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

net/publication/327065847

Comparative Study of State-of-the-Art Macroscopic Models for Planar

Reinforced Concrete Walls

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · November 2018

DOI: 10.14359/51710835

CITATIONS READS

11 1,434

10 authors, including:

Kristijan Kolozvari Carlos A Arteta

California State University, Fullerton Universidad del Norte (Colombia)
16 PUBLICATIONS   167 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Matias Hube
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
71 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

CEER - Thin Wall Project View project

Forecast Engineering: From Past Design to Future Decisions | ERASMUS+ Programme - Key Activity 2: Strategic Partnerships in Higher Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John W. Wallace on 17 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 115-S127
Comparative Study of State-of-the-Art Macroscopic Models
for Planar Reinforced Concrete Walls
by K. Kolozvari, C. Arteta, M. Fischinger, S. Gavridou, M. Hube, T. Isaković, L. Lowes,
K. Orakcal, J. Vásquez, and J. Wallace
Over the past 20 years, a spectrum of analytical models for
nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls, with
varying capabilities and complexities, have become available for
both research and design applications. Five conceptually different
state-of-the-art macroscopic models were described, including
two-node and four-node elements, based on either a fiber-based
representation of a wall cross section or a strut-and-tie approach,
using either force-deformation or strain-stress material behavior,
and considering either coupled or uncoupled axial/flexural and
shear responses. Modeling approaches were validated against
experimental data obtained for five RC wall specimens character-
ized by a range of properties (for example, aspect ratio, axial load,
and failure mechanism) to assess current modeling capabilities
and identify future research directions. Results presented suggest
that the considered analytical models typically overestimate initial
wall stiffness, models with uncoupled flexural and shear behavior
overestimate lateral capacity of walls where shear deformations
are significant, models with shear-flexure interaction can capture
nonlinear shear deformations, and that vertical strains within the
plastic hinge region can be either overestimated or underestimated
by a factor of 2 in the nonlinear response range using the plane
sections assumption.
Keywords: macroscopic models; nonlinear modeling; performance-based
design; reinforced concrete walls.
INTRODUCTION
Application of nonlinear structural analysis procedures to
assess the expected seismic performance of existing build-
ings (for example, using ASCE 41-17 [2017]) or for design
of new buildings (for example, using Los Angeles Tall
Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) [2017])
has become common in regions of moderate-to-high seis-
micity. Use of nonlinear building models subjected to ground
acceleration histories generally allows for a more reliable
assessment of system and element demands (for example,
lateral interstory drift, wall shear stress, or local strains or
rotations), which are then compared with defined limits to
assess if acceptable performance is expected. The accuracy
and robustness of analytical approaches used to simulate
the nonlinear behavior of structural components will affect
analysis results, and ultimately the structural design; there-
fore, it is essential that reliable computational models are
available. With expansion of computational capabilities over
the past 20 years, a vast number of analytical approaches
with a broad range of capabilities have been developed based
on various theories, and are used in both research and engi-
neering practice. The accuracy and range of applicability
of available modeling approaches vary greatly depending
on how the models are applied. For example, use of elastic
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
TECHNICAL PAPER
beam models with concentrated plastic hinges generally
provides reasonably accurate results for beams, while the
same approach is generally less accurate for simulation
of column responses (due to axial/flexural interaction) or
structural wall responses (due to axial/flexural-shear inter-
action and neutral axis migration). Therefore, it is essential
to understand the capabilities and limitations of numerical
models used to assess nonlinear structural responses so that
the results obtained can be appropriately interpreted.
Use of reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls is very
common for design of new buildings or retrofit of existing
buildings, and the ability to accurately model their seismic
behavior is essential. Despite this need, a vast majority of
model validation studies available in the literature (Orakcal
and Wallace 2006; Massone et al. 2006; Jiang and Kurama
2010; Fischinger et al. 2012; Kolozvari et al. 2015a,b)
typically report results from a single test program with
limited test variables and an analytical modeling approach
implemented that is tailored to assess the impacts of the
given test program; studies that focus on a more compre-
hensive assessment of available models and the ability of
these models to capture salient responses from a broad set
of test programs and conditions are rare (Pugh et al. 2015;
Baker et al. 2016). Prior to 1990, relatively few tests of RC
walls were reported in the literature, and a majority of tests
focused on behavior of walls with well-confined boundary
columns at the wall edges and a relatively thin wall web
(Oesterle et al. 1976, 1979; Vallenas et al. 1979), which was
in line with general U.S. practice at the time. After 1990,
a large number of wall tests were designed and conducted
to address a wide range of issues, including flexure-domi-
nant behavior (for example, slender walls with low shear;
M/Vlw > 3.0), shear-dominant behavior (for example, squat
walls with high shear; M/Vlw < 1.0), and behavior of walls
where both flexure and shear responses may be important
(for example, 1.0 < M/Vlw < 3.0). Most of the post-1990s test
results are well-documented in written reports, while detailed
digital data and photos/figures of wall behavior and failure
mechanisms are typically available in web-based experi-
mental databases (for example, NHERI 2018; NEES 2016).
These data generally include information on global and local
ACI Structural Journal, V. 115, No. 6, November 2018.
MS No. S-2017-269, doi: 10.14359/51710835, was received July 24, 2017, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2018, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
1637
responses that are essential for comprehensive assessments
of modeling approaches available in the literature.
Analytical modeling of the inelastic response of struc-
tural walls can be accomplished by either using microscopic
or macroscopic models. Microscopic (for example, finite
element) models can provide a refined and detailed estima-
tion of structural responses, but significant effort is  typi-
cally required to develop the model, perform the analysis
(computational effort), and interpret the results. For these
reasons, use of micro-models is somewhat impractical for
engineering design. In contrast, macro-element models
(or macroscopic models) are effective computational tools
as they are relatively simple to implement and have been
shown to be reasonably accurate and efficient in predicting
the hysteretic response of RC structural walls (Taucer et
al. 1991; Computers and Structures Inc. 2005; Orakcal and
Wallace 2006; Jiang and Kurama 2010; Fischinger et al.
2014; Kolozvari et al. 2015a; Vásquez et al. 2016). However,
to obtain reliable results using macro models, one should
carefully choose model and material parameters within the
range of interest for a given application, assess sensitivity
of the results to variations in material and modeling param-
eters, and understand model assumptions and limitations.
A large number of macroscopic models for RC walls have
become available over the past two decades that are char-
acterized with various assumptions used in model devel-
opment, and therefore, various ranges of applicability. The
most commonly used macroscopic modeling approaches
simulate wall flexural behavior using force-displacement
or strain-stress material models for axial-flexural behavior
and shear behavior with a single horizontal spring using a
simplified hysteresis response (for example, linear-elastic,
elasto-plastic, origin oriented). Typically, shear behavior is
uncoupled (or independent) from the axial-bending (flexural)
behavior; therefore, it is common to refer to these models as
“uncoupled” models. However, interaction between axial/
flexural and shear behavior in RC was observed in various
experiments (Oesterle et al. 1976; Tran and Wallace 2015),
where Massone et al. (2006) and Fischinger et al. (2017)
demonstrated that this interaction could be important even in
slender RC walls. Over the last decade, studies have focused
on extending macro models to couple axial-bending and
shear behavior to incorporate nonlinear shear-flexure inter-
action (Massone et al. 2006; Jiang and Kurama 2010; Fisch-
inger et al. 2014; Kolozvari et al. 2015a); these models are
commonly referred to as “coupled” models. Considerable
effort has also been expended on improving macro models to
incorporate mechanisms that lead to loss of wall lateral load
capacity (for example, reinforcement buckling: Gomes and
Appleton 1997; Dhakal and Maekawa 2002b) and axial load
capacity (Wallace et al. 2008) and to implement these models
into some computational platforms (McKenna et al. 2000).
However, the ability of these models to capture strength
degradation observed in tests of isolated structural walls or
system level tests that include structural walls has not been
studied sufficiently. For example, models used to capture
reinforcement buckling (Dhakal and Maekawa 2002a) are
based on tests of single reinforcing bars in air, versus groups
of bars embedded in concrete. Modeling approaches based
1638
on a layered membrane finite element formulation capable
of capturing lateral instabilities at wall boundaries, a failure
mode observed following recent earthquakes in Chile in
2010 and New Zealand in 2011 and in recent tests (Wallace
2012), have recently been developed and validated against
limited test data (Dashti et al. 2014). Finally, availability of
a common, research-oriented, and modular computational
platform, namely OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2000), as well
as other computational platforms (for example, LS-Dyna,
VecTor), have led to significant advances in numerical simu-
lation capabilities to model walls and wall systems for both
researchers and practicing engineers.
As summarized in the prior two paragraphs, over the past
20 years, and especially in the last 10 years, structural-earth-
quake engineering has seen major advances in the avail-
ability of robust wall test data sets as well as in the diversity
and sophistication of wall modeling tools. Contributions
have come from all over the globe, with significant studies
reported in the United States, Chile, New Zealand, Europe,
and Japan, as well as other countries. The results reported
here were part of an organized international effort to: 1)
share test results; 2) advance modeling approaches; 3) iden-
tify research gaps; and 4) promote/improve collaboration.
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
Given the significant number of macroscopic analyt-
ical models for nonlinear analysis of RC walls available in
various computational platforms and reported in the litera-
ture, as well as their wide application in both engineering
practice and research, there is a need for a comprehensive
overview of such models and assessment of their capabil-
ities. State-of-the-art wall macro-modeling approaches
reported in the literature are systematically evaluated here
by comparing responses computed with the models with
responses obtained in various tests programs on isolated
planar RC walls to provide valuable information on model
capabilities and limitations, as well as to identify gaps that
require additional research and prioritize research needs.
This effort was made possible by engaging a broad group of
international researchers to conduct coordinated modeling
studies for a common set of wall tests covering a range of
behaviors reported in the literature. The models and the test
data are archived to encourage future studies that advance
the work presented. Specific objectives of this paper are to:
1. Provide a state-of-the-art review for a range of wall
macroscopic models used to assess the nonlinear behavior
of RC structural walls;
2. Conduct a systematic study for considered macroscopic
modeling approaches to enable comparisons between model
and test results for both global and local responses; and
3. Assess modeling approaches with respect to objectivity,
ease of use, range of applicability, and accuracy within that
range of applicability.
Brief descriptions of the selected modeling approaches
are presented first, followed by descriptions of the experi-
mental studies used to evaluate and compare model results.
Comparisons between experimentally measured and analyt-
ically predicted wall responses are then provided at both
global and local response levels for all modeling approaches
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
considered. Based on the results presented, conclusions are
drawn regarding model capabilities and limitations.
DESCRIPTION OF MACROSCOPIC MODELING
APPROACHES
Five conceptually different macroscopic modeling
approaches for RC walls are selected for this study:
1. Shear wall element implemented in the commercial
software Perform 3D (P3D-SW [Computers and Structures
Inc. 2005]);
2. Force wall element (FWE [Vásquez et al. 2016])
derived from the force-based nonlinear fiber-section beam-
column element;
3. Multiple Vertical Line Element Model (MVLEM) with
material behavior defined by simplified force-deformation
relationships without shear-flexure interaction (MVLEM-FD
[Fischinger et al. 2004]) and with shear-flexural interaction
(SFI-MVLEM-FD [Fischinger et al. 2012]) implemented in
the University of Ljubljana’s in-house version of OpenSees;
4. Shear-Flexure Interaction Multiple Vertical Line
Element Model available in OpenSees, with material
behavior defined using uniaxial strain-stress relationships
(SFI-MVLEM-SS [Kolozvari et al. 2015a, 2018]); and
5. Nonlinear Truss Model (NLTM [Panagiotou et al.
2012]) also available in OpenSees, based on a strut-and-tie
modeling approach.
The analytical models selected in this study represent
state-of-the-art macro modeling approaches used in research
and practice to assess nonlinear responses of RC structural
walls. The following sections provide brief overview of the
theory underlying the analytical models considered, with the
emphasis on their advantages and limitations.
PERFORM-3D shear wall element
PERFORM-3D (Computers and Structures Inc. 2005) is
the most commonly used commercial software in the United
States for nonlinear analysis of RC buildings. Backbone
curves used to define the nonlinear behavior of structural
components available in PERFORM-3D are compatible with
the backbone relationships published in ASCE 41-17 (2017),
which allows direct implementation of performance-based
design methodologies in engineering practice. Perform 3D
offers two types of elements for nonlinear analysis of RC
walls: 1) shear-wall element; and 2) general wall element.
Although formulation of the shear wall element represents a
simplification of the general wall element, it has become the
more commonly used element for simulation of RC walls in
Perform 3D. A brief description of the shear wall element is
provided in the following paragraphs, whereas details can
be found in the Perform 3D user manual (Computers and
Structures Inc. 2005).
The shear wall element in Perform 3D (P3D-SW) is
defined as a four-node macroscopic model element, with
horizontal and vertical displacement degrees of freedom at
each node. The behavior of the model element is governed by
two layers connected in parallel (Fig. 1): 1) a horizontal fiber
section used to represent axial/bending behavior of concrete
and reinforcing steel in the vertical direction (Fig. 1(a));
and 2) a layer used to represent concrete shear behavior
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Fig. 1—Shear wall element: (a) vertical axial/bending; (b)
concrete shear; and (c) typical material backbone relation
(Computers and Structures Inc. 2005).
(Fig. 1(b)). In-plane shear and flexural responses are uncou-
pled, while out-of-plane shear and bending behavior are
defined as linear-elastic.
Material models for concrete, steel, and shear behavior
are defined using the generic backbone relation presented
in Fig. 1(c), which is characterized by strain and stress (or
deformation and force) values corresponding to yield (Y),
ultimate (U), strength loss (L), residual (R), and maximum
deformation (X). In addition, the constitutive model uses
simplified unloading/reloading rules that cannot capture
detailed material hysteretic response (for example, gradual
gap closure in concrete, or the Bauschinger effect in rein-
forcing steel). Nevertheless, the model is computationally
stable and requires relatively low computational effort,
which makes it attractive for practical applications.
Distributed plasticity fiber-based beam-column
force wall element
Distributed plasticity fiber-based beam-column model
elements are available in the literature in the form of
displacement-based and force-based element formulations
(Spacone et al. 1996; Neuenhofer and Filippou 1998; Taucer
et al. 1991; Scott et al. 2004). As an example of the distrib-
uted plasticity beam-column model element, the force-based
force wall element (FWE) proposed by Vásquez et al. (2016)
is investigated in this study.
Similarly to other formulations of fiber-based models,
in the FEW, axial and flexural behavior are simulated by a
series of longitudinal uniaxial fibers representing the wall
cross section and the vertical reinforcement, along with the
assumption that plane sections remain plane upon loading
(Fig. 2(a)). Stiffness and force-deformation properties of the
longitudinal fibers are defined based on uniaxial stress-strain
relations for concrete and reinforcing steel, evaluated at a
number of integration points (use of three to seven integra-
1639
Fig. 2—Force-based fiber-section nonlinear beam-column element.
Fig. 3—MVLEM formulations: (a) 2-D version (Orakcal et al. 2004); and (b) 3-D version (Fischinger et al. 2004).
tion points per story is typical), and corresponding areas of
the materials on the wall cross section. Nodal resultants are
computed using an appropriate numerical integration rule
along the length of the element. FWE employs material regu-
larization to obtain cyclic predictions of the wall behavior
that are insensitive to mesh size, particularly in the softening
region (that is, loss of capacity) of the wall load-deformation
response (Coleman and Spacone 2001); details on material
regularization used in FWE are presented by Vásquez et al.
(2016).
Shear flexibility is incorporated in the FWE via shear
sections (Fig. 2(b)), which is common with other force-based
beam-column elements. Specific to the FWE, the behavior
of the shear section is defined using backbone relationship
by Gérin and Adebar (2009) that is characterized with four
points: 1) cracking (γcr, τcr), where shear cracking capacity is
calculated using ACI 318-14 Equation 22.5.6.1; 2) yielding
(γy, τy), which is not reached under flexural compression
dominated behavior; 3) failure (γf, τf), which is only reached
in the section with largest demand, due to localization of
deformations; and 4) the maximum shear resistance under
flexural compression behavior (γflex, τflex). In the FWE, shear
response is dependent on axial load only by incorporating
the Modified Compression Field Theory (Vecchio and
Collins 1986) at the shear section level. However, shear
behavior is uncoupled from the flexural behavior, which
1640
is a major disadvantage of the FWE and other fiber-based
models available in the literature.
Multiple-Vertical-Line-Element-Models with and
without shear-flexural interaction
The Multiple-Vertical-Line-Element-Model (MVLEM)
was originally proposed by Kabeyasawa et al. (1983) and
later modified and extended by many researchers (Vulcano et
al. 1989; Fischinger et al. 1990; Orakcal and Wallace 2006;
Chowdhury and Orakcal 2013). In the original MVLEM
formulation, axial/flexural behavior of a wall segment is
simulated using a number of uniaxial springs (macro-fibers)
connected to rigid beams at the top and the bottom of the
wall segments, as illustrated in Fig. 3 for two- and three-di-
mensional (2-D and 3-D, resepectively) versions of the
model. The shear response of the model element is uncou-
pled from the axial and flexural responses, and is defined
using a horizontal spring (Fig. 3(a) and (b)); the location
of the spring also represents the assumed center of rotation
for the element. In the presented study, two conceptually
different MVLEM-FD and MVLEM-SS were employed:
1) MVLEM-FD defines the response using force-displace-
ments approach, and 2) MVLEM-SS is based on stress-
strain relationships.
MVLEM-FD—In the basic version of MVLEM-FD, the
force-displacement relationships presented in Fig. 4(a) and
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Fig. 4—MVLEM-FD force-displacement responses of: (a) vertical springs; and (b) shear spring.
Fig. 5—SFI-MVLEM-FD accounting for inelastic shear and shear-flexural interaction in structural walls (vertical springs are
not shown).
(b) are used to define the flexural and shear response, respec-
tively. MVLEM-FD was extended to account for axial-flex-
ural-shear interaction (Rejec 2011) by introducing a hori-
zontal shear spring on each vertical spring (macro-fiber),
where the behavior of each horizontal and vertical spring
is coupled (Fig. 5); this model is referred to as SFI-MV-
LEM-FD. Each of the horizontal springs takes into account
three shear mechanisms: 1) dowel effect of vertical bars
(HSD) described by relationships proposed by Dulacska
(1972) and Vintzeleou and Tassios (1987); 2) axial resis-
tance of horizontal/shear bars (HSS) defined using model by
Elwood and Moehle (2003); and 3) interlock of aggregate
particles in the crack (HSA) modeled using constitutive rela-
tionships by Vecchio and Lai (2004). The current state of
each spring component depends on deformations/displace-
ments at the effective cracks of the element that are linked
to the current displacements of the element nodes, which
enables coupling between axial/flexural and shear behavior
at the model element level. In the SFI-MVLEM-FD model
formulation used in this study, constitutive behavior of the
shear resisting mechanisms (HSA, HSD, and HSS) are
represented with the Hysteretic material model available in
OpenSees for Specimens RW-A15-P10-S78 and S6, while
the ShearSlip material (Kante 2005) is used to model the
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
HSA mechanism in Specimens R2 and WSH6; for specimen
descriptions, refer to the section “Experimental Date Used
for Model Evaluation”. Factors that define pinching, damage
and degradation of the unloading stiffness in the Hysteretic
model were specified based on typical shapes of hysteretic
loops (corresponding to HSA, HSD, and HSS mechanisms)
as reported in the previous benchmark studies: α = 1.0, β =
1.5, γ = 1.05, δ = 0.5 (Fig. 4). More details about SFI-MV-
LEM-FD can be found in Fischinger et al. (2014).
MVLEM-SS—Another modification of the original
MVLEM to incorporate interaction between shear and flex-
ural behavior was proposed by Kolozvari et al. (2015a,b;
Fig. 6) and implemented into publicly available version
of the computational platform OpenSees (Kolozvari et al.
2018). The proposed model, called the shear-flexure interac-
tion MVLEM (SFI-MVLEM-SS), incorporates biaxial RC
panel behavior into a two-dimensional formulation of the
MVLEM-SS implemented by Orakcal el al. (2004). Axial-
shear coupling is achieved at the panel (macro-fiber) level,
which allows coupling of axial/flexural and shear responses
at the model element level. The constitutive RC panel model
implemented in the SFI-MVLEM-SS is the OpenSees mate-
rial FSAM, which is an extension of the Fixed Strut Angle
Model (Ulugtekin 2010, Orakcal et al. 2012; Fig. 6(b)).
1641
Fig. 6—SFI-MVLE-SS formulation: (a) model element; (b) RC panel behavior; (c) concrete struts; (d) shear aggregate inter-
lock; (e) steel behavior; and (f) reinforcement dowel action.
Fig. 7—Hysteretic rules controlling response of springs in SFI-MVLEM-SS element: (a) strain-stress behavior of concrete; and
(b) strain-stress behavior of steel. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
The FSAM incorporates several strain-stress mechanisms
to represent the behavior of RC material including: 1) a
biaxial concrete behavior based on the fixed-strut model that
employs OpenSees uniaxial material ConcreteCM (Fig. 7(a))
based on Chang and Mander (1994) formulation (Fig. 6(c));
2) a uniaxial constitutive relationship for steel represented by
OpenSees material SteelMPF that follows the Menegotto and
Pinto (1973) formulation (Fig. 7(b)) and is applied along the
directions of horizontal and vertical reinforcement (Fig. 6(e));
3) a friction-based constitutive model used to capture shear
aggregate interlock effects along concrete cracks (Fig. 6(d));
and 4) a linear-elastic relationship representing dowel action
on reinforcement (Fig. 6(f)). The shear spring is removed
from the original MVLEM-SS formulation because the shear
stiffness and strength of each macro fiber (and therefore the
model element) evolve according to the implemented consti-
tutive RC panel behavior. Therefore, explicit definition of
shear modeling parameters is not necessary.
Nonlinear Truss Model
The Nonlinear Truss Model (NLTM) proposed by Panag-
iotou et al. (2012) is based on the strut-and-tie (truss)
approach, where a structural wall is modeled using nonlinear
vertical, horizontal and diagonal truss elements connected
at nodes along which cyclic uniaxial material laws for
1642
concrete and steel are applied (Fig. 8(b)). The NLTM is
implemented in the publicly available computational plat-
form OpenSees as element Truss2 coupled with uniaxial
material ConcretewBeta. In this study, the wall boundary
elements (when present) are modeled using continuous
nonlinear fiber-based beam-column elements (Spacone et al.
1996), while remaining vertical and horizontal elements are
modeled as truss elements with fiber sections. The layout of
diagonal truss elements resembles, but does not necessarily
match, the principal compressive stress trajectories when
approaching the ultimate load, where inclination angle of the
diagonals proposed by Lu and Panagiotou (2014) is used.
Strut angles used in this study for the wall specimens consid-
ered are as follows: 44.9 degress for RW2, 55.2 degrees for
SP4, 63.4 degrees for R2, 59.0 degrees for WSH6, and 48.7
degrees for S6; for specimen descriptions, refer to the section
“Experimental Date Used for Model Evaluation”.
Each panel of concrete diagonals comprises two four-node
elements, where two of the nodes connect concrete diagonal
elements to the main truss, while the others allow connecting
a virtual strain-gauge element to monitor the strains normal
to the diagonal of interest (Fig. 9(a)). The capacity of the
diagonal concrete truss elements is reduced as a function of
transverse tensile strain, which allows coupling between the
element compressive stress-strain behavior with the tensile
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Fig. 8—NLTM modeling approach illustrated on Specimen SP4 (Tran and Wallace 2015). (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
Fig. 9—(a) Four-node truss element formulation for concrete
diagonal struts; and (b) relationship between concrete
compressive stress reduction factor β and normal strain εn
(Lu et al. 2014).
strain normal to the element axis (Fig. 9(b)) and allows
capturing the compression field of concrete (Vecchio and
Collins 1986). Therefore, NLTM captures interaction between
axial/flexural and shear behavior at the model element level,
and does not enforce plane section assumption, which distin-
guishes it from other macroscopic models presented here.
However, due to the overlapping areas of vertical, horizontal
and diagonal concrete elements, precracking (initial) stiff-
ness and strength of walls are typically overestimated by
the model, as shown later in this study. As well, the shear
strength, shear stiffness, and the local element responses are
sensitive to the orientation of diagonal truss elements and
the element size suggesting that applicability of this model
may not be suitable for modeling of structural walls where
the principal compression stress orientations are expected to
vary significantly during seismic loading (for example, in
coupled walls with varying axial loading). Finally, the large
number of degrees of freedom involved in generation of the
NLTM wall model increases the computational demand.
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Summary of models
As described in the previous sections, all models consid-
ered in this study, except NLTM, are based on fiber repre-
sentation of reinforced concrete cross section of the wall,
implementation of the plane-sections-remain-plane assump-
tion, and two-node beam-column-type line element formu-
lation, with exception of P3D-SW, which is four-node
fiber-based element. In addition, most of the models can
be used to model walls with non-rectangular cross sections
and employed in three-dimensional response analysis. A
summary of major characteristics of modeling approaches
considered is presented in Table 1.
In modeling approaches that consider P-M interaction only,
flexural behavior is simulated using uniaxial macro-fibers that
represent the behavior of concrete and reinforcing steel, the
behavior of which is defined using either uniaxial strain-stress
or force-deformation hysteretic relationships. Shear behavior
is described independently from flexural behavior via a shear
spring (or shear section in the FWE), the behavior of which
is governed by a predefined hysteretic force-deformation rule.
Forces and deformations are treated either at discrete integra-
tion points or as average values over the element height, which
is a trade-off between the ability of the model to describe local
responses and numerical efficiency.
Two of the models that are capable of capturing axial/flexural
and shear interaction (SFI-MVLEM-FD and SFI-MVLEM-SS)
are extensions of previously developed uncoupled models, and
incorporate interaction between axial and shear responses at the
macro-fiber level via implementation of either a 2-D consti-
tutive model for representing RC panel (membrane) behavior
in each macro-fiber or by introducing a shear spring to each
macro-fiber that is coupled with axial fiber behavior. In these
coupled modeling approaches, a critical component of the
model formulation is representation of the relatively complex
1643
Table 1—Macroscopic models for reinforced concrete walls
Formulation Capabilities
Nodes per SS versus Average versus Plane sections Element 2-D versus Cross Publically
Model acronym element FD* discrete† remain plane? interactions 3-D analysis section availaible?
SW-P3D 4 SS Average Yes P-M 3-D Any PERFORM-3D
FWE 2 SS Discrete Yes P-M 2-D and 3-D Any No
MVLEM-FD ‡
2 FD Average Yes P-M 2-D and 3-D Any No§
SFI-MVLEM-FD 2 FD Average Yes P-M-V 2-D and 3-D Any No§
MVLEM-SS‡ 2 SS Average Yes P-M 2-D Planar OpenSees
SFI-MVLEM-SS 2 SS Average Yes P-M-V 2-D Planar OpenSees
NLTM 4 SS Average No P-M-V 3-D Any OpenSees
*
SS is strain-stress; FD is force-determination.
†
Forces and deformations at element level treated in average or discrete sense.
‡
Limited or no results presented here.
§
Implemented into University of Ljubljana in-house version of OpenSees.

shear-resisting mechanisms along concrete cracks. Differently, section “Description of macroscopic modeling approaches,”
the NLTM incorporates axial/flexural and shear interaction via including discretization of model geometry, calibration of
a strut-and-tie modeling approach. material models, and load application.

EXPERIMENTAL DATA USED FOR MODEL Mesh information

EVALUATION
Experimental results obtained for five planar (rectangular)
wall specimens subjected to in-plane lateral and axial loading
were used to evaluate the modeling approaches considered
in this study. The following five RC wall specimens were
investigated within the scope of this study: 1) RW2 (Thomsen
and Wallace 1995); 2) R2 (Oesterle et al. 1976); 3) WSH6
(Dazio et al. 2009); 4) RW-A15-P10-S78 (referred to as SP4
for brevity; Tran and Wallace 2015); and 5) S6 (Vallenas et al.
1979). Specimens were selected to span a range of salient wall
response parameters and characteristics such as wall aspect
ratio (shear span ratio), axial load, shear demand at nominal
flexural capacity, and failure mode. The aspect ratio of the
walls ranged from 1.50 to 3.13, where shear demand-capacity
ratio was less than 1.0, including three walls with predom-
inantly flexural behavior and two specimens with shear-
flexural interaction response observed during testing. Approx-
imate levels of axial load applied on the walls were 0% (one
specimen), 5% (one specimen), and 10% (three specimens)
of wall axial load capacity. Observed failure modes included
flexure-dominated tension or compression failures (for
example, bar fracture or concrete crushing and bar buckling)
of four specimens, and diagonal compression failure of one
specimen. For all specimens considered, data required to fully
define a numerical model (that is, geometry, material prop-
erties, reinforcement layout, and loading/boundary condi-
tions) and to evaluate the simulation results (that is, global
load-deformation responses, local shear deformation and
strain responses, and the observed failure mechanisms) were
available in the referenced papers. Main characteristics of the
wall specimens are summarized in Table 2.
MODEL GENERATION
Procedures used to generate analytical models of wall spec-
imens selected are summarized in the following sections for
the five macroscopic modeling approaches described in the
The wall specimens were modeled with a suitable number
of macro-elements over the specimen height, considering
the locations of the instrumentation used to measure defor-
mations on the wall specimens, to allow consistent local
response comparisons between model predictions and exper-
imental results. Selected element heights varied between
one-fourth to one-half of the wall length to capture reason-
ably nonlinear deformations within the plastic hinge region,
which is typically assumed to be approximately one-half of
the wall length. Cross sections of the walls were divided into
a number of segments (macro-fibers) according to the place-
ment and properties of the longitudinal reinforcing bars,
where wall boundary and web fibers were differentiated in
all modeling approaches. As an example, typical geometric
discretization used in the modeling approaches considered
is illustrated in Fig. 10 for Specimen SP4, showing that
for P3D-SW, SFI-MVLEM-FD, and SFI-MVLEM-SS, the
element heights of 305 and 406 mm (12 and 16 in.) were
used; for NLTM, element heights of 366 mm (14.4 in.)
were used; and for FEW, element heights of 183, 996, and
1300 mm (7.2, 39.2, and 51.2 in.) were adopted. Note that
for FWE, a zero-length element is used at the base of the
walls to account for strain penetration effects. A similar
discretization methodology is used for all other specimens.
As illustrated in Fig. 10(a), discretization of the wall spec-
imens for the P3D-SW model was performed using two
elements along wall length, where each element consisted of
five concrete fibers and four steel fibers, with finer discreti-
zation of the fibers located in the wall boundary. For FWE,
the cross section was subdivided into many triangular
fibers (for example, 1566 for Specimen SP4) as shown in
Fig. 10(b), with four types of fibers: 1) steel (one fiber for
each bar); 2) concrete cover; 3) unconfined concrete; and 4)
confined concrete. For the SFI-MVLEM-FD, macro-fibers
in the boundary regions were narrower than web macro-
fibers, typically including two to four bars, to predict the

1644 ACI Structural Journal/November 2018

Table 2—Experimental data for planar wall test specimens
Specimen fc′, fyBE, ρvBE, ρh,web/ρv,web, Vmax/(Acv√fc′), Δu, Failure
ID Scale lw/t h/lw MPa MPa % % M/(Vlw) P/(Agfc′) MPa (psi) Vmax/Vn Mmax/Mn Δy, % % mode*
RW2 0.33 12 3.00 34.0 434 2.93 0.33 / 0.33 3.13 0.09 0.22 (2.7) 0.52 1.16 0.55 2.35 CB
R2 0.33 19 2.34 46.4 450 4.00 0.31 / 0.25 2.40 0.00 0.17 (2.1) 0.42 1.23 0.34 2.89 CB/LI
WSH6 0.49 13 2.02 45.6 576 1.54 0.25 / 0.46 2.26 0.11 0.30 (3.6) 0.83 1.11 0.31 2.04 CB/LI
RW-A15-
0.50 8 1.50 55.8 477 6.06 0.73 / 0.73 1.50 0.10 0.65 (7.8) 0.89 1.19 0.63 1.07 DC
P10-S78
S6 0.37 21 1.26 27.8 482 5.60 0.55 / 0.55 1.60 0.05 0.53 (6.4) 0.80 1.12 0.32 0.65 CB/LI
*
CB is concrete crushing/reinforcing bar buckling; LI is lateral instability of wall boundary; and DC is diagonal compression.
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.

Fig. 10—Vertical and horizontal model discretization of Specimen SP4: (a) P3D-SW; (b) FWE; (c) SFI-MVLEM-FD; (d)
SFI-MVLEM-SS; and (e) NLTM. (Note: Units are in.; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
flexural response of the wall more precisely (Fig. 10(c)),
whereas length of the web segments was defined based on
the distances between the longitudinal web reinforcement
(two to four bars per macro-fiber). A similar yet simplified
approach for cross-sectional discretization was employed
in the SFI-MVLEM-SS and NLTM models, where the two
outer panels represent the confined wall boundaries (only
one per boundary) and the remaining equal-width panels
represented the wall web (Fig. 10(d) and (e)).
Calibration of material models
Calibration of material parameters, which define the
flexural and shear response characteristics of the wall
models based on either material strain-stress or constitutive
force-deformation behavior, is described in the following
sections.
Models based on material strain-stress behavior—
Concrete stress-strain relationship: In the P3D-SW
model, calibration of the unconfined concrete stress-strain
relationship was based on as-tested material properties
reported, whereas the confined concrete relationship was
calibrated to follow the Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) model.
For both cases, trilinear relationships with strength loss
(Fig. 1(c)) were used to approximately represent concrete
strain-stress behavior; with an initial slope of Ec up to a
stress of 0.4fc′, a second linear segment up to maximum
stress of fc′, a plateau at fc′, and a linear strength loss segment
following the plateau. This monotonic trilinear relationship
forms the envelope for the cyclic strain-stress behavior,
characterized by unloading parallel to the initial elastic stiff-
ness, and reloading towards the same strain and stress from
which unloading initiated.
The concrete model used in the FWE was calibrated
using an ascending parabola followed by a linear softening
branch in compression (Scott et al. 1982), whereas tensile
strength was neglected, which corresponds to the well-
known Concrete01 material model in OpenSees. Although
Concrete01 assumes zero tension capacity of concrete,
previous studies with FWE (Vásquez et al. 2016) showed
that this approach provides reasonable predictions of hyster-
etic behavior of RC walls. For concrete cover and unconfined
concrete, slope of the descending branch was determined
using the concrete crushing energy proposed by Nakamura
and Higai (2001), and a residual strength of zero was speci-
fied. Parameters of the constitutive relationship for confined
concrete were calibrated according to model proposed by
Scott et al. (1982), with a residual strength corresponding to
20% of the peak strength.
In the SFI-MVLEM-SS model, the monotonic envelope of
the stress-strain model for unconfined concrete in compres-
sion proposed by Chang and Mander (1994) (OpenSees
material ConcreteCM; Kolozvari et al. 2018) was calibrated
to agree with material properties obtained from cylinder tests
on day of testing (when available) by matching the compres-
sive strength, the strain at compressive strength, initial tangent
modulus, and the shape parameter defining the monotonic
stress-strain curve proposed by Tsai (1988). The post-peak
slope of the strain-stress curve was calibrated to match the
monotonic envelope proposed by Saatcioglu and Razvi
(1992). The stress-strain envelopes for confined concrete

ACI Structural Journal/November 2018 1645

were obtained using the confinement model by Mander et al.
(1988). The tensile strength of concrete was determined from
the relationship ft = 0.31√fc′ (MPa), and a value of 0.00008
was selected for the strain at the peak monotonic tensile stress
εt, as suggested by Belarbi and Hsu (1994). To represent
tension stiffening effects on concrete, post-crack shape of the
monotonic tension envelope of the Chang and Mander (1994)
model was calibrated against the stress-strain relationship
proposed by Belarbi and Hsu (1994).
In the NLTM, concrete in vertical and horizontal elements
was modeled as either confined or unconfined, depending
on their location within the cross section. Concrete behavior
was defined using the Yassin (1994) model implemented
in OpenSees as Concrete02. Concrete tensile behavior was
implemented for the vertical elements, based on model by
Scott et al. (1982), while tensile capacity of the horizontal
elements was set to zero. Concrete compressive strength was
calibrated to the value reported for each wall specimen at the
day of testing, and the linear post-peak (softening) branch
of the concrete model was regularized as per recommen-
dations by Coleman and Spacone (2001). The behavior of
concrete diagonals was modeled using a parabolic compres-
sive stress-strain relationship up to fc′ based on the Fujii
concrete model (refer to Hoshikuma et al. 1997), where the
softening branches were regularized automatically since the
material model receives feedback from the geometry of each
diagonal. The tensile stress-strain relationship of concrete
diagonals was assumed linear up to the tensile strength ft,
after which the concrete softens in an exponential manner
according to Stevens et al. (1991). Further details on the
behavior of concrete diagonals can be found in Lu and
Panagiotou (2014).
Steel stress-strain relationship: In the P3D-SW model,
the reinforcing steel stress-strain relationship implemented in
Perform 3D was based on trilinear idealization of the actual
stress-strain relations obtained from reported material charac-
terization tests. Symmetric behavior in tension and compres-
sion was assumed. The stress-strain envelope first follows a
linear segment with slope Es up to the yield stress fy, followed
by a plateau, and a strain hardening up to the ultimate strength
fu. Stiffness degradation under cyclic loading is accounted
for by using the energy factor defined in Perform 3D equal
to 0.75, indicating that the unloading and reloading stiffness
values in the hysteretic stress-strain relationship were adjusted
so that the area of the loop with stiffness degradation equals to
75% of the loop area without stiffness degradation.
Material model parameters for the steel fibers in the FWE
were calibrated to match the material tests provided for each
wall specimen. A piecewise linear function is used to define
the backbone curve and the cyclic behavior follows Mene-
gotto and Pinto (1973) model. For the descending branch
of the steel in compression, the buckling model proposed
by Dhakal and Maekawa (2002a) was used, where the
descending branch depends on the longitudinal bar diameter,
its strength, and the stirrup spacing.
SFI-MVLEM-SS uses the uniaxial material model for
reinforcing steel proposed by Menegotto and Pinto (1973),
available in OpenSees as SteelMPF (Kolozvari et al. 2018),
which was calibrated to represent as tested material properties
1646
of reinforcing bars including yield strength and strain hard-
ening ratio. The tensile yield strength and strain-hardening
parameters were modified according to empirical relations
proposed by Belarbi and Hsu (1994) to include the effect of
tension stiffening on steel bars embedded in concrete. The
parameters describing the cyclic stiffness degradation char-
acteristics of the reinforcing bars were calibrated as R0 = 20,
a1 = 0.925, and a2 = 0.15, as proposed originally by Mene-
gotto and Pinto (1973). Reinforcement buckling or fracture
is not represented in the SteelMPF model.
NLTM uses the Giuffré-Menegoto-Pinto model (Filippou
et al. 1983), available in OpenSees as uniaxial material
Steel02, to simulate the behavior of longitudinal reinforcing
bars. Bar buckling and/or rupture is not accounted for by
the model. Yield strength and initial elastic modulus were
calibrated to match the as-tested material properties, a strain
hardening ratio of 0.01 was used for all specimens, and
cyclic response parameters of R0 = 20, CR1 = 0.925, CR2 =
0.15 were used in the calibration, as recommend by Filippou
et al. (1983) and Lu and Panagiotou (2014).
Models based on constitutive force-deformation
behavior—Calibration of the force-deformation relation-
ships used in the SFI-MVLEM-FD formulation is presented
in the following paragraphs.
Properties and modeling of vertical springs: In walls
with heavy boundary reinforcement, the boundary segments
were typically modeled by combining two materials using the
Parallel material available in OpenSees: 1) a material used
to define the response of the concrete part of the segment,
and 2) a material used to define the response of the longitu-
dinal bars. For example, in specimens SP4 and S6, material
VertSpringType2 developed by Kante (2005) was used to
model the concrete part of the segment (material model is not
publicly available), while the Steel02 (Menegotto and Pinto
1973) or Hysteretic model (OpenSees, McKenna et al. 2000)
was used to model longitudinal bars. When modeling the
concrete part, properties of confined concrete were consid-
ered as per the model by Mander et al. (1988). For simula-
tion of lightly reinforced boundary regions and/or wall web
(segments between boundary regions), only one material
(for example, VertSpringType2) was used, combining the
properties of concrete and the longitudinal bars.
Modeling of shear behavior—
Models without shear-flexure interaction: In models
with uncoupled axial/flexural and shear responses, shear
behavior is typically accounted for by using a horizontal
spring with specified force-deformation or strain-stress
(backbone) relation. A relatively wide range of effective shear
stiffness recommendations for walls can be found in current
provisions (ASCE 41-17 2017; LATBSDC 2017; PEER/
ATC 72 2010), as well as in the literature (Tran and Wallace
2015; Gogus 2010), and it has been shown that prediction of
wall response can be significantly influenced by the choice
of a shear backbone relation and an effective shear stiffness
value (Kolozvari and Wallace 2016). Uncoupled analytical
models used in this study employ the following modeling
approaches for simulating shear behavior:
1. P3D-SW uses effective shear stiffness values recom-
mended by PEER/ATC-72 (2010) Geff = 0.05Gc ≈ 0.02Ec for
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Specimen SP4, while a higher value (Geff = 0.10Gc ≈ 0.04Ec)
was used for Specimen RW2, as the shear stress at devel-
opment of the nominal flexural capacity in this specimen
is significantly lower (0.17√fc MPa versus 0.65√fc′ MPa
[2.1√fc psi versus 7.8√fc′ psi]). A similar approach is used for
other specimens considered herein.
2. MVLEM-FD uses ShearSlip material, implemented in
the in-house version of OpenSees (Kante 2005), to define
the behavior of the shear spring within the model element
used for simulation of Specimen RW2. Because the response
of this specimen was dominated by flexural deformations, a
simple linear-elastic model for shear response with effective
shear stiffness of GAeff = 0.2EcAw was adopted.
3. FWE uses the Modified Compression Field Theory
(Vecchio and Collins 1986) to define the shear backbone
behavior as described in the section “Distributed plasticity
fiber-based beam-column force wall element”.
Models with shear-flexure interaction: In analytical
models that capture shear-flexural interaction (SFI-MV-
LEM-FD, SFI-MVLEM-SS, and NLTM), shear stiffness and
shear force-deformation behavior of each model element are
incorporated directly in the element formulations and evolve
according to the physical constitutive behavior assumed
(versus use of a predefined shear force versus deformation
backbone relationship). Refer to the section “Description of
Macroscopic Modeling Approaches” for description of rele-
vant models and modeling parameters used for shear behavior.
Load application—Application of lateral and axial loads
on the wall models was performed in a similar manner for
all models considered. First, a constant vertical force was
applied at the top of each wall model using force-controlled
nonlinear analysis, followed by a displacement-controlled
Newton-Raphson nonlinear analysis solution strategy that
imposes lateral displacements at the top of the wall as per the
loading protocols reported for each wall specimen, under the
appropriate load pattern. For all walls analyzed, the lateral
load pattern was in the form of one horizontal force applied
at the top of the wall specimen, except for Specimen S6,
which was subjected to a proportional lateral load pattern
consisting of three horizontal forces applied at each story
level (1.22, 2.13, and 3.05 m [48, 84, and 120 in.] from the
wall bottom), and a bending moment applied at the top of the
test specimen, as described by Vallenas et al. (1979).
COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Effectiveness of the analytical models considered in this
study was evaluated based on the accuracy with which
various experimentally measured response quantities are
simulated. Response quantities evaluated include total,
flexural, and shear load-deformation responses and strains
within the plastic hinge region.
Load-displacement responses
The following two subsections provide discussion on the
accuracy of considered RC wall models to capture cyclic
load-deformation behavior of the wall specimens selected
for the study. Predicted hysteretic response of walls is
first described for each specimen (“Hysteretic behavior”),
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
followed by a comparison of the accuracy of the models
to predict key force and stiffness parameters derived from
the envelopes of the hysteretic load-deformation behavior
(“Envelope responses”).
Hysteretic behavior—Comparisons of the experimen-
tally measured and analytically predicted hysteretic lateral
load versus total top displacement responses for the five RC
wall specimens selected, obtained using the five different
modeling approaches, are presented in Fig. 11.
Results obtained using P3D-SW (Fig. 11(a.1) through
(a.5)), in which shear behavior is represented with a linear
elastic relationship, are in good agreement for specimens
with flexure-dominated behavior, such as Specimens RW2,
R2, and WSH6 (Fig. 11(a.1), (a.2), and (a.4)), where the
overall wall capacity is predicted within 5% of experimen-
tally measure values. However, using the same modeling
approach for Specimens SP4 and S6 (Fig. 11(a.2) and (a.5)),
where nonlinear shear deformations are significant and
shear-flexural interaction impacts the wall behavior, over-
estimates measured wall capacity by approximately 31%
and 15%, respectively. In addition, hysteretic properties of
the P3D-SW response are characterized with the absence of
cyclic strength degradation, due to the simplified material
models implemented in Perform 3D, and pinching character-
istics of the wall specimens are either overestimated (Spec-
imens RW2 and WSH6) or underestimated (Specimen R2)
by the model.
Analytical predictions of wall behavior using the fiber-
based FWE (Fig. 11(b.1) through (b.5)) are in good agree-
ment with measured load-displacement responses, where
wall lateral load capacity is predicted within 10% of the
experimentally obtained wall capacity for all specimens
considered. For specimen WSH6 (Fig. 11(b.4)), degradation
of wall capacity during the last loading cycle is also over-
estimated by the model. Because this modeling approach
considers a regularized descending branch for the shear
constitutive relationship at each section, the capacity of walls
with even significant shear deformations is predicted with
good accuracy. Cyclic behavior is generally well predicted,
excluding overestimation of the area under the hysteretic
loops for Specimen R2, as shown in Fig. 11(b.3).
The analytical prediction of the global response predicted
using the MVLEM-FD is good for the slender RC wall
Specimen RW2 (Fig. 11(c.1)), which is characterized with
flexure-dominated behavior, where wall yield and ultimate
capacity are predicted within 5% of the experimentally
measured values. In addition, SFI-MVLEM-FD accu-
rately captures well the hysteretic behavior and ultimate
wall capacity (within 3%) of the remaining specimens
(Fig. 11(c.2) through (c.5)), even for cases where the spec-
imen behavior was characterized with significant amount
of nonlinear shear deformations (SP4 and S6). Pinching
behavior is well respresented for all specimens. During the
final loading cycles of Specimens SP4 and S6, global buck-
ling of the longitudinal bars in the boundary regions of both
walls was observed during the experiments. For Specimen
SP4, the central part of the wall between boundary regions
subsequently failed due to shear sliding causing considerable
reduction of the shear and overall strength of the wall. The
1647
Fig. 11—Load-displacement responses for five wall specimens and five models considered. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
analysis results obtained using SFI-MVLEM-FD provided
further insight into failure of Specimen SP4 showing that
the shear strength degraded mainly due to the considerable
deterioration of the dowel mechanism, provided mainly by
the heavy boundary reinforcement.
The SFI-MVLEM-SS captures well the lateral load
capacity of all specimens at most of the applied drift levels
(Fig. 11(d.1) through (d.5)) where analytically predicted
lateral load capacities are within the 2 to 8% range of the
experimentally measured wall capacities. In addition, cyclic
characteristics of the response, including stiffness degrada-
1648
tion, plastic (residual) displacements, and modest pinching
behavior are well represented in the model results for all wall
specimens, except for Specimen R2 (Fig. 11(d.3)) where
pinching is notably underestimated, possibly due to zero
axial load applied on the wall. Although the analytical model
captures the initiation of strength degradation in the concrete
stress-strain behavior within the boundary elements, the
significant strength loss observed in some of the tests is not
represented in the analysis results, because of the inability
of the model to simulate failure mechanisms associated
with buckling or fracture of reinforcing bars or sliding shear
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
failure near the base of the walls (Tran and Wallace 2015).
Therefore, for walls experiencing such failure modes, the
SFI-MVLEM-SS model generally fails to capture strength
loss at ultimate drift levels, resulting in overestimation of
their deformation (drift) capacity.
Comparison between analytical results obtained using
NLTM with experimental data presented in Fig. 11(d.1)
through (d.5) show that the mathematical model global
responses are in good agreement with experimental results,
although generally larger uncracked stiffness is predicted
by the model (refer to section “Envelope responses”) due
to overlapping areas of diagonal concrete struts. After
cracking and yielding occurs, the model under predicts the
post-yielding strength by up to 10%, except for Specimen
S6 where the strength is overestimated by 8%, which is
associated with the shorter arm of the axial forces carried
by the extreme elements per discretization process used in
this study (refer to Fig. 10(e)). The general shape of the
hysteretic loops represented shows good agreement for
all specimens, except for cycles after the onset of failure.
The NLTM does not capture well the onset of strength loss,
which is mainly controlled by the strut strength degradation
model defined by the β-curve (Fig. 9(b)). Although strength
degradation observed in Specimens SP4, R2, and S6 can be
better captured by calibrating the β-curve parameters inde-
pendently for each specimen, the same parameters of the
β-curve were selected for all specimens, where the parame-
ters were defined such that the strength of the struts degrade
at a low rate for increasing normal strains. For example,
the β-curve parameters {εint, βint} and {εres, βres} shown in
Fig. 9(b) were set to {0.04, 0.16} and {0.05, 0.09}, respec-
tively, which correspond to points that lie on the Vecchio
and Collins (1993) strength degradation curve. Prediction of
onset and progression of strength degradation observed in
Specimens SP4, R2, and S6 can be improved by calibrating
the parameters of the β-curve for each specimen. The way
the model was implemented in this study does not account
for bar buckling and/or rupture, nor the subsequent loss of
strength of confined concrete.
Envelope responses—To quantify the ability of the models
to capture specimen strength and stiffness at various levels
of deformation, and to allow consistent comparison between
the load-deformation responses predicted by the modeling
approaches considered, envelopes of the hysteretic load-
deformation responses are generated from both analytical
and experimental data. The load-deformation envelope is
generated using four points on the measured/predicted load-
deformation curves, corresponding to: 1) cracking (C); 2)
yielding (Y); 3) ultimate (maximum) capacity (U); and 4)
maximum applied displacement (X), as illustrated in Fig. 12
for the positive loading direction of Specimen SP4. For
Specimens RW2 and SP4, load-deformation envelopes were
considered for total (Fig. 12(a)), flexural (Fig. 12(b)), and
shear (Fig.  12(c)) deformations (flexural and shear hyster-
etic responses are presented in the section “Shear and flex-
ural deformations”), whereas for the remaining specimens,
only load versus total lateral top displacement is considered.
Based on forces and deformations defining the envelope
curves, effective secant stiffness values corresponding to
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
total, flexural, and shear deformations are also calculated for
the analytical and experimental results, up to the cracking
point (that is, initial total KC,tot, flexural KC,F, and shear KC,Sh
stiffness) and the yield point (that is, yield total KY,tot, flex-
ural KY,F, and shear KY,Sh stiffness).
Comparison of the aforementioned experimental and
analytical envelope response quantities is presented in
Table A.1 of Appendix A,* whereas graphical comparisons
of the envelope strength quantities and effective stiffness
values are illustrated in Fig. 13 and 14, respectively. It
should be noted that the average of positive and negative
values is used for the comparisons, given that wall geometry
and loading conditions are symmetric. It can be concluded
from results presented in Fig. 13(a) and (c) that yield
capacity (VY) and ultimate capacity (VU) are predicted with
5% accuracy for specimens with flexure-dominated behavior
(RW2, R2, and WSH6), whereas for Specimens SP4 and S6,
in which shear deformations considerably influence wall
behavior, the predicted yield and ultimate capacities are
predicted with 15% accuracy, compared to experimentally
obtained values. The biggest overestimation of wall ultimate
capacity for these two specimens can be observed for the
P3D-SW model, because this model does not incorporate
shear-flexural interaction and assumes linear elastic shear
behavior. Model predictions are considerably less accurate
in terms of displacements corresponding to wall yielding
(DY; Fig. 13(b)) and ultimate (DU; Fig. 13(d)) capacity. Like
predicted capacities, the bigger scatter of results can be
observed for Specimens SP4 and S6 because of the signif-
icant contribution of nonlinear shear deformations experi-
enced by these specimens (refer to the section “Shear and
flexural deformations” for shear deformations for Specimen
SP4). Finally, most of the predicted lateral load values corre-
sponding to the maximum lateral displacement applied (VX;
Fig. 13(e)) are within an approximate 20% margin of error
compared to the experimental values obtained for most of the
wall specimens. However, there is significant scatter from
one model to the next and from one specimen to the other,
due to challenges in simulating the experimentally observed
failure modes. The biggest dispersion can be observed for
Specimen R2, where all models expect SFI-MVLEM-FD
tend to overestimate the lateral load on the wall at maximum
displacement by approximately 50 to 75% (that is, do not
capture strength degradation).
Figure 14(a) further reveals that overall initial stiffness of
the walls is generally overestimated by most models, as much
as two times. P3D-SW tends to underestimate initial stiffness,
which is related to the low effective shear stiffness adopted in
this study (that is, GAeff = GAg/20), while SFI-MVLEM-FD
provides the best stiffness predictions. Similar trends can be
observed among the other model results for all specimens.
Note that overestimation of wall initial stiffness is primarily
due the inability of the models to account for micro-cracking
in concrete (Palermo 2002) and strain penetration effects that
are not explicitly incorporated in the modeling approaches;
note that micro-cracking does not affect FWE results as the
model ignores concrete tension capacity. Results presented in
Fig. 14(c) and (d) suggest that the modeling approaches gener-
ally overestimate initial flexural stiffness, whereas initial shear
1649
Fig. 12—Load-deformation envelopes (positive loading only): (a) total; (b) flexural; and (c) shear.
Fig. 13—Comparison of load-deformation envelope points.
stiffness is generally underestimated for Specimen RW2 (flex-
ure-dominated wall), while significant scatter of results can be
observed for the initial shear stiffness prediction for Specimen
SP4. Secant stiffness values to yield point corresponding to total
displacement are generally predicted more accurately by all of
the analytical models, where the ratio of predicted to measured
stiffness varies between 0.5 and 1.5, as illustrated in Fig. 14(b).
However, Fig. 14(e) and (f) reveal that there is still consider-
able scatter among model predictions for the secant flexural
and shear stiffness to yield point, where the ratio of predicted to
measured stiffness ranges between 0.5 and 2.0, with the excep-
tion of shear stiffness to yield point for Specimen RW2, which
is overestimated four times by the FWE.
Shear and flexural deformations
Comparisons of the experimentally measured and analyt-
ically predicted lateral load versus flexural and shear defor-
mation components over the bottom 914 mm (36 in.) (that is,
the first story), are presented for Specimen RW2 (3.0 aspect
ratio, slender wall, low shear stress) in Fig. 15, while lateral
load versus flexural and shear deformations corresponding to
the top of the wall are compared for Specimen SP4 (1.5 aspect
ratio, medium-rise wall, high shear stress) in Fig. 16. It should
1650
be noted that shear and flexural deformations of Specimen
RW2 were measured only along the bottom 1828 mm (72 in.)
(that is, the first and second story) during the experiment.
Models with uncoupled shear and flexure behavior—The
fiber-based macroscopic models considered with uncou-
pled shear and flexural responses (P3D-SW, FWE, and
MVLEM-FD) require specification of a shear force-defor-
mation backbone (for example, linear-elastic, elasto-plastic),
where the predicted shear behavior of the wall is influenced
by the choice of the model parameters specified. Uncou-
pled analytical models considered in this study incorporate
linear-elastic shear behavior, where the effective shear stiff-
ness for each model is specified as described in the section
“Modeling of shear behavior”.
Results presented in Fig. 15(a.2), (b.2), and (c.2) reveal
that nonlinear shear deformations over the plastic hinge
region (that is, bottom 914 mm [36 in.]) are significantly
underestimated by the uncoupled models with linear-elastic
shear behavior and that this approach does not represent real-
istically the hysteretic shear behavior observed in the tests.
Because nonlinear shear deformations constituted approxi-
mately 30% of total lateral displacement over the first story
of Specimen RW2, uncoupled modeling approaches tend
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Fig. 14—Comparison of effective stiffness values.
to overestimate flexural deformations by approximately 10
to 20% within this region (Fig. 15(a.1), (b.1), and (c.1)).
However, the assumption of linear elastic shear force-
deformation relationship does not have significant impact on
overall wall load versus top deformation behavior (Fig. 11)
because overall wall behavior was flexure dominated with
shear deformations contributing to the total top lateral
displacement by approxiately 10% only.
In contrast, the behavior of Specimen SP4 was signifi-
cantly influenced by nonlinear shear deformations, where
their contribution to total top displacement was approx-
imately 40%. Therefore, using the assumption of linear-
elastic shear behavior significantly underestimates nonlinear
shear deformations and overestimates nonlinear flexural
deformations, as illustrated in Fig. 16(a) and (b). For all
uncoupled models, using an inelastic constitutive model
(backbone) for shear will likely improve shear deforma-
tions predictions. However, two major issues related to this
approach are problematic: 1) lateral load capacity of the
wall will depend on the capacity assigned to adopted shear
force-deformation behavior; and 2) after the shear capacity
is reached, the majority of wall lateral displacements will be
associated with nonlinear shear deformations (due to small
post-yield shear stiffness), which will lead to significant
underestimation of vertical strains in the wall (Kolozvari and
Wallace 2016). Therefore, it may not be possible to accu-
rately simulate, using a mechanical/behavioral approach,
the global and local response characteristics of walls expe-
riencing significant shear deformations and shear-flexural
interaction behavior using uncoupled modeling approaches.
Models with shear-flexure coupling—Results presented in
Fig. 15 and 16 reveal that the analytical models that incor-
porate axial/flexural-shear interaction at the model element
level (SFI-MVLEM-FD, SFI-MVLEM-SS, and NLTM) can
capture nonlinear flexural and shear deformations, as well as
their coupling throughout the entire cyclic loading history.
As revealed in both experimental and analytical results,
flexural and shear yielding occur almost simultaneously for
both wall specimens at a lateral load level of approximately
800 and 380 kN (180 and 25 kip) for Specimens SP4 and
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
RW2, respectively, which are load levels that are below their
nominal shear capacities.
The SFI-MVLEM-FD model was able to represent the
significant shear degradation during the last loading cycle of
the test on Specimen SP4, which was mainly associated in
the model results with degradation of the dowel mechanism
and sliding shear at the bottom of the wall (Fig. 16(c.2)); note
that failure mechanism observed during the exprement (Tran
and Wallace 2015) was initiated with concrete crushing and
buckling of reinforcement in the wall boundaries, which led
to shear sliding adjecent to the wall-foundation interface.
Shear deformation contribution to total top displacement
was predicted by the model to be 39% on average, whereas
31% contribution was obtained in the test results. The contri-
butions and importance of three shear mechanisms (aggre-
gate interlock HSA, dowel HSD and horizontal reinforce-
ment HSS) were varied over the test. At the beginning of
the test, the shear response was predominantly influenced
by the aggregate interlock spring (HAS), whereas the impor-
tance of the dowel (HSD) and the horizontal reinforcement
(HSS) mechanism was increased after the HSA mechanism
was deteriorated.
The SFI-MVLEM-SS model captures well the magnitudes
of nonlinear flexural and shear deformation components for
Specimen SP4 (medium-rise wall, Fig. 16(d.1) and (d.2))
throughout the cyclic loading history, except at the ultimate
loading cycle where the model underestimates the large shear
deformations that occured during the test due to the shear sliding
failure. Shear-resisting mechanisms currently incorporated in
the SFI-MVLEM-SS do not consider strength degradation
due to detoriation of shear strength within a model element
(except crushing of concrete along diagonal directions), and
therefore, strength loss associated with failure mechanisms
such as cyclic degradation in dowel action, cyclic degrada-
tion in shear aggregate interlock behavior, or reinforcement
buckling is not represented in the model results. For Specimen
RW2 (slender wall), the model underestimates the nonlinear
shear deformations measured over the first story height of the
wall by approximately 50% (Fig. 15(d.2)). However, given
the flexure-dominated behavior of this specimen, and the
1651
Fig. 15—Flexural and shear load-deformation responses for Specimen RW2. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.)
Fig. 16—Flexural and shear load-deformation responses for Specimen RW-A15-P10-S76. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =
0.2248 kip.)
small magnitudes of the shear deformations measured, under-
estimation of shear deformations by SFI-MVLEM-SS model
for this specimen did not affect the prediction of the overall
specimen hysteretic behavior.
A good agreement between the experimental results and the
response simulated by the NLTM is observed for both spec-
imens in terms of relative contribution of shear and flexural
deformations to total lateral displacement, as well as their
hysteretic response shape. For Specimen RW2 (Fig. 15(e.1)
and (e.2)), the model overpredicts shear deformations by
22% on average comparing to experimental data, whereas
for Specimen SP4 (Fig. 16(e.1) and (e.2)), the ultimate shear
displacement after strength loss is underpredicted by 16%
in the positive direction and 40% in the negative direction
(29% in average).
1652
Local responses
Figure 17 depicts comparison of analytically predicted
and experimentally obtained vertical (longitudinal) strain
profiles along the wall base for Specimens RW2 and SP4,
corresponding to drift levels of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0%. The
experimental strains are measured using vertical LVDTs
over a gauge length of 230 and 355 mm (9 and 14 in.) for
Specimens SP4 and RW2, respectively, whereas the analyt-
ical strain predictions are obtained from the bottommost
element of each wall model considered, according to model
discretization described in the section “Mesh information”.
All of the macroscopic modeling approaches considered
in this study, except the NLTM, employ the plane-sections-
remain-plane kinematic assumption. Therefore, analytically
obtained strain profiles for the plane-section models can
be defined with only two points at wall ends, with a linear
distribution of vertical strains in between. However, as can
also be observed in Fig. 17, experimentally measured strain
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Fig. 17—Vertical strain profiles at various drift levels: (a) RW2; and (b) SP4. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
profiles are typically nonlinear, particularly at intermediate
and large drift levels. Based on comparison of the results, it
can be deduced that at low-to-intermediate drift levels (that
is, 0.5% and 1.0%) maximum tensile strains are predicted
with approximately 20% accuracy for Specimen RW2
(Fig. 17(a.1)) and overestimated up to 2.0 times at the wall
boundary for Specimen SP4 (Fig. 17(b.1)) by most of the
models. Only NLTM underestimates tension strains by 50%
at 1.0% drift of Specimen RW2, and only SFI-MVLEM-FD
underestimates compression strains by 70% at 1.0% drift
of Specimen SP4. At same drift levels of 0.5% and 1.0%,
compression strains are underestimated by approximately
30 to 40% for all models except SFI-MVLEM-FD, which
predicts compression strains accurately for both specimens
considered except at a drift of 1.0% for Specimen SP4
(Fig. 17(b.2)). At a drift level of 2.0%, where both wall
specimens experienced significant nonlinear deformations,
SFI-MVLEM-SS and FWE models overestimate maximum
tensile strains by approximately 10 to 30% for both wall
specimens, whereas P3D-SW and SFI-MVLEM-FD models
overestimate tensile strains by as much as 100%, particu-
larly for Specimen SP4 (medium-rise wall, Fig. 17(b.3)).
Regarding compressive strains at a 2.0% drift, the SFI-MV-
LEM-FD model predictions agree well with test results
for both specimens, P3D-SW and SFI-MVLEM-SS model
predictions agree well with compression strains measured
on the medium-rise wall Specimen SP4 (Fig. 17(b.3)), while
FWE for overestimates compressive strains of this specimen
by a factor of 2.0 (Fig. 17(b.3)). For slender Specimen RW2
(Fig. 17(a.3)), compressive strains predicted by all models,
except SFI-MVLEM-FD, are only approximately 30 to 50%
of the experimentally measured strains. Finally, the NLTM
can capture the observed nonlinear strain distributions along
the length of the wall specimens, which leads to generally
improved predictions of the strain profiles, and yet compres-
sive and tensile strains measured in Specimen RW2 are still
underestimated by the NLTM (Fig. 17(a)).
The observed discrepancy in prediction of tensile strains
has only modest influence on the global response predic-
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
tions in terms of stiffness and strength. Similarly, predic-
tion of compression strains could have marginal impact on
wall initial stiffness, which also depends on material model
for concrete used. However, accurate prediction of strains
is important for prediction of wall deformation capacity,
as degradation of wall capacity is typically associated with
concrete crushing, buckling of reinforcing bars, out-of-plane
instability, and other mechanisms that are dependent on
the strain history experienced within the wall plastic hinge
region. Therefore, accurate estimation of strain responses
is an important aspect of performance-based seismic
design, and given the widespread use of macroscopic
models, analysis results for strains should be interpreted
with a certain amount of conservatism, especially when
plane-section models are used.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper summarizes results of comparative studies
conducted using five conceptually different macroscopic
analytical models for RC walls available in the litera-
ture. Modeling approaches selected represent state-of-
the-art and state-of-the-practice in nonlinear macroscopic
modeling of RC structural walls, and include: 1) shear wall
element available in Perform 3D (Computers and Struc-
tures Inc. 2005); 2) fiber-based nonlinear beam-column
force wall element (Vásquez et al. 2016); 3) Multiple-Ver-
tical-Line-Element-Model with uncoupled and coupled
axial/flexural and shear responses based on force-defor-
mation material behavior (Fischinger et al. 2012, 2017); 4)
Multiple-Vertical-Line-Element-Model with coupled axial/
flexural and shear responses based on strain-stress material
behavior (Kolozvari et al. 2015a,b); and 5) nonlinear truss
element (Panagiotou et al. 2012). The modeling approaches
considered are based on either two-node beam-column
element formulations (Models 2 through 4), or four-node
macroscopic element formulations (Models 1 and 5). In
modeling approaches 1 through 4, the wall cross section is
discretized into a number of material fibers, the behavior of
which is represented with either uniaxial material behavior
1653
(models with uncoupled P/M-V behavior) or biaxial concrete
behavior with additional shear-resisting mechanisms (models
with coupled P/M-V behavior), and the plane-sections-re-
main-plane assumption. Modeling approach 5 is based on
a four-node macroscopic element defined using uniaxial
sub-elements in horizontal, vertical, and diagonal directions,
which allows nonlinear distribution of strains along the
wall cross section. Analytical results were compared with
experimental data obtained for five planar RC wall speci-
mens with rectangular cross sections subjected to cyclic
uni-directional loading, characterized with a range of wall
properties including aspect ratio (moderately slender and
slender walls), axial load (0, 5, and 10% of wall axial load
capacity), reinforcement detailing, and failure mode (flex-
ural or shear-flexural). Brief descriptions of the analytical
models are provided, followed by information on calibration
of the model geometry and material constitutive relation-
ships, as well as the analysis procedure used. Comparison
between experimental results and analytical predictions
are conducted at global and local response levels including
lateral load versus total, flexural and shear lateral deforma-
tions (hysteretic responses and backbone curve parameters),
as well as vertical strain profiles along the base of the walls.
Based on the comprehensive comparisons between the
analytical and experimental results, the following conclu-
sions can be made regarding the accuracy and effectiveness
of currently available macroscopic models for RC structural
walls in terms of the overall load-deformation wall behavior:
1. Cracking and yielding strength of the walls is generally
well predicted by all analytical models considered, where
most of the analytical results are within ±10% of the range
of values estimated from the experiments; only for one
modeling approach and one specimen the difference is 17%.
2. Ultimate lateral load capacity of wall specimens with
flexure-dominated behavior is well estimated by all analyt-
ical models considered. However, for specimens that
experienced significant shear deformations, models with
uncoupled P-M-V behavior tend to overestimate maximum
wall load capacity by up to 30%, while coupled modeling
approaches capture wall capacity with ±10% deviation from
the experimentally measured value.
3. Initial stiffness is generally not predicted accurately by
the models, and all models tend to overestimate pre-cracked
stiffness of the walls by factors of approximately 2.0 to 4.0.
This is primarily due to inability of the models to account for
micro-cracking in concrete and strain penetration effects that
are not explicitly incorporated in the modeling approaches.
4. Secant yield stiffness (post-cracked stiffness) is predicted
within a ±50% range of experimentally estimated values.
5. The shape of hysteretic loops is generally well captured
by all analytical models, although it is observed to be sensi-
tive to properties of the material modeling parameters used.
For example, use of concrete material models that do not
consider gradual gap closure generally leads to an overesti-
mation of pinching in the load-deformation responses, while
application of zero axial load could lead to underestimation
of pinching behavior by some models.
Based on comparison of measured and predicted flexural
and shear load-deformation responses, significant differ-
1654
ences can be observed between models that couple shear and
flexural behavior and models that are based on uncoupled
behavior. The following conclusions can be drawn regarding
the capability of the uncoupled and coupled macroscopic
models considered, to simulate nonlinear flexural and shear
load-deformation responses of walls:
1. Models with uncoupled P/M-V responses:
a. Assumption of linear elastic shear behavior provides
estimations of shear deformations at wall yielding
that are between 0.5 and 4.0 times the experimentally
measured shear deformations, while maximum shear
deformations are only about 5% of the maximum
shear deformations measured in the experiments due to
inability of the modeling approach to capture nonlinear
shear behavior.
b. Effective stiffness of the linear-elastic shear behavior
directly influences overall wall strength and stiffness
and relative contributions of shear and flexural defor-
mations to total lateral displacement, which could lead
to significant bias in estimation of wall shear forces
and lateral displacements in the response history anal-
yses. By manipulating this parameter, it is possible to
obtain reasonable predictions of wall force-displace-
ment responses, as well as levels of shear deformation.
However, hysteretic nonlinear shear behavior cannot be
captured when linear-elastic relation for shear is used,
and the value of effective shear stiffness is typically
chosen in an ad-hoc manner.
2. Models with coupled P/M-V responses:
a. All coupled modeling approaches considered are
capable of capturing both nonlinear flexural and shear
deformations and their coupling throughout cyclic
loading history.
b. The magnitudes and contributions of flexural and
shear deformations to global responses are predicted
with a 30% accuracy for most of the models, where
highly pinched shear hysteresis and absence of pinching
in flexural hysteresis is captured well.
c. The amount of nonlinear flexural and shear deformations
may be modestly influenced by parameters of constitutive
models incorporated to represent various shear resisting
mechanisms along concrete cracks (for example, aggre-
gate interlock in concrete and dowel action).
Comparison between experimentally measured and
analytically predicted vertical strain profiles at the base of
the walls reveal that macroscopic models are generally not
reliable for prediction of local strains. The following obser-
vations can be made based on results presented in this paper:
1. The plane-sections-remain-plane assumption incor-
porated in most macroscopic model formulations provides
good approximation of strain distributions at low drift levels,
prior to yielding of wall boundary reinforcement.
2. At post-yield drift levels, macroscopic wall models may
overestimate tensile strains by as much as a factor of 2.0.
3. Compressive strains are generally underestimated
2.0 to 3.0 times by the macroscopic modeling approaches
considered, where larger discrepancy between analytical and
experimental compressive strains is observed for the flex-
ure-controlled (slender) wall specimen. Predictions obtained
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
using models that capture shear-flexure interaction are typi-
cally more accurate.
4. The discrepancy in prediction of tensile strains and
compressive strains does not necessarily influence signifi-
cantly the global response predictions in terms of wall stiff-
ness and strength, but it plays significant role in prediction
of wall deformation capacity, which is an important aspect
of performance-based seismic design. Therefore, analysis
results for strains should be interpreted with certain amount of
conservatism, especially when plane-section models are used.
Future research in modeling of RC wall systems could
include response simulation of walls subjected to higher
axial loads, analysis of coupled wall systems, modeling
and analysis of walls with nonrectangular cross sections
subjected to bidirectional lateral loading, and simulation of
dynamic shake table tests. As well, future work can focus on
addressing shortcomings of the current modeling approaches,
development and validation of novel modeling methodolo-
gies, and development of a database of both existing and
new wall models available on web-based platforms (for
example, the Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infra-
structure [NHERI] website, and the website of SAVI: Virtual
International Institute for Performance Assessment of Wall
Systems).
AUTHOR BIOS
Kristijan Kolozvari is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at California State University, Fullerton,
Fullerton, CA. He received his BS from the University of Belgrade, Belgrade,
Serbia, and his MS and PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA), Los Angeles, CA. His research interests include development and
application of innovative analytical tools for nonlinear analysis of rein-
forced concrete structures, performance-based seismic design, seismic
retrofit, tall building behavior and design, and earthquake resiliency.
Carlos A. Arteta is a Professor of civil engineering at Universidad del
Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia. He received his BS from Universidad del
Norte and his MEng and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA. His research interests include the design and behavior of
concrete structures and earthquake engineering.
Matej Fischinger is a Professor of earthquake engineering and reinforced
concrete structures at the University of Ljubljana (UL), Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Sofia Gavridou is a Lecturer at UCLA. She received her diploma in
civil engineering from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki.
Greece; her MSc from the Rose School, Pavia, Italy; and her PhD from
UCLA. Her research interests include design and analysis of precast
concrete structures, large-scale structural testing, and nonlinear analysis
and seismic design of tall reinforced concrete buildings.
ACI member Matias A. Hube is a Structural Engineer from Pontifica
Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC), Santiago, Chile, where he received
his MS in 2002. He received his PhD from the University of California,
Berkeley, in 2009. His research interests include reinforced concrete, earth-
quake engineering, and bridge engineering.
Tatjana Isaković is Professor and Head of the Chair of Structural and
Earthquake Engineering at UL, where she received her PhD in 1996. Her
research interests include seismic design of reinforced concrete structures
(bridges, walls, and precast industrial buildings), seismic strengthening
and retrofit, as well as seismic base isolation.
Laura Lowes, FACI, is the Department Chair and Conner Professor of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington,
Seattle, WA. She is a member of ACI Committee 369, Seismic Repair and
Rehabilitation; Subcommittess 318-C, Safety, Serviceability, and Analysis,
and 318-N, Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
447, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Her
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
research interests include advancing numerical modeling for earthquake
response and performance assessment of concrete buildings and bridges.
Kutay Orakcal is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering at Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey. He received his BS
from Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, and his MS and
PhD from UCLA. His research interests include structural and earthquake
engineering, with emphasis on nonlinear seismic response evaluation of
reinforced concrete components and systems through analytical modeling,
laboratory testing, and field testing.
Jorge A. Vásquez is a Structural Engineer at PUC, where he received
his MS in 2015. He then joined Centro Nacional de Investigación para la
Gestión Integrada de Desastres Naturales (CIGIDEN) at PUC, where he
teaches and conducts research on nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete
structures, and seismic risk and resilience of critical infrastructure.
John W. Wallace, FACI, is a Professor of civil engineering at UCLA. He
is a member of ACI Committees 318, Structural Concrete Building Code;
369, Seismic Repair and Rehabilitation; 374, Performance-Based Seismic
Design of Concrete Buildings; and ACI Subcommittee 318-H, Seismic
Provisions. His research interests include response and design of buildings
and bridges to earthquake actions, laboratory and field-testing of structural
components and systems, and seismic structural health monitoring.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for U.S. participants was provided by National Science Founda-
tion Grant CMMI-1446423: SAVI: Virtual International Institute for Perfor-
mance Assessment of Wall Systems. Funding for participants outside of the
United States was provided by the individual countries, including Ministry
of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE, New Zealand), Chile,
Colombia, Turkey, and Slovenia. The authors would also like to thank A.
Martinez, an undergraduate student at Universidad Del Norte, Colombia,
for help with numerical analyses.
REFERENCES
ASCE 41-17, 2017, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Build-
ings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 550 pp.
Baker, C.; Lowes, N.; and Lehman, D. E., 2016, “Recommendations for
Modeling the Nonlinear Response of Slender Reinforced Concrete Walls
Using PERFORM-3D,” Proceedings of the 2016 Convention of Structural
Engineering Association of California (SEAOC), Maui, HI.
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. C., 1994, “Constitutive Laws of Concrete in
Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened By Concrete,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 465-474.
Chang, G. A., and Mander, J. B., 1994, “Seismic Energy Based Fatigue
Damage Analysis of Bridge Columns: Part I – Evaluation of Seismic
Capacity,” Technical Report No. NCEER-94-0006, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), State University of New
York, Buffalo, NY, 232 pp.
Chowdhury, S. R., and Orakcal, K., 2013, “Analytical Modeling of
Columns with Inadequate Lap Splices,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110,
No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 735-744.
Coleman, J., and Spacone, E., 2001, “Localization Issues in Force-Based
Frame Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 11,
pp. 1257-1265. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:11(1257)
Computers and Structures Inc, 2005, “PERFORM-3D,” Berkeley, CA.
Dashti, F.; Dhakal, R. P.; and Pampanin, S., 2014, “Simulation of Out-of-
Plane Instability in Rectangular RC Structural Walls,” Second European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, European Asso-
ciation of Earthquake Engineering (EAEE); European Seismological
Commission (ESC), 2ECESS, Istanbul, Turkey.
Dazio, A.; Beyer, K.; and Bachmann, H., 2009, “Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests
and Plastic Hinge Analysis of RC Structural Walls,” Engineering Struc-
tures, V. 31, No. 7, pp. 1556-1571. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.018
Dhakal, R., and Maekawa, K., 2002a, “Path-Dependent Cyclic
Stress-Strain Relationship of Reinforcing Bar Including Buckling,”
Engineering Structures, V. 24, No. 11, pp. 1383-1396. doi: 10.1016/
S0141-0296(02)00080-9
Dhakal, R., and Maekawa, K., 2002b, “Reinforcement Stability and
Fracture of Cover Concrete in Reinforced Concrete Members,” Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 128, No. 10, pp. 1253-1262. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:10(1253)
Dulacska, H., 1972, “Dowel Action of Reinforcement Crossing Cracks
in Concrete,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 69, No. 12, Dec., pp. 754-757.
Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., 2003, “Shake Table Tests and Analyt-
ical Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames,”
1655
PEER Report 2003/01, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA,
346 pp.
Filippou, F. C.; Popov, E. P.; and Bertero, V. V., 1983, “Effects of Bond
Deterioration on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Joints,”
Report UCB/EERC-83/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 212 pp.
Fischinger, M.; Isaković, T.; and Kante, P., 2004, “Implementation of
a Macro Model to Predict Seismic Response of RC Structural Walls,”
Computers and Concrete, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 211-226. doi: 10.12989/
cac.2004.1.2.211
Fischinger, M.; Kante, P.; and Isaković, T., 2017, “Shake-Table Response
of a Coupled RC Wall with Thin T-Shaped Piers,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 143, No. 5, p. 04017004 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001718
Fischinger, M.; Rejec, K.; and Isaković, T., 2012, “Modeling Inelastic
Shear Response of RC Walls,” Proceedings, 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, No. 2120.
Fischinger, M.; Rejec, K.; and Isaković, T., 2014, “Inelastic Shear
Response of RC Walls: A Challenge in Performance Based Design and
Assessment,” Performance-Based Seismic Engineering: Vision for an
Earthquake Resilient Society, M. Fischinger, ed., Springer, Dordrecht,
Germany, pp. 347-363.
Fischinger, M.; Vidic, T.; Selih, J.; Fajfar, P.; Zhang, H. Y.; and
Damjanic, F. B., 1990, “Validation of a Macroscopic Model for Cyclic
Response Prediction of RC Walls,” Computer Aided Analysis and Design of
Concrete Structures, N. B. Bicanic and H. Mang, eds., V. 2, Pineridge Press,
Swansea, UK, pp. 1131-1142.
Gérin, M., and Adebar, P., 2009, “Simple Rational Model for
Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Seismic Shear,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 135, No. 7, pp. 753-761. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:7(753)
Gogus, A., 2010, “Structural Wall Systems—Nonlinear Modeling and
Collapse Assessment of Shear Walls and Slab-Column Frames,” PhD disser-
tation, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 243 pp.
Gomes, A., and Appleton, J., 1997, “Nonlinear Cyclic Stress-Strain
Relationship of Reinforcing Bars Including Buckling,” Engineering Struc-
tures, V. 19, No. 10, pp. 822-826. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00166-1
Hoshikuma, J.; Kawashima, K.; Nagaya, K.; and Taylor, A. W., 1997,
“Stress-Strain Model for Confined Reinforced Concrete in Bridge Piers,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 123, No. 5, pp. 624-633. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:5(624)
Jiang, H., and Kurama, Y., 2010, “Analytical Modeling of Medium-Rise
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 4,
July-Aug., pp. 400-410.
Kabeyasawa, T.; Shiohara, H.; Otani, S.; and Aoyama, H., 1983,
“Analysis of the Full-Scale Seven-Story Reinforced Concrete Test
Structure,” Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo,
V. 37, No. 2, pp. 431-478.
Kante, P., 2005, “Seismic Vulnerability of RC Walls,” PhD dissertation,
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 243 pp.
Kolozvari, K.; Orakcal, K.; and Wallace, J. W., 2015a, “Modeling of
Cyclic Shear-Flexure Interaction in Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls.
Part I: Theory,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 141, No. 5,
p. 04014135 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001059
Kolozvari, K.; Tran, A. T.; Orakcal, K.; and Wallace, J. W., 2015b,
“Modeling of Cyclic Shear-Flexure Interaction in Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls. Part II: Experimental Validation,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 141, No. 5, p. 04014136 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001083
Kolozvari, K.; Orakcal, K.; and Wallace, J. W., 2018, “New OpenSees
Models for Simulating Nonlinear Flexural and Coupled Shear-Flexural
Behavior of RC Walls and Columns,” Computers & Structures, V. 196,
pp. 246-262. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.10.010
Kolozvari, K., and Wallace, J. W., 2016, “Practical Nonlinear Modeling
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, ASCE, V. 142, No. 12, p. G4016001 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001492
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, 2017, “An
Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings
Located in the Los Angeles Region,” Los Angeles, CA.
“LS-Dyna,” 2018, Livermore Software Technology Group, Livermore, CA.
Lu, Y., and Panagiotou, M., 2014, “Three-Dimensional Cyclic Beam-
Truss Model for Nonplanar Reinforced Concrete Walls,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, V. 140, No. 3, p. 04013071 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000852
Lu, Y.; Panagiotou, M.; and Koutromanos, I., 2014, “Three-Dimensional
Beam-Truss Model for Reinforced-Concrete Walls and Slabs Subjected to
Cyclic Static or Dynamic Loading,” PEER Report 2014/18, Pacific Earth-
1656
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA.
Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., 1988, “Theoret-
ical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
Massone, L. M.; Orakcal, K.; and Wallace, J. W., 2006, “Shear-Flexure
Interaction for Structural Walls,” Deformation Capacity and Shear Strength
of Reinforced Concrete Members under Cyclic Loading, SP-236, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 127-150.
McKenna, F.; Fenves, G. L.; Scott, M. H.; and Jeremic, B., 2000, “Open
System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees),” Pacific Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Menegotto, M., and Pinto, E., 1973, “Method of Analysis for Cyclically
Loaded Reinforced Concrete Plane Frames Including Changes in Geometry
and Non-Elastic Behavior of Elements under Combined Normal Force and
Bending,” Proceedings, IABSE Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal.
Nakamura, H., and Higai, T., 2001, “Compressive Fracture Energy
and Fracture Zone Length of Concrete,” Modeling Inelastic Behavior of
RC Structures under Seismic Loads, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA, pp. 471-487.
NEES, 2016, “The NEES Databases,” Network for Earthquake Engi-
neering Simulation, https://datacenterhub.org/resources/395. (last accessed
Aug. 7, 2018)
Neuenhofer, A., and Filippou, F. C., 1998, “Geometrically
Nonlinear Flexibility-Based Frame Finite Element,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, ASCE, V. 124, No. 6, pp. 704-711. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:6(704)
NHERI, 2018, “DesignSafe-CI,” Natural Hazards Engineering Research
Infrastructure, www.designsafe-ci.org. (last accessed Aug. 7, 2018)
Oesterle, R.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J.; Fiorato, A.; Russel, H.; and Corley,
W., 1979, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Tests of Isolated Walls:
Phase II,” Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 327 pp.
Oesterle, R. G.; Fiorato, A. E.; Johal, L. S.; Carpenter, J. E.; and Corley,
W. G., 1976, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Tests of Isolated
Walls,” Report to the National Science Foundation, Construction Tech-
nology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 315 pp.
Orakcal, K.; Conte, J. P.; and Wallace, J. W., 2004, “Flexural Modeling
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls—Model Attributes,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 688-698.
Orakcal, K.; Ulugtekin, D.; and Massone, L. M., 2012, “Constitutive
Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Panel Behavior under Cyclic Loading,”
Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, 11 pp.
Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J. W., 2006, “Flexural Modeling of Reinforced
Concrete Walls—Experimental Verification,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 103, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 196-206.
Palermo, D., 2002, “Behaviour and Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Walls Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading [Microform],” PhD disser-
tation, Department of Civil & Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada, 372 pp.
Panagiotou, M.; Restrepo, J. I.; Schoettler, M.; and Kim, G., 2012,
“Nonlinear Cyclic Truss Model for Reinforced Concrete Walls,” ACI Struc-
tural Journal, V. 109, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 205-214.
PEER/ATC 72, 2010, “Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings,” Applied Technology Council,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 147 pp.
Pugh, J. S.; Lowes, L.; and Lehman, D., 2015, “Nonlinear Line-Element
Modeling of Flexural Reinforced Concrete Walls,” Engineering Structures,
V. 104, pp. 174-192. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.08.037
Rejec, K., 2011, “Inelastic Shear Behaviour of RC Structural Walls under
Seismic Conditions,” PhD dissertation, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Slovenia, 347 pp.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R., 1992, “Strength and Ductility of
Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118,
No. 6, pp. 1590-1607. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:6(1590)
Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., 1982, “Stress-Strain
Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High
Strain Rates,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 13-27.
Scott, H. M.; Franchin, P.; Fenves, G. L.; and Filippou, F. C., 2004,
“Response Sensitivity for Nonlinear Beam-Column Elements,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 130, No. 9, pp. 1281-1288. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1281)
Spacone, E.; Filippou, F. C.; and Taucer, F. F., 1996, “Fiber Beam-Column
Model for Non-Linear Analysis of R/C Frame: Part I. Formulation,” Earth-
quake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 25, No. 7, pp. 711-725. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199607)25:7<711::AID-EQE576>3.0.CO;2-9
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
 Stevens, N. J.; Uzumeri, S. M.; Collins, M. P.; and Will, T. G., 1991,
“Constitutive Model for Reinforced Concrete Finite Element Analysis,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 49-59.
Taucer, F. F.; Spacone, E.; and Filippou, F. C., 1991, “A Fiber Beam-
Column Element for Seismic Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Structures,” Report No. UCB/EERC-91/17, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, 141 pp.
Thomsen, J. H., and Wallace, J. W., 1995, “Displacement-Based Design
of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls: An Experimental Investigation
of Walls with Rectangular and T-Shaped Cross-Sections,” Report No.
CU/CEE-95/06, Department of Civil Engineering, Clarkson University,
Potsdam, NY, 344 pp.
Tran, T. A., and Wallace, J. W., 2015, “Cyclic Testing of Moderate-As-
pect-Ratio Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 112, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 653-665. doi: 10.14359/51687907
Tsai, W. T., 1988, “Uniaxial Compressional Stress-Strain Relation
of Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 114, No. 9,
pp. 2133-2136. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:9(2133)
Ulugtekin, D., 2010, “Analytical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
Panel Elements under Reversed Cyclic Loadings,” MS thesis, Department
of Civil Eng., Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey, 140 pp.
Vallenas, J. M.; Bertero, V. V.; and Popov, E. P., 1979, “Hysteretic
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” Report No. UCB/
EERC-79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 268 pp.
Vásquez, J. A.; De la Llera, J. C.; and Hube, M. A., 2016, “A Regularized
Fiber Element Model for Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Earthquake
ACI Structural Journal/November 2018
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 45, No. 13, pp. 2063-2083. doi:
10.1002/eqe.2731
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, “The Modified Compression
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
Journal Proceedings, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1993, “Compression Response of Cracked
Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 119,
No. 12, pp. 3590-3610. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:12(3590)
Vecchio, F. J., and Lai, D., 2004, “Crack Shear-Slip in Reinforced
Concrete Elements,” Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, V. 2,
No. 3, pp. 289-300. doi: 10.3151/jact.2.289
VecTor Analysis Software, 2013, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Vintzeleou, E. N., and Tassios, T. P., 1987, “Behavior of Dowels under Cyclic
Deformations,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 18-30.
Vulcano, A.; Bertero, V. V.; and Caloti, V., 1989, “Analytical Modeling
of R/C Structural Walls,” Proceedings of the 9th WCEE, Tokyo-Kyoto,
Japan, pp. 41-46.
Wallace, J. W., 2012, “Behavior, Design, and Modeling of Structural
Walls and Coupling Beams - Lessons from Recent Laboratory Tests and
Earthquakes,” International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials,
V. 6, No. 1, pp. 3-18. doi: 10.1007/s40069-012-0001-4
Wallace, J. W.; Elwood, K. J.; and Massone, L. M., 2008, “Investigation
of the Axial Load Capacity for Lightly Reinforced Wall Piers,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 134, No. 9, pp. 1548-1557. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:9(1548)
Yassin, M. H., 1994, “Nonlinear Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Struc-
tures under Monotonic and Cyclic Loads,” PhD dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 195 pp.
1657
 Researchers, Maximize
Your ACI Membership

 Technical Presentations and Documents: Access to a vast

abstract library, online presentations, webinars, and
educational documents are often free for members

Attend Conventions: Provides opportunity to develop codes

and standards, learn about the latest technology, and network

 Call for Papers: ACI is accepting the submission of papers for

conventions, committees, chapters, and subsidiaries

ACI membership gives researchers and ACI Convention Schedule

educators unique opportunities to expand City Location Dates
their careers and further their education.
Québec Québec City
ACI events such as ACI’s biannual City, QC, Convention Centre
March 24-28,
conventions give participants the chance 2019
Canada & Hilton Hotel
to participate in the development of
Duke Energy
industry codes and standards, learn about Cincinnati, Convention Center October 20-24,
the latest in concrete technology, network OH, USA & Hyatt Regency 2019
with other concrete professionals, and Cincinnati
fulfill potential continuing education
Chicago/
requirements. ACI membership also Rosemont,
Hyatt Regency March 29-
allows professionals access to a vast O’Hare April 2, 2020
IL, USA
abstract library, online educational
Raleigh Convention
presentations, webinars, and ACI Raleigh, October 25-29,
Center & Raleigh
education documents at either no or NC, USA
Marriott
2020
minimal cost. ACI and its subsidiaries
are always accepting the submission
of papers for potential publication and
distribution. More information about
ACI’s conventions, technical presentations
and documents, and calls for papers can
be found at www.concrete.org.

For more information visit Concrete.org   

1 Appendix A

2 Table A.1 Comparison of simulated and measured response quantities based on experimental and

3 analytical load-deformation envelopes

Point on the Envelope Stiffness
@ Yielding @ Vmax @ Dmax Initial Secant at Yield

Dtot,Y VY Dtot,U VU VX Kini,tot Kini,flex Kini,sh KY,tot KY,flex KY,sh

(inch) (kips) (inch) (kips) (kips) (kips/in) (kips/in) (kips/in) (kips/in) (kips/in) (kips/in)
Test 0.80 30 3.15 36.5 36.5 91 726 24200 38 418 1874
RW2

Model 0.60 30 3.11 35.4 35.4 78 1000 957 50 600 957

Test 0.45 173 1.08 189.0 180.5 548 693 2766 386 693 874
SP4

Model 0.69 204 2.16 248.3 248.3 306 1206 410 298 1095 410
SW‐P3D

Test 0.90 44 5.00 50.0 32.0 88 ‐ ‐ 49 ‐ ‐

R2

Model 0.65 40 6.00 53.0 53.0 65 ‐ ‐ 62 ‐ ‐

WSH

Test 0.73 124 2.01 134.2 125.0 492 ‐ ‐ 170 ‐ ‐

Model 0.83 121 2.42 128.5 128.5 259 ‐ ‐ 147 ‐ ‐
Test 0.54 177 1.45 190.0 185.0 545 ‐ ‐ 334 ‐ ‐
S6

Model 0.54 170 1.97 218.0 218.0 340 ‐ ‐ 315 ‐ ‐

Test 0.80 30 3.15 36.5 36.5 91 726 24200 38 418 1874
SP4 RW2

Model 0.57 31 3.15 33.0 33.0 122 1830 7625 54 610 7625
Test 0.45 173 1.08 189.0 180.5 548 693 2766 386 693 874
Model 0.35 165 1.40 204.5 199.0 987 1410 7050 470 1175 914
Test 0.90 44 5.00 50.0 32.0 88 ‐ ‐ 49 ‐ ‐
FWE
R2

Model 0.90 42 6.00 53.0 53.4 139 ‐ ‐ 46 ‐ ‐

WSH

Test 0.73 124 2.01 134.2 125.0 492 ‐ ‐ 170 ‐ ‐

Model 0.58 110 1.90 125.0 85.0 660 ‐ ‐ 190 ‐ ‐
Test 0.54 177 1.45 190.0 185.0 545 ‐ ‐ 334 ‐ ‐
S6

Model 0.70 181 1.50 206.5 185.0 464 ‐ ‐ 259 ‐ ‐

Test 0.80 30 3.15 36.5 36.5 91 726 24200 38 418 1874
SP4 RW2

Model 0.78 29 3.15 35.3 35.3 74 618 3620 37 274 3621

Test 0.45 173 1.08 189.0 180.5 548 693 2766 386 693 874
SFI‐MVLEM‐FD

Model 0.50 186 1.09 186.0 167.5 1120 2135 2545 372 853 665
Test 0.90 44 5.00 50.0 32.0 88 ‐ ‐ 49 ‐ ‐
R2

Model 0.90 44 5.00 50.0 33.1 73 ‐ ‐ 48 ‐ ‐

WSH

Test 0.73 124 2.01 134.2 125.0 492 ‐ ‐ 170 ‐ ‐

Model 0.75 120 2.01 130.4 123.8 336 ‐ ‐ 161 ‐ ‐
Test 0.54 177 1.45 190.0 185.0 545 ‐ ‐ 334 ‐ ‐
S6

Model 0.54 174 1.50 187.0 185.5 731 ‐ ‐ 324 ‐ ‐

Test 0.80 30 3.15 36.5 36.5 91 726 24200 38 418 1874
SP4 RW2

Model 0.56 28 3.15 35.3 35.3 183 1650 16500 50 393 2357
Test 0.45 173 1.08 189.0 180.5 548 693 2766 386 693 874
SFI‐MVLEM‐SS

Model 0.29 165 1.44 204.5 193.0 1234 1410 9870 568 998 1337
Test 0.90 44 5.00 50.0 32.0 88 ‐ ‐ 49 ‐ ‐
R2

Model 0.90 42 6.00 53.0 53.0 199 ‐ ‐ 46 ‐ ‐

WSH

Test 0.73 124 2.01 134.2 125.0 492 ‐ ‐ 170 ‐ ‐

Model 0.78 117 3.70 136.5 136.5 574 ‐ ‐ 151 ‐ ‐
Test 0.54 177 1.45 190.0 185.0 545 ‐ ‐ 334 ‐ ‐
S6

Model 0.42 173 1.42 190.0 185.0 846 ‐ ‐ 420 ‐ ‐

Test 0.80 30 3.15 36.5 36.5 91 726 24200 38 418 1874
SP4 RW2

Model 0.58 29 3.19 33.0 33.0 166 1450 4350 51 483 1088
Test 0.45 173 1.08 189.0 180.5 548 693 2766 386 693 874
Model 0.33 165 1.44 184.9 157.5 1097 1974 2468 509 998 1045
NLTM

Test 0.90 44 5.00 50.0 32.0 88 ‐ ‐ 49 ‐ ‐

R2

Model 0.63 40 6.12 46.5 46.5 176 ‐ ‐ 64 ‐ ‐

WSH

Test 0.73 124 2.01 134.2 125.0 492 ‐ ‐ 170 ‐ ‐

Model 1.20 125 3.62 130.3 130.3 580 ‐ ‐ 104 ‐ ‐
Test 0.54 177 1.45 190.0 185.0 545 ‐ ‐ 334 ‐ ‐
S6

4 Model 0.60 206 1.00 206.0 182.5 495 ‐ ‐ 343 ‐ ‐

View publication stats