Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic behavior of slender reinforced concrete walls

M.A. Hube a,⇑, A. Marihuén b, J.C. de la Llera a, B. Stojadinovic c
a
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and National Research Center of Integrated Natural Disaster Management
CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017, Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile
b
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
c
Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Residential reinforced concrete buildings performed well during the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile earth-
Received 20 January 2014 quake. However, brittle damage was observed in reinforced concrete structural walls. The most frequent
Revised 7 September 2014 observed damage in such walls was crushing of concrete due to flexural-compressive interaction,
Accepted 8 September 2014
buckling and fracture of longitudinal reinforcement, and opening of the horizontal reinforcement. The
Available online 29 September 2014
main objective of this study is to understand the observed damage in slender walls after 2010 Maule
earthquake and to reproduce and analyze experimentally the seismic behavior of such walls. The second
Keywords:
objective is to provide recommendations to estimate the lateral displacement and the effective stiffness
Reinforced concrete
Wall
of slender walls. To achieve these objectives, six ½-scale slender reinforced concrete walls were tested
Slender using a conventional quasi-static cyclic incremental lateral displacement test protocol with a constant
Experiment axial load. The test results are compared to a reference wall tested previously in the same research
Failure project. The variables analyzed in this study are: wall thickness, wall aspect ratio, use of uniformly dis-
Earthquake tributed vertical reinforcement, detailing of 135-degree hooks for the horizontal reinforcement, addition
Effective stiffness of closed stirrups in the wall boundaries, and addition of transverse cross-ties. The observed damage in
Buckling the tested walls was similar to that observed in walls of buildings damaged during the 2010 Maule earth-
quake. The behavior of the tested walls was dominated by bending due to their relatively large aspect
ratio. The failure, determined by the loss of ability to carry axial load, occurred suddenly as a compression
failure along the entire cross section at the base of the tested walls. Test results showed that a 25%
reduction in wall thickness reduced the ultimate displacement capacity, ductility, and energy dissipation
ability of the wall. Closed stirrups and cross-ties were effective in increasing displacement capacity and
ductility, and closed stirrups were effective in preventing out-of-plane buckling of the wall after com-
pression failure. The average effective stiffness ratio of the tested walls was 0.39, which is slightly larger
than the ACI 318 suggestion of 0.35.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction total inventory. However, most of damaged buildings were con-

The 2010 Maule earthquake (Mw = 8.8) has been the second
strongest measured earthquake in Chilean history, after the 1960
Valdivia earthquake (Mw = 9.5) [1]. The earthquake affected more
than 12 million people. Close to 560 persons died due to the tsu-
nami triggered by the earthquake. More than 80,000 residences
were destroyed, approximately 300 bridges were damaged [2],
and about 40 residential reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with
more than eight stories were severely damaged, with only one of
them collapsing [3–5]. The behavior of tall RC buildings was con-
sidered acceptable: damaged buildings represented about 2% the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 2354 4225; fax: +56 2 2354 4243.
E-mail address: mhube@ing.puc.cl (M.A. Hube).
structed after the year 2000. The damage observed in the RC struc-
tural walls of these buildings was different than that observed
during the 1985 Chile earthquake [3,6]. The most frequently
observed wall damage types in the 2010 Maule earthquake were:
crushing of concrete under flexural-compressive action, buckling
and fracture of vertical reinforcement, and opening of horizontal
reinforcement. These damage types, not observed earlier in the
1985 Chile earthquake are attributed to: (1) higher axial loads car-
ried by walls due to the increased building height; (2) thinner
structural walls; (3) inadequate wall confinement; and (4) building
irregularities, mainly between the first story and the first
underground level [3–5,7]. After 2010, several modifications were
introduced in the RC design code in Chile [8]. This code uses the
ACI 318-08 [9] as its basis and includes modifications that focus

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.09.014
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
378 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388

on special RC structural wall design [10]. The most significant
0
modifications are: (1) a limit of 0.35 fc Ag for the ultimate axial load
0
in walls, where fc is the characteristic concrete strength and Ag is
the cross section area of the walls; (2) a limit to the story-height
to wall-thickness ratio to prevent lateral instability (lu/tw = 16);
and (3) new requirements for detailing the boundary reinforce-
ment in walls.
The first objective of this study is to understand the observed
damage in slender RC structural walls after the 2010 Maule earth-
quake, and to reproduce and analyze experimentally the seismic
behavior of such walls. The experiments are aimed to identify
the changes on the seismic performance in walls when the thick-
ness is reduced, the aspect ratio (M/Vlw) is reduced, and when
the reinforcement detailing is modified. The second objective is
to provide recommendations to estimate the lateral displacement
and the effective stiffness of slender cantilever walls. More details
about this research project are available elsewhere [11].
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test matrix
Six ½-scale slender RC walls (W4–W9) were constructed and
tested using a symmetric incrementally increasing cyclic lateral
0
displacement test protocol with a constant axial load of 0.15fc Ag .
Three additional walls (W1–W3) of the same research project were
tested by Alarcon et al. [12] to study the effect of axial load varia-
tion on the response. Wall W1 is referred to as the reference wall in
this document. It was designed to represent the RC structural walls
that were damaged the most during the 2010 Maule earthquake
[12].
The test matrix is summarized in Table 1, including the charac-
teristics of the reference wall W1. The length (lw) of the walls was
700 mm, and the thickness (tw) was 100 mm, except for wall W4
that had a thickness of 75 mm. The thickness of the concrete cover
was 10 mm and was the same for all specimens. The height of the
walls (hw) was 1600 mm, except for wall W5 that had a height of
1180 mm. The walls were cast with a 425  400  1400 mm RC
base to anchor them to the laboratory strong floor, and with a
300  300  700 mm top RC beam to apply the vertical and lateral
loads.
The dimensions and detailing of the reference wall W1 are
shown in Fig. 1. The cross section details of the tested walls are
shown in Fig. 2. The thickness of the reference wall W1 was
100 mm and the M/Vlw ratio was 2.5, where M is the moment at
the base of the wall, V the shear force, and lw the wall length. This
M/Vlw ratio was selected to reflect a typical proportion of moment
and shear found in Chilean tall buildings. The reinforcement ratios
of the reference wall were obtained from a survey of damaged walls
[12]. The reference wall W1 was reinforced with four £10 mm
(10 mm diameter) vertical bars at each boundary and a total of
six £8 mm bars distributed in two layers as vertical web reinforce-
ment (Fig. 2(a)). The horizontal reinforcement comprises £5 mm
bars spaced at 90 mm. The vertical bars were ordered as A630-
420H with a 420 MPa nominal yield strength, and the horizontal
bars as AT560-500H with a 500 MPa nominal yield strength. The
resulting s/db ratio in the boundary was 9, where s is the spacing
of the horizontal bars and db is the diameter of the vertical bound-
ary bars. This ratio is within the range of 8–11 observed in damaged
RC walls [5]. The horizontal reinforcement detailing follows typical
Chilean construction practice, which consists of horizontal bars
with 90-degree hooks bent outside the vertical bars, which are
not anchored into the concrete core and become ineffective after
spalling of the concrete cover [7].
Wall W4 was designed with a thickness of 75 mm to evaluate
the seismic behavior of a thinner wall. This was done because
150–170 mm wall thicknesses are common in recent Chilean prac-
tice, and because such walls suffered damage during the Maule
earthquake [4,5]. The vertical and horizontal reinforcement of wall
W4 were different than those of the reference wall to maintain the
reinforcement ratios as constant as possible. Thus, £4.2 mm bars
were used for the horizontal reinforcement (Fig. 2(b)).
The short wall W5 was designed with a wall height of 1180 mm
to obtain an M/Vlw ratio of 1.9. The reinforcement detailing was
similar to wall W1 (Fig. 2(a)). This M/Vlw ratio was selected to eval-
uate the effect of a larger portion of shear on the response of the
wall.
To study the effect of reinforcement detailing, wall W6 was
detailed without concentrated vertical reinforcement but with uni-
formly distributed vertical reinforcement (Fig. 2(c)), maintaining
the total vertical amount of steel constant. Wall W7 was designed
with horizontal reinforcement with 135-degree hooks, Fig. 2(d).
Wall W8 was designed identical to wall W1 but with additional
closed boundary stirrups spaced at 90 mm, Fig. 2(e). The stirrups
were installed at mid-height between the layers of horizontal rein-
forcement. Finally, wall W9 was designed identical to wall W1 but
with additional cross-ties on every vertical bars (except for the
outermost boundary bars) at each level of horizontal reinforce-
ment, Fig. 2(f).
The mean concrete strength obtained from standard cylinder
0
samples was f c = 27.4 MPa. The samples were tested a day before
the first wall test at an age of 160 days. The strength of concrete
was assumed to have remained constant during the test campaign.
0
The measured secant modulus of elasticity at 0.4 fc was
Ec = 32,700 MPa. This modulus of elasticity is 33% larger than that
qffiffiffiffi
0
proposed by ACI 318-08 (Ec = 4700 fc = 24,600 MPa). The mean
properties of the reinforcing steel are summarized in Table 2.
2.2. Test setup and instrumentation
The test setup is drawn in Fig. 3 and shown in Fig. 4. The walls
were pre-stressed to the laboratory floor at the base, and are

Table 1
Test matrix specifying the specimen properties and the intended purpose of the test.

Wall Test purpose hw (mm) tw (mm) Axial load (kN) M/Vlw qa (%) qlb (%) qtc (%)
W1 Reference wall 1600 100 287 2.5 0.45 0.72 0.44
W4 Small thickness effect 1600 75 216 2.5 0.49 0.67 0.46
W5 M/Vlw effect 1180 100 287 1.9 0.45 0.72 0.44
W6 Uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement effect 1600 100 287 2.5 0.0 1.34 0.44
W7 Horizontal reinforcement detailing effect 1600 100 287 2.5 0.45 0.72 0.44
W8 Boundary confinement effect 1600 100 287 2.5 0.45 0.72 0.64
W9 Cross-tie effect 1600 100 287 2.5 0.45 0.72 0.56
a
Reinforcement ratio of boundary vertical reinforcement.
b
Reinforcement ratio of web uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement.
c
Reinforcement ratio of transverse reinforcement (includes stirrups and hooks in walls W8 and W9).
 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388 379

A 300
700

300

2+2 10 100
2+2 10

5@90 5@90
2 5@90
1600
2325

3+3 8
8 8

Note: Clear cover 10 mm

425

1400 400
A
SECTION A-A

Fig. 1. Geometry and reinforcement details of the reference wall W1 (dimensions are in mm).

(a) (b) (c)

3+3 8 5@90 3+3 8 4.2@80 10+10 8@75 5@90
2 10 2 8

2 8 2 10
2+2 10 2+2 10

(d) (e) (f)

2+2 10 2+2 10
3+3 8 5@90 (135° Hook) 5@90 3+3 8 3+3 8 5@90

5@90 Cross-ties 5
2+2 10 2+2 10 2+2 10 2+2 10

Fig. 2. Cross section and reinforcement detailing: (a) W1 and W5, (b) W4, (c) W6, (d) W7, (e) W8 and (f) W9. (Dimensions are in mm).

Table 2
Average properties of the reinforcing steel.

Parameter £4.2 £5 £8 £10

Steel designation AT560-500H AT560-500H A630-420H A630-420H
Yield strength (MPa) 523.9 608.9 445.6 469.2
Ultimate strength (MPa) 575.7 667.7 598.9 675.7
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) – – 225.8 224.7
Yield strain – – 0.0020 0.0021
Hardening strain – – 0.0139 0.0138
Ultimate strain 0.0051 0.057 0.151 0.166
Strain Hardening modulus (MPa) – – 4130 5430

Note: The missing values were not measured during the tests of the reinforcing steel bars.

considered as fixed at the interface to the specimen anchor block.
The 500 kN horizontal actuator was pinned at both ends and
attached to the top RC beam with four steel bars that were bolted
against 400  300  30 mm steel plates at each side of the speci-
men. The 700 kN vertical actuator was bolted to the steel frame
and connected to the wall specimens using rollers to allow the hor-
izontal displacement of the top RC beam. Therefore, the P-delta
effect was not included in the test setup. The rotation of the top
of the specimen was not restrained. A 5 kN concrete counterweight
was connected to the clevis of the horizontal actuator using two
pulleys. This counterweight (not shown in Fig. 3) was used to hang
the actuator and eliminate the vertical reaction induced by its
weight in the tested walls. The out-of-plane displacement of the
walls was restrained with rolling supports that were connected
to a steel I-beam at each side of the top beam (Fig. 3).
Each wall was instrumented with 2 load cells, 14 displacement
transducers and 16 strain gauges attached to the reinforcement, as
shown in Fig. 5. Additionally, the deformations of each wall were
380 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388

EAST WEST

700 kN Steel beam

Actuator Load cell Rolling Support
IN Beam 500 kN Actuator Steel plate
with rollers

Plate Plate
Steel bar

Wall
specimen

SIDE VIEW

Fig. 3. Test setup. Side view shown in larger scale.

measured using the digital image correlation technique [13]. A ran-

dom pattern of black dots was drawn on each wall and a high-res-
olution camera was used to photograph the pattern throughout the
test. A Matlab image processing toolbox [14] was used to deter-
mine displacement map on the surface of the wall by tracking
the motion of the pattern of dots throughout a sequence of images.
Load cells were connected to both horizontal and vertical actuators
in order to measure the applied loads. The displacement transduc-
ers were installed to measure the displacement of the wall, the dis-
placement of the base, and to obtain curvatures. The strain gauges
were used to measure the strain in several reinforcing bars and
were installed during the construction of the walls.

2.3. Load application and control

0
The walls were subjected to a constant vertical load of 0.15 fc Ag ,
detailed in Table 1. Following the application of the vertical load,
the walls were subjected to horizontal displacement at a constant
Fig. 4. Photography of the test setup.
rate of 10 mm/min. A symmetric quasi-static cyclic horizontal

East 1 West Load cell

Displacement
2 5
3 4 transducer
6 Transversal
displacement
transducer

HT

H1W H1E

1750

East West

150 7 12
V1T V7T
H2W H2E
150 8 13 200
10 11 V1M V7M
H1W H1E
150 9 14 16 200

15 V1B V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7B

Fig. 5. Instrumentation of wall specimens: 2 load cells, 14 displacement transducers and 16 strain gauges (dimensions are in mm). Note: h = 1330 mm for wall W5.
 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388
displacement protocol, comprising two cycles at each displace-
ment level, was applied [12]. The intended peak ductility factor
D/Dy targets were 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. For the shorter wall
W5, the actuator displacement commands was reduced by 24% to
maintain the same drift levels compared to the other tested walls.
3. Test results
3.1. General behavior
The behavior and failure of the walls was controlled by flexural-
compressive interaction due to the relatively high M/Vlw ratio. The
first cracks observed in the walls were diagonal shear cracks along
the height of the walls, which were followed by horizontal flexural
cracks near the base of the walls. After several cycles, spalling of
the concrete cover was observed at both wall boundaries due to
the compressive stresses induced by the applied axial load and
bending moment. In most walls, buckling of the longitudinal rein-
forcement bars followed concrete cover spalling. The tests were
ended when the walls were not able to carry the applied axial load.
This was due to sudden compressive failure along the entire length
of the wall bases, followed by out-of-plane buckling in all but one
of the tested walls. The states of each tested wall at failure are
shown in Fig. 6. A side view of selected walls at the point of failure
is shown in Fig. 7. The observed failure mode in these tests is sim-
ilar to that observed in structural RC walls in buildings damaged by
the 2010 Maule earthquake [4,5,7]. It is important to note that the
out-of-plane wall buckling at the end of the tests occurred after the
compressive failure of the wall base. The average plastic hinge
length, obtained by measuring the extent of concrete cover spalling
and damage propagation upward from the wall base cross section,
was 2.63tw, which is similar to the plastic hinge length of 2.5tw pro-
posed by Takahashi et al. [15] for walls with limited confinement.
Thus, a plastic hinge length of 2.5tw was adopted in the rest of this
study.
3.2. Hysteretic behavior and shear deformation
The lateral load–displacement relationships for the six tested
walls are shown in Fig. 8, and compared to that of the reference
wall W1. The moment–curvature relationships for the six tested
walls, in comparison with the reference wall W1, are shown in
Fig. 9. The curvature was obtained using the displacement
(a) W4
(d) W7
Fig. 6. Front view of wall specimens after failure.
381
transducers #9 and #14 in Fig. 5. The moment was calculated using
h = 1750 mm (h = 1330 mm for wall W5), where line of action of
the horizontal force was with respect to the base cross section of
the walls.
The summary of the test results, including wall W1, is shown in
Table 3. In this table Vy is the yield lateral load, and Vmax is the max-
imum lateral strength. The yield point was determined at the time
step when yielding of reinforcement was detected from the strain
gauge measurements. In Table 3, Dy/h is the drift at yielding, Du/h
the drift at ultimate displacement, lD = Du/Dy the displacement
ductility, /y the yield curvature, /u the ultimate curvature, and
l/ = /u//y the curvature ductility. Also in Table 3, Eeq is the normal-
ized dissipated energy, calculated as the ratio between the area in
the last completed test cycle and the area of the enveloping rectan-
gle in the load–displacement relationship. Finally, Dshear/D is the
ratio between the shear-induced displacement and the total lateral
displacement of the walls. The shear-induced deformation of the
walls was obtained using digital image correlation measurements.
The deformation of the diagonals of two rectangles along the
height of each wall was measured to obtain the shear distortion
from a Mohr circle [16]. The Dshear/D ratio was computed at each
displacement cycle peak. As this ratio was virtually constant in
all applied displacement cycles regardless of their magnitude, the
values in Table 3 are averaged over the duration of each test.
The behavior of the tested walls was relatively ductile. The yield
drift varied from 0.30% to 0.55%. The ultimate drift varied from
1.63% to 2.75% (Table 3). Displacement ductility attained by the
walls varied between 3.7 and 7.9, while the curvature ductility var-
ied from 4.7 and 13.1. The loss of lateral strength in subsequent
cycles at the same amplitude observed in Fig. 8, is attributed to
the buckling and yielding of the boundary vertical reinforcement.
It is also noted that the maximum lateral strengths of walls with
different confinement detailing (W7, W8 and W9) and that of the
wall with uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement (W6) were
not significantly different than that of the reference wall W1.
Table 3 shows that, on average, shear deformation accounted
for 25% of the total lateral displacement of the walls with M/Vlw
ratio of 2.5. A larger contribution of 30% of the shear displacement
to the total displacement was measured for the shorter wall W5,
with M/Vlw = 1.9. Larger shear deformation contributions, which
ranged from 30% to 60% of the total lateral displacement, were
obtained by Kuang and Ho [16]. However, they tested squatter
walls with M/Vlw ratios between 1.13 and 1.63, where shear defor-
mations are expected to be more significant.
(b) W5 (c) W6
(e) W8 (f) W9
382 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388

Fig. 7. Side view of selected walls after failure: (a) W1, (b) W7, (c) W8, and (d) W9.

Fig. 8. Load–displacement relationships and comparison with reference wall W1: (a) W4, (b) W5, (c) W6, (d) W7, (e) W8, and (f) W9.

3.3. Strain measurements 4. Discussion

The variation of strain in the vertical bars for wall W4 over the
test duration are shown in Fig. 10. The locations of the strain
gauges, which were installed in only one side of the wall, are
shown in Fig. 5. The compressive strains observed during the first
270 s (negative strains in Fig. 10) are due to the application of the
vertical load during this time. At the end of the application of this
load, the compressive strains in the vertical bars were not constant
and varied from 0.55‰ to 0.80‰. This variation was not
expected, as the strain gages were located far away from the point
of load application where a uniform strain distribution was antic-
ipated. The yielding point (2.1‰ strain for bar £10, Table 2) was
measured in compression, in bar V1B, during the first half cycle
with ductility factor D/Dy of 1.5, at a drift of 0.50%. In general, each
of the six tested walls yielded during the first half cycle with duc-
tility factor of 1.5. It is noted that during the cycles with ductility
factor of 3 (D/h = 1.04%), from 1700 s to 2300 s in Fig. 10, the bars
V1B, V3, V5 and V7B are yielding in tension. Unfortunately, the
strain gauges V2 and V6 did not work for wall W4. Additional
strain measurement data for this and the other tested walls is
available in [11].
The observed failure mode of the six tested walls, and of the ref-
erence wall W1, are similar to that observed in walls damaged by
the 2010 Maule earthquake [4] [5] [7]. The principal test observa-
tion is that the out-of-plane wall buckling observed at the end of
the tests occurred after the compressive failure of the wall base.
This finding is important because the sequence of failure events
could not be conclusively established from damage observed after
the earthquake.
The effect of the considered wall design variables on the behav-
ior of the tested walls is discussed next. The discussion is based on
the test result for one specimen of each kind. Therefore, a portion
of the observed differences may be related to the inherent scatter
in material properties of different specimens and slight differences
in the execution of the nominally identical tests.
4.1. Wall thickness effect
Compared to the reference wall W1, a 25% reduction of the wall
thickness in wall W4 reduced the ultimate displacement, the dis-
placement ductility and the normalized dissipated energy by
 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388 383

300 W1 300 W1
Moment 200 W4 Moment 200 W5
(kN−m) (kN−m)
100 100
−1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.5
1.0 1.5 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.5
1.0 1.5
Curvature Curvature
−3
−3
−100 (10 1/cm) −100 (10 1/cm)
−200 (a) −200 (b)

−300 −300

300 W1 300 W1
Moment 200 W6 Moment 200 W7
(kN−m) (kN−m)
100 100
−1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.5
1.0 1.5 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.5
1.0 1.5
Curvature
−3
Curvature
−3
−100 (10 1/cm) −100 (10 1/cm)
−200 (c) −200 (d)

−300 −300

300 W1 300 W1
Moment 200 W8 Moment 200 W9
(kN−m) (kN−m)
100 100
−1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.5
1.0 1.5 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.5
1.0 1.5
Curvature
−3
Curvature
−3
−100 (10 1/cm) −100 (10 1/cm)
−200 (e) −200 (f)

−300 −300

Fig. 9. Moment–curvature relationships and comparison with reference wall W1: (a) W4, (b) W5, (c) W6, (d) W7, (e) W8, and (f) W9. Note: the displacement transducers
used to measure the curvature in wall W1 were removed after completing the displacement cycles with ductility factor D/Dy = 5.

Table 3
Summary of test results.

Wall Vy (kN) Vmax (kN) Dy/h (%) Du/h (%) lD /y (10-4 1/cm) /u (10-4 1/cm) l/ Eeq Dshear/D
W1 92 144 0.55 2.75 5.0 1.43 – – 0.27 –
W4 60 113 0.44 1.63 3.7 1.38 6.54 4.7 0.23 0.25
W5 103 191 0.31 1.75 5.6 1.00 10.0 10.0 0.24 0.30
W6 60 138 0.30 2.14 7.1 0.89 11.7 13.1 0.31 0.26
W7 76 149 0.36 2.36 6.6 0.62 6.16 9.9 0.29 0.23
W8 81 156 0.42 2.72 6.5 1.21 12.4 10.2 0.25 0.24
W9 74 145 0.34 2.68 7.9 1.02 – – 0.36 0.24

Note: the ultimate curvatures where not measured in two walls because the displacement transducers where disconnected after spalling of the cover concrete.

4
V1B V2
V3 V4 It is important to note that the concrete cover represents a sub-
V5 V6 stantially larger portion of the width of the cross section in wall
V7B
2 W4 compared to the other wall specimens. Consequently, the area
of the concrete core in wall W4 is proportionally smaller than in
Strain (‰)

other walls, resulting in somewhat higher compression stresses

0 occurring in the core after the concrete cover spalls, and more pro-
nounced localization of damage, shown in Fig 6(a). The measured
plastic hinge length of wall W4 was 180 mm, which is 18% smaller
2
than that of wall W1 [12]. Additionally, the thinner wall W4 was
more susceptible to out-of-plane buckling, as was observed after
the compressive crushing failure of concrete. These observations
4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 may help to explain the observed damage in RC structural walls
Time (s) with thicknesses between 150 and 200 mm (the length scale of
the tested walls was 1/2) after 2010 Maule earthquake. To prevent
Fig. 10. Strain history of vertical reinforcement, wall W4. out-of-plane stability failure, a limit on the wall out-of-plane slen-
derness was introduced in the revised Chilean code [8] by limiting
41%, 26%, and 15%, respectively. The lateral strength was reduced the story-height to wall-thickness ratio to 16. Considering a typical
by 22%, which is similar to the 25% reduction in thickness and story height of 2.5 m, walls narrower than 156 mm would require a
was expected, as the nominal bending and shear strengths of the lateral instability check. Based on the observations made in this
wall is a linear function of the thickness of the cross section. study, a more conservative story-height to wall-thickness ratio
384 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388
limit of 12.5 may be appropriate in order to trigger slenderness
checks for typical walls thinner than 200 mm.
4.2. Aspect ratio effect
The failure mode of the squatter wall W5 was similar than that
of wall W1, and was controlled by flexural-compressive interac-
tion. Decreasing the aspect ratio (M/Vlw) from 2.5 in wall W1 to
1.9 in wall W5 reduced the ultimate displacement and the normal-
ized dissipated energy by 36%, and 11%, respectively. The displace-
ment ductility of wall W5 increased 12%, but this change stems
from the reduced yield displacement, determined from one strain
gauge measurement. The lateral strength of wall W5 increased
by 25% due to the smaller wall height, but the flexural strength
at the base was similar than that of wall W1. The initial lateral stiff-
ness of wall W5 was double (103% larger) than that of wall W1.
This lateral stiffness was estimated as the secant stiffness of the
first completed displacement cycle. The contribution of shear
deformation to the total deformation of wall W5 was 30%, larger
than that observed in other, taller, walls. The obtained results agree
with Hidalgo et al. [17], who concluded that the lateral displace-
ment of squat walls without vertical loads decreases as the aspect
ratio decreases, and the normalized dissipated energy tends to
remain constant at 0.23 and is independent of the amount of
reinforcement.
4.3. Uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement effect
Wall W6 with uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement
showed similar flexural-compressive failure as the other wall spec-
imens, Fig. 6. The ultimate drift (2.14%) of wall W6 was 22% smaller
than that of wall W1 (2.75%). The decrease in the ultimate drift in
wall W6 is attributed to the early buckling of the vertical reinforce-
ment due to the reduction of the reinforcing bar diameter in the
boundary regions and the corresponding increase of the s/db ratio
in the wall boundaries from 9 in wall W1 to 11.25 in wall W6.
The maximum lateral strength of wall W6 was 4% smaller than that
of wall W1. The smaller strength is attributed to the shift of longi-
tudinal bar locations from the boundaries toward the centroid of
the wall cross section. The displacement ductility of wall W6 was
42% larger than wall W1, but the ductility in wall W6 is based on
the early yield detection in wall W6 at a drift of 0.30%. Based on
these tests results structural RC walls should be detailed with con-
centrated boundary vertical reinforcement instead of uniformly
distributed vertical reinforcement. The use of concentrated bound-
ary vertical reinforcement increases the lateral strength and the
ultimate displacement. In addition, the likelihood of bar buckling
is reduced when larger bar diameters are used in the boundaries.
However, a minimum amount of uniformly distributed vertical
reinforcement is still required to reduce the likelihood of bar frac-
ture [18].
4.4. Horizontal reinforcement detailing
The horizontal reinforcement bent with a 135-degree hook did
not significantly improve the behavior of wall W7 compared to
wall W1. The side views of walls W1 and W7 at failure are shown
in Fig. 7(a) and (b). The horizontal reinforcement of wall W1
opened up because of the 90-degree hook [12] (Fig. 7(a)), in a sim-
ilar manner as that observed in walls damaged during the 2010
Maule earthquake [5]. On the other hand, the horizontal reinforce-
ment with 135-degree hook of wall W7 opened less than the hooks
in wall W1, nevertheless they were uncovered because of concrete
crushing and spalling. It is expected that the 135-degree hook
would be more effective in a thicker wall where the core concrete
is confined more effectively. A full-scale test is required to examine
this issue. The strength, the displacement ductility, and the dissi-
pated normalized energy of wall W7 were 4%, 32% and 7% larger
than that of wall W1. However, the ultimate displacement of wall
W7 (2.36% drift) was 14% smaller than that of wall W1. The
increase in the ductility and normalized energy may be explained
by the higher strain that was measured in the hook of the horizon-
tal reinforcement in wall W7 (strain gauge HT in Fig. 5). Because of
the 135-degree hook, the horizontal reinforcement was able to
achieve larger tensile strain. This larger strain in the hook shows
that it may have contributed to restrain the buckling of the vertical
reinforcement, and may have also contributed to a larger confine-
ment pressure to the concrete core in wall W7 compared to wall
W1.
4.5. Additional boundary stirrups effect
The addition of closed stirrups at the boundaries between the
layers of horizontal reinforcement in wall W8 increased the
strength and the displacement ductility by 8% and 30%, respec-
tively, compared to wall W1. The ultimate displacement of wall
W8 was comparable to that of wall W1, but wall W8 was able to
resist the first peak at the cycles with ductility factor of 8 (2.7%
drift in wall W8), which was not the case for wall W1. Additionally,
the use of closed stirrups in wall W8 decreased the strength degra-
dation in subsequent cycles at the same amplitude. In fact, a 2%
strength degradation was measured in subsequent cycles with
ductility factor of 6 in wall W8, whereas a 6% strength degradation
was measured at those cycles in wall W1. The increase of strength
and ductility in wall W8 is mostly attributed to the reduced hori-
zontal reinforcement spacing (s/db = 4.5) in the wall boundaries
that reduced the likelihood of bar buckling. Additionally, the closed
stirrups may have helped to confine the concrete core at the
boundaries as can be observed in Fig. 7(c). The presented results
agree with the results of Kuang and Ho [16], who conclude that
the use of closed stirrups between the principal horizontal rein-
forcement improves the seismic performance of RC walls by
increasing the energy dissipation and ductility.
An additional relevant result was observed in the failure mode
of wall W8. After the compressive failure of concrete, a limited out-
of-plane buckling was observed, whereas a more severe out-of-
plane buckling was observed in all other tested walls. The preven-
tion of the out-of-plane buckling is attributed to the confined RC
boundary columns in wall W8 that restrained the out-of-plane dis-
placement after the failure. This behavior is desirable in slender
structural walls to maintain their capacity to resist axial loads.
Fig. 7 shows the side view after failure of wall W1, W7, W8 and
W9. One side of wall W8 (Fig. 7(c)) remained vertical and its ver-
tical reinforcement did not buckle. However, the other side of wall
W8 suffered a limited out-of-plane buckling.
4.6. Cross-tie effect
The addition of transverse cross-ties in wall W9 increased the
displacement ductility and the normalized dissipated energy by
58%, and 33%, respectively, compared to wall W1. The strength
was not increased in this wall as it was increased in wall W8 with
closed stirrups because the s/db ratio of the outermost vertical bars
in wall W9 was identical to that of wall W1. The ultimate displace-
ment of wall W9 was comparable to that of wall W1, but wall W9
was able to resist two peaks at the cycles with ductility factor of 8
(2.8% drift in wall W9), which was not the case for wall W1. In this
respect, wall W9 was even better than wall W8. The use of cross-
ties also decreased the strength degradation in subsequent cycles,
when comparing to wall W1. However, strength degradation was
somewhat smaller in wall W8 than in wall W9, where 4% strength
degradation was measured in subsequent cycles at the ductility
 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388 385

factor target of 6. The increase in displacement ductility and nor- 250

malized dissipated energy in wall W9 is mostly attributed to the
use of cross-ties that restrained buckling of the vertical reinforce- 200
ment. The cross-ties may have also confined the concrete core of

the wall, but less than in wall W8, due to the relatively small thick-
ness of the wall and the relatively large vertical spacing of the hor-
izontal reinforcement. Finally, the out-of-plane buckling was not
restrained in wall W9 to the same extent as it was in wall W8.
5. Theoretical analysis and comparison
In this section, the experimentally measured wall strength of
each wall is compared to the strength computed using the ACI
318-08 [9] provisions and the strength computed using a computer
fiber section model. The experimentally measured lateral displace-
ment is compared to the analytical estimation obtained from two
models. Finally, the experimentally measured effective stiffness is
compared with the recommendations found in several references.
5.1. Analytical strength estimate
The lateral strength of the tested walls was estimated using
both the shear capacity and the flexural capacity following the
ACI 318-08 recommendations. To estimate the lateral strength
from the flexural strength, a lever arm equal to the distance
between the applied lateral force and the wall base was considered
(h = 1330 mm for wall W5, and h = 1750 mm for all other walls).
A fiber section model was developed in Matlab [14] to obtain
the flexural strength. For this purpose, the wall cross section was
discretized in fibers of 1 mm thickness. The fiber section model
assumes that plane sections remain plane. The constitutive models
used for the concrete and the reinforcing steel were the ones pro-
posed by Karthik and Mander [19]. These models consider the
effects of concrete confinement and the effect of hardening of the
reinforcing steel. The area of effectively confined concrete core
was determined following Mander et al. [20]. The area of confined
concrete core at the level of the horizontal reinforcement is shown
in red in Fig. 11. The area of effectively confined concrete core, at
midway between the horizontal reinforcement layers, varies from
0.5% of the area of the concrete core for wall W4 (thin wall), to
21.3% of the area of the concrete core for wall W9 (wall confined
with cross-ties). Fig. 12 shows the moment–curvature relationship
obtained with the fiber section model under monotonically
increasing curvature and its comparison with the measured cyclic
moment–curvature relationship for wall W9. The fiber section
model estimation was obtained considering the axial load of 0.15
0
fc Ag . It is noted that the analytically estimated stiffness is larger
than the measured stiffness. Additionally, the analytically esti-
Moment (kN m)
150
100
50 W9
FSM
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Curvature (1/cm) 3
x 10
Fig. 12. Moment–curvature relationships of wall W9 using the fiber section model
and comparison with experimental results.
mated moment strength and ultimate curvature are smaller than
the experimental values.
Table 4 shows the comparison between the analytically esti-
mated and experimentally measured lateral strength of the walls.
In this table, Vn is the lateral strength from shear capacity using
section 21.9.4.1 from ACI 318-08 [9], Vi is the lateral strength from
flexural capacity using flexure-axial interaction procedure in Sec-
tion 21.9.5.1 of ACI 318-08 [9], and Vf is the lateral strength
obtained from the fiber section model, while Vmax is the ultimate
strength measured in the tests. The ACI 318-08 shear strength Vn
is, on average, 1.65 times larger than the strength measured in
the tests. This is expected: the walls were designed not to be
shear-critical. However, the Vn/Vmax ratio is equal to 1.33 for the
shorter wall W5 because the shear action is more pronounced as
the wall aspect ratio is reduced. The ACI 318-08 flexural capacity
underestimates the experimental strength for all tests. The average
Vi/Vmax ratio is 0.73. This underestimate of the measured strength
is attributed to the effect of steel hardening and concrete confine-
ment, which are not considered by ACI 318-08. The fiber section
model, which includes these two effects, still underestimates the
experimental strength, and the average Vf/Vmax ratio is 0.79. A sig-
nificant portion of this difference may be attributed to the consid-
ered lever arm because the failure occurred above the base of the
wall. If the lever arm is reduced by a plastic hinge length of
lp = 2.5tw, the fiber section model underestimate the lateral
experimental strength by only 8% (Vf/Vmax = 0.92). The remainder
of the strength difference may be attributed to the imperfect pin
boundary conditions at the top of the specimen. However, further
matching of the analytical models to the experimental data was
not pursued because it became difficult to separate the scatter in
material properties, geometry, and test conduct, and measurement
errors between nominally identical specimens.

5.2. Lateral displacement estimate

3.3% 0.5%
The ultimate lateral displacement is estimated using a plastic
(a) (b) hinge model, which considers flexural elastic and plastic deforma-

Table 4
2.9% 9.3% Comparison between analytically estimated and experimentally measured lateral
strengths.
(c) (d)
Wall Vn (kN) Vi (kN) Vf (kN) Vmax (kN) Vn/Vmax Vi/Vmax Vf/Vmax

21.3% W1 248 106 114 144 1.72 0.74 0.79

W4 194 87 93 113 1.72 0.77 0.83
W5 254 140 150 191 1.33 0.73 0.78
(e) W6 248 100 110 138 1.80 0.72 0.80
W7 248 106 114 149 1.67 0.71 0.76
Fig. 11. Percentage of effectively confined concrete core area at midway between W8 248 106 117 156 1.59 0.68 0.75
the levels of horizontal reinforcement according to Mander et al. [17]: (a) W1, W5 W9 248 106 120 145 1.71 0.73 0.83
and W7, (b) W4, (c) W6, (d) W8, and (e) W9. Shaded are corresponds to effectively Average 1.65 0.73 0.79
confined concrete core are at the level of the horizontal reinforcement.
386 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388

tions [21]. The curvature distribution is shown in Fig. 13 and the Table 5
ultimate displacement is obtained from Comparison between analytically estimated and experimentally measured lateral
displacement.

1 2 lp Wall Dflex (mm) Dfc (mm) Du (mm) Dflex/Du Dfc/Du

Dflex ¼ h /y þ ð/u  /y Þlp ðhw  Þ ð1Þ
3 2 W1 27.0 32.5 48.1 0.56 0.68
W4 20.5 24.8 28.6 0.72 0.87
W5 19.1 22.9 23.3 0.82 0.98
where /y and /u are the yield and the ultimate curvature, respec- W6 24.6 28.6 37.4 0.66 0.76
tively. These curvatures were estimated using the fiber section W7 27.0 32.5 41.4 0.65 0.78
model described previously. The plastic hinge length of lp = 2.5tw W8 33.7 42.0 47.7 0.71 0.88
is considered here based on the test results and the recommenda- W9 39.5 50.4 46.8 0.84 1.08

tion of Takahashi et al. [15]. Average 0.71 0.86

Table 5 shows the comparison between the analytically esti-
mated and experimentally measured ultimate displacement (Du).
Table 6
The analytical displacement using the plastic hinge model (Dflex)
Comparison between analytically estimated and experimentally
is on average 71% of the measured displacement. It is concluded measured effective stiffness.
that the plastic hinge model, using the curvatures from the fiber
Wall Kexp (kN/mm) Kth (kN/mm) EIeff
section model and lp = 2.5tw is inadequate to estimate the ultimate Ec I g

lateral displacement of the tested walls. To fit the experimental W1 16.3 39.4 0.41
data, an effective plastic hinge length of lp = 4.5tw needs to be con- W4 11.7 29.5 0.40
sidered. For this plastic hinge length, the ultimate displacement is W5 33.1 89.7 0.37
W6 16.0 39.4 0.41
underestimated by 2% on average (discarding the shorter wall W5
W7 14.9 39.4 0.38
and the wall with cross-ties W9). The likely cause of such underes- W8 14.5 39.4 0.37
timate is the relatively high contribution of shear deformation to W9 15.3 39.4 0.39
the total deformation of the specimens (Table 3). Average 0.39
The ultimate displacement is also estimated using a four-com-
ponent model that includes flexure, shear, slip, and the base rota-
5.3. Effective stiffness estimate
tions of the wall specimens [12]. The flexure component is
estimated from the plastic hinge model described previously using
The effective stiffness of the tested walls is estimated from the
lp = 2.5tw. The shear component is estimated with an elastic
secant stiffness of the first completed cycle from the measured
approach considering the measured ultimate moment Mu as
load–displacement relationships. The measured stiffness (Kexp) of
Dshear = 1.2Mu/GAg, where G is the shear modulus of concrete taken
the walls, including the reference wall W1, are listed in Table 6.
as 0.4Ec (Ec = 32,700 MPa). The slip contribution to the ultimate
The theoretical elastic lateral stiffness is Kth = 3EcIg/h3, where Ig is
displacement is estimated using the equation proposed by Sezen
the moment of inertia of the gross section, and Ec is the
and Setzler [22]. The slip of the bars in the tensile side generates
modulus of elasticity estimated using ACI 318-08 equation
a rigid body rotation of the wall that induces lateral displacement. qffiffiffiffi
0
Finally, the ultimate displacement due to the base rotation is calcu- (Ec = 4700 f c = 24,600 MPa). The effective stiffness ratio (EIeff/EcIg)
lated assuming a rigid body rotation of the wall specimen, which is equal to the ratio between the experimental and the theoretical
was estimated from the vertical displacement of the concrete base stiffness (Kexp/Kth). The effective stiffness ratios are listed in Table 6
that was measured using displacement transducer #16 in Fig. 5. and the average resulting ratio is 0.39.
The estimate of the ultimate lateral displacement using the The obtained effective stiffness ratio of 0.39 is compared with
four-component model (Dfc) is larger than that obtained by the those proposed in several references. ACI 318-08 [9] suggests an
plastic hinge model. Nevertheless, the four-component model effective stiffness ratio of 0.35 and 0.70 for second order analysis
underestimates the measured displacement with the average Dfc/ of cracked and uncracked structural RC walls, respectively. ASCE
Du ratio equal to 0.86. In this model, the contributions of flexure, 41-06 [23] proposes a ratio of 0.50 for cracked walls and 0.80 for
shear, slip, and base rotation to the total displacement are, on aver- uncracked structural RC walls. The ratio proposed by Paulay and
age, 82.4%, 0.7%, 12.1% and 4.1%, respectively. The reason that the Priestley [21] is 0.37 for the tested walls of this study. The ratio
four-component model underestimates the ultimate displacement proposed by Li and Xiang [24], which considers the wall aspect
of the tested walls may be related to the inelastic shear deforma- ratio, is 0.21. On the other hand, Fenwick and Bull [25], and Elwood
tion, which is not considered in the four-component model. Recall and Eberhard [26], who consider the effect of the axial load, sug-
that the shear deformation of the tested wall specimens accounted gest effective stiffness ratios of 0.41 and 0.20, respectively, for
for 23–30% of the total displacement (Table 3). the tested walls. However, the ratio suggested by Elwood and Eber-
hard pertains to RC columns. Table 7 summaries the effective stiff-

Table 7
Comparison of the effective stiffness ratio for
cracked structural RC walls.

EIeff/EcIg
This study 0.39
ACI 318-08 0.35
ASCE 41-06 0.50
Paulay and Priestley 0.37
Li and Xiang 0.21
Fenwick and Bull 0.41
Elwood and Eberhard 0.20
Fig. 13. Plastic hinge model.
 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388
ness ratios for cracked structural walls from different sources,
which vary from 0.20 to 0.50. The measured effective stiffness ratio
is within these bounds, and only slightly larger than the 0.35 value
suggested in ACI 318-08.
6. Conclusions
Unexpected failures were observed in slender structural RC
walls of modern residential buildings after the 2010 Maule earth-
quake. Six 1/2-scale slender RC walls were tested in this study to
understand the observed damage and to identify the effects of dif-
ferent design variables on their seismic performance. The walls
were tested using a symmetric incrementally increasing cyclic dis-
0
placement protocol with a constant axial load of 0.15 fc Ag . These
conclusions are based on the observations from the conducted
tests and on comparisons to code equations and accepted analyti-
cal models. Additional tests are needed to quantify the effects of
randomness in nominally identical specimen material, geometry
and test conduct, and the effect of measurement errors. Neverthe-
less, the following conclusions emerged.
The tested walls responded predominantly in flexure, due to a
relatively high M/Vlw ratio. The walls lost the ability to carry axial
load suddenly due to a compressive failure along the entire length
of the wall base cross section, followed by out-of-plane buckling in
all but one of the tested walls. The out-of-plane buckling was trig-
gered after the compressive failure. The damage induced in the
specimens was similar to that observed in structural RC walls in
buildings damaged during the 2010 Maule earthquake.
Test results showed that the 25% thickness reduction in wall
W4 reduced its ultimate displacement, ductility, and energy dissi-
pation capacity compared to the thicker reference wall. Addition-
ally, out-of-plane buckling of wall W4 was more severe that of
the reference wall. The story-height to wall-thickness limit ratio
of 16, recently incorporated in Chilean design code to account for
lateral instability, may not be conservative enough. A reduction
of this ratio to 12.5 may be considered to trigger out-of-plane sta-
bility checks for typical structural walls thinner than 200 mm.
The ultimate displacement and the energy dissipation were
reduced in the squatter wall W5 with an aspect ratio of 1.9, com-
paring to the reference wall W1 with an aspect ratio of 2.5. How-
ever, the behavior and failure of the squatter wall was similar
than that of the reference wall. Therefore, variation of the wall
aspect ratio in these bounds is not expected to change their behav-
ior and failure mode.
The use of uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement in wall
W6 decreased its strength and the ultimate displacement. The like-
lihood of bar buckling increased in this wall because of the smaller
bar diameters provided at the wall boundaries. An improvement of
the response due to anchoring the horizontal reinforcement using
135-degree hooks could not be observed in wall W7, most likely
due to the relatively small thickness of the tested specimens. The
addition of closed stirrups in wall W8 increased its strength and
displacement ductility. Additionally, the likelihood of out-of-plane
buckling was reduced in this wall because the confined boundary
columns restrained the out-of-plane displacement after the com-
pressive failure. Evidently, the use of cross-ties in wall W9
improved its seismic behavior as the displacement ductility and
the normalized energy increased. Based on these observations,
use of cross-ties and closed stirrups are recommended.
The flexural capacity method in ACI 318-08 underestimates the
measured lateral strength of the tested walls by 27%. The plastic
hinge method with a plastic hinge length lp = 2.5tw underestimates
the ultimate displacement of the tested walls by 29%. Both esti-
mates can be improved by increasing the plastic hinge length to
simultaneously enlarge the zone where plastic rotation occurs,
and to shorten the lever arm to the center of the plastic hinge.
387
The effective stiffness ratio (EIeff/EcIg) obtained from the con-
ducted test, intended to estimate the elastic displacements of a
cracked RC structural wall, was 0.39. This value is slightly larger
than the 0.35 value recommended by ACI 318-08.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to many people and institutions that
made this work possible. This research has been funded by the
Chilean Fondo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Fondecyt through
Grant #1110377, #11121581 and Fondap through Grant
#15110017. The authors would also like to thank the professor Carl
Lüders for their support during the tests, and the students
C. Alarcón, R. Jünemann, R. Manieu, F. Quitral, J. Remesar,
J. Rendic, M. Ochagavía, F. Riquelme, M. Saavedra, C. Barrueto
and A. Gutiérrez for their contribution in the project. The authors
are also thankful to the engineers and technicians from DICTUC
S.A and the Laboratory of the Structural and Geotechnical
Engineering Department of Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Chile.
References
[1] EERI. The Mw 8.8 Chile earthquake of February 27, 2010. EERI Earthquake
Special Report.
[2] Buckle I, Hube M, Chen G, Yen W, Arias J. Structural performance of bridges in
the offshore Maule earthquake of 27 February 2010. Earthquake Spectra
2012;28(S1):S533–52.
[3] Jünemann R, Hube M, de La Llera JC, Kausel E. Characteristics of reinforced
concrete shear wall buildings damaged during 2010 Chile earthquake. In:
Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, paper N°
2265. Lisbon, Portugal; 2012.
[4] Westenenk B, de la Llera JC, Jünemann R, Hube MA, Besa JJ, Lüders C, et al.
Analysis and interpretation of the seismic response of RC buildings in
Concepción during the February 27, 2010, Chile earthquake. Bullet
Earthquake Eng 2013;11(1):69–91.
[5] Wallace J, Massone L, Bonelli P, Dragovich J, Lagos R, Lüders C, Moehle J.
Damage and implications for seismic design of RC structural wall buildings.
Earthquake Spectra 2012;28(S1):S281–99.
[6] Wood SL. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 1985 Chile
earthquake: implications for the design of structural walls. Earthquake Spectra
1991;7(4):607–38.
[7] Massone L, Bonelli P, Lagos R, Lüders C, Moehle J, Wallace J. Seismic design and
construction practices for RC structural wall buildings. Earthquake Spectra
2012;28(S1):S245–56.
[8] DS 60 MINVU (DS 60). Reinforced concrete design code, replacing D.S N 118,
2010. Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urbanism, Diario Oficial; 13 December
2011 [in Spanish].
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building code requirements for structural
concrete and commentary (ACI 318-08); 2018.
[10] Massone LM. Fundamental principles of the reinforced concrete design code
changes in Chile following the Mw 8.8 earthquake in 2010. Eng Struct
2013;56:1335–45.
[11] Marihuén, A. Seismic behavior of slender reinforced concrete walls. Master of
Science Thesis. Pontificia Universad Católica de Chile, Chile; 2014, 133 pp [in
Spanish].
[12] Alarcon C, Hube MA, de la Llera JC. Effect of axial loads in the seismic behavior
of reinforced concrete walls with unconfined wall boundaries. Eng Struct
2014;73:13–23.
[13] White CA, Stojadinovic B. Effect of ground motion sequence on response of
squat reinforced concrete shear walls. ASCE J Struct Eng, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000912 [ahead of print].
[14] Mathworks Inc. MATLAB – version 2011b; 2011.
[15] Takahashi S, Yoshida K, Ichinose T, Sanada Y, Matsumoto K, Fukuyama H, et al.
Flexural drift capacity of reinforced concrete wall with limited confinement.
ACI Struct J 2013;110(1):95–104.
[16] Kuang JS, Ho YB. Seismic behavior and ductility of squat reinforced concrete
shear walls with nonseismic detailing. ACI Struct J 2009;105(2):225–31.
[17] Hidalgo PA, Ledezma CA, Jordán RM. Seismic behavior of squat reinforced
concrete shear walls. Earthquake Spectra 2002;18(2):187–208.
[18] Wood SL. Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in walls. ACI Struct J
1989;28(4):582–91.
[19] Karthik M, Mander J. Stress-block parameters for unconfined and confined
concrete based on a unified stress-strain model. J Struct Eng
2011;137(2):270–3.
[20] Mander J, Priestley M, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[21] Paulay T, Priestley M. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
structures. INC USA: J. Wiley & Sons; 1992.
388 M.A. Hube et al. / Engineering Structures 80 (2014) 377–388

[22] Sezen H, Setzler E. Reinforcement slip in reinforced concrete columns. ACI
Struct J 2008;105(3):280–9.
[23] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Seismic rehabilitations of existing
buildings, ASCE41-06; 2006.
[24] Li B, Xiang W. Effective stiffness of squat structural walls. J Struct Eng
2011;137(12):1470–9.
[25] Fenwick R, Bull D. What is the stiffness of reinforced concrete walls. SESOC J
2000;13(2):9–13.
[26] Elwood KJ, Eberhard MO. Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete
columns. Pacif Earthquake Eng Res Center (PEER) 2006:5. Research Digest
No. 2006-1.