See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329544291

Recommendations for Modeling the Nonlinear Response of Slender Reinforced

Concrete Walls Using PERFORM-3D

Conference Paper · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

11 5,077

3 authors, including:

Laura Lowes Carson Baker

University of Washington Seattle Coughlin Porter Lundeen
128 PUBLICATIONS   3,068 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovative CFT Systems for Resilient and Rapid Design of Bridges View project

Analytical and Experimental Simulation of Progressive Collapse in Super-high-rise Framed-tube Structure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carson Baker on 10 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Recommendations for Modeling the Nonlinear Response of
Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls Using PERFORM-3D
Carson Baker, Structural Staff Engineer
Abstract
The PERFORM-3D (www.csiamerica.com) software package
is used commonly to conduct nonlinear dynamic analyses of
reinforced concrete walled buildings to assess the earthquake
performance of these structures. The research presented here
employed an experimental data set of eight planar concrete
walls that exhibit a flexure-controlled response and span a
range of length-to-thickness ratios, shear stress demands, axial
load ratios, and longitudinal reinforcement configurations. For
each wall specimen, a reference model was created using
typical modeling methods. Comparison of simulated and
measured cyclic response histories show that typical modeling
techniques result in relatively inaccurate simulation of cyclic
response and highly inaccurate simulation of drift capacity.
Experimental data were used to determine appropriate values
for PERFORM-3D material model cyclic response parameters
to achieve accurate simulation of cyclic response.
Experimental data and the results of previous research by the
authors were used to develop recommendations for defining
concrete post-peak stress-strain response to achieve accurate,
mesh-independent simulation of drift capacity. Comparison of
simulated and measured cyclic response histories show that the
new modeling recommendation result in accurate, mesh
independent simulation of cyclic response, including drift
capacity.
Introduction
PERFORM-3D is used commonly to assess the earthquake
performance of buildings that employ slender, flexure-
controlled concrete walls to resist lateral loads. As such,
modeling parameters for use with PERFORM-3D are required
that result in accurate prediction of concrete wall response,
including accurate prediction of the stiffness, strength,
hysteretic response, and deformation capacity. Verification
Laura N Lowes, Professor
Dawn E Lehman, Professor
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Coughlin Porter Lundeen
Seattle, WA
that a structure will maintain lateral loading carrying capacity
when subjected to specified earthquake demands is a critical
component of earthquake performance assessment. Thus,
accurate prediction of drift capacity is particularly important.
To better understand flexural wall failure mechanisms, which
determine wall drift capacity, the results of previous
experimental investigations of wall behavior are reviewed.
Birely (2012) evaluated experimental data from over 60
laboratory tests of slender (shear-span ratio greater than 2.0)
wall specimens and found that failure, i.e. degradation in the
lateral load carrying capacity, of a these walls is a result of one
or more damage modes: (1) compression-buckling (CB)
characterized by compression damage to the boundary element
including crushing of boundary-element concrete and buckling
of boundary element reinforcing steel (Figure 1a), (2)
buckling-rupture (BR) characterized by low-cycle fatigue of
the reinforcement, which includes buckling and subsequent
fracture of longitudinal steel (Figure 1b), and (3) shear. Figure
2 shows the observed damage modes of the slender-wall
database by Birely. As indicated in the plot, the majority of the
walls exhibited a compression-controlled failure mode. It is of
note that all of the walls that exhibited compression-controlled
failure satisfied the ACI tension-controlled design limit (ACI
318 2014); therefore, simply designing a wall to meet the
tension-control criterion does not necessarily result in tension-
controlled failure. Thus, the results of the Birely review
suggest that accurate prediction of drift capacity for walls
exhibiting flexure-controlled response requires accurate
prediction of the compression-controlled failure mechanism,
including concrete crushing and reinforcement buckling.
Experimental Data Used for Model Development
A recent, comprehensive literature review by Whitman (2015)
identified 22 planar wall test specimens that exhibited flexure-
1

(a)
(b)
Figure 1: Typical Damage Modes in Slender Walls
(from Pugh et al. 2015)
cv
BR CB Shear
Figure 2: Failure Modes Observed in Laboratory
Tests of Slender Concrete Walls (from Birely 2012)
Controlled response when tested in the laboratory under quasi-
static lateral loading and that were appropriate for use in model
development. Eight wall specimens were chosen from this data
set for use in the current study. Wall specimens were included
in the Whitman data set if i) the specimen was planar
(rectangular) and subjected to in-plane flexure, shear and axial
loading with lateral load applied cyclically under displacement
control, ii) specimens were constructed of normal weight
concrete and normal strength concrete and steel, iii) specimen
2
failure resulted from deteriorating flexural response, including
concrete crushing, bar buckling and/or bar fracture, iv) wall
specimen thickness exceeded 76 mm (3 in.), and v) data
required to fully define and evaluate a numerical model were
available in the literature. Given the objectives of the current
study, seven wall specimens were chosen for use in the current
study i) if they exhibited a compression-controlled flexural
failure and ii) to represent the full range of boundary element
detailing from no boundary element confinement to boundary
element confinement exceeding current ACI Code
requirements by restraining every longitudinal bar. An eighth
specimen was chosen from the Whitman data set that exhibited
a buckling-rupture type failure.
Table 1 lists the specimens and provides design parameters of
particular interest to this study. Table 2 provides demand and
response parameters. Whitman (2015) provides additional
information of the specimens. Parameters listed in Table 1 and
2 are defined as follows:
 Wall length, lw = the in-plane length of the wall.
 Cross-Sectional Aspect Ratio (CSAR) = lw/tw, where lw is
the wall length and tw is the wall thickness.
 Shear span ratio = M/(Vlw), where M is the moment
developed at the base of the wall, V is the shear developed
at the base of the wall and lw is the length of the wall. Note
that the shear span ratio equals the wall aspect ratio if zero
moment is applied at the top of the wall.
 Est. No. of stories = number of stories estimated by
assuming a story height equal to 12 times the wall width.
Note that PERFORM-3D analyses employed a specified
number of elements per story; for the top story this number
was adjusted based on the height of the top story.
 f'c = concrete compressive strength.
 fy,BE = tensile yield strength for boundary element
longitudinal steel.
 ρlong = longitudinal reinforcement ratios for wall boundary
element, web region and gross section.
 ρvol_BE = volumetric reinforcement ratio for wall boundary
element confining reinforcement.
 Mander confinement ratio = The ratio of confined to
unconfined concrete compressive strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ /𝑓𝑐′ found
using the model developed by Mander et al. (1988) as
presented by Paulay and Priestley (1992).
 Boundary element detailing indicates that boundary
element confining reinforcement exceeds ACI 318-14
Code requirements for a special structural wall (xSBE),
meets special boundary element requirements (SBE),
meets ordinary boundary element requirements (OBE) or
neither (NBE); no confinement is provided for
“unconfined” specimens.
 Axial load ratio (ALR) = P/(Agf’c), where P is the axial
load at the base of the wall (including self-weight of the
specimen computed assuming a unit weight of 150 lb/ft3),
 Ag is the gross area of the wall and f’c is the measured
concrete compressive strength.
 Maximum shear stress demand vmax = Vb / Acv√𝑓𝑐′ , where
Vb is the maximum base shear developed during the test,
Acv is the shear area, taken equal to the gross section area,
and f’c is the concrete compressive strength in psi.
 Shear demand-capacity ratio = Vb/Vn, where Vb is the
maximum base shear and Vn is the shear strength
computed per ACI 318 (2014) using measured concrete
and steel strengths.
 Flexural strength ratio = Mb/Mn, where Mb is the
maximum base moment developed during the test and Mn
is the nominal flexural strength of the wall corresponding
to a compressive strain of 0.003 at the extreme fiber using
measured concrete and steel strengths.
 y = yield drift which is the drift at first yield of
longitudinal reinforcement as determined from a section
analysis assuming zero shear deformation.
 u = drift capacity which is the drift at which the lateral
load carrying capacity of the wall dropped to 80% of the
maximum, for drift demands larger than drift
corresponding the maximum strength.
 Failure mode (FM) indicates the primary mechanism
causing loss of lateral load carrying capacity:
compression-buckling, characterized by simultaneous
crushing of concrete and buckling of longitudinal steel
(CB) or buckling-rupture (BR), characterized by buckling
of reinforcing steel followed by bar rupture.

Table 1: Wall Test Specimens Used for Model Development – Design Parameters

Wall Est. Mander

Wall CSAR 𝑀𝑏 𝑓𝑐′ 𝑓𝑦,𝐵𝐸 𝜌𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝜌𝐵𝐸 Boundary Boundary
Reference Length No. of Conf.
ID 𝑙𝑤 /𝑡 𝑉𝑏 𝑙𝑤 (ksi) (ksi) (%) (%) Element Element Detail
(in.) Stories Ratio

Dazio et
WSH4 79 13.3 2.28 2.5 5.93 84.6 0.85 N/A 1.0 Unconf.
al. (2000)

Oh et al.
WR0 59 10.0 2.00 1.7 4.77 65.1 0.62 N/A 1.0 Unconf.
(2002)

Oesterle et
R1 75 18.8 2.40 3.8 6.49 74.2 0.49 1.47 1.02 NBE
al. (1976)

Wallace
and
RW1 48 12.0 3.13 3.1 4.58 63.0 1.15 2.93 1.06 NBE
Thomsen
(1995)
Wallace
and
RW2 48 12.0 3.13 3.1 6.33 63.0 1.15 2.93 1.09 NBE
Thomsen
(1995)
RW-
A20- Tran
48 8.0 2.00 1.3 6.83 68.4 1.29 3.23 1.26 SBE
P10- (2012)
S38
RW-
A20- Tran
48 8.0 2.00 1.3 7.05 69.2 2.83 7.11 1.27 SBE
P10- (2012)
S63

Dazio et
WSH6 79 13.3 2.26 2.5 6.61 79.8 0.85 1.38 1.24 xSBE
al. (2000)

3
 Table 2: Wall Test Specimens Used for Model Development – Demand and Response Parameters

𝑃 𝑉𝑏 𝑉𝑏 𝑴𝒃 𝚫𝒚 𝚫𝒖 Failure
Wall ID
𝐴𝑔 𝑓𝑐′ 𝐴𝑐𝑣 √𝑓 ′𝑐 𝑉𝑛 𝑴𝒏 (%) (%) Mode
WSH4 0.06 2.8 0.62 1.06 0.29 1.60 CB
WR0 0.11 3.0 0.74 1.08 0.52 2.14 CB
R1 0.00 1.1 0.23 1.17 0.17 2.30 BR
RW1 0.11 2.6 0.50 1.07 0.48 2.26 CB
RW2 0.09 2.7 0.52 1.16 0.55 2.35 CB
RW-A20-P10-S38 0.07 3.8 0.81 1.26 0.55 3.18 CB
RW-A20-P10-S63 0.07 6.3 0.91 1.13 0.66 3.00 CB
WSH6 0.11 3.6 0.83 1.11 0.31 2.04 CB

PERFORM-3D Element Formulations and Material
Models for Modeling Walls
Nonlinear analysis of flexure-controlled concrete walls using
PERFORM-3D typically employs either the “shear wall
element” or the “general wall element”. The general wall
element is intended for analysis of complex reinforced
concrete walls with irregular openings and was not considered
in this study. This paper considers only the shear wall element.
The shear wall element is i) intended to represent the nonlinear
response of concrete walls subjected to in-plane axial and
lateral loading, such as the planar wall test specimens
presented in the previous section, ii) can be used to simulate
nonlinear flexural response, nonlinear shear response or both,
though flexural and shear response models are decoupled, and
iii) is used commonly in practice.
PERFORM-3D manuals and user guides provide detailed
information about the shear wall element (e.g. CSI); a brief
discussion of the element formulation is provided here. The
element is a displacement-based 4-node macro-element with
three rotational and three translational degrees of freedom per
node. The macro-element formulation combines three
response models to simulate wall behavior: i) a fiber-type
section model, comprising linear elastic or nonlinear concrete
and steel fibers, simulates in-plane flexural response, ii) a
uniform shear layer, with a one-dimensional linear elastic or
nonlinear shear response model, simulates in-plane shear
response, and iii) a uniform linear-elastic plate-bending model
represents out-of-plane response. Nodal displacements and
rotations are used to compute a constant in-plane shear
deformation, a constant in-plane curvature and a constant axial
deformation; these three deformations determine the in-plane
shear, moment and axial load developed in the wall.
The fiber-type section model is used to simulate the nonlinear
flexural response of the wall cross section. The user discretizes
the wall cross section into a series of unconfined and confined
concrete fibers overlaid with steel fiber; typically, the area
occupied by the reinforcing steel is “double counted” as it is
assigned both to the steel fibers and the concrete fibers. A one-
dimensional nonlinear stress-strain material response model is
assigned to the unconfined concrete, the confined concrete and
the reinforcing steel. PERFORM-3D limits the number of
fibers that can be assigned to a single wall element; thus,
multiple elements are often used along the length of the wall.
For assessment of wall performance under earthquake loading,
nonlinear one-dimensional material response models are used
to define concrete and steel fiber response and, occasionally,
to define shear response. Typically, nonlinear material
response is defined using the “YULRX” model (Figure 3) to
define the envelope to the stress-strain history; the “YULRX”
model can represent and envelope trilinear response with or
without strength loss. PERFORM-3D does not support
deterioration of the YULRX envelope due to cyclic loading;
thus, strength deterioration due to cyclic loading is implicitly
included in the YULRX envelope. Thus, the YULRX envelope
used for monotonic loading would be different (stronger or
with strength loss occurring at a larger deformation demand)
than for cyclic loading. PERFORM-3D does support
deterioration of unloading/reloading stiffness. This is done
differently for concrete and for reinforcing steel.
Investigation and Calibration of the PERFORM-3D
Shear Wall Element and Material Constitutive Models
As suggested by the discussion above, building a PERFORM-
3D model of a reinforced concrete wall requires the engineer
to make a number of modeling decisions and input multiple
model parameters. Data from the experimental tests listed in
Table 1 were used to investigate the impact on model accuracy
of various modeling decisions and user-defined model
parameters and, ultimately, develop modeling
recommendations to achieve accurate simulation of stiffness,
strength, cyclic response and deformation capacity. The

4
subsections below first present an investigation of the accuracy
with which wall response is simulated using the “typical
modeling approach” and then present investigations of the
impact on response simulation and recommendations for i)
mesh refinement as defined by the number of elements used
along the length and up the height of the wall, ii) degradation
of unloading and reloading stiffness due to cyclic loading, and
iii) regularization of a material response models to minimize
mesh-sensitivity and provide accurate stimulation of
deformation capacity Table 5 near the end of the paper
provides modeling parameters values used all analyses
presented in this paper.
Figure 3: Action-Deformation Envelope for
PERFORM-3D ‘YULRX’ Material Model (Figure 5.4
from the PERFORM-3D User Guide 2006)
Evaluation of the Reference Model
Investigation of wall modeling using PERFORM-3D started
with a reference modeling approach that was intended to
represent the modeling approach used commonly in practice.
The reference model was characterized by i) one shear wall
element used to represent the entire length of the wall, ii) two
shear wall elements used to represent the height of the first
story, where flexural yielding is expected, and one element
used to represent the entire height of upper stories, ii) no
degradation in energy dissipation or unloading/reloading
stiffness for steel, iii) no degradation in energy dissipation for
concrete in compression, and iv) use of standard concrete and
steel stress-strain models without regularization. Table 5 lists
all model parameters used to defined the Reference model.
The reference model employed a level of mesh refinement that
is consistent with recommendations for PERFORM-3D
modeling found in the literature. Two elements were used
vertically to represent the bottom story of the wall and one
element was used vertically to represent upper stories; each
element spanned the entire in-plan length of the wall.
PERFORM-3D limits the number of fibers that can be used for
a single element to 16. As such, eight concrete fibers and eight
steel fibers were used. Concrete fibers were distributed as three
per boundary element and two in web; steel fibers were
distributed as two per boundary element and four in the web.
Unconfined and confined concrete stress-strain models were
defined and assigned, respectively, to web and boundary
element concrete fibers. The PERFORM-3D 1D concrete
model was employed with the YULRX model used to define
the tension and compression envelopes. Concrete elastic
modulus in tension and compression was defined per ACI 318
as 57000√𝑓𝑐′ psi with 𝑓𝑐′ in psi. Table 3 lists the stress (F*)
and strain (D*) values used to define the YULRX envelope for
compression response, with confined concrete strength, 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ,
defined per by Mander et al. (1988) and concrete strain
capacity defined per Paulay and Priestley (1992) as
𝜀𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.004 + 1.4𝜌ℎ 𝑓𝑦ℎ 𝜀ℎ𝑚 /𝑓𝑐𝑐′ Eq. 1
where 𝜌ℎ is the volumetric ratio of confining steel and 𝑓𝑦ℎ and
𝜀ℎ𝑚 are, respectively, the yield strength and strain at maximum
strength of the confining reinforcement. Figure 4 shows typical
compressive stress-strain envelopes for unconfined and
confined concrete.
Table 3: Concrete Compression Stress-Stain
Material Model Parameters
DU DL DR
FY FU FR/FU
(in/in) (in/in) (in/in)
Unconfined 0.75𝑓𝑐′ 𝑓𝑐′ 0.001 0.002 0.00202 0.01
Confined 0.75𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 0.200 0.004 0.00404 𝜀𝑐𝑚𝑎𝑥
Figure 4: Typical Compressive Stress-Strain
Envelopes for Unconfined and Confined Concrete
Reinforcing steel stress-strain models were defined and
assigned, respectively, to web and boundary element steel
fibers. The PERFORM-3D Inelastic Steel model without
buckling was employed. A single YULRX model was used to
define the stress-strain envelope for tension and compression.
Measured stress material properties were used to define the
YULRX envelope; where strain hardening was not well
defined by the available data a hardening modulus equal to
1.5% of the elastic modulus was assumed. Figure 5 shows a
typical reinforcing steel stress-strain response envelope.
5

Figure 5: Typical Stress-Strain Envelope for
Reinforcing Steel
An elastic shear material was used for the reference model.
Shear stiffness was defined equal to 0.1GcAg per the
recommendations of the ATC 72-1 (2010) with Gc = 0.4Ec per
ACI 318 and Ag taken equal to the gross area of the wall.
Figure 6 shows the simulated and measured response histories
for wall specimen RW1, with simulated response achieved
using the reference model. The most obvious observation is
that the reference model results in a simulated drift at onset of
lateral strength loss that is approximately double that observed
in the laboratory. Beyond this, the reference model is observed
to provide a somewhat poor representation of cyclic response.
In comparison with the measured response history, the
reference model does not simulate the gradual reduction in
unloading stiffness observed in each cycle or the graduate loss
of reloading stiffness observed in subsequent cycles. Similar
results were observed when the reference model was used to
simulate the response of other specimens.
Figure 6: Load-Displacement Response for Wall
Specimen RW1 as Measured and as Simulated Using
the Reference Model
6
Investigation of Cyclic Response Parameters for
Reinforcing Steel and Concrete
The data in Figure 6 show relatively poor simulation of the
measured cyclic response history, these simulated histories
were generated using user-defined cyclic calibration factors
for reinforcing steel and concrete material models.
Specifically, PERFORM-3D allows the user to specify i) the
extent to which unloading and/or reloading stiffnesses deviate
from that associated with an elastic-plastic material with linear
hardening and ii) if this deviation is constant throughout the
load history or changes with strain demand. Different
approaches are used for reinforcing steel and concrete, which
exhibit very different material response.
Cyclic Response Parameters for Reinforcing Steel
For reinforcing steel, unloading and reloading stiffnesses are
defined by the energy dissipation factor and the stiffness
factor. The energy dissipation factor defines the extent to
which stiffness loss reduces energy dissipation; it equals the
ratio of the energy dissipated during a stress-strain cycle for
the material with stiffness loss to the energy dissipated without
stiffness loss. The stiffness factor varies from negative to
positive one and determines whether unloading stiffness or
reloading stiffness or both are reduced. Figure 7 shows four
possible stress-strain cycles for reinforcing steel. The dashed
lines in Loops A-C show the same stress-strain cycle with no
stiffness loss. The solid lines in Loops A-C show three possible
stress-strain cycles with stiffness loss. All three of the stress-
strain cycles with stiffness loss were generated using an energy
dissipation factor of 0.5. Loops A-C, however, employ
different stiffness factors: in Loop A unloading stiffness is
reduced (stiffness factor =-1), in Loop C reloading stiffness is
reduced (stiffness factor = +1) and in LoopB both unloading
and reloading stiffness are reduced (stiffness factor = 0).
Experimental data from tests of reinforcing bars (Ma et al.,
1976; Panthaki, 1991) were used to determine the energy
dissipation factor (0.75) and stiffness factor (0.5) to provide a
best fit to the experimental reinforcing steel stress-strain
histories. Figure 8 shows measured and simulated response for
a wall specimen RW-A20-P10-S38 listed in Table 1 with (a)
default cyclic material response parameters and (b) the
proposed reinforcing steel and concrete cyclic response
parameters. These data show that the calibrated cyclic
response parameters result in significantly improved
simulation of measured response; similar results were
observed for other wall specimens.
 reduction in unloading and reloading stiffness with increasing
compressive strain demand; the blue regions in this figure
represent energy dissipated during the unload-reload cycle.
PERFORM-3D provides a mechanism for reducing reloading
stiffness but not unloading stiffness; reduction in reloading
stiffness is defined by a user-specified relationship between
energy dissipation and compressive strain. Figure 10 shows the
(a) (b) (c) relationship between the energy factor and the reloading
stiffness. An energy factor of 1.0 results in initiation of
Figure 7: Three Options for Simulating Stiffness reloading at zero compressive strain, minimum reloading
Loss under Cyclic Loading (Modified from Figure stiffness, and maximum energy dissipation; an energy
5.14 from the PERFORM-3D User Guide 2006). dissipation factor of 0.0 results in initiation of reloading at the
maximum allowable compressive strain, a maximum reloading
stiffness and zero energy dissipation. Experimental data such
as shown in Figure 9a were used to determine appropriate
energy dissipation values as a function of maximum
compressive strain demand. Figure 11 shows data points and
the proposed energy dissipation model; Table 4 provides
proposed energy dissipation values for PERFORM-3D
material states. Figure 9 shows the simulated (b) stress-strain
history compared with the measured history (a). The proposed
model provides a good representation of the measured strain at
onset of reloading and reloading stiffness. As stated above, the
calibrated cyclic response parameters result in significantly
improved simulation of measured response (Figure 8).
(a)

(a)

(b)
(b)

Figure 8: Load-Deformation Response as Measured

and as Simulated Using (a) Default Material Models
and (b) Recommended Steel and Concrete Energy
Dissipation and Stiffness Factors

Cyclic Response Parameters for Concrete

For concrete, PERFORM-3D provides for user calibration of
the concrete cyclic response history in compression. Figure 9a Figure 9: Measured (a) and Simulated (b) Concrete
shows a typical measured cyclic stress-strain history for Compressive Stress-Strain History (Shina et al.,
concrete subjected to compressive loading. These data show 1964)

7
 analysis requires multiple analyses using different levels of
mesh refinement to verify that a “converged” solution is
achieved. For the current study, the results of previous research
were used to develop recommendations for mesh refinement in
along the length of the wall. A vertical mesh refinement study
was conducted to determine the impact of mesh refinement on
predicted performance and whether or not the standard practice
for meshing results in acceptable accuracy. Figure 12 shows
mesh configurations used in the mesh refinement studies.

Story 3

Story 2
Figure 10: Impact of PERFORM-3D Energy
Dissipation Factor on Concrete Compressive
Reloading Stiffness Story 1

Reference 2 Elements 3 Elements 4 Elements

Model per Story per Story per Story
Figure 12: Shear Wall Element Meshes Used for
Reference Model and Vertical Mesh Refinement
Study (2, 3 and 4 Elements per Story)

Horizontal Mesh Refinement

A single PERFORM-3D shear wall element simulates constant
curvature, and thus a linear vertical strain distribution, along
the in-plan length of the wall. However, experimental test data
Figure 11: Concrete Compressive Energy for planar walls show the actual vertical strain distribution is a
Dissipation Factor as a Function of Compressive planar wall to be highly nonlinear (Birely, 2012). Figure 13
Strain as Measured and as Proposed. shows the vertical strain distributions for two planar walls as
simulated using nonlinear continuum analysis (ATENA) and
Table 4: Concrete Cyclic Energy Dissipation Factors as simulated using a plane-sections-remain-plane section
Material Y U L R X model (OpenSees). One of the planar walls has a low cross-
State (yield) (ultimate) (loss) (residual) (rupture) sectional aspect ratio (CSAR = lw/t) and low shear stress
Energy demand; the other has a high CSAR and high shear stress
1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 demand. Both strain profiles suggest that the need for multiple
Factor
elements along the length of the wall to simulate a multilinear
Under tensile loading, concrete cracks at a relative low stress vertical strain distribution. Based on the data in Figure 13, it is
demand and then exhibits rapid strength loss; unloading is recommended that four shear wall elements be used along the
characterized by a “damage-type” response, with all inelastic length of the wall with one element used to model each
deformation attributed to stiffness loss and unloading resulting boundary element (vertical black line indicates location of
in zero residual deformation. This behavior is represented web-boundary element interface ) and two elements used for
exactly by the PERFORM-3D material model and mechanisms the interior web region as shown in Figure 12. All subsequent
for user calibration of this response are not provided. analyses use this level of horizontal mesh refinement.

Investigation of Mesh Refinement A single PERFORM-3D shear wall element simulates a

Standard practice for modeling walls using the shear wall
element is to use one or two elements per story and one or two
elements along the length of the wall. Classical finite element
constant vertical strain over the height of the element;
however, the very nearly linear moment distribution that
develops in a wall between floors suggests a linear strain
distribution and the need for multiple elements per story to
represent this linear strain profile. Thus, a vertical mesh

8
refinement study was conducted; Figure 12 shows the different
meshes used in the study. Figure 14 shows simulation results,
from which it can be concluded that vertical mesh refinement
has minimal impact on simulated stiffness, strength of cyclic
response and that for the typical model, mesh size
determines simulated deformation capacity. Similar results
were observed for all specimens listed in Table 1. Subsequent
sections of this paper present modeling recommendations that
achieve mesh-independent simulation of response, such that
mesh size does not determine simulated deformation capacity.
Subsequent analyses use different levels of vertical mesh
refinement as identified in Table 5.
Figure 13: Simulated Vertical Strain Profiles (from
Whitman 2015)
20% Strength Loss
Different levels of mesh
refinement results in
different displacement
capacities
Figure 14: Load-Deformation Response as Measured
and as Simulated Using Different Numbers of
Elements per Story
Regularization of Material Response to Achieve
Mesh-Independent Prediction of Drift Capacity
The simulated response histories presented in Figure 14 show
that mesh size affects the drift at onset of significant strength
loss, which is subsequently referred to as drift capacity. This
mesh sensitivity in simulation of drift capacity has been
observed by others (Coleman and Spacone 2001, Mohr 2007,
Chiaramonte 2011, Pugh et al. 2015) using a range of element
formulations (beam-column, shell and solid) to simulate the
response of a range of reinforced concrete components (beams,
columns, walls, and piles). Regularization of material
response, using a measure of the energy dissipated in post-peak
region of the material response curve and a mesh-dependent
length, has been used by others (Coleman and Spacone 2001,
Chiaramonte 2011, Pugh et al. 2015) to produce mesh-
objective prediction of response. This concept is employed
here to develop recommendations for defining the concrete
stress-strain response curve used in the PERFORM-3D wall
element to achieve accurate, mesh-objective prediction of drift
capacity in walls.
Why Standard, Un-Regularized Material Models Produce
Mesh-Dependent Results
Specimen WSH4 is classified as exhibiting a compression-
buckling failure, with the measured strength loss shown in
Figure 14 resulting from concrete crushing and simultaneous
buckling of longitudinal reinforcement in the compression
region at the bottom of the wall. The simulated strength loss
shown in Figure 14 results also from crushing of the extreme
concrete fibers in the element at the base of the wall specimen.
In the simulation, once concrete crushing results in reduced
moment capacity for the wall, deformation localizes in the
failing/softening element at the bottom of the wall.
Deformation in the softening element at the base of the wall
increases, but deformation in the elements above the critical
bottom section drop as these elements unload. If a more refined
mesh is used to simulate response, concrete crushing still
localizes in the bottom element, but now, because the reduced-
height bottom element has the same stress-strain model as the
full-height element, the reduced-height element exhibits a
substantially smaller deformation (deformation equals the
product of strain and element height) at a given element stress
level / wall moment capacity. Thus, the more highly refined
mesh simulates initiation of strength loss at a lower drift level
and simulates more rapid strength loss with increasing
displacement demand.
The above mesh-dependent behavior is illustrated in Figure 15.
Figure 15 shows simulation results for wall WSH4; these
results were generated using the OpenSees
(http:\\opensees.berkeley.edu) force-based beam-column
element and fiber-section model available in OpenSees with
standard, unregularized material models. Figure 15a-e show
simulation results for different levels of mesh refinement; for
the beam-column element mesh refinement takes the form of
increasing the number of fiber sections (integration points are
identified as I.P. in Figure 15) used along the length of the
9

(a) Response of WSH4 as measured and as simulated using
OpenSees force-based beam-column elements and four levels
of mesh refinement (4, 5, 7 and 9 fiber sections per element)
(b) Pt. A: simulated curvature (c) Pt. A: simulated maximum
distribution concrete strain distribution
(d) Pt. B: simulated curvature (e) Pt. B:simulated maximum
distribution concrete strain distribution
Figure 15: Simulated Curvature and Strain Fields
Prior to and at Failure for Specimen WSH4 (Pugh
2012)
10
element. Figure 15a shows measured and simulated load
versus drift; the displacement at onset of strength loss and the
rate of strength loss show mesh-sensitivity similar to that
shown in Figure 14. Figure 15b,c show, respectively, the
simulated normalized curvature and maximum concrete
compressive strain distributions up the height of the wall prior
to onset of strength loss. The data in these figures show
approximately the same distribution regardless of the level of
mesh refinement; increasing mesh refinement provides a
smoother distribution and more accurate representation of the
distribution over the wall height. Figure 15d,e show,
respectively, the simulated normalized curvature and
maximum concrete compressive strain distributions up the
height of the wall prior at the onset of strength loss. The data
in these figures show very different distributions at the base of
the wall with different levels of mesh refinement. In these
figures, increased mesh refinement results in substantially
increased curvature and maximum concrete strain at the
bottom section of the wall where strength loss occurs. Above
the bottom section, the curvature and strain distributions are
not affected by mesh refinement. Behavior similar to that
shown in Figure 15 is observed when the PERFORM-3D wall
elements are used to simulate response.
Regularization of Concrete Material Response
Regularization of material response to mitigate mesh
sensitivity has been used for many years in continuum analysis
of concrete structures. Regularization is based on observations
from material tests that 1) damage localizes in a region within
the test specimen and that this region is approximately the
same size regardless of specimen size, and 2) the fundamental
material response is stress versus deformation not stress versus
strain. For concrete subjected to tensile loading, damage
localizes at the crack and the fundamental material response,
which is consistent regardless of specimen size, is crack stress
versus crack width opening (a deformation measure). Concrete
fracture energy, Gf, defined as the area under the softening
portion of the tensile stress versus crack width opening history,
is considered a fundamental material property, and
standardized tests exist for measuring this quantity (CEB-FIP
1990). Jansen and Shah (1997) conducted compression tests of
concrete cylinders of varying height and showed that damage
localizes in a crushing region that is approximately the same
thickness regardless of cylinder height and that the softening
portion of the concrete compression stress versus deformation
history is approximately constant regardless of specimen
height. Jansen and Shah (1997) developed recommendations
for defining concrete crushing energy, Gfc, equal to the area
under the softening portion of the compression stress versus
deformation history (Figure 16). Nakamura and Higai (2001)
conducted a study similar to that of Jansen and Shah (1997),
found similar results and developed recommendations for
defining Gfc. Though, it should be noted that for normal weight
concrete, Jansen and Shah recommend a crushing energy of
0.143 kip/in while Nakamura and Higai recommend a crushing
energy of 0.457 kip/in.
Figure 16: Concrete Compression Stress versus
Deformation and Definition of Concrete Crushing
Energy, Gfc (image from Jansen and Shah (1997))
Given the stress versus deformation history in Figure 16 and
the knowledge that the area under the stress versus
deformation curve in the post-peak regime (Gfc) is constant
regardless of mesh size, regularized concrete stress-strain
response models for unconfined and confined concrete can be
created for use in PERFORM-3D (Figure 17). Since there is
no localization of damage prior to achieving maximum
strength, standard models may be employed to define the pre-
peak portion of the curves. To define the post-peak response,
unconfined concrete is assumed to have no residual strength
(strength at point R is zero) and confined concrete is assumed
to have residual strength equal to 20% of the confined
compressive strength (strength at Rcc = 0.2fcc = 0.2Ucc). Strain
at residual strength is defined for unconfined concrete as
𝐺𝑓𝑐
𝑓𝑐′ (
𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚
) an appropriate value for the crushing energy of unconfined
𝜀𝑅 = 𝜀𝑢 = 𝜀𝑜 − +2 ′ Eq. 2
𝐸𝑐 𝑓𝑐
and for confined concrete as
5 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐
( )
′
𝜀𝑅 𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑢𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑜𝑐𝑐 −
0.8𝑓𝑐𝑐
+
3 𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚
′ Eq. 3
𝐸𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑐
where 𝜀𝑅 is the strain at point R, which is often defined as and
𝜀𝑢 in concrete material models, 𝜀𝑜 is the compressive strain at
maximum concrete strength, 𝑓𝑐′ is the concrete compressive
strength, 𝐸𝑐 is the concrete elastic modulus at zero strain, 𝐺𝑓𝑐 is
the concrete crushing energy, 𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚 is the height of the wall
element and the subscript cc is added in Eq. 3 to indicate
confined concrete.
Regularization of Steel Material Response in Compression
Review of experimental data (Birely 2012) shows that the
majority of walls tested in the laboratory exhibit strength loss
due to simultaneous concrete crushing and reinforcement
buckling (classified as a compression-buckling failure in Table
2). To simulate the failure mode, it is necessary to simulate
compression strength loss in reinforcing steel due to buckling,
and to achieve mesh-objective results, it is necessary to
regularize the compressive strain at onset of steel strength loss.
Here the simple buckling model proposed by Pugh et al. (2015)
for simulation of wall response using OpenSees force-based
beam-column elements with fiber-type section models was
employed. This model assumes that once concrete has reached
residual compressive strength there is minimal restraint of bar
buckling and reinforcing steel loses compressive capacity. The
regularized strain at onset of concrete compressive strength
loss is defined by Eq. 2 and Eq. 3.
10
Ucc,Lcc
9 Unconfined
8 Ycc Confined
7
U,L
Stress (ksi)
6
5
4
Y 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐
3
𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚 Rcc
2
𝐺𝑓𝑐
1
𝐿𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚 R
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Strain (in/in)
Figure 17: Regularized Concrete Compression
Stress-Strain YULRX Envelopes for Use with
PERFORM-3D
Unconfined Concrete Crushing Energy
Response data for walls WSH4 and WR0, which were
constructed entirely of unconfined concrete and exhibited
strength loss due to concrete crushing, were used to determine
concrete, 𝐺𝑓𝑐 . A series of PERFORM-3D analyses of the
WSH4 and WR0 specimens were conducted using the
modeling recommendations presented above; for each analysis
a different 𝐺𝑓𝑐 value, corresponding to a different concrete u
value, was used. For each analysis the simulated displacement
at 20% strength loss was recorded. Figure 18 shows the results
of these analyses. Based on these results
Gfc = 0.5 kip/in Eq. 4
is recommended for use in regularizing unconfined concrete
response in reinforced concrete walls. This value
approximately equal to the value recommended by Nakamura
and Higai (2001) for regular strength concrete and is consistent
with recommendations by Pugh et al. (2015), 0.078𝑓𝑐′ kip/in.
with 𝑓𝑐′ is ksi, for analysis of walls using fiber-type beam-
column elements in OpenSees. Figure 19 shows the simulated
response of wall specimen WSH4 with regularization of
concrete compression response using Eqs. 2 and 4 and
simulation of bar buckling at 𝜀𝑅 per Eq. 2; all other modeling
parameters are listed in Table 5. The data in Figure 19 show
accurate simulation of drift capacity and no mesh sensitivity.
11

∆𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ⁄∆𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
𝐺𝑓𝑐 (kip/in)
Figure 18: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Drift
Capacity as a Function of Unconfined Concrete
Crushing Energy, Gfc, for Specimens WSH4 and WR0
Modeled Using 2 and 4 Elements per Story
20% Strength Loss
∆𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ⁄∆𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
All levels of mesh
refinement result in
the same, correct
displacement capacity
Figure 19: Load-Deformation Response as Measured
and as Simulated Using Regularized Material Models
and Different Numbers of Elements per Story
Confined Concrete Crushing Energy
𝐾 = 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝐺𝑓𝑐
The approach used to determine unconfined concrete crushing
energy was used also to determine confined crushing energy,
𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 . A series similar analyses were performed on the five
walls in Table 1 that included confined boundary elements and
exhibited strength loss due to concrete crushing. Models were
constructed using a confined concrete material model for the
confined area of the boundary elements and an unconfined
concrete material model elsewhere. Concrete material
response was regularized using Eqs. 2 and 3. Equation 4 was
used to define unconfined concrete crushing energy and a
range of confined concrete crushing energies were used.
Reinforcing steel in the unconfined web region of the wall and
12
in confined boundary elements was defined, respectively, to
fail in compression at 𝜀𝑅 defined by Eq. 2 and at 𝜀𝑅 𝑐𝑐 defined
by Eq. 3. For each of the walls with confined concrete,
analyses were done with two different levels of mesh
refinement. The results of these analyses (Figure 20) show
𝐾 = 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝐺𝑓𝑐 required to achieve accurate prediction of
deformation capacity ranging from 1.0 to 2.5. Given 1) that
experimental data show and traditional confined concrete
material models predict increasing concrete strain capacity
with increasing confinement and 2) the wide range of
confinement detailing for the walls in Table 1, this variation in
the 𝐾 is not surprising. Figure 21 shows 𝐾 plotted versus the
Mander confinement ratio, 𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ⁄𝑓𝑐′ , from which it can be
concluded that confined concrete crushing energy increases
with increasing confinement. Based on the data in Figure 21,
the following model is recommended for defining 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐
𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 f′
𝐾= = 1 < 5 ( cc′ − 0.85) < 2.5 Eq. 5
𝐺𝑓𝑐 fc
which is equivalent to
f′
𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 0.5 < 2.5 ( cc′ − 0.85) < 1.25 Eq. 6
fc
where 𝑓𝑐𝑐′
is the confined concrete compressive strength
defined by Mander et al. (1988).
𝐾 = 𝐺𝑓𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝐺𝑓𝑐
Figure 20: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Drift
Capacity as a Function Gfcc for Specimens in Table 1
with Confined Concrete Exhibiting a Compression-
Buckling Failure
𝑓𝑐𝑐′ ⁄𝑓𝑐′
Figure 21: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Drift
Capacity as a Function Gfcc for Specimens in Table 1
with Confined Concrete Exhibiting a Compression-
Buckling Failure
Recommendations for Modeling Flexural Walls
Using PERFORM
The above recommendations for modeling flexural walls using
PERFORM-3D are summarized in Table 5 (Validation Study).
These recommendations were used to simulate the response of
the eight walls listed in Table 1. Simulation results were
evaluated on basis of the accuracy and precision with which
maximum strength, displacement at yield, and displacement
capacity were simulated. These response quantities are defined
as follows: i) maximum strength is defined by the maximum
base shear achieved in either loading direction, ii) yield is
defined by the moment, and corresponding base shear, at
which a fiber-type model of the base section, assuming zero
shear strain, indicates first yield of longitudinal steel, and iii)
displacement capacity is defined as the displacement at the
point of applied load at which strength dropped to 80% of
maximum strength. Figure 22 shows measured and simulated
response histories; Table 6 provides response quantities for
each wall and statistics for the data set. The data in Table 6
and Figure 22 support the following conclusions and
observations:
 Strength and displacement capacity are accurately and
precisely simulated using the proposed modeling
recommendations.
 Displacement at yield is slightly underpredicted and
results have a relatively high level of uncertainty. This is
consistent with the results of other studies (e.g. Pugh et al.
2015) and likely results from the fact that in the laboratory
wall test specimens often exhibit significant shrinkage
cracking that increases measured yield displacement
(Palermo and Vecchio, 2002) and is not typically captured
in simulations.
 Displacement capacity is accurately predicted for
specimen WSH6, which exhibited a buckling-rupture
(BR) failure in the laboratory. This is despite the fact that
the model simulates strength loss due to concrete crushing
and reinforcement buckling but not fracture of
reinforcement following buckling. Accurate simulation of
displacement capacity for walls exhibiting compression-
buckling (CB) and buckling-rupture (BR) failure modes
using models that simulate only strength loss due to
concrete crushing and bar buckling is consistent with
previous research (Pugh et al., 2015). Previous research
shows also similar drift capacities for walls exhibiting CB
and BR failure modes. These results suggest that fracture
of previously buckled reinforcement occurs very shortly
after buckling that results in significant strength loss.

Table 5: Model Parameters Used for Simulations

Simulation Used to Investigate

Reference Validation
Model Cyclic Cyclic Mesh Mesh Study
Response Response Refinement Refinement
Wall specimen used for study RW1 WSH4 WSH4 WSH4 WSH 4 All Walls
Figure(s) presenting results Figure 6 Figure 8a Figure 8b Figure 14 Figure 19 Figure 22
Number elements horizontally 1 1 1 4 4 4
Number of elements vertically in yielding story 2 2 2 2, 3, 4 2,3,4 4
Number of elements vertically in non-yielding stories 1 1 1 2, 3, 4 2,3,4 1
Concrete energy dissipation factor - - Table 4 Table 4 Table 4 Table 4
Steel energy dissipation factor - - 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Steel unloading/reloading stiffness factor - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5 kip/in 0.5 kip/in 0.5 kip/in
Unconfined concrete crushing energy, Gfc - - -
(Eq. 2) (Eq. 2) (Eq. 2)
Confined concrete crushing energy, Gfcc - - Eqs. 5 & 6 - Eqs. 5 & 6 Eqs. 5 & 6
Buckling of steel modeled No No Yes No Yes Yes

13
 (a)
(e)

(b) (f)

(c) (g)

(d) (h)

Figure 22: Lateral Load Versus Deformation Histories for Walls in Table 1 as Measured and as Simulated using
Recommended Modeling Procedures

14
Table 6: Ratio of Simulated to Measured Response
Quantities Walls exhibit compression-shear
(CS) controlled response
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑠𝑖𝑚 ∆𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑,𝑠𝑖𝑚 ∆𝑢,𝑠𝑖𝑚
Specimen
𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 ∆𝑢
WSH4 1.00 0.93 1.00
WR0 0.98 0.61 0.88
R1 1.03 1.41 1.21
RW1 1.00 0.77 1.03
RW2 1.02 0.55 1.11
RW-A20-P10-S38 0.95 0.82 1.00
Walls exhibit flexure-controlled
RW-A20-P10-S63 1.13 0.93 0.99 (CB or BR) response
WSH6 0.97 1.09 1.07
Average 1.02 0.89 1.03
C.O.V. 0.06 0.31 0.10
(a) Boundary Element Meets ACI Code (2014) Requirements
Limitations on Application of the Model Walls exhibit compression-shear
(CS) controlled response
Comparison of response as measured and as simulated shows
that the proposed modeling recommendations result in a model
that is appropriate for use in assessing the earthquake
performance of walls exhibiting flexure-controlled response,
with either compression- or tension-controlled failure
mechanisms. Recent research by Whitman (2015) provides
guidance on wall design characteristics that can result in walls Walls exhibit flexure-controlled
exhibiting a compression-shear failure rather than a flexure- (CB or BR) response
controlled failure. Whitman conducted nonlinear continuum-
type analysis of planar walls with a range of design
characteristics, including walls with high cross-sectional
aspect ratios (CSAR = ratio of wall length to wall thickness)
and high shear stress demands. Whitman found that walls with (b) Boundary Element Depth Extends to Neutral Axis
high cross-sectional aspect ratios and high shear demands
exhibit a compression-shear failure characterized by crushing Figure 23: Average Shear Stress Demand and Cross-
of concrete at the boundary element-web interface. Figure 23 Sectional Aspect Ratios Resulting in Flexure-
shows the range of CSARs and shear stress demand for which Controlled Versus Flexure-Shear Failure Modes for
a compression-shear rather than a flexure-controlled response Planar Walls with Boundary Elements
could be expected for (a) walls with boundary element
detailing that meets current ACI Code requirements and (b) controlled concrete walls using the PERFORM-3D
walls with boundary element confinement that extends to the (www.csiamerica.com/) software package. Recommendations
neutral axis depth. address mesh refinement as well as the definition of material
response. Regularization of the concrete compression response
Given the results of the Whitman (2015) study and that the using concrete crushing energy and element height is
PEFORM model simulates only a flexural failure mechanism, recommended to achieve accurate, mesh-objective simulation
the PEFORM model is appropriate only for use in assessing of the drift capacity of walls. Data show that without
the earthquake performance of walls that expected to exhibit regularization of material response, simulated drift at onset of
flexural failure per Figure 23. strength loss is a function of mesh size. Equations are provided
that define unconfined concrete crushing energy and confined
Summary and Conclusions concrete crushing energy as a function of confinement.
Recommendations include also the appropriate range of
The results of previous research by the authors and students at application of the model, which excludes walls with large
the University of Washington as well as experimental data cross-sectional aspect ratios and walls subjected to high shear
characterizing the response of planar walls were used to stress demands. Comparison of simulated and measured
develop recommendations for modeling planar flexure- response for a series of eight planar walls, representing a range

15
of design parameters with the recommended range of
application of the model, shows that the proposed modeling
recommendations result in accurate and precise simulation of
wall strength and displacement capacity. Comparison of
simulated and measured response shows that yield
displacement is slightly under predicted (average ratio of
simulated to measured yield displacement in 0.89) and shows
a relatively high level of uncertainty (c.o.v. for ratio of
simulate to measured yield displacement is 31%); this is
consistent with the results of previous research by the authors
and others and attributed to variability of shrinkage cracking
observed in laboratory test specimens.
References
ACI Committee 318, and American Concrete Institute. 2011.
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-11) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute.
ACI Committee 318, and American Concrete Institute. 2014.
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-14) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2010). “Modeling and
acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall
buildings,” Prepared by Applied Technology Council for the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Redwood
City, California, Tech. Rep. Report No. PEER/ATC-72-1.
Birely, A.C. (2012), “Seismic performance of slender
reinforced concrete walls,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA.
Chiaramonte, M.M. (2011). “An analysis of conventional and
improved marginal wharves” MS Thesis. University of
Washington, Seattle. 217 p.
Coleman, J. and Spacone, E. (2001). “Localization issued in
force-based frame elements,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 127(11): 1257–1265.
Comite Euro-International du Beton (1993) CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990.
Dazio, A., Beyer, K. Bachmann, H. (2009). “Quasi-Static
Cyclic Tests and Plastic Hinge Analysis of RC Structural
Walls,” Engineering Structures 31(7): 1556–71.
Jansen D., Shah, S. (1997). “Effect of length on compressive
strain softening of concrete,” ASCE Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 123(1): 25–35.
16
Ma, S-Y.M., V.V. Bertero and E.P. Popov (1976).
“Experimental and Analytical Studies of the Hysteretic
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular and T-Beams.”
Report No. EERC-76-2. Berkeley: EERC, University of
California.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R. (1988). “Observed
Stress-Strain Behaviour of Confined Concrete,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 114(8): 1827-1849.
Mehta, P.K., Monteiro, P.J.M. (1993). Concrete Structure,
Properties and Materials. Prentice-Hall.
Mohr, D. (2007). “Nonlinear analysis and performance based
design methods for reinforced concrete coupled shear walls,”
MS thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2007.
Nakamura, H., Higai, T. (2001). “Compressive Fracture
Energy and Fracture Zone Length of Concrete,” Modeling of
Inelastic Behavior of RC Structures Under Seismic Loads, Eds.
Shing, P.B. and Tanabe, T., Reston, VA: ASCE.
Oesterle, R., Aristizabal-Ochoa, A, Carpenter, J., Russell, H.,
Corley, W. (1976). Earthquake resistant structural walls -
tests of isolated walls, Portland Cement Association/National
Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Tech. Rep. No.
NSF/RA-760815.
Oh, Y.-H., Han, S.W., Lee, L.-H. (2002). “Effect of Boundary
Element Details on the Seismic Deformation Capacity of
Structural Walls.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 31(8): 1583–1602.
Palermo, D., Vecchio, F. (2002). “Behavior and analysis of
reinforced concrete walls subjected to reversed cyclic
loading,” Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto, Toronto, ON, Tech. Rep. ISBN 0-7727-7553-02,
Publication No. 2002-01, 2002
Panthaki, F.D. (1991). “Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of High
Strength and Ordinary Reinforcing Steels.” MS Thesis.
Buffalo: State University of New York.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N. (1992). Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley and
Sons.
Pugh, J.S., Lowes, L.N., Lehman, D.E. (2015). “Nonlinear
line-element modeling of flexural reinforced concrete walls,”
Engineering Structures 104: 174-192.
Wallace, J.W., Thomsen J.H., (1995). “Seismic Design of RC
Structural Walls. Part II: Applications.” Journal of Structural
Engineering 121(1): 88–101.

Tran, T.A. (2012). “Experimental and Analytical Studies of

Moderate Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Structural
Walls.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles.

Whitman, Z. (2015) “Investigation of Seismic Failure Modes

in Flexural Concrete Walls Using Finite Element Analysis,”
MS Thesis, University of Washington.

17

View publication stats