Analytical Study on Plastic Hinge Length of Structural Walls

_Ilker Kazaz1

Abstract: This study was organized to derive an analytical expression for the estimation of plastic hinge length for cantilever structural walls
using the results of comprehensive nonlinear finite-element analyses. For that purpose, a parametric study was conducted. The variation of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

plastic zone length at the base of the cantilever shear wall models was determined on the basis of analysis results that depend on several param-
eters, such as the wall length, wall height, axial load ratio, and the ratio of wall boundary element and the web horizontal reinforcement. In light
of the parametric investigation, a plastic hinge length expression was proposed dependent on wall length, axial load ratio, wall horizontal web
reinforcement ratio, and shear-span-to-wall-length ratio. Existing plastic hinge length prediction formulations were also compared with the
plastic hinge length obtained from finite-element analyses. Finally, the accuracy and reliability of the proposed plastic hinge length equation
was verified by using the available shear wall test results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000770. © 2013 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Plastic hinges; Cantilevers; Walls; Rotation.
Author keywords: Plastic hinge analysis; Plastic zone; Plastic hinge length; Cantilever Structural walls; Plastic rotation.

Introduction as the plastic zone, Lpz . It is assumed that inelastic curvatures

Although advanced analysis tools and procedures are currently
available to determine the seismic response of RC structural walls,
the plastic hinge method and analysis derived from it are still used
extensively in displacement-based seismic design and perfor-
mance assessment procedures to estimate the inelastic displace-
ment demand and capacity (Sozen 1989; Wallace and Moehle 1992;
Priestley et al. 2007). The method is especially appealing for
structural wall buildings, because it is a simple method, and therefore
it is possible to idealize a wall member inside the building as an
isolated cantilever, as displayed in Fig. 1(a). In the plastic hinge
analysis, the tip displacement of a cantilever is obtained as the sum
of its yield displacement, Dy , and plastic displacement component,
Dp . Whereas the yield displacement is calculated by double in-
tegrating the curvature distribution along the cantilever, the plastic
displacement component is calculated by multiplying the height (H)
of the cantilever by the plastic rotation, up , at the base as expressed in
Eq. (1).
vary linearly in walls over the plastic zone. Because the plastic
hinge analysis is based on the condition that up 5 Lp 3 fp as
illustrated in Fig. 1(a), the plastic hinge length can be written as
Lp 5 0:5Lpz .
Various expressions were proposed for the calculation of plastic
hinge length. For RC components, equivalent plastic-hinge length
can be simply assumed to be equal to one-half the member depth,
Lp 5 0:5Lw , where Lw is the wall length (Park and Paulay 1975).
ASCE/SEI 41 (ASCE 2007) states that for analytical models of shear
walls and wall segments, the value of Lp shall be set equal to 0.5 times
the flexural depth of the element, but less than 1-story height for shear
walls and less than 50% of the element length for wall segments. The
flexural depth is recommended to be 0:8Lw in Eurocode 8 [European
Committee for Standardization (CEN) 2005]. The expression pro-
posed for the plastic hinge length in Eurocode 8 reads as
Lv dbL fy ðMPaÞ
Lp ¼ þ 0:2Lw þ 0:11 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (2)
30 f 9ðMPaÞ
c

fy H 2


Df ¼ Dy þ Dp ¼ þ fb 2 fy Lp H 2 0:5Lp
3
The term, ðfb 2 fy ÞLp , in Eq. (1) refers to the plastic rotation
up and is based on the assumption that the plastic curvature is
lumped in the center of the equivalent plastic hinge length, Lp .
The terms fb and fy represent the total and yield curvature at the
base section of the shear wall, respectively. The actual physical
length over which the plasticity spreads is larger and referred to
(1) where Lv 5 shear span (moment-shear ratio, M/V), dbL 5 (mean)
diameter of the tension reinforcement, and fy and fc9 5 yield stress of
the longitudinal reinforcement and compressive strength of the
concrete, respectively.
The plastic hinge length that yields accurate plastic rotation can
be easily determined from experimental data. Mattock (1967) and
Priestley et al. (1996) proposed similar expressions to estimate the
plastic-hinge length based on the RC member properties. The ex-
pression is in the form

1
Assistant Professor, Atatürk Univ., Dept. of Civil Engineering, 25240
Erzurum, Turkey. E-mail: ilkkazaz@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 18, 2012; approved on
November 5, 2012; published online on November 7, 2012. Discussion
period open until April 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 139, No. 11, November 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2013/11-1938–1950/$25.00.
Lp ¼ aL þ bD þ j fy db (3)
where L 5 member length between two joints (shear span in case of
shear walls, Lv ), D 5 member depth (on cross section), and db 5 bar
diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, respectively. In this
equation, the coefficients were derived as a 5 0.05, b 5 0.5, and
j 5 0 to calculate the plastic hinge length of beams based on
Mattock’s work. According to Priestley et al. (1996), the coefficients

1938 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. (a) Theoretical model of cantilever walls; (b) finite-element model of cantilever walls
for shear walls are a 5 0:08, b 5 0, and j 5 0:022, and the equation
reads as Lp 5 0:08Lv 1 0:022 fy db .
Based on a research specifically applicable to walls (Paulay
and Priestley 1992), the equivalent plastic-hinge length, Lp , can
be set at 0.2 times the wall length, Lw , plus 0.07 times the
moment-to-shear ratio (also known as shear span, Lv ), M/V,
which is
Lp ¼ 0:2L w þ 0:07ðM/VÞ (4)
In a very recent study based on the results of nonlinear finite-
element analysis, an expression was proposed for Lp as a function
of wall length, moment-shear ratio, and axial compression (Bohl and
Adebar 2011) as
 
Lp ¼ ð0:2Lw þ 0:05Lv Þ 1 2 1:5 P # 0:8Lw (5)
Aw fc9
where P 5 axial force on the section, and Aw 5 wall area. Several
other expressions have been proposed for the calculation of plastic
hinge length; however, all of these definitions require extensive
experimental verification, which is not available comprehensively
at the moment, because the experimenters focused more on load-
deformation characteristics than on the local response parameters.
The absence of complete experimental data due to limitations in the
experimental measurements and setups, and accuracy problems in
section-based moment-curvature analysis procedures in predicting
RC response under varying stress conditions, legitimized this study
to investigate the distribution of strains and curvatures along the
height of the wall at the base. A well-calibrated finite-element
modeling tool was used to investigate the plastic hinge analysis
method and its components, such as the plastic hinge length, plastic
curvature and rotation, and flexural and shear displacements for
shear walls. A parametric study taking into account the wall length
(Lw ) and height (Hw ), as well as the wall aspect ratio (Hw =Lw ), axial
load level (P=Aw fc9), and the amount of boundary element longi-
tudinal reinforcement (rb ), was conducted to determine the plastic
hinge length (Lp ). The accurate plastic hinge length (Lp ) is derived
from a prediction equation that can be used in the plastic hinge
analysis of cantilever walls, which was determined on the basis of
analysis results.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1939
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950
Analytical Framework Description
Finite-Element Model
With reference to Fig. 1(a), a cantilever wall with a point load applied
at the top deemed to be appropriate for the analysis purposes. As seen
in Fig. 1(b) a prototype hybrid cantilever wall model, which was
composed of solid and beam elements, was developed in the finite-
element code ANSYS R11.0 to reduce the computation time. The
static analyses of finite-element models were performed under
a monotonically increasing lateral point load (V) and a constant axial
load (P) applied at the top of the cantilever as illustrated in Fig. 1(b).
It is known that higher mode effects play a significant role on the
dynamic response of tall cantilevers. One way of including higher
mode effects in a static analysis is to employ an appropriate load
pattern (rectangular, parabolic, etc.) that mimics the possible dis-
tribution of lateral forces in the system. The cantilever model with
a point load applied at the top over the effective height can be
interpreted as representative of different loading schemes.
Preliminary static analyses of cantilever walls under uniform and
triangular load patterns displayed that even when cracking extend up
to the midheight of the wall, significant steel yielding extends over
only the lower one or two stories (Kazaz 2010; Bohl and Adebar
2011). This is also what is intended in design. The upper stories can
be effectively treated as a cracked beam. As shown in the model in
Fig. 1(b), the first two stories of the cantilever wall were discretized
with nonlinear solid continuum elements (SOLID65) whereas the
upper stories were modeled with the element BEAM188 based on
Timoshenko beam theory and taking into account the shear defor-
mations. The incompatibility between the nodal degrees of freedom
of beam and solid elements was overcome by providing the tran-
sition with constraint element MPC184 by using the rigid beam
option. To define the behavior of beam elements generalized
nonlinear section properties were used. The load-deformation be-
havior of beam elements was assigned in the form of bilinear force-
distortion angle (F-g) and moment-curvature (M-f) relation for
shear and bending behaviors, respectively. The initial flexural ri-
gidity was taken as 0:5EIw according to ASCE/SEI 41 (ASCE 2007)
because this value closely approximates the effective linear stiffness
drawn to the yield point [see Fig. 7(b)]. Geometric nonlinearity
(large deflection effects) was included in the analyses.
When a concrete panel is reinforced by a dense reinforcing mesh
and the change of internal forces from one bar to the next is small, the
 net effect may be considered as smeared. This modeling technique
was found to be effective for monotonic loading conditions (Kazaz
2010, 2011); therefore, in the solid part of the model the rein-
forcement was assumed to be smeared in the solid element volume.
Each color in Fig. 1(b) reflects regions with different amounts of
reinforcement. The different color regions at the edges are confined
boundaries that are 0:2Lw long. The amount of longitudinal re-
inforcement in the boundaries and horizontal reinforcement in the
web was kept as a variable in the parametric study. The amount of
confinement reinforcement was kept constant as 8 mm diameter bars
at 100 mm spacing in the boundary elements for all models. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1.5 m wide flanges at each story level were included in the model to
take into account the effect of slabs on the shear flow between the
stories along the wall (Vallenas et al. 1979). For realistic modeling
of fixity of the wall base and allowing penetration of strains into
the foundation, a support beam modeling the foundation was in-
cluded in the numerical model.
Material Models
For the modeling of concrete material, the five-parameter Willam-
Warnke (Willam and Warnke 1975) criterion was used with the
solid element in ANSYS. This model defines a three-dimensional
failure surface, where a linear-elastic stress-strain relationship is
assumed until failure. When used without a plasticity law it under-
estimates the deformation capacity of concrete because it neglects
the nonlinearity in the ascending branch and the postcrush strength
of concrete in compression. Therefore, in ANSYS the multilinear
isotropic work hardening plasticity (MISO) was combined with the
tensile failure criteria of the Willam-Warnke model. In this com-
bined material model, the plasticity check is done before the cracking
and crushing checks. MISO is similar to von Mises yield criterion
except that a multilinear curve is used instead of a bilinear curve as
shown in Fig. 2(b). Yielding or cracking of any material point
within the element is evaluated on the basis of principal stresses as
shown in Fig. 2(a). If the wall response is simplified to a plane stress
condition as displayed in Fig. 2(c), in the quadrants for tension-
tension and tension-compression the Willam-Warnke model pre-
vails until cracking of the concrete takes place. Upon cracking, a
plane of weakness will form, orthogonal to the crack direction,
which reduces the principal stress in this direction to zero as the
solution converges. Following the stress relaxation resulting from
Fig. 2. Modeling of concrete behavior under compression: (a) in principal stress space; (b) in the form of uniaxial stress-strain curve as input to the
program; (c) as multiple biaxial failure surfaces; (d) tensile behavior of concrete in tension
1940 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950
cracking in the tension-compression quadrant, both models will
interact. By disabling the crushing option in the Willam-Warnke
model, in the compression-compression quadrant, pure multisurface
plastic behavior is enabled. The failure (yield) stress value in each
surface is input through the multilinear stress-strain curve displayed
in Fig. 2(b).
The stress-strain relation of concrete in tension is presented in
Fig. 2(d), where ft is the uniaxial tensile cracking strength and Ec is the
modulus of elasticity. After cracking, a certain amount of stress re-
laxation can be included in the element stress formulation with the
constant Tc taken as 0.6, which is the default value. Rt is the secant slope
defined as shown. Rt diminishes to zero as the solution converges.
For all the walls analyzed in the current study, characteristic con-
crete compressive strength ( fc9) was taken constant as 25 MPa. The
elastic modulus of concrete was taken as 25,000 MPa. The stress-strain
curve of the confined concrete at the boundary elements of walls was
calculated according to the Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) model. The
stress-strain curve of confined concrete was input to the ANSYS pro-
gram as a five-segment multilinear curve, as displayed in Fig. 3(a). The
curve presented in Fig. 3(a) is for exemplary purposes; in the wall
models, these curves vary depending on the dimensions of the boundary
element and the detailing of the longitudinal reinforcement ruled by
design requirements. The web concrete was modeled as unconfined.
In nonlinear analysis of RC, a shear transfer coefficient must be
assumed. For closed cracks (bc ), the coefficient is assumed to be 0.8,
whereas for open cracks (bt ) it should be in the suggested range of
0.05 to 0.5, rather than 0.0, to prevent numerical difficulties. In this
study, a value of 0.05 was used, which resulted in acceptably ac-
curate predictions (Kazaz 2010).
Uniaxial behavior of longitudinal and transverse steels was mod-
eled with a bilinear isotropic hardening using the von Mises yield
criterion as shown in Fig. 3(b). The elastic modulus of steel was taken
as 200,000 MPa. The yield stress and the tangent modulus at strain
hardening were taken as 420 and 1,500 MPa, respectively.
For walls with moderate amounts of boundary longitudinal re-
inforcement, ties are required to inhibit buckling. Cyclic load rever-
sals may lead to buckling of boundary longitudinal reinforcement,
even in cases where the demand on the boundary of the wall does not
require special boundary elements. Additionally, the confined con-
crete models are applicable only if premature buckling of longitudinal
reinforcement is prevented. The buckling model proposed by Dhakal
and Maekawa (2002), which assumes a relationship between the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. (a) Typical concrete uniaxial compressive stress-strain curves; (b) steel material base curve and modified curves for different diameter rebar
including the effect of buckling
average stress and the average strain of reinforcing bars, including the
effect of buckling, was used to model the behavior of longitudinal
steel under compression. It was proposed that the average com-
pressive stress-strain relationship including the softening in the post-
buckling range can be completely described in terms of the product of
the square root of yield strength ( fy ) and the slenderness ratio, s/db , of
the reinforcing bar, where s is the unconfined length of the longitu-
dinal reinforcement between two transverse reinforcements and db is
the diameter of the longitudinal bars. Typical curves modified under
such conditions are displayed in Fig. 3(b).
After establishing the zones and the respective material proper-
ties, adjusting the properties of the model such as the mesh density
and the element characteristics are also important aspects of the
nonlinear finite-element analysis procedure. The SOLID65 element
has been vested with several features to increase the accuracy of the
calculations and overcome restrictions due to element behavior.
The multilinear plasticity model with strain softening as plotted in
Figs. 2(b) and 3(a) was used in the calculations. When the softening
property in the postpeak response is used in constitutive models, the
finite-element solutions are known to have spurious sensitivity to the
mesh size and to have difficulty in converging, because low order
elements such as the one used here were used in the finite-element
analysis. Since the global behavior is affected by the local response
in the compression zone of the web wall, the mesh density in the
localized damage region significantly affects the accuracy of the
results. There were 12, 16, and 20 rectangular elements used along
the length of the wall for wall lengths of 3, 5, and 8 m, respectively. It
is recommended that selecting 14–16 rectangular elements on av-
erage and aiming for an element aspect ratio close to 1 yields reliable
results in the finite-element analysis of shear walls.
The results of one of the several examples of validation of the
nonlinear finite-element analysis procedure described in this work
are presented in Figs. 4 and 5 (Kazaz 2010). The wall specimen
(RW2) with a rectangular cross section tested by Thomsen and
Wallace (1995) was analyzed. The wall was 3.66 m tall and 102 mm
thick. The wall length was 1.22 m. Well-detailed boundary ele-
ments, 153 mm length (0:125Lw ), were provided at the edges of the
wall for the bottom 1.22 m of the wall [see Fig. 4(b)]. The vol-
umetric ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement in the boundary
element was approximately rb 5 0:033. Vertical web reinforcement
amounts to rsh 5 0:00325. The average compressive strength of
concrete at the time of testing was measured to be 42.8 MPa.
The longitudinal bars were of Grade 60 steel ( fy 5 414 MPa) and
the ultimate strain at rupture from material tests was obtained as
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1941
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950
0.08 for No. 3 rebar used as the longitudinal reinforcement at the
boundary elements. The specimen was loaded cyclically by hy-
draulic actuators at the top. An axial load level of approximately
0:075Aw fc9 was maintained for the duration of the test. Full and
reduced finite-element models of the specimen were discretized as
shown in Figs. 4(b and c). As seen in Fig. 4(d), significant yielding
was observed at the first story of the wall when the scale of the test
setup was considered. Fig. 5(a) displays the strain profile calculated
over 229 mm gauge length at the base of the wall specimen. There is
good agreement between the experimental and calculated results.
Calculated monotonic and cyclic force-displacement curves also
agree quite well with experimental hysteresis curves as shown in
Fig. 5(b). The profile of the strain distribution calculated along the
length of the wall not only matches the measured response, but also
mimics the nonlinear trend in the profile along the section and
captures the localization of the compressive strains at the com-
pression edge. This phenomenon, ignored by conventional section-
based moment curvature analysis, is critically important for shear
walls in the determination of the actual damage in the plastic zone.
This exercise shows that the local response of structural walls at the
base can be determined satisfactorily with the adopted nonlinear
static finite-element analyses procedure. A detailed explanation of
modeling approach, finite elements, calibration of material models,
and further response prediction examples of RC shear walls can be
found in Kazaz (2010, 2011).
Modeling Parameters
Several parameters govern the design and behavior of shear walls.
These parameters also affect the spread of plasticity along the
wall. The primary variables of the parametric study were selected
as wall length (Lw ), wall effective height (heff ) or shear span
(Lv 5 M/V), axial load ratio (P/Aw fc9), longitudinal steel ratio (rb )
at the boundary elements adjusting the strength of the walls, and
wall web horizontal reinforcement ratio (rsh ), as described in the
following sections.
Wall Length (Lw )
Walls of 3, 5, and 8 m in length were used in the analyses.
Effective Height (heff )
Effective heights of 5, 6, 9, 15, and 24 m were analyzed. Effective
height and shear span coincide in this study, because a cantilever
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Finite-element model of the shear wall tested by Thomsen and Wallace (1995): (a) rectangular wall; (b) full FEM; (c) reduced FEM; (d) vertical
strain at ultimate

Fig. 5. (a) Variation of strain profile over 229 mm gauge length along the web in the horizontal direction; (b) calculated and measured force-
displacement response of the wall tested by Thomsen and Wallace (1995)

with a point load at the tip was applied. A constant interstory height
of 3 m was accounted for each structure. Each pair of wall length and
effective wall height corresponds to different shear-span-to-wall-
length-ratios [ðM/VÞ=Lw 5 heff =Lw ], which are 0.75, 1.125, 1.2,
1.8, 1.875, 2, 3.0, 4.8, 5.0, and 8.0.
Wall Axial Load Ratio (P/Aw fc9)
The axial load ratios used in the parametric study were 0.02, 0.05,
0.1, 0.15 and 0.25 based on the assumption that each wall resist
approximately 1–1.25% axial load ratio per story.
Wall Boundary Element Longitudinal
Reinforcement Ratio (rb )
The flexural wall reinforcement ratio, defined as the ratio of total longi-
tudinal steel area (As ) in the boundary element to the area of boun-
dary region (Awb ) was taken as 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.04. By changing
the amount of flexural reinforcement, the strength of the wall was adjusted.
Concrete Strength
As stated previously, for all walls analyzed in the current study, the
characteristic concrete compressive strength (fc9) was taken as 25 MPa.

1942 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950

 Design Requirements
Wall models were designed according to the Turkish seismic code
(TSC 2007) requirements. Wall boundary elements were assumed
to extend over a region of 0:2Lw at the edges. Wall thickness was
assumed to be tw 5 250 mm for all wall models. For any given
combination of these parameters, the wall yield moment (My ) was
calculated. In the following step using the specified shear-span
length (Lv ), the design shear force was calculated (Vd 5 My =Lv ).
The ratio of the horizontal and vertical web reinforcement was
assumed to be nominally 0.0025 in all models. If the factored shear
force (Ve 5 lVd ) exceeded the shear safety limit calculated with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Vn 5 Aw ð0:65fctd 1 rsh fyd Þ according to TSC (2007), where fctd is
the design tensile strength of concrete and fyd is the design yield
strength of steel, the required amount of web horizontal re-
inforcement was recalculated employing the same equation. Be-
cause the codes ACI 318 [American Concrete Institute (ACI) 2011]
and TSC (2007) specify that the amount of vertical reinforcement
(rsv ) should not be less than the horizontal reinforcement (rsh ) in the
web, the same steel ratio of web reinforcement was used for the
vertical one. The design shear force was factored only for flexural
overstrength (l 5 1.2). The amplification in the base shear resulting
from higher mode effects was disregarded.
TSC (2007) and ACI 318 (ACI 2011) calculate the amount
of transverse reinforcement that is required at the wall boundaries
with similar expressions. The expression in TSC is given as Ash
5 0:05sbc fc9=fywk , where s is the spacing of transverse reinforcement,
bc is the width of confined core, and fywk is the yield strength of
transverse reinforcement. The same equation with a multiplier of
0.09 is given in ACI 318. Since the ACI-318 confinement provisions
are found to be too restrictive, the committee to develop recom-
mended revisions to the ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions proposed
a revision for the definition of confined boundary given in ACI 318
(Elwood et al. 2007). According to this proposal, if the amount of
transverse reinforcement in the boundary element of a shear wall
member exceeds 75% of what is required in ACI 318 and the spacing
of transverse reinforcement does not exceed 8db , the member is
interpreted as conforming for the purpose of evaluating the behavior
of walls. This ensures high ductility. In the proposed changes, it is
also permitted to take modeling parameters and acceptance criteria
Fig. 6. Tensile strain profiles along the tensile edge of the walls (hs 5 story height taken as 3 m; y 5 distance from the base of the wall)
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1943
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950
as 80% of confined values, where boundary elements have at least
50% of the requirements given in ACI 318, and spacing of transverse
reinforcement does not exceed 8db . Otherwise, boundary elements
must be considered as unconfined. Selecting 8 mm bars (Ash
5 2 3 50 mm2 ) and taking bc 5 200 mm, fc9 5 25 MPa, and fywk
5 420 MPa, s comes out to be 168 mm and 93 mm according to TSC
(2007) and ACI 318, respectively. Therefore, the provided level of
confinement (8 mm diameter bars and 100 mm spacing) is adequate to
classify models as well confined according to TSC (2007) and ad-
equately confined according to ACI 318. Obviously, confinement
should be considered among the variables of the parametric study, but
this would have significantly increased the number of parameter sets
to be analyzed. For this reason, this study was limited to appropriately
confined members.
Analysis Results
Plasticity Spread Assessment: Plastic Zone Length, Lpz
Two different methods were adopted to evaluate the length of the plastic
zone, Lpz , at the base region of the cantilever walls. In the first method,
the tensile strain profile along the edge reinforcement was used to
determine the yielding region. At a limiting tensile reinforcement strain
of ɛs 5 0:06, the tensile strain profiles along the 2-story region at the
base are plotted in Fig. 6 for different wall lengths. A limiting value is
selected for easy comparison of the curvature and steel strain profiles. In
addition, Priestley et al. (2007) suggested that the maximum permis-
sible tension strain for moment-curvature analysis should be based on a
steel tension strain limit of ɛ s 5 0:6ɛ su , where ɛ su 5 0:1 is the strain at
maximum stress of the reinforcing steel found from monotonic testing to
account for cyclic loading, bar buckling, bond-slip between the rein-
forcing steel and concrete at the critical section, and tension-shift effects.
It is seen in Fig. 6 that the plasticity spreads over a much larger region
along the height of the wall as the length of the wall increases and the
wall becomes more susceptible to shear effects, leading to diagonal
cracking; the size of the damage zone increases as opposed to con-
centrated flexural cracking at the base of a slender wall. The kink that can
be clearly observed in the 0:2hs level on the average tensile strain profile
locates the section of maximum flexural deformation on the wall.
 In the second method curvature profiles, computed from element
strains calculated at the two wall ends, at the same height and in the
same row as displayed in Fig. 7(a), were used to determine the spread
of plasticity along the wall. Vertical strains at the compression and
tension boundary ends of the wall were evaluated. These edge strains
pairwise in a row were used to calculate the curvature distribution
[f 5 ðɛ s 2 ɛ c Þ=Lw ] along the height of the wall as displayed in
Fig. 7(a). The limiting yield curvature defined by the empirical ex-
pression of Priestley et al. (2007) in Eq. (6) was used to determine the
extent of yielding along the wall. Paulay and Priestley (1992) and
Priestley et al. (2007) defined an equivalent yield curvature obtained
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
up to the nominal yield moment as shown in Fig. 7(b). The nominal
yield moment is defined as the moment where the extreme fiber
strain in compression reaches 0.004 or the extreme strain in tension
reaches 0.015, whichever occurs first. The nominal moment closely
approximates the yield moment. The second line connects the first
line at the top to the ultimate point on the moment-curvature curve.
Based on this procedure, the equivalent yield curvature is defined as
ɛy
fy ¼ 2 (6)
Lw

from bilinearization of the moment-curvature curve. The bilinear curve where ɛ y 5 yield strain of the reinforcement. The calculated cur-
is obtained by drawing the first line from the origin to the point on the vature profiles are plotted in Fig. 8. Again the limiting tensile strain
curve where the reinforcement yields for the first time, and extending of 0.06 was used. Parallel to observations in the tensile strain

Fig. 7. (a) Distribution of vertical strains and calculation of curvature row wise, based on the analysis phase; (b) equivalent bilinearization of moment
curvature curve and determination of yield curvature as described by Priestley et al. (2007), figure displays the initial portion of the moment-curvature
relation

Fig. 8. Curvature profiles along the height of the walls (hs 5 story height taken as 3 m; y 5 distance from the base of the wall)

1944 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950

 profiles, it is seen that damage extends over a much larger region in
walls with greater section lengths. Whereas the plastic zone was
constrained in the first story in 3 m wide walls, it spreads over two
stories in height in 5 and 8 m wide walls, as shown in Figs. 6 and 8.
To evaluate the difference between the two plastic zone length
derivations, an error measure defined as the difference of two plastic
zone lengths (Lpz1 2 Lpz2 ) obtained for the same model from tensile
strain (Lpz1 ) and curvature profiles (Lpz2 ) divided by the plastic zone
length obtained from curvature profile [ðLpz1 2 Lpz2 Þ=Lpz2 ] was
calculated and the mean and standard deviation was determined
for each of the three wall lengths. The mean of the ratio ðLpz1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
respect to the square root of the concrete compressive strength
(v 5 Vmax =Aw √fc9) and the wall web reinforcement ratio (rsh ). At the
secondary level, the spread of plasticity was influenced by the level
of axial load (P=Aw fc9) on the wall. The axial load level had a slight
reducing effect on the spread of plasticity along the wall. No ap-
parent effect of the amount of boundary element longitudinal re-
inforcement (rb ) was observed over the plastic zone length, as seen
in Fig. 9(d). As shown in Fig. 9(a), even if Lpz were normalized with
respect to wall length, there still exists a relation between the di-
mensionless plastic zone length Lpz =Lw and Lw . This indicates that
the relation between the Lpz and Lw is nonlinear. Fig. 9(e) shows that

2 Lpz2 Þ=Lpz2 for wall lengths of 3, 5, and 8 m was calculated as 0.15,
0.21, and 0.18, respectively. The standard deviation of the error
measure for each wall was calculated as 60:13, 60:11, and 60:13,
respectively. The same comparison was also performed on exper-
imental data presented by Dazio et al. (2009), because very detailed
measurement of steel tensile strains was available in that study. For
similar comparisons on six wall specimens from that study, it was
found that tensile strain profile yields Lpz that is 21% longer than the
one from curvature profile with a standard deviation of 60:15. It can
be concluded that the plastic zone length calculated using tensile
steel strains was 20% larger than that calculated using the curvature
profiles.
In view of the preceding discussion, this study uses the plastic
zone length that was calculated on the curvature profile. The cal-
culated plastic hinge length Lpz at the ultimate response point,
normalized with respect to wall length, is plotted against different
wall design parameters in Fig. 9. According to this figure, it was
found that the first group of parameters that significantly affects the
spread of plasticity includes the wall length (Lw ), the shear-span-to-
wall-length ratio (M=VLw ), the wall shear stress normalized with
the spread of plasticity along the wall decreases as the shear stress
carried by the member increases.
Plastic Zone Rotation and Curvature
Although Lpz was identified in Figs. 6 and 8, we need curvature and
rotation to establish a relation for Lp . The sketch in Fig. 10 illustrates
the calculation of the base section curvature (fb ) and rotation (ub ).
The rotation ub , which was assumed to represent the rotation of the
base section, was calculated just above the plastic zone length by
using the vertical displacements calculated at the tensile and
compressive edges in the same row as ub 5 ðDt 2 Dc Þ=Lw . The
ultimate base rotation capacity of wall specimens with respect to the
normalized shear force is plotted in Fig. 11(a). The base curvature
was calculated in two different ways to ensure accuracy in the
calculation of this parameter, because all the performance criteria
and assessment procedures for RC members depend on it. The
curvature fb1 was obtained by using the moment-area theorem.
Since the rotation above the plastic zone (ub ) can be obtained by
integrating the curvature profile along the plastic zone length (Lpz ),

Fig. 9. Variation of plastic zone length normalized with respect to wall length with wall parameters: (a) wall length; (b) axial load ratio; (c) shear-span-
to-wall-length ratio; (d) volumetric ratio of the boundary element longitudinal reinforcement; (e) volumetric ratio of the web horizontal reinforcement;
(f) wall shear stress normalized with respect to concrete strength

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1945

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950

 fb1 was obtained as 2ub =Lpz by assuming a linear curvature dis-
tribution. As displayed in Fig. 10, the curvature fb2 was obtained by
fitting a best line to the calculated curvature profile along the lower
half of the plastic zone length. The intercept of the best fit line at the
base level was adopted as fb2 . The comparison of the curvatures
derived with these two different schemes is displayed in Fig. 11(c).
The two curvature calculation methods have yielded very similar
results. The base curvatures used in this study were those calculated
by the best line fit method, that is, fb 5 fb2 . The ultimate curvature
capacity of the wall specimens is plotted in Fig. 11(b).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Determination of Plastic Hinge Length, Lp
Because the plastic hinge analysis is based on the condition that
up 5 Lp 3 fp as illustrated in Fig. 1(a), the plastic hinge length
is obtained as Lp 5 0:5Lpz in light of the previous explanations
(ub 5 uy 1 0:5Lpz 3 fb ). Hines et al. (2004) and Dazio et al. (2009)
reached a similar expression that reads
Lp ¼ 0:5Lpz þ Lsp (7)
where Lsp characterizes the contribution of strain penetration to the
top displacement. Although the purpose of modeling the foundation
beam displayed in Fig. 1(b) was to include strain penetration effects,
no yielding of tensile reinforcement into the foundation beam was
observed. This can be attributed to the heavy reinforcement used in
the foundation. The results of Bohl and Adebar (2011) indicate
a similar situation. Therefore, the plastic hinge and zone lengths
derived in this study do not account for any strain penetration
contribution into the footing. Hines et al. (2004) also stated that
Fig. 10. Schematic description of base curvature and rotation calculations using finite-element analysis results
Fig. 11. (a) Ultimate base rotation; (b) ultimate base curvature plotted as a function of normalized shear force; (c) comparison of results of two base
curvature derivation schemes described in Fig. 10
1946 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950
strain penetration had a more pronounced effect on the elastic
displacements than on the plastic displacement, because the strain
penetration gave rise to a greater portion of the total displacement
prior to yield.
The relation between the plastic zone length and the normalized
shear stress is displayed in Fig. 9(f). The validity of the relation given
in Eq. (7) for the calculation of the plastic hinge length was verified
by using Eq. (1). All the components of Eq. (1) are available from
FEM analysis to calculate the plastic hinge length. The plastic hinge
length calculated in two different ways and normalized with respect
to the plastic zone length is plotted as a function of the normalized
shear in Fig. 12(a). The Lp obtained by substituting the required
values in Eq. (1) resulted in an average value of Lp 5 0:43Lpz as
plotted in Fig. 12(a). It can be assumed that the plastic hinge length
can be taken as the approximately 40–50% of the length of the region
where plasticity spreads over the member. The plastic hinge length
obtained by rearranging Eq. (1) was normalized with respect to the
wall length and plotted in Fig. 12(b) as a function of normalized
shear stress. The data reveals that plastic hinge length is not
a constant fraction of wall length as assumed by many codes and
reported by other research (e.g., Lp 5 0:5Lw ).
An improved expression to calculate the plastic hinge length was
derived by regression analysis by using the variables of the para-
metric study. The plastic hinge length was found to be sensitive to
the wall length (Lw ) and effective height (shear span, Lv 5 M/V),
axial load ratio (P=Aw fc9) and amount of horizontal web re-
inforcement (rsh ). The multiple regression technique was adopted in
deriving the expression. Multiple regression allows the simulta-
neous testing and modeling of multiple independent variables (xi ).
The exponential model given in Eq. (8) was selected to define the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Plastic hinge length calculated as a function of: (a) plastic zone length; (b) wall length

plastic hinge length expression. Although the following model is not typical story height is assumed to be 3 m, Fig. 13(a) tells us that the
a linear combination of the x values, multiple regression can still be plastic hinge length is bounded within a story height for low-to-
used, if the variables are transformed by taking the logarithm of both medium height walls and it is concluded on the premise declared by
sides as given in Eq. (8b). Eq. (7) that plastification spreads over a 2-story height at the base.
It should be noted that the plastic-hinge length equations given in
y ¼ expðb0 þ b1 x1 þ b2 x2 þ b3 x3 þ ɛÞ (8a) Eqs. (2)–(5) and Eq. (9) were derived from either measured ex-
perimental data or calculated analytical data at the failure (ultimate)
logðyÞ ¼ b0 þ b1 x1 þ b2 x2 þ b3 x3 þ ɛ (8b) of the member. Therefore, it is likely that the plastic-hinge length
calculated with these equations would be larger than a more rea-
First, a regression was performed with one independent vari- sonable estimate of plastic-hinge length at intermediate damage
able, and then it was tested whether a second independent variable states (Berry and Eberhard 2003). Consequently, the plastic rota-
is related to the residuals from this regression. This was then per- tions calculated at intermediate damage states overestimate the true
formed with a third variable, and so on. When a residual plot values. Fig. 14 shows the variation of mean values of plastic hinge
revealed a data set to be nonlinear, transformation was applied to lengths classified for wall length with respect to increasing drift ratio.
the variable to achieve linearity. After the coefficients, b0 , b1 , For low-to-medium-length walls (Lw # 5 m) the plastic hinge length
b2 , . . . , were determined, Eq. (8a) was written in the form of at intermediate levels of damage is smaller than the plastic hinge
y 5 b expðb1 x1 Þexpðb2 x2 Þexpðb3 x3 Þ, and it was observed that each length calculated at failure. Plastic hinge length remains nearly
exponential term can be represented with a simple linear function as constant for 8 m walls during the course of inelastic action. At the
a1 x1 1 b1 . Finally, the proposed equation for plastic hinge length is initial parts of the graphs, the plastic hinge length values are larger
given as than the intermediate range values, which can be attributed to in-
consistency in the application of formulation given in Eq. (1) in this
   0:45 region where the behavior is theoretically elastic. As a result, the
fy r
Lp ¼ 0:27Lw 1 2 P 1 2 sh M/V (9) initial parts should be ignored. The line fit equations given in the
Aw fc9 fc9 Lw figure can be used to scale the plastic hinge length calculated with
Eq. (9) for an intermediate range of drift ratios. Standard deviations
where Lp , Lw , and M=V are in meters. Using the curvature profiles in are plotted as error bars around the mean plastic hinge length values
Fig. 8, the following equation for Lpz was obtained in the same way as m 6 1ss.d. for each graph.
from regression analysis
   0:5 Verification of Proposed Relations Using
fy r M=V
Lpz ¼ 0:60Lw 1 2 P 1 2 sh (10) Experimental Data
Aw fc9 fc9 Lw
To verify the accuracy of the analytically derived Lp expression,
which also justifies the condition that the Lp  0:5Lpz when com- a database composed of shear wall test results was compiled. The
pared with Eq. (9). Deriving the plastic hinge length in a form similar database is composed of 24 small-to-large-scale shear wall tests; 21
to Eq. (4) leads to specimens were tested under static cyclic loading of either increasing
or variable displacement amplitude. The important properties and
Lp ¼ 0:143Lw þ 0:072ðM=VÞ (11) a summary of primary test results are presented in Table 1. Note that
although there are several experimental studies on shear walls, only
The plastic hinge length predictions using the equations derived a few of them report the plastic zone length Lpz data. The calculated
in this study and taken from other studies are compared with finite- plastic zone lengths using Eq. (10) are tabulated in the last column
element analysis results in Fig. 13. It is seen in Fig. 13(a) that the best of Table 1. Fig. 15 compares the available experimental and
predictions were obtained by Eq. (9) proposed in this study. If the calculated Lpz values. Statistical information displaying the degree

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1947

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Comparison of plastic hinge lengths calculated from finite-element analysis with the prediction equations proposed in (a) this study, Eq. (9); (b)
Eurocode 8, Eq. (2); (c) Priestley et al. (1996), Eq. (3); (d) Paulay and Priestley (1992), Eq. (4); (e) Bohl and Adebar (2011), Eq. (5); (f) this study, Eq. (11)

Fig. 14. Variation of average normalized plastic hinge length and its standard deviation with drift ratio

of correlation between the measured and predicted values is also Conclusions

given in the same figure. Comparison of Lpz values instead of Lp was
due to the fact that it was the plastic zone length, either derived
from the distribution of measured tensile steel strain at the edges
or section curvature, that was reported from the experiments.
As previously asserted, the plastic zone length obtained from the
tensile strain profile is 20% larger than the one obtained using a
curvature profile. Therefore, the experimental plastic region length
based on tensile steel strain measurements was increased by 20%
over the theoretical results from Eq. (10).
An improved expression for the calculation of the plastic hinge
length of structural walls has been proposed here. The model
depends on the wall length, the axial load ratio, the wall horizontal
web reinforcement ratio, and the shear-span-to-wall-length ratio.
The proposed plastic hinge length was found to constitute 40–50%
of the length of the plastic zone, that is, of the region where yielding
takes place. The accuracy of the existing plastic hinge length for-
mulations was also evaluated. It has been shown that the equation

1948 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Test Parameters and Measured Deformations at Yield and Ultimate Displacement of Wall Specimens
P
Lw tw Hw Hw rb rsv rsh Aw fc9 fc9 Vmax DRu ðLpz Þexp Lpz
pffiffiffiffi
Number Specimen Shape Load ɛ su (cm) (cm) (cm) Lw (percentage) (percentage) (percentage) (percentage) (MPa) Aw fc9 (percentage) (m) (m)
1 PCA-R1a R IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.47 0.25 0.31 0.4 44.7 0.09 2.26 1.83 2.06
2 PCA-R2a R IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 4.00 0.25 0.31 0.4 46.4 0.16 2.92 2.06 2.06
3 PCA-B1a B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.11 0.29 0.31 0.3 53 0.19 2.89 2.06 2.07
4 PCA-B2a B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 0.3 53.6 0.49 2.27 1.83 2.01
5 PCA-B3a B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.11 0.29 0.31 0.3 47.3 0.21 3.93 2.13 2.06
6 PCA-B4a B M 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.11 0.29 0.31 0.3 45 0.25 5.94 2.74 2.06
7 PCA-B5a B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 0.3 45.3 0.58 2.77 1.83 1.99
8 PCA-B6b B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 14.1 21.8 0.90 1.71 1.52 1.59
9 PCA-B7b B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 7.9 49.3 0.71 2.89 2.29 1.85
10 PCA-B8b B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 1.38 9.3 42 0.77 2.86 2.29 1.65
11 PCA-B9b B MC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 8.9 44.1 0.75 3.02 2.29 1.82
12 PCA-B10b B MC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.97 0.29 0.63 8.6 45.6 0.53 2.77 2.13 1.83
13 PCA-F1b F IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.89 0.30 0.71 0.4 38.5 0.69 1.11 1.83 1.95
14 UCB- B M 0.1 239 10.2 306 1.28 3.52 0.83 0.83 7.8 34.8 0.76 5.67 2 2.08
SW3c
15 UCB- B IC 0.1 239 10.2 306 1.28 3.52 0.83 0.83 7.5 35.9 0.69 2.25 2 2.09
SW4d
16 UCB- R M 0.1 241 10.2 309 1.28 6.34 0.63 0.63 7.3 33.4 0.64 2.42 1.8 1.82
SW5c
17 UCB- R IC 0.1 241 10.2 309 1.28 6.34 0.63 0.63 7 34.5 0.60 2.33 1.4 1.83
SW6d
18 CU-RW2e R IC 0.1 122 10.2 382 3.13 2.89 0.33 0.33 7 43.7 0.25 2.19 0.9 1.16

J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950

19 WSH2f R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.32 0.30 0.25 5.7 40.5 0.19 1.39 1.4 1.67
20 WSH3f R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.54 0.54 0.25 5.8 39.2 0.24 2.04 1.7 1.65
21 WSH4f R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.54 0.54 0.25 5.7 40.9 0.23 1.36 1.4 1.65
22 WSH5f R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 0.67 0.27 0.25 12.8 38.3 0.24 1.37 1.4 1.65
23 WSH6f R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.54 0.54 0.25 10.8 45.6 0.29 2.07 1.6 1.53
24 W1g R IC 0.1 163 12.7 1133 7.00 0.66 0.45 0.45 10 35 0.11 2.00 1.9 2.23
Note: rb 5 the ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area; rsh 5 the ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section; rsv 5 the ratio of web vertical reinforcement to
horizontal cross section. Section shapes are given as R 5 rectangular; B 5 barbell; and F 5 flanged. Loading is given as M 5 monotonic loading; IC 5 cyclic loading with incremental displacement amplitude; and
MC 5 cyclic loading with variable displacement amplitude.
a
Oesterle et al. (1976).
b
Oesterle et al. (1979).
c
Vallenas et al. (1979).
d
Wang et al. (1975).
e
Thomsen and Wallace (1995).
f
Dazio et al. (2009).
g
Adebar et al. (2007).

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1949


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" on 04/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. Comparison of measured and predicted plastic zone lengths
proposed in this study is more accurate than the relations proposed in
other studies. It has been found that the widely used assumption that
the plastic hinge length is half the wall length, Lp 5 0:5Lw , under-
estimates the plastic hinge length as the wall length increase and shear
effects become more pronounced.
The parameter used to determine the length of plastic zone over
the wall affects the computed value. It was found that the plastic
zone length calculated from the tensile strain profile is 20% larger
than the value calculated using the curvature profile. The equations
proposed to estimate the plastic lengths are for the ultimate damage
state. It was shown that at intermediate damage states, smaller values
of plastic-hinge length should be used to employ the plastic hinge
analysis method safely in the displacement calculation of cantilever
systems.
As future work, the analyses carried out in this study must be
enriched to cover walls with various levels of confinement at the
wall boundaries, because the ductile response of structural walls
depends on the level of confinement. Nevertheless, this study
improves the current state of knowledge on the plastic hinge analysis
of structural walls.
References
Adebar, P., Ibrahim, A. M. M., and Bryson, M. (2007). “Test of a high-rise
core wall: Effective stiffness for seismic analysis.” ACI Struct. J., 104(5),
549–559.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2011). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318, Detroit.
ANSYS R11.0 [Computer software]. Canonsburg, PA, ANSYS.
ASCE. (2007). “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.” ASCE/SEI 41,
Reston, VA.
Berry, M., and Eberhard, M. (2003). “Performance models for flexural
damage in reinforced concrete columns.” PEER Report 2003/18, Pacific
Engineering Research Center (PEER), Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA.
1950 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
J. Struct. Eng., 2013, 139(11): 1938-1950
Bohl, A., and Adebar, P. (2011). “Plastic hinge lengths in high-rise concrete
shear walls.” ACI Struct. J., 108(2), 148–157.
Dazio, A., Beyer, K., and Bachmann, H. (2009). “Quasi-static cyclic tests
and plastic hinge analysis of RC structural walls.” Eng. Struct., 31(7),
1556–1571.
Dhakal, R. P., and Maekawa, K. (2002). “Modeling for postyield buckling
of reinforcement.” J. Struct. Eng., 128(9), 1139–1147.
Elwood, K. J., et al. (2007). “Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions.”
Earthq. Spectra, 23(3), 493–523.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2005). “Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake resistance: Part 3: Assessment and
retrofitting of buildings.” BS EN 1998-3, Brussels, Belgium.
Hines, E. M., Restrepo, J. I., and Seible, F. (2004). “Force-displacement
characterization of well-confined bridge piers.” ACI Struct. J., 101(4),
537–548.
Kazaz, I. (2010). “Dynamic characteristics and performance assessment
of reinforced concrete structural walls.” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering
Dept., Middle East Technical Univ., Ankara, Turkey.
Kazaz, I. (2011). “Finite element analysis of shear-critical reinforced
concrete walls.” Computers and Concrete, 8(2), 143–162.
Mattock, A. H. (1967). “Discussion of ‘Rotational capacity of reinforced
concrete beams,’ by W.G. Corley.” J. Struct. Div., 93(ST2), 519–522.
Oesterle, R. G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., Russell, H. G., and
Corley, W. G. (1979). “Earthquake resistant structural walls: Tests
of isolated walls: Phase II.” Rep. to National Science Foundation, PCA
R/D Ser. 1629, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Oesterle, R. G., Fiorato, A. E., Johal, L. S., Carpenter, J. E., Russell, H. G.,
and Corley, W. G. (1976). “Earthquake resistant structural walls: Tests
of isolated walls.” Rep. to National Science Foundation, PCA R/D
Ser. 1571, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley, New
York.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-
based seismic design of structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R. (1992). “Strength and ductility of confined
concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 118(6), 1590–1607.
Sozen, M. A. (1989). “Earthquake response of buildings with robust walls.”
Proc., 5th Chilean Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Assn. Chilean de
Sismologia e Ingenieria Antisismica, Santiago, Chile.
Thomsen, J. H., and Wallace, J. W. (1995). “Displacement-based design of
reinforced concrete structural walls: An experimental investigation of
walls with rectangular and T-shaped cross-sections.” CU/CEE-95/06,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson Univ., Pots-
dam, NY.
Turkish Seismic Code (TSC). (2007). Turkish seismic design code for
buildings, Ministry of Public Works and Resettlement, Ankara, Turkey.
Vallenas, M. V., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1979). “Hysteretic be-
havior of reinforced concrete structural walls.” EERC Rep. 79/20,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA.
Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P. (1992). “Ductility and detailing require-
ments of bearing wall buildings.” J. Struct. Eng., 118(6), 1625–1644.
Wang, T. T., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P. (1975). “Hysteretic behavior of
reinforced concrete framed walls.” EERC Rep. 75/23, Earthquake En-
gineering Research Centre, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Willam, K. J., and Warnke, E. D. (1975). “Constitutive model for the triaxial
behavior of concrete.” Intl. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng. Proc., 19, 174–
203.