed to investigate this mode of behavior are summarized in the following
subsections .

1.1. PCA Wall Experiments

Specimen R2 (Oesterle et al. 1976) was a relatively slender RC wall with a height-to-
thickness ratio of 45, an aspect (height-to-length) ratio of 2.4 and no axial load, subjected
to a low shear stress demand. The dimensions and reinforcement detailing of this speci-
men are illustrated in Figure 1a. This specimen started to exhibit out-of-plane deforma-
tion after being exposed to three cycles at 1.7% drift. The maximum value of this initial
out-of-plane displacement, which was measured at a point 1.1 m above the base, was
6.4 mm. Although this out-of-plane deformation progressed further with each cycle, the
load-carrying capacity of the wall remained stable. Figure 1b displays the base shear versus
top displacement response of the specimen. The test was stopped after the second cycle at
2.2% drift, during which the maximum out-of-plane movement reached 76.2 mm (as
shown in Figure. 1c), and a lateral support was provided at the level of 1.1 m. A large out-
of-plane deformation was observed within the lower 1.1 m during the second cycle at 2.8%
drift accompanied by about 20% reduction in the load-carrying capacity. Several bars
fractured during the first cycle at 3.3% drift and the out-of-plane displacement progressed
further. The load-carrying capacity continued to decrease during the second and third
cycles at 3.3% drift along with considerable crushing and loss of concrete.

1.2. EERC Wall Experiments

Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979) observed instability of the boundary zones in three of
the tested wall specimens (Specimens 3, 5 and 6). Specimen 3 was an I-shaped specimen
with the boundary zone thickness more than two times the panel thickness (as shown in
Figure. 2a). The instability developed after unloading the specimen from a monotonic
displacement equivalent to about 6.0% drift and during reloading in the opposite direction.
The quantity of the average tensile strain developed in the bottom 700 mm (25% of the

Figure 1. Response of Specimen R2: (a) dimensions and reinforcement detailing; (b) load–displacement
response; (c) out-of-plane displacement during the second 2.0% drift (Adapted from Oesterle et al.
1976).
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

Figure 2. (a) Cross-section detailing and base shear versus top displacement response of Specimen 3;
(b) out-of-plane instability of the specimen. Adapted from UCB/EERC-79/20 (Vallenas, Bertero, and
Popov 1979).

height) of the boundary region at the peak displacement (6.0% drift) was about 0.1 and the
out-of-plane displacement was observable when this strain was reduced to about 0.08.
Figure 2a shows the base shear versus top displacement response of the specimen. Load
points (LP) are indicated in this figure. Load point 80 is the stage where the instability of the
boundary column was observed. The load was able to increase only slightly up to LP 81
when the column completely buckled. This point marked the end of the test and the
specimen was unloaded to LP 82. Figure 2b shows the rather abrupt development of out-
of-plane instability in the specimen during LPs 80 and 81. No other failure modes (such as
bar fracture, bar buckling, concrete crushing) were reported in this boundary column before
the initiation of buckling. Therefore, this instability had progressed independently with no
interactions with other failure modes and could be considered as the global type of
instability.
Specimen 5 was a rectangular wall subjected to a monotonic loading protocol. The speci-
men was loaded up to 2.5% drift level, where a significant drop of strength was observed after
rupture of a lateral confinement hoop followed by buckling of longitudinal bars at the base of
the compressive column and development of out-of-plane deformation. During unloading
and reloading in the opposite direction, compression was introduced in the column that had
a large number of residual open tensile cracks, resulting in the evolution of out-of-plane
deformation in this region. The progression of this out-of-plane deformation was however
intervened by a flexural shear crack and the concrete crushing that propagated all the way
through the specimen. At this point, the load dropped and the specimen failed.
Specimen 6 had the same detailing as Specimen 5 but was subjected to a cyclic lateral
loading. During the second cycle at 1.7% drift, cover concrete spalled on one side of the
compression boundary zone and resulted in its instability, taking part of the wall panel along
with it. At this point, the lateral load capacity of the specimen dropped and the test was
terminated. The cross-section detailing and base shear versus top displacement response of
this specimen are displayed in Figure 3a. Figure 3b–c indicates the asymmetric cover spalling
and instability of the specimen, respectively.
4 F. DASHTI ET AL.

Figure 3. (a) Cross-section detailing and base shear versus top displacement response of Specimen 6;
(b) asymmetric cover spalling at the base; (c) instability of the specimen. Adapted from UCB/EERC-79/20
(Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov 1979).

Based on these experimental observations, Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979) classi-
fied the out-of-plane instability of the structural walls as follows:

(a) Buckling of boundary element after spalling of the concrete cover

According to Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979), this type of failure was observed
in Specimens 5 and 6. In the case of Specimen 5, the initiation of failure was caused
by an asymmetric spalling of the concrete cover. The cover thickness comprised
28% of the confined core thickness and 52% of the moment of inertia about the
weak axis of the column, and the loss of this portion at the base was believed to
have played a key role in the instability of the boundary regions. In Specimen 6, the
initiation of out-of-plane deformation was identified, by the variation between
strain measurements of the gauges mounted on two faces of the wall, to have
occurred during the second cycle of the 1.7% drift although a significant drop of
strength was not observed during this cycle. The specimen failed during the third
cycle of this drift level due to the instability of the boundary region. The strength
degradation of the specimen in this cycle can be seen in Figure 3a.
(b) Buckling of boundary element with residual open cracks
According to Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979), this buckling mechanism was
observed in Specimens 3 and 5 when the monotonically applied lateral load was revered
after opening of large tensile cracks in the boundary element. This mechanism was
believed to be caused by the reduction in the moment of inertia in the cracked section
because of residual tension cracks, and by the reduction in the modulus of elasticity of
the longitudinal reinforcement steel because of the Bauschinger effect.

The first two instances where the development of out-of-plane instability was observed in wall
experiments are discussed above. It should be noted that some of these tested units are not
representative of general construction practice and the loadings applied in these tests are not
necessarily representative of seismic actions. Specimen R2 (Oesterle et al. 1976) had an
unrealistic unsupported height, generating a height-to-thickness ratio of 45, and Specimen 3
(Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov 1979) was subjected to a significantly large in-plane drift (6.0%)
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

before the development of instability. Nevertheless, the failure mechanisms observed in these
two cases are consistent and qualitatively in good agreement with the experimental observations
made in the subsequent years. This paper puts together the methodologies used in recent years
for tackling this complex response of structural walls. The research activities conducted in this
area can be classified into three groups of analytical, numerical, and experimental investigations.
The walls with rectangular cross sections and under unidirectional loading are generally
addressed in these studies.

2. Design Provisions
The only requirements addressed in major seismic codes for buildings to avoid out-of-plane
instability are related to minimum thickness provisions. The wall thickness requirements of
different seismic codes are presented in Table 1. As can be seen in this table, the ICBO 1997
(UBC 97) requires a boundary zone thickness greater than lu =16, where lu is the clear story
height (e refers to wall thickness in this table). No slenderness limits existed in ACI 318–11 for
specially confined boundary zones, and a single curtain of web reinforcement was allowed as
long as the shear stress did not exceed a specific value. ACI 318–14 requires a minimum
thickness of lu =16 at all specially confined boundary zones, and two curtains of web reinforce-
ment are required in all walls having height to length ratios greater than or equal to 2.0 (Ghosh
2016). This limitation is also included in the Chilean concrete design standard (Decreto
Supremo 60 2011), after observation of wall instability in the 2010 Chile Earthquake. Also, for

Table 1. Wall thickness requirements

USA e > lu =16 lu : clear storey height ICBO 1997
e: wall thickness
b
hu =16 hu : clear storey height ACI 318-19
For walls with hw
lw
2 and c
lw
38 ; b
12 in b: width of the flexural
compression zone
hw : height of entire wall
lw : length of entire wall
c: neutral axis depth
New Zealand 100 mm < e < 250 mm e: wall thickness Singly
reinforced
walls
tm ¼ αr km βðAp
r þ2ÞLw
ffiffi αr ¼ 1:0 for doubly reinforced walls tm : thickness of the wall Doubly
1700  boundary reinforced
β ¼ 5 walls with limited ductile plastic regions Lw : length of wall walls
β ¼ 5 walls with ductile plastic regions Ar : The aspect ratio for the wall
ρl fy
 ¼ 0:3  2:5f 0 c
0:1 hn : clear vertical height
Km ¼ ð0:25þ0:055A
hn
 1:0 between floors or other
r ÞLw
effective lines of lateral support
Canada lu =14 < e < lu =10 lu : clear storey height Ductile walls
e: wall thickness
lu =20 < e < lu =14 lu : clear storey height Moderately
e: wall thickness ductile walls
Japan e > 150 mm; e > hu =20 hu : clear storey height Structural walls
e: wall thickness
Europe bwo
maxð0:15m; hs =20Þ bwo : thickness of web Structural walls
bw
hs =15 or hs =10a
200mm hs : clear storey height
bw : thickness of the wall
boundary
a
Depending on the length of the confined edge.
6 F. DASHTI ET AL.

walls with hlww
2 and lcw
38 , a minimum wall thickness of 12 in. is imposed by ACI 318–14 to
reduce the likelihood of lateral instability of the compression zone after spalling of cover
concrete. These provisions are included in ACI 318–19, as well (Table 1).
In New Zealand, a minimum permissible thickness of 100 mm is required except for
basements where the thickness may be increased to 250 mm. The out-of-plane buckling of
slender walls is addressed in Section 11.4.3 (Dimensional Limitations) of the New Zealand
0
standard (NZS3101 2006-A3). For walls with axial force levels greater than 0:05fc Ag and for
ductile plastic regions, the thickness in the boundary region of the wall section, extending over
the lesser of the ductile detailing length or the full height of the storey containing the potential
plastic region, shall not be less than tm (Table 1). The Canadian code requires a minimum
thickness of lu =10 to prevent instability of the compression zone but may decrease to lu =14 if the
compression zone is relatively small or if a flange, having a minimum width of lu =5 is provided.
The European standard has thickness limitations for the structural walls in both web
and boundary regions. The boundary region thickness shall be equal to or greater than
200 mm. A further limitation on this thickness depends on the length of the boundary
region (confinement length). For the confinement length equal or smaller than the greater
of two times the panel thickness and 20% of the wall length, the boundary region thickness
needs to be equal or greater than 1/15 of the clear story height; otherwise, it can be one-
tenth of the clear story height. The web thickness shall not be less than 150 mm and 1/20
of the clear story height. The Japanese design guidelines for RC buildings specify that the
cross-sectional shape of a structural wall, as a general rule, shall be of I-shape with the
boundary zones protruding from the wall surface. The panel region thickness shall not be
less than 150 mm and 1/20 of the clear story height. The use of a rectangular wall section
would be allowed if the thickness is equal to or greater than 400 mm.
While most design standards have specified the wall thickness limitation in terms of the
story height, the New Zealand concrete design standard is the only standard that tries to
incorporate the effects of different parameters on the out-of-plane instability of structural
walls. The New Zealand concrete design standard stability provisions are based on the
equations developed by Paulay and Priestley (1993).

3. Analytical Predictions
The out-of-plane instability of rectangular walls has generally been addressed using
analytical approaches. As there are not many test results on the initiation and develop-
ment of this mode of failure, some assumptions such as the height of the wall involved in
the formation of the global buckling (buckling length) have been made in these postula-
tions. Paulay and Priestley (1993) scrutinized the mechanism of out-of-plane instability by
idealization of the part of the wall height that has undergone out-of-plane deformation
with a circular shape and used the section equilibrium to establish a stability criterion for
the section undergoing out-of-plane deformations (Fig. 4). According to Paulay and
Priestley (1993), in addition to this criterion, out-of-plane instability of the section will
occur if the lateral displacement exceeds half of the wall thickness.
Chai and Elayer (1999) studied the out-of-plane instability of ductile RC walls by idealizing
the end-region of the wall as an axially loaded RC column and conducted an experimental
study to examine the out-of-plane instability of several RC columns designed to represent the
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

Figure 4. Geometry of out-of-plane deformation and relation of internal forces to the induced
eccentricity (adapted from Paulay and Priestley 1993).

end-regions of a ductile planar RC wall under large amplitude reversed cyclic tension and
compression. Chai and Elayer (1999) used the same stability criterion as Paulay and Priestley
(1993) and considered some different assumptions to calculate the maximum tensile strain
corresponding to the evolution of this failure pattern. Using the buckling mechanisms
described by Paulay and Priestley (1993) and Chai and Elayer (1999), Moyer and Kowalsky
(2003) proposed a tension-based buckling model for reinforcement in concrete columns,
recognizing the reinforcing bars as the sole source for compression zone stability in a fully
cracked section. Chai and Kunnath (2005) investigated the minimum thickness requirements
to safeguard against the development of out-of-plane instability in ductile RC structural walls.
A methodology for the assessment of the minimum wall thickness with the parameters that
are involved in the current use of structural walls was proposed. For this purpose, the link
between wall thickness and a number of parameters including the ground motion intensity,
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, floor weight, wall-to-floor area ratio, and the number of
stories was scrutinized.
Parra and Moehle (2014) hypothesized two different mechanisms resulting in instability
of slender walls. One hypothesis follows the postulations presented by Paulay and Priestley
(1993), recognizing the previously experienced maximum tensile strain as the parameter
triggering instability of a cracked wall section subjected to loading in the opposite
direction. The second hypothesis postulates that the out-of-plane instability is due to
concrete crushing that leaves an irregular/reduced cross section creating ideal circum-
stances for lateral instability under monotonic loading or under tension and compression
cycles. These hypotheses are in line with the two types of buckling first proposed by
Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979) as described earlier. A theory based on the analytical
models proposed by Paulay and Priestley (1993) and Chai and Elayer (1999) was applied
by Parra and Moehle (2014) to tests of reinforced concrete prisms and wall units as well as
to two Chilean buildings that had some buckled walls after the 2010 Chile earthquake.
Herrick and Kowalsky (2016) investigated the parameters that are influential on out-of-
plane buckling of ductile walls and re-examined the previously proposed buckling models
using the results of prior experimental work as well as time history analyses of buildings
subjected to the 2010 and 2011 New Zealand earthquakes.
8 F. DASHTI ET AL.

4. Numerical Models
Although various models (including both macroscopic and microscopic models) have been
proposed for numerical modeling of structural walls (Jalali and Dashti 2010), the simulation of
out-of-plane instability failure has seldom been attempted because of the challenges related to
the nonlinear geometrical and material behavior, as well as the lack of experimental data for
comparison purposes. Attard, Minh, and Foster (1996) derived a model based on plate
bending elements for calculating the buckling load of reinforced concrete walls under mono-
tonic loading. The model did not incorporate the instability of the cracked region under the
axial compression imposed by cyclic loading and was validated against experimental results of
24 simply supported reinforced concrete panels under uniform compression.
Simulation of out-of-plane instability using macro models seems rather complicated as its
evolution depends on the local material response. The FEM models, however, are able to predict
buckling/instability modes of response when a fine mesh across the 3D directions is adopted
along with large deflection formulations. An accurate prediction of the 3D response of structural
walls can therefore be provided using solid elements in a finite element modeling approach.
Mesh discretization along the thickness direction can represent the variation of material proper-
ties along this direction due to the effect of confinement in the core region. However, the
complexity of generating the model and conducting the analysis associated with this method,
particularly with a decent mesh size, would put a limit on the practicality of this approach.
Figure 5a shows the simulation of out-of-plane instability using solid elements of the finite
element program ABAQUS. Although unconfined concrete properties could be assigned to the
cover concrete by mesh discretization across the thickness and a detailed prediction of the wall
response could be therefore achieved, the number of element nodes generated in this approach
for a decent mesh size was huge, making the analysis computationally demanding.
Models composed of nonlinear shell-type finite elements, which are less computation-
ally demanding, are also able to capture the nonlinear strain profile along the wall length
and axial-flexure-shear interaction, thereby enabling them to reliably predict different
failure mechanisms of walls. If the mesh density is sufficient and the large deflection
formulation is used, overall wall buckling can be captured by this modeling and analysis
approach, as well (Maffei et al. 2014). Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin (2014a, 2014b)
proposed a microscopic (FEM) modeling technique using curved shell elements available

Drift (%)
-3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
300 30
F-D 3 1
Out-of-plane Displacement (mm)

OOP-D
4
150 15
Base Shear (kN)

0
2
5
6 0
0 0
1
Recovery
of OOP

2
3
-150 6 54 -15

-300 -30
-60 -30 0 30 60
Top Displacement (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6
(a) (b)

Figure 5. Numerical simulation of out-of-plane instability in rectangular walls: (a) solid elements-
ABAQUS; (b) curved shell elements-DIANA.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

in DIANA commercial program for numerical modeling of structural walls. The model
could reasonably simulate nonlinear response of structural walls and predict the out-of-
plane deformation that was observed in several rectangular wall specimens under in-plane
loading. The nonlinear response of concrete and rebar elements in the model showed that
during unloading and reloading of a cracked wall section, compression was taken by the
reinforcement only, until the existing cracks in concrete closed and concrete started
contributing to the load-carrying capacity. This phenomenon is mainly controlled by
the residual strain of the reinforcement and was easily captured by the program using
its path-dependent cyclic constitutive models. At this stage, the wall section was more
likely to deform in a pattern that requires less energy. In this method, there was no need to
make use of an artificial eccentricity that introduces a secondary bending moment, and
out-of-plane deformation could be captured under pure in-plane loading through numer-
ical computations based on the energy consumed by different possible modes of deforma-
tion. To the authors’ knowledge, no finite-element models reported in the literature were
previously verified for simulation of out-of-plane instability in rectangular walls under
concentric in-plane cyclic loading. Parra (2015) used the modeling approach proposed by
Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin (2014b) to investigate the out-of-plane response of wall
units and the corresponding boundary zones. However, an artificial eccentricity was
introduced in the material properties across the wall thickness in this study to trigger
this mode of failure. Rosso et al. (2017a) simulated the response of thin RC columns prone
to out-of-plane instability using this method. Scolari (2017) compared the out-of-plane
response captured by PARC_CL 2.0 crack model with the one predicted by this model.
Figure 5b indicates the predicted evolution and recovery of out-of-plane deformation during
unloading and reloading stages for a rectangular wall specimen and using the curved shell finite
element model. As shown in the force versus top in-plane displacement (F-D) and out-of-plane
displacement versus top in-plane displacement (OOP-D) graphs, the full recovery of the out-of-
plane displacement is in line with the pinching-induced change of slope in the F-D curve,
indicating that the simulated out-of-plane response follows the general consensus on depen-
dency of the out-of-plane response on the residual strain of the longitudinal bars.
A comprehensive validation of this model was conducted by Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin
(2017a, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a), which mainly focused on verification of the out-of-plane instabil-
ity simulated by the model using results of several tested wall specimens, a blind prediction as
well as a parametric study. The response of several wall specimens that exhibited various failure
mechanisms in the laboratory was also simulated by this model within the modeling group of
the Virtual International Institute for Performance Assessment of Structural Wall (NSF SAVI
Wall Institute). Different finite element model formulations were validated against these speci-
mens that reflected a broad range of wall configurations and response characteristics (Kolozvari
et al. 2019), and only the DIANA and LS-DYNA shell elements were found to be capable of
capturing strength loss due to lateral instability at wall boundaries.

5. Experimental Studies
5.1. Boundary Zone Testing
The out-of-plane instability of rectangular reinforced concrete walls under in-plane load-
ing has been mainly investigated by idealizing the boundary region of the wall as an axially
10 F. DASHTI ET AL.

loaded column. For this purpose, RC prism units were subjected to tension and compres-
sion cyclic loading. This type of research on out-of-plane instability failure was first
conducted by Goodsir (1985) and the main finding was the effect of the maximum tensile
strain reached in the reinforcement on the development of out-of-plane deformations.
Chai and Elayer (1999) also conducted an experimental study to examine the out-of-plane
instability of several RC columns that were designed to represent the end-regions of
a ductile planar RC wall under large amplitude reversed cyclic tension and compression.
Based on this study, the critical influence of the maximum tensile strain on the lateral
instability of slender rectangular walls was confirmed and the basic behavior of the wall
end-regions under an axial tension and compression cycle was described by axial strain
versus out-of-plane displacement and axial strain versus axial force plots. Also, based on
a kinematic relation between the axial strain and the out-of-plane displacement, and the
axial force versus the axial strain response, a model was developed for the prediction of the
maximum tensile strain. The effect of the specimen thickness was also studied in this
research.
Acevedo et al. (2010) investigated the performance of non-special boundary elements
under monotonic axial loading. Creagh et al. (2010) and Chrysanidis and Tegos (2012)
subjected concrete prisms to tension and then compression until failure. The results of
these experiments confirmed the effect of maximum tensile strain developed during the
tensile loading on out-of-plane instability of the specimen during the compressive loading.
In another test campaign by Shea, Wallace, and Segura (2013), the influence of specimen
thickness as well as the maximum tensile strain was investigated. Hilson, Segura, and
Wallace (2014) investigated the influence of spacing and configuration of transverse
reinforcement as well as load history on the response of rectangular columns representa-
tive of ordinary boundary elements in thin structural walls. In a similar study by Welt
et al. (2016) and Taleb, Tani, and Kono (2016), the influence of reinforcement detailing,
cross-section slenderness, and loading pattern on the failure modes of isolated confined
boundary zones of rectangular walls was scrutinized. Rosso et al. (2017) studied the
parameters affecting the out-of-plane response of singly reinforced walls using cyclic
tensile-compressive tests on the corresponding boundary elements. Haro et al. (2018)
included bidirectional loading protocols in the RC prism testing and scrutinized the effect
of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the onset of out-of-plane instability in planar
walls. According to the observations of this study, the axial tensile strains corresponding
to buckling are not influenced by the application of out-of-plane displacements.

5.2. Wall Unit Testing

The out-of-plane instability failure and the affecting parameters have not been the main
research objective in the past experimental research. However, this mode of failure was
observed and measured in several experiments. Rosso, Almeida, and Beyer (2016) pro-
vided an inclusive summary of these experiments which were conducted by Oesterle et al.
(1976), Goodsir (1985), Thomsen and Wallace (1995), Johnson (2010) and Rosso,
Almeida, and Beyer (2014). This data showed that all collected test units had some
common features in their response; in particular, reaching the same order of magnitude
of maximum tensile strains, and observation of the maximum out-of-plane displacement
at approximately 0% in-plane drift.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

Rosso, Almeida, and Beyer (2016) investigated the out-of-plane failure mode of walls by
analyzing the response of two singly reinforced walls tested under cyclic loading as part of an
experimental campaign on five thin T-shaped walls (Almeida et al. 2017). The specimens
were identical but were subjected to two different in-plane and bidirectional loading
patterns. One of the issues that was well elaborated in this study was the difference between
the effective buckling length assumed in the analytical models and the one observed in the
test. Rosso, Almeida, and Beyer (2016) observed that the application of an out-of-plane
displacement at the top of the wall increases the global out-of-plane deformation if it is
applied in the opposite direction of the latter and vice versa. The evolution of out-of-plane
instability was also observed in several limited ductile walls tested by Menegon et al. (2015).
The specimens had a height-to-thickness ratio of approximately 15 and were designed to be
representative of Australian construction practice.
An experimental campaign was recently conducted on the parameters that were
identified by numerical simulations to be influential on the evolution of out-of-plane
instability in doubly reinforced planar ductile walls (Dashti 2017; Dashti, Dhakal, and
Pampanin 2017b, 2017c). Evolution of out-of-plane instability in one of the specimens
(Specimen RWL), which was not affected by any other failure modes is described in detail
by Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin (2018c). Two types of instability were observed (Dashti,
Dhakal, and Pampanin 2018d), which are discussed herein in comparison with the failure
mechanisms postulated in the literature.

5.2.1. Global Out-of-Plane Instability

The failure mode of one of the specimens (RWL, Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin 2018c)
followed the mechanism postulated in the analytical models proposed in the literature and
observed in the concrete columns representing boundary zones of rectangular walls. The
evolution of out-of-plane deformation in this specimen was preceded by the propagation
of wide tensile cracks along a decent height of the boundary zone. Figure 6a highlights the
1.3 mm wide cracks developed within the elevation interval of 500–900 mm from the base

Figure 6. (a) Development of wide cracks in the boundary region during loading; (b) crack closure on
one side of the wall due to out-of-plane deformation during unloading and reloading in the opposite
direction (Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin 2018c).
12 F. DASHTI ET AL.

of one of the boundary zones at the peak of 2.5% drift cycle. During load reversal from
this peak, the out-of-plane deformation developed with a maximum value at the elevation
of about 700 mm from the base (as shown in Fig. 6b). According to the vertical strain
measurements, the maximum tensile strain generated in this boundary region (at the
peak) guaranteed compression yielding of the bars during reloading of the specimen in the
opposite direction. The crack closure on one side of the wall induced by this out-of-plane
deformation can be seen in Figure 6b, following which the out-of-plane deformation
started to recover. This sequence of tensile cracks, progression of out-of-plane deforma-
tion and recovery of out-of-plane deformation repeated during the following cycles and in
both boundary regions, alternatively, resulting in global instability of the specimen. The
global out-of-plane instability of this specimen is illustrated in Figure 7. No other failure
modes such as bar fracture, bar buckling and crushing of the core concrete were observed
prior to this mechanism and the failure of the specimen, accompanied by a rather abrupt
strength drop, was caused by the large out-of-plane deformation that exceeded the upper
bound limit of the wall stability. This upper bound limit for the out-of-plane deformation
was proposed as half of the wall thickness by Paulay and Priestley (1993). It should be
noted that no strength degradation was observed at the stages where the generated out-of-
plane deformation was recovered. The properties of this failure are in line with the
response of some of the specimens tested in the literature. Specimen R2 (Oesterle et al.
1976), Specimen 3 (Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov 1979), Specimen 3 (Beattie 2004),
Specimen RWN (Johnson 2010), Wall Types 1 and 2 (Menegon et al. 2015), and
Specimen TW1 (Almeida et al. 2017) are good cases in point. Also, failure modes of the
concrete columns that represented boundary zones of rectangular walls as well as the
analytical models proposed in the literature for prediction of out-of-plane instability
followed the same mechanism.

Figure 7. Comparison of global out-of-plane instability with the secondary failure, local instability, and
past earthquake observations. *earthquake photos from Kam, Pampanin, and Elwood (2011) and
Wallace (2012).
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

5.2.2. Local Out-of-Plane Instability

The development and recovery of out-of-plane deformation was observed in other speci-
mens, as well. The response of these specimens was however affected by the progression of
bar fracture and bar buckling at the base of the boundary regions, generating unstable
zones in these regions under compressive stresses. The instability was therefore localized
at the base with the value of the maximum out-of-plane displacement slightly above the
base. Note that the local instability is different from the global instability as it often occurs
at large in-plane displacement when the wall has already started to fail in other modes
governed by localized material deterioration; hence this type of instability is considered as
a secondary mode of failure. Figure 7 compares this type of instability with the global out-
of-plane instability. The instability of boundary columns observed in Specimens 5 and 6
(Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov 1979) which was preceded by asymmetric spalling of
concrete cover at the base exhibited similar properties. The likelihood of instability in
cases where bar fracture, bar buckling, or concrete crushing deteriorate the symmetric
response of the boundary zones across the thickness is relatively high. This mode of failure
was apparently observed more frequently compared to the global instability and was
considered in some cases as identical to the failure pattern observed in the Chile and
New Zealand earthquakes. The two types of out-of-plane instability are compared with
two of the commonly implied earthquake observations in Figure 7. The deformation
pattern as well as lack of any bar fracture, bar buckling or core crushing in these photos
suggest that the global out-of-plane instability as an independent failure mode had
occurred in these earthquakes.

6. Classification of the Out-of-plane Response in Structural Walls and

Differentiation between Local and Global Instability
To facilitate distinction between global and local out-of-plane instability of structural
walls, the main differences between these two failure modes are listed below:

(1) Crack pattern and strain gradients along the wall height
The flexural crack width of the specimens with local instability is generally greater
in few cracks at the base region while the wall with global instability exhibits
a uniform progression of flexural crack width along a significant height from the
base. This difference in the distribution of crack width indicates localization of
tensile strains at the base of the walls that exhibit bar fracture and bar buckling at
the base (Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin 2018e). The walls with global instability
have a uniform distribution of large tensile strain along a specific height resulting in
the development of compressive yielding of the bars along this height during load
reversal and evolution of out-of-plane deformation.
(2) Strength degradation
The walls with local instability generally indicate gradual strength degradations accom-
panied by the gradual evolution of concrete/rebar failure milestones, and the slope of
the load–displacement curves decrease slowly during the ultimate loading cycle. There
is normally no strength degradation in the load–displacement response of the walls
undergoing global out-of-plane deformation until the abrupt drop of strength due to
the final instability of the wall. With the maximum out-of-plane deformation occurring
14 F. DASHTI ET AL.

around 0% drift during different loading cycles, this strength degradation is observed at
around this stage when the out-of-plane displacement of the compression boundary
region becomes so large that it cannot be recovered. This brittle type of failure due to
global out-of-plane instability can be considered as a threat against the slender walls
designed to resist other failure modes.
(3) Buckling length and elevation of the maximum out-of-plane deformation
With the strain localization at the base of the specimens with local instability,
a limited height from the base of the boundary regions is involved in instability of
the wall. Development of large tensile strains and subsequent compressive yielding
along a significant height from the base of the specimen with global instability
results in the involvement of a larger height of the wall (about 70% of the
unsupported height) in formation of the instability. The elevation corresponding
to the maximum out-of-plane deformation is therefore significantly higher when
compared to the wall with local instability.
(4) History of the out-of-plane displacement
During a loading cycle, the out-of-plane deformation resulting from the local and
global failure mechanisms occurs at different stages. As the global out-of-plane
deformation develops during load reversal from a peak displacement and is fol-
lowed by crack closure on one side of the wall, its maximum value can be observed
anywhere between the extreme displacement levels in a cycle depending on some
parameters that control crack closure (such as axial load). On the other hand, local
out-of-plane instability is a result of deterioration of section symmetry under
compressive forces and can reach the maximum value at extreme displacement
levels when these forces are highest.
(5) Crushing of core concrete and buckling of reinforcing bars
In doubly reinforced walls, the boundary zone concrete core is generally crushed
before the local instability as this mode of instability is preceded by the concrete
crushing or bar buckling. This is while the failure due to global instability is not
accompanied by any of these local material failure modes although the longitudinal
bars bend with wall when this mode of instability occurs. This global distortion of
bars may be interpreted as bar buckling. However, buckling of the longitudinal bars
in confined RC elements takes place rather locally and spans one or more tie
spacing, with the number of tie spacing covered by the buckling length generally
referred to as “buckling mode” in the literature (Dhakal and Maekawa 2002;
Tripathi, Dhakal, and Dashti 2019).

Given the characteristics of two major and distinct types of instability noted above,
the possible modes of out-of-plane response in structural walls are sketched in
Figure 8. The specific features of each mode are presented using a schematic man-
ifestation of the possible graphs of lateral load versus top in-plane displacement
(F-D), maximum out-of-plane displacement versus top in-plane displacement (OOP-
D), and maximum tensile strain gradients. The experimental observations regarding
some of the out-of-plane response modes described above are presented in Figure 9.
The force–displacement (F-D) and out-of-plane versus in-plane displacement (OOP-
D) plots are given and the points identified in Figure 8 as the key stages in the
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

Figure 8. Classification of out-of-plane response in rectangular walls under in-plane loading.

development of out-of-plane response are highlighted along with the corresponding

photos of the tested specimens.
The classification demonstrated in Figure 8 is summarized as follows:
M1: Development of out-of-plane deformation during unloading and reloading stages of
a cyclic loading and its rather complete recovery at peak displacement levels in the
opposite direction, with negligible residual out-of-plane deformation. No strength degra-
dation is therefore generated in the F-D curve, and the OOP-D plot exhibits the maximum
value generally at around zero displacement during each loading cycle. The position of the
maximum out-of-plane displacement in the OOP-D plot could albeit move depending on
16 F. DASHTI ET AL.

Drift (%)
M1 1- a 1- b 1- c -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
1- a 1- a 300 0.8
F-D
OOP-D

Normalized OOP (ξ=δ/b )

150 0.4

Base Shear (kN)

0 0

-150 -0.4

-300 -0.8
-60 -30 0 30 60
Top Displacement (mm)
Concrete Drift (%)
M2 2- a 2- b 2- c 2- d -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
Crushing
300 0.8
F-D
OOP-D

Normalized OOP (ξ=δ/b)

150 0.4

Base Shear (kN)

0 0

-150 -0.4

-300 -0.8
-60 -30 0 30 60
Top Displacement (mm)
Drift (%)
M3 3- a 3- b 3- c -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
1- a 300 0.8
F-D
OOP-D

Normalized OOP (ξ=δ/b )

150 0.4
Base Shear (kN)

0 0

-150 -0.4

-300 -0.8
-60 -30 0 30 60
Top Displacement (mm)

Drift (%)
M4 4- a 4- b 4- c -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3
300 0.2
F-D
OOP-D
Bar
Normalized OOP (ξ=δ/b )

Fracture 150 0.1

Base Shear (kN)

0 0

-150 -0.1

-300 -0.2
-60 -30 0 30 60
Top Displacement (mm)

Figure 9. Experimental observations of the identified modes of out-of-plane response.

the parameters like axial load and reinforcement ratio (Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin
2019b; Dashti et al. 2019c). This type of response was observed in several wall experiments
and has generally resulted in global instability of the specimen, including Specimen R2
(Oesterle et al. 1976), Specimen RWN (Johnson 2010), Wall Types 1, 2 and 3 (Menegon
et al. 2015), Specimen TW1 (Rosso, Almeida, and Beyer 2016), Specimens RWB, RWT
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

and RWL (Dashti 2017), Specimen RWA (Dashti et al. 2019c) and Specimens 3 and 4
(Beattie 2004).

M2: Development of out-of-plane deformation during unloading and reloading stages of

a cyclic loading and its partial recovery at peak displacement levels in the opposite direction,
resulting in considerable residual out-of-plane deformation, and with the potential to induce
global instability if continuously loaded in the same direction. Concrete crushing at the
concave faces at the mid-height and both ends of the out-of-plane deformation profile is
considered as the main limit state for this mode of response. The analytical models proposed
in the literature deal with the mid-height concrete crushing, based on which a stability
criterion is recommended and the corresponding maximum tensile strain is calculated. This
type of failure was observed by Johnson (2010) (Specimen RWN), Menegon et al. (2015) (Wall
Types 1 and 2), Rosso, Almeida, and Beyer (2016) (Specimen TW1) and Dashti, Dhakal, and
Pampanin (2018c) (Specimen RWL, east boundary).

M3: Development of out-of-plane deformation during unloading and reloading stages of

a cyclic loading and its steady increase resulting in out-of-plane instability of the wall. This
stage generally corresponds to an out-of-plane deformation greater than the upper bound
limit proposed by the analytical models, i.e., half of the wall thickness and is associated with
development of an average strain greater than the critical strain for the given slenderness
(height-to thickness) ratio within the lower 70% of the unsupported height of the wall. An
abrupt drop of strength is therefore expected at the point where the dramatic increase of out-
of-plane displacement initiates. This type of failure was observed by Oesterle et al. (1976)
(Specimen R2), Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979) (Specimen 3), Beattie (2004) (Specimens
3 and 4), Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin (2018c) (Specimen RWL, west boundary).

M4: Development of out-of-plane deformation during unloading and reloading stages

of a cyclic loading and its suppression by a progression of local instability induced by
the asymmetric failure of reinforcement and concrete at the base of the compression
boundary region. The strength degradation develops generally gradually along with
rather gradual progression of local instability as compared to the global instability.
This type of failure was observed by Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979) (Specimen 5),
Menegon et al. (2015) (Wall Type 3), Dashti (2017) (Specimen RWB and RWT) and
Dashti et al. (2019c) (Specimen RWA).

M5: Development of localized out-of-plane deformation merely due to the progression of

reinforcement and concrete failure at the base (without any global out-of-plane deformation)
followed by local instability. The OOP-D graph does therefore indicates a steady increase of
the out-of-plane displacement at the stage where a rather large compression is induced in the
boundary region. This type of failure was observed by Vallenas, Bertero, and Popov (1979)
(Specimens 5 & 6) and Looi et al. (2017) (Specimen C30-N-ALR01, C30-N-ALR02, C30-
N-ALR03, C30-N-ALR04) and, as also noted above, has different characteristics as compared
to the global instability observed in the past earthquakes. The OOP-D graphs of the specimens
tested by Looi et al. (2017) are in good agreement with the typical plot of OOP-D for this mode
of response (Fig. 8).
18 F. DASHTI ET AL.

7. Potential Changes Required to the Current Guidelines

As discussed previously, the only requirements addressed in major seismic codes for
buildings to avoid out-of-plane instability of structural walls are related to minimum
thickness provisions, which are mostly related to the clear storey height as the only
controlling parameter. However, the minimum thickness requirement of the New
Zealand concrete design standard (NZS3101:2006-A3, Section 11.4.3) to safeguard against
out-of-plane instability is developed based on the assumptions and the analytical methods
proposed by Paulay and Priestley (1993) and incorporates the other controlling parameters
such as longitudinal reinforcement ratio. While the experimental observations and numer-
ical simulations concerning initiation and progression of out-of-plane instability are in good
agreement with the failure mechanism postulated by Paulay and Priestley (1993), the
assumptions made regarding the height of the wall involved in the formation of this mode
of failure are different from the test measurements and FEM predictions. This height, which
is denoted as buckling length, is assumed to be equal to the theoretical length of the plastic
hinge, considered as lp ¼ ð0:25 þ 0:055Ar ÞLw , and was identified as 75% and 70% of the wall
unsupported height for two singly reinforced wall specimens tested by Rosso, Almeida, and
Beyer (2016) and the specimens tested by Dashti (2017), respectively. Consideration of the
plastic hinge length as the buckling length in the analytical model developed by Paulay and
Priestley (1993) and for a specimen tested by Dashti (2017) resulted in a relatively larger
value of the maximum tensile strain compared to the experimental measurements (Dashti,
Dhakal, and Pampanin 2018c). On the other hand, plugging the experimentally measured
buckling length into this analytical model led to a relatively accurate prediction of the
maximum tensile strain corresponding to the initiation of instability. Furthermore, the New
Zealand requirements related to instability failure of structural walls are applicable to the
0
axial load ratios greater than 0:05fc Ag . According to the findings of previous studies
conducted by Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin (2015), the effect of axial load on the formation
and development of out-of-plane deformation is not straightforward and is contradictory in
some cases. The design provisions to avoid the progression of out-of-plane instability
cannot, therefore, be restricted to a specific range of axial load ratios (Dashti, Dhakal, and
Pampanin 2017d). Observation of this mode of failure in Specimen R2 (Oesterle et al. 1976),
which was not subjected to any axial load, is a good case in point.

8. Conclusions
Out-of-plane instability of RC walls has required more attention following observations of this
complex mode of behavior in the 2010 Chile and the 2011 New Zealand earthquakes.
Analytical, numerical and experimental studies have been conducted on full wall units as
well as concrete columns that represent wall boundary zones. Most analytical models have
been developed based on the section equilibrium equations derived by Paulay and Priestley
(1993). Out-of-plane instability of ductile structural walls under concentric in-plane cyclic
loading was numerically simulated for the first time by Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin
(2014a). This modeling approach, which is based on curved shell finite element formulation,
has been extensively used for investigation of this failure mechanism (Daza Rodríguez 2018;
Parra 2015; Scolari 2017). Rosso, Almeida, and Beyer (2016, 2017) were the first to study the
out-of-plane response of singly reinforced walls and the controlling parameters using wall
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

units and boundary zones. An experimental study on the parameters affecting out-of-plane
response of doubly reinforced ductile walls was first conducted by Dashti (2017), with the
detailed evolution of out-of-plane deformation and subsequent instability in these walls
described by Dashti, Dhakal, and Pampanin (2018c).
Recent experimental observations on progression of different types of instability,
namely global and local (secondary failure) were elaborated in this paper and the unique
characteristics of these two types of instability were identified and discussed in the light of
the past experimental observations. Unlike local instability at the wall base that is devel-
oped due to asymmetry generated in the wall cross section by another preceding mode of
failure (such as bar fracture, bar buckling or concrete crushing), global instability is
identified as an independent mechanism evolving as a result of compression yielding of
longitudinal reinforcement along a sufficient height (typically 70% of the wall height) of
the wall with residual cracks.
Considering the two different types of instability and the interactions between out-of-
plane deformation and the possible failure modes of flexure-dominated walls (e.g., bar
fracture, bar buckling and concrete crushing), the out-of-plane response of RC walls under
in-plane loading is classified into five different modes. The type of the out-of-plane
response determines the form of the out-of-plane displacement versus in-plane displace-
ment graph and the extent of strength degradation in the force versus in-plane displace-
ment curve.
Analytical models proposed in the literature for prediction of out-of-plane instability in
rectangular walls are developed based on the global instability mechanism, recognizing
this mode of response to be evolved due to dependency of the compression load-carrying
capacity solely on the rebars within a specific height (denoted as buckling length) of the
wall. The same philosophy applies when the numerical models exhibit out-of-plane
deformation during loading reversal from a lateral displacement that induces a large in-
plane curvature demands. Characteristics of the out-of-plane instability observed in
several wall buildings after the Chile and New Zealand earthquakes are also more in
line with the global mode of failure.
The New Zealand design requirements related to instability failure of structural walls
need to be revised in terms of the axial load threshold specified for application of the
thickness limitations. The assumptions considered in these provisions regarding the height
of the wall effectively involved in the formation of out-of-plane deformations are not in
good agreement with the test observations.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation
and Employment (MBIE) and the Quake Centre at the University of Canterbury to conduct this research.

ORCID
Farhad Dashti http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7153-0063
Rajesh P. Dhakal http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5524-5919
Stefano Pampanin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2714-6697
20 F. DASHTI ET AL.

References
Acevedo, C. E., A. Creagh, J. Moehle, W. Hassan, and A. Tanyeri. 2010. Seismic vulnerability of non-
special boundary element of shear wall under axial force reversals. Berkley, US: Florida
International University and University of California.
Almeida, J., O. Prodan, A. Rosso, and K. Beyer. 2017. Tests on thin reinforced concrete walls
subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane cyclic loading. Earthquake Spectra 33 (1): 323–45. doi:
10.1193/101915EQS154DP.
Attard, M. M., N. Minh, and S. J. Foster. 1996. Finite element analysis of out-of-plane buckling of
reinforced concrete walls. Computers & Structures 61 (6): 1037–42. doi: 10.1016/0045-7949(96)00179-4.
Beattie, G. J. 2004. Design of slender precast concrete wall panels – experimental testing. BRANZ
Study Report SR 129, BRANZ Ltd, Judgeford, New Zealand.
Chai, Y., and S. Kunnath. 2005. Minimum thickness for ductile RC structural walls. Engineering
Structures 27 (7): 1052–63. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.004.
Chai, Y. H., and D. T. Elayer. 1999. Lateral stability of reinforced concrete columns under axial
reversed cyclic tension and compression. ACI Structural Journal 96 (5): 780–89.
Chrysanidis, T., and I. Tegos. 2012. The influence of tension strain of wall ends to their resistance against
lateral instability for low-reinforced concrete walls. 15 WCEE. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN.
Creagh, A., C. Acevedo, J. Moehle, W. Hassan, and A. C. Tanyeri. 2010. Seismic performance of
concrete special boundary element. Austin, Berkley: University of Texas at Austin and University
of California Berkley.
Dashti, F. 2017. Out-of-plane instability of rectangular reinforced concrete walls under in-plane
loading. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of
Canterbury. 294.
Dashti, F., R. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2014a. Numerical simulation of shear wall failure
mechanisms. 2014 NZSEE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2014b. Simulation of out-of-plane instability in
rectangular RC structural walls. Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey.
Dashti, F., R. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2015. Development of out-of-plane instability in rectan-
gular RC structural walls. 2015 NZSEE Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, New Zealand Society
for Earthquake Engineering.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2017a. Numerical modeling of rectangular reinforced
concrete structural walls. Journal of Structural Engineering 143 (6). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001729.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2017b. Tests on slender ductile structural walls designed
according to New Zealand standard. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering 50 (4): 504–16. doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.50.4.504-516.
Dashti, F., R. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2017c. An experimental study on out-of-plane deformations
of rectangular structural walls subject to in-plane loading. 16th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 16WCEE 2017, Chile.
Dashti, F., R. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2017d. Evaluation of New Zealand code requirements
related to instability failure of structural walls. 2017 NZSEE Conference, Wellington, New
Zealand, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2018a. Validation of a numerical model for prediction of
out-of-plane instability in ductile structural walls under concentric in-plane cyclic loading.
Journal of Structural Engineering 144 (6). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002013.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2018b. Blind prediction of in-plane and out-of-plane
responses for a thin singly reinforced concrete flanged wall specimen. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 16 (1): 427–58. doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-0211-x.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2018c. Evolution of out-of-plane deformation and
subsequent instability in rectangular RC walls under in-plane cyclic loading: Experimental
observation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. doi: 10.1002/eqe.3115.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 21

Dashti, F., R. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2018d. Local vs global instability of ductile structural walls.
2018 NZSEE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2018e. Inelastic strain gradients in reinforced concrete
structural walls. 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2019a. A parametric investigation on applicability of the
curved shell finite element model to nonlinear response prediction of planar RC walls. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering. doi: 10.1007/s10518-019-00582-8.
Dashti, F., R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2019b. A parametric study on out-of-plane instability of doubly
reinforced structural walls. Part I: FEM predictions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (under review).
Dashti, F., M. Tripathi, R. P. Dhakal, and S. Pampanin. 2019c. A parametric study on out-of-plane
instability of doubly reinforced structural walls. Part II: Experimental investigation. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering (under review).
Daza Rodríguez, R. 2018. Implementación de modelos de elementos finitos inelásticos para la
simulación del comportamiento de muros de concreto reforzado. Universidad del Norte.
Decreto Supremo 60. 2011. Reglamento que Fija los Requisitos de Diseño y Cálculo para el
Hormigón Armado y Deroga Decreto Nº 118, de 2010. Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo,
Diario Oficial de la República de Chile, Nº 40.133, 1–8. (in Spanish)
Dhakal, R. P., and K. Maekawa. 2002. Reinforcement stability and fracture of cover concrete in
reinforced concrete members. Journal of Structural Engineering 128 (10): 1253–62. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:10(1253).
Ghosh, S. K. 2016. Significant changes from the 2011 to the 2014 edition of ACI 318. PCI Journal 61
(2). doi: 10.15554/pcij.03012016.56.80.
Goodsir, W. J. 1985. The design of coupled frame-wall structures for seismic actions. PhD,
University of Canterbury.
Haro, A. G., M. Kowalsky, Y. H. Chai, and G. W. Lucier. 2018. Boundary elements of special
reinforced concrete walls tested under different loading paths. Earthquake Spectra 34 (3):
1267–88. doi: 10.1193/081617eqs160m.
Herrick, C. K., and M. J. Kowalsky. 2016. Out-of-plane buckling of ductile reinforced structural
walls due to in-plane loads. Journal of Structural Engineering 143 (3): 04016182. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001660.
Hilson, C., C. Segura, and J. Wallace. 2014. Experimental study of longitudinal reinforcement
buckling in reinforced concrete structural wall boundary elements. Tenth U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (10NCEE), Anchorage, Alaska.
Jalali, A., and F. Dashti. 2010. Nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls using macro-
scopic and microscopic models. engineering Structures Structures 32(9): 2959–2968. doi:10.1016/
j.engstruct.2010.05.015
Johnson, B. 2010. Anchorage detailing effects on lateral deformation components of R/C shear
walls. Master Thesis, University of Minnesota.
Kam, W. Y., S. Pampanin, and K. Elwood. 2011. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttelton) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering 44 (4): 239–78. doi: 10.5459/bnzsee.44.4.239-278.
Kolozvari, K., L. Biscombe, F. Dashti, R. Dhakal, A. Gogus, M. F. Gullu, R. Henry,
L. Massone, K. Orakcal, F. Rojas, et al. 2019. State-of-the-art in nonlinear finite element
modeling of planar reinforced concrete walls. Engineering Structures 194: 46–65. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.097.
Looi, D., R. Su, B. Cheng, and H. Tsang. 2017. Effects of axial load on seismic performance of
reinforced concrete walls with short shear span. Engineering Structures 151: 312–26. doi: 10.1016/
j.engstruct.2017.08.030.
Maffei, J., P. Bonelli, D. Kelly, D. E. Lehman, L. Lowes, J. Moehle, K. Telleen, J. Wallace, and
M. Willford. 2014. Recommendations for seismic design of reinforced concrete wall buildings
based on studies of the 2010 Maule, Chile Earthquake. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Menegon, S., J. Wilson, E. Gad, and N. Lam. 2015. Out-of-plane buckling of limited ductile
reinforced concrete walls under cyclic loads. 2015 NZSEE Connference, Rotorua, New Zealand.
22 F. DASHTI ET AL.

Moyer, M. J., and M. J. Kowalsky. 2003. Influence of tension strain on buckling of reinforcement in
concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal 100 (1): 75–85.
NZS3101. 2006. Concrete structures standard, NZS 3101:2006 parts 1&2. Standards New Zealand.
Oesterle, R., A. Fiorato, L. Johal, J. Carpenter, H. Russell, and W. Corley. 1976. Earthquake resistant
structural walls: Tests of isolated walls. Research and Development Construction Technology
Laboratories, Portland Cement Association. PCA Serial No. Report 1571. doi: 10.1084/jem.143.4.741.
Parra, P. F. 2015. Stability of reinforced concrete wall boundaries. PhD, University of California,
Berkeley. 219.
Parra, P. F., and J. P. Moehle. 2014. Lateral buckling in reinforced concrete walls. Report No. UCB/
SEMM-2014/01, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California,
Berkeley.
Paulay, T., and M. Priestley. 1993. Stability of ductile structural walls. ACI Structural Journal 90 (4):
385–92.
Rosso, A., J. Almeida, and K. Beyer. 2016. Stability of thin reinforced concrete walls under cyclic
loads: State-of-the-art and new experimental findings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 1–30.
doi: 10.1007/s10518-015-9827-x.
Rosso, A., J. P. Almeida, and K. Beyer. 2014. Short report on the experimental cyclic test of a thin RC
wall (TW1) for blind prediction purposes. Switzerland: Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics Laboratory, ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALE DE LAUSANNE (EPFL).
Rosso, A., L. Jime´nez, J. Almeida, and K. Beyer. 2017a. Experimental campaign on thin RC
columns prone to out-of-plane instability: Numerical simulation using shell element models.
VIII Congreso Nacional de Ingenierı´a Sı´smica, Barranquilla, Colombia.
Rosso, A., L. A. Jiménez-Roa, J. P. de Almeida, A. P. G. Zuniga, C. A. Blandón, R. L. Bonett, and
K. Beyer. 2017b. Cyclic tensile-compressive tests on thin concrete boundary elements with
a single layer of reinforcement prone to out-of-plane instability. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering. doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-0228-1.
Scolari, M. 2017. Implementation of PARC_CL 2.0 crack model for reinforced concrete members
subjected to cyclic and dynamic loading. PhD, University of Parma.
Shea, M., J. W. Wallace, and C. Segura. 2013. Seismic performance of thin reinforced concrete shear
wall boundaries. September 6th, 2013 Marissa Shea Home Institution: University of
Massachusetts Amherst REU Site: University of California Los Angeles Principal.
Sritharan, S., K. Beyer, R. S. Henry, Y. Chai, M. Kowalsky, and D. Bull. 2014. Understanding poor
seismic performance of concrete walls and design implications. Earthquake Spectra 30 (1):
307–34. doi: 10.1193/021713EQS036M.
Taleb, R., M. Tani, and S. Kono. 2016. Performance of confined boundary regions of RC walls under
cyclic reversal loadings. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology 14 (4): 108–24. doi: 10.3151/
jact.14.108.
Thomsen, J. H., IV, and J. W. Wallace. 1995. Displacement-based design of reinforced concrete
structural walls: An experimental investigation of walls with rectangular and T-shaped
cross-sections. Report No. CU/CEE-95-06, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.
Tripathi, M., R. P. Dhakal, and F. Dashti. 2019. Bar buckling in ductile RC walls with different
boundary zone detailing: Experimental investigation. Engineering Structures 198: 109544. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109544.
Vallenas, J. M., V. V. Bertero, and E. P. Popov. 1979. Hysteretic behaviour of reinforced concrete
structural walls. Report no. UCB/EERC-79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley.
Wallace, J. 2012. Behavior, design, and modeling of structural walls and coupling beams — Lessons
from recent laboratory tests and earthquakes. International Journal of Concrete Structures and
Materials 6 (1): 3–18. doi: 10.1007/s40069-012-0001-4.
Welt, T. S., L. M. Massone, J. M. LaFave, D. E. Lehman, S. L. McCabe, and P. Polanco. 2016.
Confinement behavior of rectangular reinforced concrete prisms simulating wall boundary
elements. Journal of Structural Engineering 143 (4): 04016204. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001682.