ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 108-S15
Plastic Hinge Lengths in High-Rise Concrete Shear Walls
by Alfredo Bohl and Perry Adebar
It is commonly assumed that the maximum inelastic curvature in a
wall is uniform over a plastic hinge length (height) lp equal to
between 0.5 and 1.0 times the wall length lw (horizontal dimension).
Experimental and analytical results indicate that inelastic curvatures
actually vary linearly in walls; however, the concept of maximum
inelastic curvature over lp can still be used to estimate the flexural
displacements of isolated walls. Based on the results of nonlinear
finite element analyses using a model validated by test results, an
expression is proposed for lp as a function of wall length, moment-
shear ratio, and axial compression. A procedure to account for the
influence of applied shear stress on lp is also presented. In high-
rise buildings, walls are interconnected by numerous floor slabs,
resulting in a complex interaction between walls with different lw.
Longer walls generally have larger shear deformations near the
base because their higher relative flexural stiffness and flexural
strength attracts a larger portion of the total shear force. More
slender walls correspondingly have larger flexural deformations
near the base to maintain compatibility of total deformations at the
floor levels. An expression is presented for estimating maximum
curvatures in systems of walls with different lp where the actual
linear variation of inelastic curvatures must be accounted for.
Keywords: concrete walls; cracking; displacement; finite element method;
flexure; inelastic curvature; nonlinear analysis; plastic hinge; rotation;
seismic design; shear walls.
INTRODUCTION
An important part of the seismic design of concrete wall
buildings is ensuring that the flexural displacement capacity
of the walls is greater than the flexural displacement demand.
The inelastic (plastic) portion of flexural displacement results
from a concentration of inelastic (plastic) curvatures near
the base of a wall. For simplicity, the inelastic curvatures φi
are usually assumed to be uniform over a height called the
plastic hinge length lp. Thus, the inelastic flexural
displacement capacity Δi of a cantilever wall with a height
hw above the fixed base is
Δi = φi lp(hw – lp /2) (1)
Based on beam tests, it has become common practice1,2 to
assume that the plastic hinge length lp of a concrete wall
varies from 0.5 to 1.0 times the larger horizontal dimension
of the wall called wall length lw. Thus, 0.5lw is used as a
lower-bound estimate of lp to make a safe estimate of
displacement capacity from curvature capacity. It was used3
to derive the expression in ACI 318-99 4 for maximum
compression strain depth in a wall without confinement
reinforcement, and was used5 to develop CSA A23.3-046
provisions that define when confinement reinforcement is
needed in cantilever walls.
The seismic design of high-rise concrete wall buildings is
sometimes done using more sophisticated procedures such
as those prescribed in the procedure suggested by the L.A.
148
TECHNICAL PAPER
Tall Buildings Structural Design Council.7 This involves
making more accurate estimates of inelastic demand using
three-dimensional (3-D) nonlinear response history analysis.
Some analysis programs use fiber models to determine the
flexural deformations of a concrete wall due to the applied
axial load and bending moment; however, these models do
not account for the influence of shear on the spread of
inelastic strains, and the user is free to choose input parameters
that will influence the predicted spread of inelastic flexural
strains. Thus, the plastic hinge length lp is still needed in
these cases to obtain a reliable estimate of maximum curvatures
from maximum plastic hinge rotations.
High-rise concrete shear walls are typically subjected to a
level of axial compression stress that is less than in building
columns but greater than in bridge columns and beams. The
concrete geometry and reinforcement is very different in
walls than in columns and beams. Thus, lp determined from
beam and column tests may not be appropriate for walls.
Walls in buildings are interconnected by floor slabs at
numerous levels, which results in a complex interaction
between different length walls that influences maximum
curvature demand.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The objective of this study is to investigate the profile of
inelastic curvatures that should be used to estimate the flexural
displacement capacity of high-rise concrete walls. As very
limited test results are available for high-rise concrete walls,
the methodology is to use a state-of-the-art nonlinear finite
element model validated by the available test results. Analyses
are conducted on a range of isolated walls with different wall
lengths, maximum bending moment-shear force ratios, axial
compression or axial tension force levels, and shear stress
levels; and the results are used to develop a simple expression
for plastic hinge length. Additional analyses are used to
study the interaction between walls of different lengths
connected by floor slabs at numerous levels, and a simple
model is presented for estimating maximum curvature
demands in such interconnected wall systems.
PREVIOUS WORK ON PLASTIC HINGE LENGTH
Beams and columns
Chan8 suggested that the plastic hinge length is equal to
the length over which reinforcement is yielding in a member.
To differentiate from the length of equivalent uniform
inelastic curvature, this length is denoted herein by lp*. For
a member subjected to constant shear (linear bending moment)
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 2, March-April 2011.
MS No. S-2007-294.R4 received February 12, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2011, 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 in the January-
February 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2011.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

Alfredo Bohl is a Structural Engineer with Westmar Consultants in North Vancouver,
BC, Canada. He received his MASc degree from the University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Perry Adebar, FACI, is a Professor of structural engineering at the University of
British Columbia. He is a member of ACI Committee 374, Performance-Based Seismic
Design of Concrete Buildings, and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion.
l p * = z ( 1 – M y ⁄ M max )
where z is the shear span (distance from maximum to zero
bending moment), My is the bending moment at first yield of
reinforcement, and Mmax is the maximum bending moment.
Baker9 observed from tests that a safe estimate of plastic
hinge length in columns is between 0.5h and 1.0h, where h is
the column dimension perpendicular to the axis of bending.
Cohn and Petcu10 tested small-scale continuous beams to
confirm the validity of Eq. (1). They observed a length of
yielding on each side of the section subjected to Mmax
varying from 0.3d to 0.9d. Baker and Amarakone11 observed
that beams and columns with cold-worked reinforcement
had an approximately 30% increase in plastic hinge length
and that an increase in axial compression or a decrease in
concrete compression strength resulted in a longer plastic
hinge length due to increased cover spalling.
Sawyer12 developed a seminal equation for plastic hinge
length in beams. He assumed that My /Mmax = 0.85 and deter-
mined lp* = 0.15z from Eq. (2). Sawyer12 recognized that
inelastic curvatures vary linearly from the maximum value to
zero over this length, and that the same inelastic rotation results
from the maximum inelastic curvature being uniform over half
this length. Sawyer12 assumed that plasticity would spread over
a length of d/4, resulting in a total plastic hinge length of
lp = 0.25d + 0.075z
A general form of Sawyer’s12 equation is
lp = αd + βz
where, according to Sawyer,12 α = 0.25 and β = 0.075.
Mattock13 and Corley14 conducted tests on a large number
of beams up to 750 mm (30 in.) deep and observed that
plastic hinge length increases with effective depth d and
shear span-depth ratio z/d and decreases with the quantity of
flexural tension reinforcement. Based on all results,
Mattock15 proposed that the mean plastic hinge length is
given by Eq. (4) with α = 0.5 and β = 0.05. Using the same
test results, Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 42816 recommended
that a lower-bound estimate of plastic hinge length is given
by Eq. (4) with α = 0.25 and β = 0.03 and an upper-bound
estimate of plastic hinge length is given by Eq. (4) with α =
0.5 and β = 0.10.
A number of studies on plastic hinging in columns were
conducted in New Zealand (for example, Reference 17). The
initial recommendation was simply lp = 0.4h, but this was
subsequently18 generalized to
lp = 0.08z + 0.022db fy
where db is the diameter; fy is the yield strength of vertical
column reinforcement that pulls out of the foundation below
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
the critical section; and 0.022 has units of mm2/N. Based on
a database of 875 tests on mostly beams and columns,
Panagiotakos and Fardis19 proposed that the mean plastic
hinge length for cyclic loading is given by
lp = 0.12z + 0.014db fy (6)
They recommended that lp be increased by 50% for
monotonic loading and that the second term in Eq. (6) be
(2)
eliminated in cases where pullout of longitudinal steel is
not possible.
Hines et al.20 presented a rational model to estimate the
length lp* over which inelastic curvatures vary linearly in a
variety of bridge piers from simple columns to complex
hollow piers that include wall segments. The model includes
a component proportional to z that depends on the bending
moment increase after the first yield of vertical reinforcement
and a component proportional to d that depends on the shear
characteristics of the pier (for example, the quantity of shear
reinforcement). The plastic hinge length lp over which
curvatures are assumed to be uniform is equal to 1/2lp* plus
the second term in Eq. (5), which accounts for strain penetration
beyond the base of the bridge pier.
Concrete walls
Paulay and Uzumeri21 modified Eq. (4) for application to
concrete walls by assuming that d = 0.8lw and z = hw,
resulting in the following modified Sawyer’s12 equation
lp = α0.8lw + βhw (7)
where lw is the wall length and hw is the wall height. An
upper-bound estimate of lp results from using Joint ACI-
ASCE Committee 42816 recommendations of α = 0.5 and β
(3) = 0.10. Paulay and Priestley22 recommended α = 0.25 and β
= 0.044 in Eq. (7) for a lower-bound estimate of lp of walls.
For a given hw/lw ratio, lp depends only on wall length lw
according to Eq. (7). For a typical value of hw /lw = 7, the
upper-bound plastic hinge length is 1.1lw , whereas the
(4) lower-bound plastic hinge length is 0.5lw, as is commonly
assumed.3,5 Over the range of hw /lw from 5 to 12, lp varies
from 0.4lw to 1.6lw with the lower- and upper-bound values
of α and β, respectively.
Sasani and Der Kiureghian23 reexamined the beam test
data and proposed that
l p = 0.43d + 0.077 z ⁄ d (8)
for the mean plastic hinge length in concrete walls, where
0.077 has units of m3/2.
The database that Panagiotakos and Fardis19 used to
develop Eq. (6) included 61 tests of concrete walls; however,
only 12 walls had an hw /lw ratio greater than 2.5, and only
four of these had an aspect ratio greater than 3. When predictions
from Eq. (6)—which is a best fit to 875 tests on mostly
beams, columns, and squat walls—are compared with results
for the 12 more slender walls, poor correlation is observed.
The ratio of predicted-to-observed lp ranges from 0.25 to 5.
(5)
ANALYTICAL MODEL
As there is insufficient data available to develop an empirical
model for plastic hinge lengths in high-rise concrete walls,
149

Fig. 1—Comparison of predicted and observed strains at
base of wall tested by Thomsen and Wallace.28
an analytical study was undertaken. The selected nonlinear
finite element program was VecTor2,24 as it uses state-of-the-
art material models for cracked reinforced concrete subjected
to shear combined with axial load and bending moment.
VecTor224 uses the disturbed stress field model,25 which is
a refinement of the modified compression field theory.26
The concrete model in VecTor224 accounts for the reduction
of compressive strength and stiffness due to transverse
cracking and tensile straining. Crack shear-slip deformations
are accounted for by relating shear slip along cracks to local
shear stresses along cracks. A rotation lag is used to relate
post-cracking rotation of the principal stress field to the post-
cracking rotation of the principal strain field.25 The post-cracking
response of concrete includes tensile stresses between cracks due
to the bond between concrete and reinforcement (tension
stiffening). The reduction in concrete cracking strength due
to transverse compressive stresses is accounted for.
The constitutive relationship used for reinforcing steel in
tension has an initial linear-elastic response, a yield plateau, and
a linear strain-hardening phase until rupture. For the predictions
of the two wall tests, the curves were fit to the measured bare-
bar stress-strain relationships of the reinforcement. For the
parametric study, the assumed stress-strain relationship is
defined by a modulus of elasticity of 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi),
a yield strength of 400 MPa (58 ksi), strain hardening beginning
at a strain of 0.010, and an ultimate stress of 650 MPa (94 ksi)
occurring at a strain of 0.061. The reinforcement did not reach
the ultimate stress in any of the wall analyses.
VecTor224 uses three-node constant strain triangular
elements with six degrees of freedom (DOF) and four-node
plane stress rectangular elements with eight DOF to model
concrete with distributed reinforcement and uses two-node
truss bar elements with four DOF to model discrete reinforcement.
Different concrete material types with different percentages of
distributed horizontal and vertical reinforcement were used to
represent the various wall regions. As the purpose of the
study was to investigate flexural hinging near the base of the
walls, a refined mesh was used over the lower half of the
walls. Typically 20 (approximately square) rectangular elements
were used over the wall length for the lower portion of the
wall. The total mesh for a typical wall consisted of approximately
2000 elements.27
Concrete flat slabs are flexible in bending and have limited
shear strength but have a very high in-plane stiffness and
strength. The slabs interconnecting the walls at each floor
level were modeled using truss bar elements with very high
150
axial stiffness and strength. To simulate the influence of slabs
in reducing the horizontal normal strain of the walls at the slab
level, wall elements at the level of the slabs were given a high
axial stiffness in the horizontal direction. These wall elements
had a height equal to the slab thickness of 8 in. (203 mm).
Axial compression due to gravity loads was held constant
during the analyses, whereas the lateral load applied at the top
of the wall was monotonically increased in a displacement-control
mode to varying drift levels. Comparisons with predictions that
included numerous reverse cycles of lateral load confirmed that
monotonic predictions of vertical strains in reinforcement and
concrete are similar to the envelope of cycle predictions, whereas
the strain of horizontal reinforcement and shear strains
are somewhat increased due to cyclic lateral loading.
MODEL VALIDATION: COMPARISON
WITH WALL TESTS
To validate the analytical model, comparisons were made
with the wall test results. In tests by Thomsen and Wallace,28
extensive measurements of concrete strains were made along
the wall base. Specimen RW2 was a rectangular wall that
was 3.66 m (12 ft) high, 1.22 m (4 ft) long (hw /lw = 3), and
102 mm (4 in.) thick. The vertical reinforcement in the 191 mm
(7.5 in.) confined boundary zones consisted of eight No. 3
bars. The distributed reinforcement consisted of two No. 2
bars spaced at 191 mm (7.5 in.) vertically and horizontally.
Thus, the total vertical reinforcement in the wall consisted of
16 No. 3 and eight No. 2 bars, which gives a total steel area
equal to 1.1% of the total cross section. The compressive
strength of concrete near the base of the wall was 44 MPa
(6.38 ksi). The wall was subjected to an axial compression of
7% fc′ Ag and cyclic lateral displacements due to a lateral load
applied at the top of the wall.
The vertical strains measured over a 229 mm (9 in.) gauge
length at the base of Wall RW2 are shown in Fig. 1 at four
drift levels: ±1.5 and ±2%. The strains observed on one side
of the wall for positive drifts are shown with the strains
observed on the opposite side of the wall due to negative
strains to see the experimental variation in strains. The
predicted strains at 1.5 and 2% drift are shown as lines.
Generally, there is good agreement between the measured
and predicted strains. The predictions accounted for 12 mm
(0.47 in.) of concrete cover spalling around the confined
boundary zone at the wall ends. Surprisingly, both the
experimental and analytical results indicate nonlinear strain
profiles. This was investigated analytically and it was found
that before cracking, the strain profiles are linear. After
cracking, the linearity of the strain profile depends on the
amount of vertical reinforcement—increasing the amount of
reinforcement results in the strains being more linear. When
the wall is pushed to larger drift levels, the strain profiles
become more nonlinear.27
Adebar et al.29 conducted a test on a slender concrete wall
with a height hw = 11.33 m (37.2 ft) from the base of the
plastic hinge to the level of measured lateral wall displacement,
a length lw = 1.625 m (64 in.) and height-to-length ratio hw/lw = 7.
The wall had a flanged cross section, a low percentage of
vertical reinforcement (0.45%), and was subjected to a
constant axial compression of 10% fc′ Ag. The maximum
displacement at the top of the wall was 281 mm (11.06 in.)
(2.4% global drift), and the displacement prior to reinforcement
yielding was 46 mm (1.8 in.). The total curvature capacity of the
wall was 22 rad/km (6.71 × 10–3 rad/ft), and the elastic portion
of the curvature capacity was 2 rad/km (0.61 × 10–3 rad/ft).
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
Substituting these values into Eq. (1) and solving for plastic
hinge length gives lp = 1.09 m, which is 67% of lw.
The curvatures of the wall were measured at numerous
locations over the height, and these are compared with
predicted curvatures in Fig. 2 for global drifts between 0.9 and
1.6%. There is generally very good agreement between the
predicted and observed curvature distributions, both of
which indicate that inelastic curvatures vary approximately
linearly over approximately 2 m (6.6 ft).
PLASTIC HINGES IN ISOLATED WALLS
Figure 3 shows the cross sections of Walls W1 and W2 that
were used to study plastic hinging in isolated walls. Wall W1
has a length lw1 = 7.6 m (25 ft), whereas Wall W2 is half as
long: lw2 = 3.8 m (12.5 ft). The walls were both 54.86 m
(180 ft) high and were subjected to an axial compression of
10% fc′ Ag. Each wall was analyzed separately, and the two
results are shown together in Fig. 4 when the global drift is
2%. Figure 4(a) confirms that inelastic curvatures vary
approximately linearly. The vertical lengths of linearly
varying inelastic curvatures lp* are not directly proportional
Fig. 2—Comparison of predicted and observed curvatures
near base of wall tested by Adebar et al.29
Fig. 3—Cross section of Walls W1, W2, and W3 and Column C1 analyzed in current study.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
to the wall lengths, which are shown in the figure. This is
consistent with Eq. (7), as hw/lw = 7.2 for Wall W1 and
14.4 for Wall W2.
The maximum and minimum strains of the concentrated
vertical reinforcement at the tension end of the wall are
shown in Fig. 4(b). These are helpful for identifying exactly
where the curvatures exceed the yield curvature—where the
steel strain exceeds the reinforcement yield strain. Note that
whereas the inelastic curvatures in Wall W1 are only slightly
larger than the inelastic curvatures in Wall W2, the
maximum steel strains are considerably larger in the longer
Wall W1, and in fact exceed the strain at the onset of strain
hardening over a considerable height. The increased steel
stress due to strain hardening results in a larger bending
moment capacity, which increases the height over which the
bending moment exceeds the bending moment at first yield.
This is an important reason why longer walls have longer
plastic hinge lengths.
The moment-shear ratio, which in this study is equal to the
wall height, was previously identified as having a significant
influence on plastic hinge length. Thus, four different wall
heights, 54.86, 36.60, 27.43, and 18.30 m (180, 120, 90, and
60 ft) were investigated. Equation (2) was used to predict the
length of linearly varying inelastic curvature lp*, ignoring
the influence of shear. The maximum bending moment at
the wall base Mmax in Eq. (2) was determined from
nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA), accounting for
strain hardening. For slender walls, lp* accounting for shear
was consistently 8% larger than when not accounting for
shear. When hw /lw was less than 5, the ratio of lp* accounting
for shear to lp* not accounting for shear increased to 1.12 at
hw /lw = 4.7, 1.25 at hw /lw = 3.6, and 1.42 at hw /lw = 2.5. This
confirms that shear has a significant influence on lp*.
The results summarized previously, as well as from four
additional walls, were used to develop a simple model for the
influence of shear on plastic hinge length. The four additional
walls were similar to Walls W1 and W2, except that the wall
thickness was reduced to 254 mm (10 in.) to increase the
shear stress. The heights of these walls were 27.43 and 18.30 m
(90 and 60 ft). Walls with significant diagonal cracking were
found to have a larger lp*. For example, the wall subjected to
151

Fig. 4—Deformations of two isolated walls at 2% global drift:
(a) curvature distributions; and (b) maximum steel strains.
Heights above base equivalent to wall lengths are indicated.
Fig. 5—Influence of axial load on length of linearly varying
inelastic curvatures (compression positive): (a) Wall W1;
and (b) Wall W2.
152
3.4 MPa (500 psi) shear stress was found to have an lp* that
was 1.8 times that predicted by Eq. (2).
Diagonal cracking in a wall causes additional tension
demand on vertical reinforcement a certain distance up from
the base but does not influence demand at the base of the
wall. This is equivalent to a localized increase in shear span
z (reduction in bending moment gradient) that results in an
increased height over which the applied bending moments
exceed the yield moment. A simple way to quantify the influence
of shear is to define a vertical tension force applied at the
center of the wall that must be resisted by the vertical
reinforcement up from the base of the wall. If it is assumed
for simplicity that there is no concrete contribution (all shear
resisted by horizontal reinforcement) and that diagonal
cracks are inclined at 45 degrees, this tension force is equal
to the applied shear force V. A simple estimate of the reduction
in My due to the applied tension force V results from
assuming that half the tension force must be resisted by the
flexural tension reinforcement, and the bending moment
resisted by this reinforcement is a force couple with an
internal flexural lever arm of 0.8lw. Thus, the reduction in the
yield bending moment due to shear is estimated as 0.4Vlw.
There is no influence of shear until significant diagonal
cracks form. For flexural members without significant axial
compression, the shear stress at diagonal cracking is typically
assumed to be 0.17√fc′ MPa or 2√fc′ psi. For walls subjected
to axial compression, the shear stress at diagonal cracking
will be larger. The results from the analyses of walls
subjected to axial compression equal to 10% fc′ Ag suggests
that the influence of diagonal cracking is significant for
shear stresses equal to or greater than 1.8 MPa (0.26 ksi),
which corresponds to a shear stress of 0.3√fc′ MPa or
3.4√fc′ psi for these walls. The simple model described
previously was used to predict lp* accounting for shear, and
the results were found to compare well with the NLFEA results.27
Another parameter identified from previous work on
columns as having a significant influence on plastic hinge
length is axial compression. Figure 5 summarizes the influence
of axial load on the length of inelastic curvature lp* of Wall W1
(Fig. 5(a)) and Wall W2 (Fig. 5(b)). The axial load was varied
from a compression of 30% fc′ Ag to a tension of 5% fc′ Ag.
Figure 5 clearly indicates that axial compression reduces the
plastic hinge length, which is the opposite of what was
observed in the column tests. The influence of axial load on
plastic hinging in walls, where there is little cover spalling,
is explained in Fig. 6. Figure 6(a) shows the bending
moment-curvature relationship for Wall W1 subjected to
four different levels of axial load. Figure 6(b) shows these
same curves normalized by the bending moment when the
reinforcement first yields (refer to Fig. 6(a)). When a wall is
subjected to reduced axial compression or increased axial
tension, the ratio of the maximum bending moment to the
yield bending moment (Mmax/My) increases, and thus the
plastic hinge length increases consistent with Eq. (2).
The results of 22 isolated wall analyses are summarized in
Table 1. The value of lp* is the length over which curvatures
were greater than yield. As the inelastic curvatures varied
linearly, the same rotation results if the maximum inelastic
curvature is uniform over a length lp = 0.5lp*. The following
simple expression gives a lower-bound estimate of plastic
hinge length in isolated walls
l p = ( 0.2l w + 0.05z ) ( 1 – 1.5P ⁄ f c′ A g ) ≤ 0.8l w (9)
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
where z = M/V in the plastic hinge region of the wall, and a not connected (A = alone), which are the same results shown
compressive axial load P is taken as positive. The plastic in Fig. 4, and when the walls are connected (C). When the
hinge lengths resulting from Eq. (9) are also given in Table 1. two walls are connected, the curvatures in the upper portion
It was found that when plastic hinge length is related to both of the walls above approximately 10 m (33 ft) from the base
shear span and wall length, it is not necessary to account for
the level of shear stress to make a reasonable estimate of lp.
Figure 7 compares the plastic hinge lengths predicted by
simplified procedures for walls with the results of nonlinear
finite element analyses. As plastic hinge lengths vary from
0.28lw to 0.82lw, the simple lp = 0.5lw does not give a good result
(Fig. 7(a)). Equation (8) was empirically fit to beams and is not
suitable for walls that are approximately 10 times larger
(Fig. 7(b)). Equation (7) with α = 0.25 and β = 0.044 was
suggested as a lower-bound estimate but is a better estimate of the
mean plastic hinge length (Fig. 7(c)). Finally, Eq. (9) is a
good estimate of the lower-bound plastic hinge length (Fig. 7(d)).

PLASTIC HINGES IN CONNECTED WALLS

In high-rise buildings, different length walls and columns
are interconnected by floor slabs, which have very high in-
plane stiffness. To study how plastic hinge lengths in walls
of different lengths are influenced when walls are connected
together, a series of simplified two-dimensional (2-D) analyses
were performed using the nonlinear finite element model
that was verified by tests on isolated walls. These analyses
included Wall W1 connected to Wall W2, Wall W1
connected to Wall W3, and Wall W1 connected to Column C1
(refer to Fig. 3). Rigid floor slabs were provided every
2.74 m (9 ft) over the 54.86 m (180 ft) high 20-story
building. In the 2-D analysis, the two walls (or wall and
column) had equal horizontal displacements at every floor level.
The analyses of Walls W1 and W2 giving the results
shown in Fig. 4 were repeated with the two walls connected
together. Figure 8(a) shows the curvature distributions up to Fig. 6—Influence of axial load on bending moment-curvature
the midheight of both walls at 2% drift when the walls are response of Wall W1.

Table 1—Summary of isolated wall results

Wall parameters From finite element analysis From Eq. (9)
lw, m (ft) hw, m (ft) P/fc′ Ag v, MPa (psi) lp*, m (ft) lp = 0.5lp*, m (ft) lp, m (ft)
7.62 25 54.9 180 –0.05 0.17 25 11.19 36.71 5.60 18.35 4.59 15.0
7.62 25 54.9 180 –0.02 0.25 36 10.01 32.85 5.01 16.42 4.40 14.4
7.62 25 54.9 180 –0.00 0.32 46 10.10 33.13 5.05 16.57 4.27 14.0
7.62 25 54.9 180 0.10 0.60 87 8.39 27.51 4.19 13.75 3.63 11.9
7.62 25 54.9 180 0.20 0.80 116 5.93 19.44 2.96 9.72 2.99 9.8
7.62 25 54.9 180 0.30 1.00 145 4.28 14.04 2.14 7.02 2.35 7.7
7.62 25 36.6 120 0.10 0.95 138 6.06 19.89 3.03 9.94 2.85 9.3
7.62 25 27.4 90 0.10 1.25 181 5.55 18.22 2.78 9.11 2.46 8.1
7.62 25 18.3 60 0.10 1.80 261 4.45 14.59 2.22 7.29 2.07 6.8
7.62 25 27.4 90 0.10 2.30 334 5.90 19.35 2.95 9.68 2.46 8.1
7.62 25 18.3 60 0.10 3.35 486 5.78 18.95 2.89 9.48 2.07 6.8
3.81 12.5 54.9 180 –0.05 0.08 12 6.04 19.81 3.02 9.91 3.05 10.0
3.81 12.5 54.9 180 –0.02 0.12 17 6.18 20.28 3.09 10.14 3.05 10.0
3.81 12.5 54.9 180 0 0.16 23 6.24 20.47 3.12 10.24 3.05 10.0
3.81 12.5 54.9 180 0.10 0.30 44 6.21 20.36 3.10 10.18 2.98 9.8
3.81 12.5 54.9 180 0.20 0.40 58 5.38 17.65 2.69 8.83 2.45 8.0
3.81 12.5 54.9 180 0.30 0.50 73 3.94 12.94 1.97 6.47 1.93 6.3
3.81 12.5 36.6 120 0.10 0.45 65 4.74 15.56 2.37 7.78 2.20 7.2
3.81 12.5 27.4 90 0.10 0.60 87 4.28 14.04 2.14 7.02 1.81 5.9
3.81 12.5 27.4 90 0.10 1.15 167 4.09 13.41 2.04 6.70 1.81 5.9
3.81 12.5 18.3 60 0.10 0.85 123 3.16 10.37 1.58 5.19 1.43 4.7
3.81 12.5 18.3 60 0.10 1.65 239 3.45 11.30 1.72 5.65 1.43 4.7

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011 153

 Fig. 7—Comparison of lp / lw determined from nonlinear finite element analysis and
simplified procedures.
Fig. 8—Comparison of wall deformations at 2% global drift
for: Wall W1 alone, Wall W2 alone (A) and Walls W1 and
W2 connected (C) by floor slabs: (a) curvature distributions; and
(b) maximum steel strains. Solid markers are isolated walls (A),
and hollow markers are connected walls (C).
154
are equal to the curvatures in the longer Wall W1 when not
connected to Wall W2. That is, the much higher flexural
stiffness of the longer Wall W1 controls the displacements of
the smaller Wall W2 where the two walls are elastic.
Over the height where curvatures (Fig. 8(a)) and steel
strains (Fig. 8(b)) are greater than yield, the following
observations are made: 1) curvatures are not similar in the
two connected walls; 2) due to the walls being connected, the
height of inelastic curvatures and inelastic steel strains in the
longer Wall W1 is slightly increased, whereas the height of
inelastic curvatures and inelastic steel strains in smaller Wall W2
is slightly reduced; 3) maximum curvatures and steel strains
of longer Wall W1 are only slightly influenced by the wall
being connected to a smaller wall; and 4) maximum curvatures
and maximum steel strains at the base of the smaller wall are
significantly increased.
To examine the reason for the changed height of linearly
varying inelastic curvatures, the forces in the slabs
connecting the walls were used to determine the variation of
bending moments in the two walls. When the walls are not
connected, the bending moments vary linearly due to the
lateral load applied at the top of the wall. When the walls are
interconnected, there is a shift in bending moments due to a
redistribution of shear force from Walls W1 to W2 at the
base where shear deformations have an influence. The
reason for the redistribution is that the ratio of the flexural
strengths of Walls W1 to W2 is approximately four, whereas
the ratio of the shear stiffnesses of Walls W1 to W2 is
approximately two. The reduction in shear in Wall W1
causes the bending-moment diagram to have a lower
gradient, whereas the increase in shear in Wall W2 causes
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011

Fig. 9—Comparison of displacement profiles of longer Wall W1
and smaller Wall W2: (a) over first four stories; and (b) close-
up of first story.
the bending-moment gradient to increase. Thus, the height at
which the applied bending moment exceeds the yield
moment in Wall W1 increases slightly, whereas the reverse
happens in Wall W2.
To understand why the maximum inelastic curvature is
larger in Wall W2, the deflected shapes of the two walls were
examined. The total horizontal displacements were obtained
from the analysis output, whereas flexural displacements
were calculated by integrating curvatures. Shear displacements
are the difference between total and flexural displacements.
Figure 9(a) summarizes the displacements at the adjacent
faces of the two connected walls over four floors. The total
horizontal displacements of the two walls are equal at the
floor slabs but vary somewhat between floor slabs. The
largest difference occurs between the base and the first floor,
and this is shown in Fig. 9(b).
The longer Wall W1 is subjected to considerably larger
shear stresses than Wall W2 due to the relative flexural
capacity being approximately twice the relative shear stiffness.
Thus, the longer Wall W1 has considerably larger shear
deformations and smaller flexural displacements, as shown
in Fig. 9. The larger flexural displacements of Wall W2 are
what cause the larger curvatures at the base of Wall W2.
A simple model was developed to predict maximum
curvature in a smaller wall connected to a longer wall using
the following assumptions: 1) the lengths of linearly varying
inelastic curvatures in the two walls do not change (this is a
reasonable simplification); 2) the maximum curvature in the
longer wall (Wall W1) does not change; and 3) the slope of
the walls due to flexural displacement—that is, the integral
of curvatures—is equal above the region with inelastic
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
Fig. 10—Assumed curvature profiles used to predict
maximum curvatures in more slender Wall W2 connected by
floor slabs to longer Wall W1.
Fig. 11—Comparison of curvature profiles at 2% global
drift for three different analyses: Wall W1 alone, Wall W3
alone (A), and Walls W1 and W3 connected (C) by floor slabs.
curvatures. Figure 10 summarizes the curvature profiles
according to this simple model. Setting the rotation in Wall W1
equal to the rotation in Wall W2 (equal areas under curvature
profiles) and rearranging gives
φ max, 2 = φ y, 1 + ( φ max, 1 – φ y, 2 ) ( l p, 1 ⁄ l p, 2 ) (10)
where φmax is the maximum curvature at the base of the wall,
φy is the yield curvature, and subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the
longer and smaller walls, respectively. To predict the
maximum curvature in Wall W2, the yield curvatures of the
two walls φy,1 = 0.00045 rad/m (0.00137 rad/ft) and φy,2 =
0.00090 rad/m (0.00027 rad/ft) were used, along with the
observations from the analysis of Wall W1 alone: φmax,1 =
0.00326 rad/m (0.00099 rad/ft), lp,1 = 8.39 m (27.5 ft), and
the observation from the connected walls: lp,2 = 4.64 m
(15.2 ft). This results in a predicted φmax,2 of 0.00472 rad/m
(0.00144 rad/ft) compared to an observed value of
0.00456 rad/m (0.00139 rad/ft).
As a second example, Wall W1 was connected to Wall W3,
which is 1.9 m (6.2 ft) long and was subjected to an axial
compression equal to 20% fc′ Ag. Figure 11 shows the curvature
distributions up to the midheight of the walls at 2% drift when the
walls are alone (A) and connected together (C). Similar
results are observed as the previous example. The curvature
distribution in Wall W1 is not changed significantly, whereas
155
the curvatures in Wall W3 at the base are significantly increased
to a level much larger than the maximum curvature in
Wall W1. When not connected to Wall W1, Wall W3 is so
flexible that, when displaced to 2% drift, no yielding occurs
at the base of the wall. When connected to Wall W1, the
maximum steel strain increased from 0.0012 (less than yield)
to 0.008 (four times yield).
The maximum curvature in Wall W3 was predicted using
Eq. (10) and the yield curvatures of the two walls φy,1 =
0.00045 rad/m (0.00137 rad/ft) and φy,2 = 0.00207 rad/m
(0.00063 rad/ft), along with the observations from the analysis
of Wall W1 alone—φmax,1 = 0.00326 rad/m (0.00099 rad/ft)
and lp,1 = 8.39 m (27.5 ft)—and the observation from the
connected walls lp,2 = 2.06 m (6.8 ft), resulting in a predicted
φmax,2 of 0.00530 rad/m (0.00162 rad/ft) compared to the
observed value of 0.00581 rad/m (0.00177 rad/ft).
The final example involves Wall W1 connected to Column C1,
which is 0.95 m (3.1 ft) long (one-eighth the length of Wall W1).
Column C1 was subjected to an axial compression equal to
40% fc′ Ag. As expected, the curvatures in Wall W1 did not
change significantly as a result of being connected to the
column, whereas the maximum curvature in the column
increased considerably. When Column C1 is alone, the
maximum curvatures at 2% drift are small enough that for
the level of applied axial compression, the column is
uncracked. When the column is connected to Wall W1, the
curvatures increase sufficiently to cause the column to crack
over a certain height. As this height is less than the plastic
hinge length of Wall W1, the maximum curvature in the
column is considerably larger than the maximum curvature
in Wall W1. Whereas the curvatures in the column are not
large enough to cause the column to yield, they are large
enough to cause a significant reduction in the compression
capacity of the column and this must be accounted for in the
design of gravity load columns.30
CONCLUSIONS
Results of this study have shown that inelastic curvatures
in concrete walls vary linearly, as was previously observed20
in bridge piers. The same inelastic rotation of an isolated
wall results from using the traditional assumption that
maximum curvature is uniform over a plastic hinge length lp
equal to half the length lp* over which inelastic curvatures
actually vary linearly; however, the actual linear variation of
inelastic curvature is needed to model the interaction of
different length walls in a high-rise building and to decide
where to provide special seismic detailing.
Equation (9) is proposed for estimating the lower-bound
plastic hinge length lp of isolated walls as a function of wall
length lw, bending moment-to-shear force ratio z = M/V, and
axial compression stress ratio P/fc′ Ag. The ratio z = M/V can
either be determined from analysis or estimated as 0.7hw for
plastic hinging near the base of a wall, which is primarily due
to “first mode” displacement demands. The axial compression
force P can either be determined from analysis or estimated
from the gravity load at the top of the plastic hinge region
of the wall.
In columns, increased axial compression causes increased
cover spalling and thus an increased plastic hinge length. In
walls, increased axial compression reduces the plastic hinge
length because it reduces the ratio of maximum bending
moment (capacity) to yield bending moment. One reason
plastic hinge length lp is related to wall length lw is that a
longer wall has larger maximum tension strains that result in
156
a larger maximum bending moment due to strain hardening,
and hence a longer height over which the bending moments
exceed the bending moment at yielding. Diagonal cracking
has a significant influence on the plastic hinge length in
walls, and a simple model was presented to account for this;
however, it was found that when plastic hinge length is
related to both moment-shear ratio and wall length, it is not
necessary to explicitly account for the shear force.
In high-rise buildings, walls are interconnected at
numerous levels by floor slabs that force the horizontal
displacements of walls to be equal (assuming no floor rotation
or walls along line of equal horizontal displacement). The
results of this study have shown that longer walls (with a
larger lw) have larger shear deformations, and hence smaller
walls have correspondingly larger flexural displacements
(curvatures) near the base to maintain the same total
displacements at the floor levels. Longer walls are generally
subjected to larger shear stresses due to the relative flexural
stiffness and relative flexural capacity being larger than
the relative shear stiffness. For example, the flexural
capacity of a rectangular wall with a certain percentage
of vertical reinforcement and level of axial compression
stress is approximately proportional to lw2, whereas the
shear stiffness of that wall is proportional to lw. Longer walls
also have a smaller M/(Vlw) ratio.
A simple model was developed to predict maximum
curvature in a smaller wall connected to a longer wall. The
assumptions are: 1) curvatures of a longer wall are not
influenced by being connected to a smaller wall; 2) elastic
curvatures in the upper portion of a smaller wall are the same
as curvatures in a longer wall; and 3) plastic hinge lengths of
all walls are unchanged. The two walls have the same flexural
rotation at the top of the plastic hinge length lp* of the longer
wall but the smaller wall has a concentration of curvatures at
the base, and hence larger flexural displacement. The
maximum curvatures at the base of the smaller wall from
Eq. (10), which is based on this simple model, compare well
with maximum curvatures determined from nonlinear finite
element analysis.
The scope of this study was limited to isolated cantilever
walls with uniform properties. In an actual building, the axial
compression will decrease linearly over the wall height,
which will result in a linear decrease in bending-moment
capacity where reinforcement is uniform (variation will be
gradual in tall buildings). The decrease in bending-moment
capacity of the wall will cause the plasticity to spread further
as the critical section undergoes strain hardening. A reduction in the
amount of vertical reinforcement may result in further
spreading of plasticity, and both these issues need to be
considered. Additional work is needed to examine plastic hinge
lengths in coupled walls, which are complicated by varying axial
load in the walls due to changing coupling forces.
NOTATION
Ag = gross area of wall cross section
d = effective flexural depth
db = bar diameter
fc′ = cylinder compression strength of concrete
fy = yield strength of reinforcement
hw = height of wall
lp = equivalent length of uniform maximum inelastic curvature
used to estimate rotation
lp * = actual length of linearly varying inelastic curvature
lw = length of wall (horizontal dimension)
M = bending moment
Mmax = maximum bending moment in member
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
P = axial load (compression positive)
V = shear force
z = shear span (M/V)
α = dimensionless multiplier on effective depth d in Eq. (4)
β = dimensionless multiplier on shear span z in Eq. (4)
Δi = inelastic displacement at top of wall
φi = inelastic curvature
φmax = maximum inelastic curvature at base of wall
φy = yield curvature
REFERENCES
1. Paulay, T., “The Design of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Structural
Walls for Earthquake Resistance,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 2, No. 4, 1986,
pp. 783-823.
2. Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., “Ductility and Detailing Requirements
of Bearing Wall Buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
V. 118, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1625-1644.
3. Wallace, J., and Orakcal, K., “ACI 318-99 Provisions for Seismic
Design of Structural Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-
Aug. 2002, pp. 499-508.
4. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 369 pp.
5. Adebar, P.; Mutrie, J.; and DeVall, R., “Ductility of Concrete Walls:
The Canadian Seismic Design Provisions 1984 to 2004,” Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, V. 32, 2005, pp. 1124-1137.
6. CSA A23.3-04, “Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings,” Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2004, 258 pp.
7. “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall
Buildings Located in Los Angeles Region,” Los Angeles Tall Buildings
Structural Design Council, Dec. 2005, 27 pp.
8. Chan, W. W. L., “The Ultimate Strength and Deformation of Plastic
Hinges in Reinforced Concrete Frameworks,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 7, No. 21, 1955, pp. 121-132.
9. Baker, A. L. L., The Ultimate Load Theory Applied to the Design of
Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Frames, Concrete Publications Ltd.,
London, UK, 1956, 91 pp.
10. Cohn, M. Z., and Petcu, V. A., “Moment Redistribution and Rotation
Capacity of Plastic Hinges in Redundant Reinforced Concrete Beams,”
Indian Concrete Journal, V. 37, No. 8, 1963, pp. 282-290.
11. Baker, A. L. L., and Amarakone, A. M. N., “Inelastic Hyperstatic
Frames Analysis,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Flexural
Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, ASCE-ACI, Miami, FL, 1964, pp. 85-142.
12. Sawyer, H. A., “Design of Concrete Frames for Two Failure Stages,”
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Flexural Mechanics of
Reinforced Concrete, ASCE-ACI, Miami, FL, 1964, pp. 405-431.
13. Mattock, A. H., “Rotational Capacity of Hinging Regions in
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, ASCE-ACI, Miami, FL,
1964, pp. 143-181.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2011
14. Corley, W. G., “Rotational Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 92, No. ST5, 1966, pp. 121-146.
15. Mattock, A. H., “Discussion of ‘Rotational Capacity of Reinforced
Concrete Beams’ by W.G. Corley,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, V. 93, No. ST2, 1967, pp. 519-522.
16. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 428, “Progress Report on Code Clauses
for Limit Design,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 9, Sept. 1968,
pp. 713-715.
17. Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R., “Strength and Ductility of Concrete
Bridge Columns under Seismic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1987, pp. 61-76.
18. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1992, 768 pp.
19. Panagiotakos, T. B., and Fardis, M. N., “Deformations of Reinforced
Concrete Members at Yielding and Ultimate,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98,
No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 135-148.
20. Hines E.; Restrepo, J. I.; and Seible, F., “Force-Displacement
Characterization of Well-Confined Bridge Piers,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 101, No. 4, July-Aug. 2004, pp. 537-548.
21. Paulay, T., and Uzumeri, S. M., “A Critical Review of the Seismic
Design Provisions for Ductile Shear Walls of the Canadian Code,” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 2, 1975, pp. 592-601.
22. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., “Stability of Ductile Structural
Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 4, July-Aug. 1993, pp. 385-392.
23. Sasani, M., and Der Kiureghian, A., “Seismic Fragility of RC Structural
Walls: Displacement Approach,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 127, No. 2, 2001, pp. 219-228.
24. Wong, P. S., and Vecchio, F. J., “VecTor2 and FormWorks User’s
Manual,” Report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002, 232 pp.
25. Vecchio, F. J., “Disturbed Stress Field Model for Reinforced
Concrete: Formulation,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 126,
No. 9, 2000, pp. 1070-1077.
26. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression-Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
27. Bohl Arbulu, A. G., “Plastic Hinge Length in High-Rise Concrete
Shear Walls,” MASc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2007, 250 pp.
28. Thomsen, J. H., and Wallace, J. W., “Displacement-Based Design of
Slender Concrete Structural Walls: Experimental Verification,” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 130, No. 4, 2004, pp. 618-630.
29. Adebar, P.; Ibrahim, A. M. M.; and Bryson, M., “Test of a High-Rise
Core Wall: Effective Stiffness for Seismic Analysis,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 104, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2007, pp. 549-559.
30. Adebar, P.; Bazargani, P.; Mutrie, J.; and Mitchell, D., “Safety of
Gravity-Load Columns in Shear Wall Buildings Designed to Canadian
Standard CSA A23.3,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 37, No. 11,
Nov. 2010, pp. 1451-1461.
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.