Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Reliability of structural wall shear design for tall reinforced-concrete core

wall buildings
Sunai Kim *, John W Wallace
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles CA 90095, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The developments of shear design acceptance criterion for structural walls in tall reinforced-concrete core wall
Tall core wall building buildings were reviewed and reliability studies were conducted. Over the past 10 years, the seismic action
Reinforced concrete portion of the shear design acceptance criterion has consistently been in the general format of γFu ≤ ϕFn,e, where
Performance-based design
γ is the demand factor, Fu is the mean shear demand resulting from a suite of ground motions, Fn,e is the nominal
Nonlinear response history analysis
Shear design
shear strength computed from expected material properties, and ϕ is the uncertainty in Fn,e. Between the gov­
Reliability erning code, ASCE7-16, and the tall building guidelines, PEER TBI (2010, 2017) and LATBSDC (2011, 2014,
2017, 2020), there has been a lack of consensus in the recommendations for γ and ϕ factors. Thus, reliability
studies were conducted on the shear design acceptance criterion, with 20- and 30-story case study buildings
designed and analyzed per LATBSDC (2014) guidelines. Using closed-form solutions and Monte Carlo simula­
tions, for the range of f’c considered, the shear design acceptance criterion using γ = 1.5, ϕ = 1.0, and a con­
servative dispersion in shear demand of ρD = 0.50 resulted in at least 94.2% reliability, conditioned upon MCE
hazard level ground shaking, suggesting that the current LATBSDC (2020) recommendations provide adequate
safety. For a reduction in safety (e.g., use of γ < 1.5), further reliability studies including a larger population of
tall buildings will be needed to calibrate γ and ϕ factors.

1. Introduction
Along the west coast of the United States, reinforced concrete core
wall systems are commonly selected as seismic force resisting systems
for tall buildings. During strong ground shaking, core wall systems are
intended to dissipate energy by yielding of coupling beams, followed by
flexural yielding at the wall base. Although the wall behavior is gov­
erned by flexure, the wall design is often governed by shear, as the walls
experience high shear demands (usually up to the ACI318 code limiting
√̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅
shear stress of 0.67∙ f ’ c MPa, [8∙ f ’ c psi]) over a significant height of
the core walls [1]. The high shear demands are due to a lack of redun­
dant walls in tall buildings, as the lengths of the walls are generally
limited to the perimeter of the elevator core.
The shear design for tall buildings has been developing over the past
10 years; the shear design acceptance criterion per force-controlled ac­
tion was first introduced in Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center Tall Buildings Initiative and Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural
Design Council guidelines [2,3], as shown on Equation (1)
Fu ≤ ϕFn,e
where Fu is 1.5 times the mean shear demand resulting from a suite of
ground motions, Fn,e is the nominal strength computed using expected
material properties, and ϕ accounts for uncertainty in Fn,e . Since then,
the acceptance criterion has evolved to include the seismic Importance
Factor, Ie, as well as demands caused by loads other than seismic, Qns.
Furthermore, the variables have changed to match the terminology used
in probability-based limit state design (PBLSD), where load (demand) is
noted as Q and resistance (capacity) is noted as R. The 1.5 factor applied
to the mean shear demand, is noted as γ. The summary of all changes has
been documented in Table 1.
However, despite the developments, there is still a lack of consensus
between the governing code ASCE7-16 [4] and the tall building guide­
lines regarding the use of γ and ϕ factors. Accordingly, the advance­
ments, as well as limitations and discrepancies of the shear design
acceptance criterion are summarized in chronological order below. In
Table 1, to compare the equivalent seismic levels, a Risk Category II (Ie
= 1.0) building was assumed, demands caused by loads other than
seismic have been excluded in the 4th column, and all factors have been
(1) combined to organize the acceptance criterion into γ’⋅Q ≤ R format, to

* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles CA 90045, USA.
E-mail address: sunai.kim@lmu.edu (S. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113492
Received 14 November 2020; Received in revised form 3 September 2021; Accepted 23 October 2021
Available online 13 December 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492

Table 1 compare a single, equivalent γ’ in the 5th column. This equivalent γ’ was
Comparison of tall building structural wall shear design acceptance criteria. only compared for cases where nominal strengths were computed from
Ref. Year Document Force-Controlled Action | Seismic γ’⋅Q ≤ expected material properties.
Acceptance Criteria Action R*

[2] 2010 PEER TBI Fu ≤ ϕFn,e Fu ≤ ϕFn,e γ’ = 1. Initially, a demand factor of γ = 1.5 was empirically established to
2.0 achieve conservatism in shear design [2]. However, there were dis­
[3] 2011 LATBSDC Fu ≤ ϕFn,e Fu ≤ ϕFn,e γ’ = crepancies in ϕ recommendations, where 2010 PEER TBI [2] in
1.5 conjunction with City of San Francisco amendments recommended ϕ
[5] 2014 LATBSDC Fu ≤ κiϕFn,e Fu ≤ κiϕFn,e
= 0.75 and 2011, 2014 LATBSDC [3,5] recommended ϕ = 1.0. Thus,
γ’ =
1.5
[4] 2016 ASCE7 Critical Actions tall building designs in Los Angeles and San Francisco were different.
γIe(Qu – Qns) + Qns ≤ Qe γIeQu ≤ Qe γ’ = 2. The 2014 LATBSDC [5] introduced Risk Reduction Factor, κi, which
2.0 is an inverse of the seismic Importance Factor, Ie. However, the
[6] 2017 PEER TBI Actions not limited by a
guidelines only applied κi for deformation-controlled actions, not for
well-defined yield mech. 1.3IeQT ≤ γ’ =
(1.2 + 0.2SMS)D + 1.0L + ϕsBRn 1.3 force-controlled actions, so this factor was initially not utilized for
1.3Ie(QT - Qns) ≤ ϕsBRn 1.3IeQT ≤ γ’ = shear design acceptance criterion.
(0.9–0.2SMS)D + 1.3Ie(QT - ϕsBRn 1.3 3. The changes in ASCE7-16 Chapter 16 Nonlinear Response History
Qns) ≤ ϕsBRn Analysis [4] recommended significantly higher factors for γ, as
[7] 2017 LATBSDC Critical Actions
1.0IeQns + 1.3Ie(QT - Qns) ≤ 1.3IeQT ≤ γ’ =
shown on Table 1. The changes are explained in the commentary and
ϕsBRn ϕsBRn 1.3 there are two reasons for the significant increase: (1) seismic
1.0IeQns + 1.5Ie(QT - Qns) ≤ 1.5IeQT ≤ γ’ = Importance Factors were applied to demands and (2) reliability
ϕsBRnem ϕsBRnem 1.5 studies were conducted with nominal strengths based on expected
[8] 2020 LATBSDC Critical Actions: not γ’ =
material properties without any reserve strengths shown per exper­
sensitive to vert. 1.3IeQT ≤ 1.3
acceleration ϕsBRn γ’ = imental tests. Although the use of this factor Qn,e/Qe is suggested in
1.0Qns + 1.3Ie(QT - Qns) ≤ 1.5IeQT ≤ 1.5 the commentary, it’s not explicitly stated in the code.
ϕsBRn ϕsBRnem 4. The newer editions of tall building guidelines 2017 PEER TBI [6] and
1.0Qns + 1.5Ie(QT - Qns) ≤ 2017, 2020 LATBSDC [7,8] suggest using a lowered ϕs, as specified
ϕsBRnem
in applicable material standard with B to account for overstrength in
Definitions, in order of appearance D – service dead load
Fu – 1.5 times the mean demand (variable γ is not L – service live load, shear capacity. This reproduces γ’ factors that are equivalent to 2014
used, as the load factor is embedded in Fu) load factor is LATBSDC [5]. The guidelines also differ on the strength calculations,
ϕ – strength reduction factor, 0.75 per PEER TBI permitted to be as 2017 PEER TBI [6] recommends using nominal strengths with
(2010) & City of San Francisco amendments and reduced to 0.5 for all
specified material strengths, whereas 2017, 2020 LATBSDC [7,8]
1.0 per LATBSDC (2011, 2014) occupancies in which
Fn,e – nominal strength, based on expected material the unreduced live recommend using nominal strengths with either specified or ex­
properties load is less than or pected material strengths.
κi – Risk Reduction Factor, 1.0 for Risk Categories I equal to 4.79 kN/m2
and II, 0.80 for Risk Category III, and value to be (100 psf) with the Given the importance of structural walls as part of the main seismic
determined by seismic peer review panel for Risk exception of garages or
force resisting system in tall reinforced concrete core wall buildings,
Category IV areas occupied as
γ – load factor, 2.0 for critical force-controlled places of public these limitations and discrepancies have served as a motivation for this
elements, 1.5 for ordinary, and 1.0 for noncritical assembly study. Although shear failure can be catastrophic due to its sudden and
Ie – seismic Importance Factor QT – mean of brittle nature, the reliability of this shear design acceptance criterion has
Qu – mean value of the response parameter maximum values
not yet been thoroughly researched. The basis of this research derives
Qns – demand caused by loads other than seismic ϕs – resistance factor,
Qe – expected component strength for critical force-
from the preliminary studies conducted by Wallace, Segura, and Tran
SMS – MCER, 5% damped, spectral response controlled elements, as [9], where reliabilities of rectangular structural walls were studied.
acceleration parameter at short periods adjusted specified in applicable This research was conducted using 2012 International Building
for site class effects material standard, Code, which was adopted by the 2013 California Building Code (CBC).
ACI318, taken as 0.75
The 2013 CBC references Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
B – factor to account
for conservatism in Other Structures (ASCE7-10) and Building Code Requirements for
nominal resistance Rn, Structural Concrete (ACI318-11) [10–12,1]. The 2014 LATBSDC [5] was
normally taken as referenced for tall building design and for shear design acceptance cri­
having a value of 1.0.
terion reliability studies. Although the terminology used in PBLSD is
Alternatively, it is be
taken as B = 0.9⋅Rne /
based on load (Q) and resistance (R), load is referred to as demand,
Rn = 1.35 resistance is referred to as capacity, and limit states will be referred to as
Rn – nominal strength, acceptance criteria to be consistent with capacity design terminology
calculated with used in LATBSDC [5]. Any updates or changes in code or tall building
specified material
guidelines have been noted throughout the paper.
strengths
Rnem – expected value
of component 2. Shear design of tall Reinforced-Concrete structural walls
resistance
* A combined γ’ was
For the design of tall structural walls, the component-level accep­
computed for criteria
with nominal tance criteria are set forth in 2014 LATBSDC [5], whereas the specific
strengths based on strength calculations and detailing provisions are set forth in American
expected material Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
properties (ACI318-11) Sections 21.9.1 through 21.9.6 [1]. In ACI318-11, the
design for flexure and axial loads are accomplished using plane-section
analysis per Section 21.9.5, whereas requirements for development and
splicing of longitudinal reinforcement over the wall height are contained
in Section 21.9.2. More stringent requirements may be incorporated into

2
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace
Table 2
Minimum and maximum dispersion values (COV).
Hazard SLE DBE MCE
MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Base Shear ρTotal 0.24 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.44
ρRTR 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.44
ρM&D 0.08 0.10 – – 0.09 - 0.08
‘-’ indicates negligible COV.
the design depending on available information.
Per 2014 LATBSDC [5], shear design of a tall structural wall is
evaluated per force-controlled acceptance criterion. It is summarized
using γ = 1.5, ĸ i = 1.0, and ϕ = 1.0 in Equation (2).
1.5∙Fu ≤ Fn,e
As noted on Table 1, there are significant differences in γ and ϕ
factors that warrants further examination of this shear design accep­
tance criterion to determine which factors are appropriate.
2.1. Shear demand
The mean shear demand, Fu , is determined from nonlinear response
history analysis using a suite of ground motions. Since the use of a mean
shear demand would result in half of the design ground motions
exceeding the structural design, an empirical factor of 1.5 was utilized in
the tall building guidelines to achieve a greater conservatism in shear
design; it represents dispersion in shear responses resulting from
nonlinear response history analysis including record-to-record vari­
ability, modeling uncertainties, and design uncertainties [2].
To assess reliability of current shear design acceptance criterion for
tall buildings, statistical parameters for shear demand were determined
from Kim [13]. In this study, a methodology was developed to quantify
dispersion in 20- and 30-story tall reinforced-concrete core wall building
engineering demand parameters (EDPs). The project site, as well as 20-
and 30-story building plan views, elevations, and the details of the
reinforced concrete core wall cross-sections are shown on Kim [13].
Eleven input random variables were selected to represent record-to-
record (RTR) variability, model parameter uncertainties (unconfined
and confined concrete compressive strengths, reinforcing steel yield
strength, shear modulus, coupling beam strength, mass, dead and live
loads, and damping), and design uncertainties (shear wall boundary
element design). Given the means and coefficient of variation (COV) of
input random variables, Monte Carlo techniques were utilized to
perform 1000 nonlinear analysis at each of the five hazard levels cor­
responding to return periods of 25 and 43 years (service level earth­
quakes, SLE), 475 years (design basis earthquake, DBE), 2475 years
(maximum considered earthquake, MCE), and 4795 years (noted as
OVE). Once the analyses were complete, the means and COV of four
selected EDPs, namely base shear, roof drift, coupling beam rotations,
shear wall axial strains, were quantified. This methodology was applied
to 30-story models developed in CSI Perform-3D as well as in Opensees,
and a 20-story model developed in Opensees. As Perform-3D is widely
used in the industry and Opensees is more often used for research, both
platforms were utilized to compare results. The pros and cons of both
platforms are discussed in Kim [13]. The modeling variabilities between
CSI Perform-3D and Opensees were not considered as a random variable
[14,15]. From all nonlinear analyses, the total dispersion (measured in
COV) for base shear demand is summarized in Table 2. The total
dispersion, also noted as ρTOTAL, and the record-to-record variability,
ρRTR, were determined from nonlinear response history analyses sub­
jected to 15 or 30 ground motions at all hazard levels. The model
parameter and design COV, ρM&D, was calculated as ρM&D =
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ρ2TOTAL − ρ2RTR . Overall, the total measured dispersion for shear de­
mand ranged between 0.20 and 0.45 (rounded to nearest 0.05). The data
Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492
OVE
0.19
0.17
(2)
Fig. 1. Structural wall Vmax/Vne,ACI versus curvature ductility [9]
from all hazard levels were observed to follow either normal or
lognormal distributions with no clear trend specific to hazard levels.
Thus, both probability distributions were considered to assess reliability
of shear design and the more conservative case was utilized.
2.2. Shear capacity
Shear capacity of a structural wall is determined from the nominal
shear strength equation, as specified in ACI318-11 (Equation (3)) [1]:
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
Vn = Acv αc λ f ’c + ρt fy (3)
where Acv is the cross-sectional area of shear wall, αc varies linearly from
3.0 for walls with aspect ratio hw/lw (height to length of wall) less than
1.5 to 2.0 for walls with aspect ratio greater than 2.0, λ is the modifi­
cation factor reflecting the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight
concrete, f’c is the concrete compressive strength, ρt is the horizontal
reinforcement ratio, and fy is the reinforcing steel yield strength. Per
ACI318-11, the maximum shear strength on any one wall is limited to
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]( [ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ] )
Acv 0.83 f’c MPa Acv 10 f’c psi and the average shear strength on
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]( [ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ] )
all walls is limited to Acv 0.67 f’c MPa Acv 8 f’c psi . Using the
nominal shear strength equation, the expected shear strength (Fn,e ) can
be calculated using expected material properties. To examine how well
the ACI318-11 nominal shear strength equation predicts actual strengths
of walls, studies by Wallace et al. [9] are referenced in the following
section.
2.3. Wall failure modes and shear capacity
Wallace et al. [9] examined experimental test data from 40 walls
with height to length aspect ratios between 1 and 3 that were closely
designed to the current U.S. design standards. Relatively well-detailed
walls were selected with area of boundary transverse reinforcement of
at least half of that required by ACI318-11 [1] and ratio of vertical hoop
spacing to vertical boundary bar diameter of less than 8. The examined
cross-sections were rectangular, flanged, barbell, and T-shaped.
Compressive strengths ranged from 22.1 MPa (3.2 ksi) to 137.2 MPa
(19.9 ksi) and reinforcing steel yield strengths varied between 429.5
MPa (62.3 ksi) and 1419.6 MPa (205.9 ksi).
For various wall failure modes, the ratios between the actual shear
strength achieved by experimental tests (Vmax) and the predicted shear
strength using expected material properties (Vne,ACI) were evaluated.
The results are shown in Fig. 1, represented by a relationship between
Vmax/Vne,ACI and curvature ductility. Curvature ductility was calculated
as the ratio of ultimate curvature divided by yield curvature; this was
used to categorize different wall failure modes as shear-controlled,
3
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace
(a)
Fig. 2. Variation in Vmax/Vn versus reinforcement per (a) Wood [16] and (b) Wallace [17]
flexure-controlled, and flexure-shear controlled. Shear-controlled walls
are defined as walls with the least amount of ductility, generally less
than 10. Shear failures are commonly characterized by sudden diagonal
tension failures or crushing of concrete along diagonal compressive
struts within the wall web. The mean Vmax/Vne,ACI for shear-controlled
walls is approximately 1.5 for curvature ductility less than 5 (see red
line in Fig. 1); it is evident that the nominal shear strength equation per
ACI318-11 [1], using expected properties, under-predicts the actual
shear strength. When walls fail in flexure, curvature ductility is typically
greater than 10 and Vmax/Vne,ACI is less than 1.0, as full shear capacity
cannot be reached once the walls yield in flexure for a quasi-static test
with a single lateral point load. These walls are more ductile and the
failures are characterized by concrete crushing followed by buckling and
eventual fracture of boundary vertical reinforcement. The transition
region where curvature ductility is greater than 10 and Vmax/Vne,ACI
greater than 1.0 is categorized as flexure-shear failure. The failure
mechanism for these walls initially looks similar to flexure-controlled
walls but shear resistance slowly degrades and the walls ultimately
fail in shear (e.g, diagonal tension, diagonal compressive strut crushing,
lateral instability due to high compression at the wall boundary).
It is important to note that although tall reinforced concrete shear
walls are designed to fail in flexure, the Vmax/Vne,ACI values for flexure-
controlled walls should not be used for shear design. This is because
once the walls yield in flexure, the full shear capacity cannot be reached.
Flexure-controlled wall tests are useful to obtain flexural capacity of
walls, but they do not provide information on ultimate shear capacity of
(a)
Fig. 3. Histogram of Vmax/Vn using data from (a) Wood [16] and (b) Wallace [17]
4
Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492
(b)
walls. Thus, the mean overstrength for shear capacity should be ob­
tained from tests where walls have failed in shear and have reached the
full shear capacity.
2.4. Statistical parameters for shear capacity
To examine statistical parameters for shear capacity, compilations of
shear-controlled wall test results were referenced from Wood [16] and
Wallace [17]. Wood [16] examined 143 shear-controlled walls with
concrete compressive strengths between 13.1 MPa (1.9 ksi) and 49.0
MPa (7.1 ksi) and Wallace [17] examined 37 shear-controlled walls with
concrete compressive strengths greater than 55.2 MPa (8 ksi).
2.5. Structural walls with f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi)
Wood [16] studied 143 shear wall test specimens that were reported
to have failed in shear. All test specimens were isolated walls that were
either one or two stories high. The cross-sections were symmetric, and
the cross-sections were flanged, barbell, and rectangular. Compressive
strengths ranged from 13.1 MPa (1.9 ksi) to 49.0 MPa (7.1 ksi) and
reinforcing steel yield strengths varied between 271.0 MPa (39.3 ksi)
and 571.6 MPa (82.9 ksi). Sixty-four wall tests were from Japan, and
other wall tests were from Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United
States.
A plot of the maximum average shear strength to the limiting nom­
inal shear strength ratio, Vmax/Vn, versus ρnfy (where ρn is the transverse
(b)
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace
0 2 3 4
(a)
Fig. 4. Probability distribution tests of Vmax/Vn data from (a) Wood [16] and (b) Wallace [17]
Table 3
Shear-controlled wall tests separated into two bins [9].
Data No. of Tests Vmax/Vn,e
Mean
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
1. Vn,e ≤ 1.1∙Acv 0.67 f’c MPa 12 1.68
(within ACI318-11 limits)
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
2. Vn,e > 1.1∙Acv 0.67 f’c MPa 25 1.52
(over ACI318-11 limits)
All 37 1.57
reinforcement ratio) is shown in Fig. 2(a). For 66% of the walls, Vmax/Vn
was between 1.0 and 2.0, and approximately 9% of the walls had
maximum strengths less than the nominal shear strengths. The
maximum shear strengths of the walls were mostly higher with a mean
Vmax/Vn of 1.67 and a coefficient of variation of 0.40. A histogram using
30 bins with a probability density function is plotted in Fig. 3(a). The
data are observed to follow a lognormal distribution and this observa­
tion was tested using a lognormal probability paper as shown in Fig. 4
(a). The probability paper allows for a direct comparison between the
cumulative density function and a model distribution by adjusting the
scales so that the model distribution plots as a straight line.
2.6. Structural walls with f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi)
Wallace [17] studied 37 wall specimens with height to length aspect
ratios (hw/lw) less than 2.0 where all walls were expected to fail in shear.
All specimens were constructed with high-strength concrete; concrete
compressive strengths ranged from 54.5 MPa (7.9 ksi) to 137.2 MPa
(19.9 ksi) and web reinforcing steel yield strengths ranged from 324.1
MPa (47 ksi) to 1420.3 MPa (206 ksi). Test specimens for high-strength
concrete walls are relatively scarce and all 37 tests were conducted in
Japan. Although the lowest data point of 54.5 Mpa (7.9 ksi) is less than
55.2 Mpa (8ksi), since it’s within approximately 1% of 55.2 MPa, all
data points are included in this set as high-strength concrete typically
used in tall building construction. This set includes the 21 shear-
controlled walls presented in Fig. 1.
It’s important to note that some of the test results from these 37 wall
specimens included web reinforcement ratios that significantly excee­
ded ACI318-11 [1] recommendations. Per ACI318-11, the maximum
average shear strength on all walls is limited to Vn,e ≤
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]( [ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ] )
Acv 0.67 f’c MPa Acv 8 f’c psi which sets an upper bound of ρt⋅fy/
f’c. To examine any potential bias associated with this data, the test
results were further sorted into two bins, (1) Vn,e ≤ 1.1∙
Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492
5
(b)
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
Acv 0.67 f’c MPa which is within ACI318-11 limits and (2) Vn,e > 1.1∙
[ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]
Acv 0.67 f’c MPa which exceeds ACI318-11 limits. The 1.1 factor takes
into account the expected strength properties for high strength concrete.
The mean and COV for the two bins, as well as for the entire set of data
COV are shown in Table 3 and the results show that there is no significant
bias.
0.22
Overall, a plot of variations in ratio between maximum shear and
0.19 nominal shear strength, Vmax/Vn,e, versus ρt∙fy/f’c is shown in Fig. 2(b).
The limiting nominal shear strength was calculated as Vn,e ≤
0.20 [ ](
√̅̅̅̅̅̅ [ √̅̅̅̅̅̅ ] )
Acv 0.67 f’c MPa Acv 8 f’c psi . Similar to Wood’s trends [16], all
37 specimens had Vmax/Vn,e between 1.0 and 2.5, with a mean Vmax/Vn,e
of 1.57 and coefficient of variation of 0.20. A histogram using 20 bins
with a probability density function is plotted on Fig. 3(b). The data are
observed to follow normal distribution, and this assumption was tested
on normal probability paper, as shown in Fig. 4(b).
It is important to note that the dispersion (COV) measured from data
presented by Wood [16] and Wallace [17] derives from a combination of
uncertainties resulting from nominal shear strength prediction equation,
material strengths including concrete compressive strengths and rein­
forcing steel yield strengths, construction quality, differences in testing
approach, potential errors in test measurements, and other possible er­
rors. However, due to high quality measures required for tall building
design and construction process through Seismic Peer Review Panels [5]
and stringent inspections enforced in the United States, no further
dispersion was added to the measured values.
2.7. Context in which shear controlled wall tests were used
It is important to note the context in which the shear controlled wall
tests were used; a flowchart describing this process is shown in Fig. 5.
When a tall concrete core wall building undergoes a seismic hazard, the
coupling beams yield first and then the structural walls yield in flexure.
At the time of this study, it was common practice to limit the amount of
flexural yielding in walls by restricting the mean tensile and compressive
axial strains, as shown in Fig. 5. When flexural yielding is limited, there
is no significant shear degradation and full shear capacity can be
assumed. This is the context in which shear controlled wall tests were
used to conduct reliability studies. On the other hand, when flexural
yielding leads to axial strains that exceed the strain limits shown in
Fig. 5, shear capacity starts to degrade. Currently, there are limited test
data that can quantify the rate of shear strength degradation associated
with increasing nonlinear flexural yielding. Thus, further dynamic tests
are needed to examine shear strength degradation with nonlinear flex­
ural yielding including higher mode contributions. Moreover, core wall
5
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492

Fig. 5. Context in which shear controlled wall tests were used.

tests in biaxial loading would be helpful to understand how shear ca­
pacities may change due to varying shapes of the compressive zones.
When flexural yielding exceeds recommendations provided in Fig. 5, a
lower ϕ = 0.75 was generally used to account for the uncertainties in
shear capacity. These recommendations are further explained in 2020
LATBSDC [8].
Furthermore, there are limitations in using the experimental test
results compiled from Wood [16] and Wallace [17]. All tests docu­
mented from the two studies were quasi-static wall tests performed on
reduced-scale specimens under monotonic, repeated, or cyclic loads.
Historically, these test procedures have been utilized to observe wall
behaviors and determine strength equations. However, to evaluate
structural behavior and capacity of reinforced concrete structural walls
under high seismic events (when there is increased nonlinear flexural
yielding), it will be necessary to perform more nonlinear dynamic tests
in the future. Although dynamic tests tend to be more costly, (1) an
assessment of interactions between various structural wall components,
(2) quantifying shear degradation associated with increasing nonlinear
flexural yielding, as well as (3) measuring initial, ultimate, and residual
properties of structural walls during dynamic tests will be beneficial.
3. Reliability methods

In United States, probability-based limit state design (PBLSD) is

Table 4 adopted in many material-specific codes to establish design acceptance
MCE level anticipated reliability and corresponding reliability indexes criteria for structural components. PBLSD examines reliability of a
Risk Anticipated Probability of Probability of Reliability structural component by calculating the probability of component fail­
Category Reliability Failure, Pf Failure, Pf Index, β ure due to demands exceeding the component capacity, C < D. Per
ASCE7-10 [12] ASCE7-10 ASCE7-16 [4] ASCE7-10 PBLSD, failure is defined in Equation (4), as
[12] [12]
∫ +∞
I, II 90% 10% 10% 1.28 Pf = P(C < D) = FC (qi )fD (qi )∙dqi (4)
III 94% 6% 5% 1.56 − ∞
IV 97% 3% 2.5% 1.88

6
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492

Fig. 6. Flowchart of component reliability assessment using closed form solutions.

where C is capacity, D is demand, FC is cumulative probability distri­
bution function of C, and fD is probability density function of D. In
practice, rather than using the integral to compute probability of failure,
probability of failure is calculated indirectly with a reliability index, β
through a closed-form solution [18,19]. For seismic events conditioned
upon MCE level ground shaking, the anticipated reliability and corre­
sponding reliability indexes per ASCE7-10 [12] are summarized in
Table 4. It should be noted that in ASCE7-16 [4], these values have been
updated to a slightly more stringent values for Risk Categories III and IV,
as noted on Table 4. When closed-form solutions for probability of
failure are not available, Monte Carlo methods can be utilized. Some of
the key advantages of adopting Monte Carlo method are that there are
no limitations on the random variable parameters (number of variables,
probability distributions, etc), provided that the necessary computing
power is available.
In the following sections, full distribution methods to compute
probability of failure with β are briefly explained for the two cases where
random variables C and D follow normal and lognormal distributions,
and the Monte Carlo simulation techniques are explained.
Thus, when the reliability index is known, standard normal tables
can be utilized to evaluate the probability of failure. For a full derivation
of closed-form solutions, refer to Melchers as well as Ditlevsen and
Madsen [18,19].
3.2. Lognormal distribution for random variables C and D
When random variables C and D are jointly lognormal, it is conve­
nient to consider a safety factor, which is defined in Equation (7).
C
F= (7)
D
A random variable is defined to be lognormally distributed when its
logarithm is normally distributed. Thus, new normal random variables,
X = ln(C), Y = ln(D), and Z = ln(F), are introduced and safety factor can
be expressed with a normal random variable Z, where ln(F) = ln(C)/
ln(D) and Z = X – Y. In this case, a closed-form solution can again be used
to calculate probability of failure with a reliability index; the reliability
index is shown on Equation (8)

Z X− Y
3.1. Normal distribution for random variables C and D β= = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (8)
σZ 2 2
σ X + σY + 2∙ρXY ∙σ X ∙σ Y
When random variables C and D are jointly normal, it is convenient √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
to consider a safety margin, which is defined as F = C – D. Since C and D where standard deviation of Z is σZ = σ 2X + σ 2Y + 2∙ρXY ∙σX ∙σY . The
( )
are normal random variables and F is a linear combination the two, F is expected values of X and Y are X = ln(C) − σ 2X /2 and
also a normal random variable. In this case, a closed-form solution can ( 2 )
be used to calculate probability of failure using a reliability index; the Y = ln(D) − σY /2 , and standard deviations of X and Y are σX =
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
reliability index is defined in Equation (5) ( ) ( )
ln 1 + ρ2C and σY = ln 1 + ρ2D . Again, when reliability index is
F C− D known, standard normal tables can be utilized to find probability of
β= = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ (5)
σF σ 2C + σ2D − 2∙ρCD ∙σC ∙σ D failure as noted on Equation (9).
[ ( ) ] ( )
C 0− Z
where, F, C, D, σF , σ C , σ D are expected values and standard deviations of Pf ln ≤0 =Φ = Φ[− β] (9)
D σZ
safety margin, capacity, and demand, respectively, and ρCD is correlation
between capacity and demand. In the case where the random variables C
and D are statistically independent (ρCD = 0), the probability of failure 3.3. Monte Carlo simulations
can be determined from Equation (6). For simplicity, the correlation
between capacity and demand was assumed to be zero. The basic concept behind Monte Carlo simulation is described for the
Pf [F ≤ 0] = Φ[− β] (6) case where probability of failure is evaluated as demands exceeding the
component capacity, Pf (F = C - D < 0).

7
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. MCE hazard shear design reliability, f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) (a) closed-form solutions and (b) comparative results showing Monte Carlo simulation results.

1. Select random variables C and D. of the current structural wall shear design criterion. The MCE level shear
2. Establish probability distributions of selected random variables using demands from Monte Carlo simulations [13] were used; the demands
previous test results. were normalized by their means, and shear capacities were randomly
3. Randomly generate values for all random variables. generated using the statistical parameters shown in Fig. 2. A total of
4. Calculate F = C – D. 1000 simulations were performed. In Kim [13], the total measured
dispersion for base shear demand ranged between 0.20 and 0.45 for all
Repeat steps 1–4 until a sufficient number of samples have been hazard levels. Thus, reliability results were recommended using a real­
generated and confirm that coefficient of variation for the Monte Carlo istic shear dispersion value value of ρD = 0.40 and a conservative shear
Pf estimator is within a specified tolerance. dispersion value of ρD = 0.50.
Estimate probability of failure as shown on Equation (10).
4. Results and discussions
number of times that F < 0
Pf = (10)
total number of simulations
4.1. Shear design reliability | MCE hazard level

3.4. Summary
The reliability of structural wall shear design criterion was assessed
in two ways, using closed-form solutions and Monte Carlo simulations.
The process of using closed-form solutions is summarized in the flow­
chart shown in Fig. 6. The process starts with establishing statistical
parameters for the shear demand and capacity. For the shear demands,
the following parameters were considered: (1) normal and lognormal
probability distributions, (2) a series of demand factors, γ, varying from
1.0 to 2.0, and (3) coefficients of variation (COV, also noted as ρD)
ranging between 0.20 and 0.60, for each γ. The mean shear demand of
1.0 was used, assuming that all design requirements per LATBSDC
(2014) and ACI318-11 were satisfied. Shear capacity parameters were
separated into two bins, for walls with f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) and f’c ≥
55.2 MPa (8 ksi), as described in Sections 2.5 and 2.6. Once the demand
and capacity statistical parameters were defined, closed-form solutions
were used to compute probability of failure with the corresponding
reliability index, β.
Additionally, Monte Carlo simulations were used to assess reliability
4.1.1. Structural walls with f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi)
Shear design reliability was first assessed for structural walls with
concrete compressive strengths less than 55.2 MPa (8 ksi). Statistical
parameters for shear capacity were held constant, as shown in Fig. 2(a).
First, using closed-form solutions, the relationship between reli­
ability and γ were plotted on Fig. 7(a) for a range of ρD; these were
plotted upon examining normal and lognormal distributions for shear
demands and the more conservative case was plotted for each combi­
nation of γ and ρD. As expected, to achieve the same level of reliability,
demand factors increased as shear demand dispersion increased.
Furthermore, when examining a fixed demand factor, reliabilities
decreased with increasing shear demand dispersion. Using a realistic
shear dispersion value (ρD = 0.40), γ for 90%, 94%, and 97% reliabilities
corresponded to approximately 1.25, 1.40, and 1.70, respectively. Using
a conservative shear dispersion value (ρD = 0.50), γ for 90%, 94%, and
97% reliabilities corresponded to approximately 1.30, 1.50, and 1.85,
respectively. These values were rounded up to the nearest 0.05 and were
summarized in Table 5. Next, reliability results computed directly from

Table 5
Comparison of minimum required γ to achieve anticipated reliability versus LATBSDC (2014) γ.
Structural Wall f’c Risk Category Reliability Minimum required LATBSDC (2014) [5]
ASCE7-10 [12]
γ γ γ
ρD = 0.40 ρD = 0.50 (empirical)
(realistic) (conservative)

f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) I, II 90% 1.25 1.30 1.50

III 94% 1.40 1.50 1.50
IV 97% 1.70 1.85 –
f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) I, II 90% 1.10 1.15 1.50
III 94% 1.25 1.35 1.50
IV 97% 1.40 1.55 –

8
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace
Table 6
Summary of MCE level Monte Carlo simulations.
Analysis Type Ground Motions (no.) from Kim [13] Software Platform
Monte Carlo simulations Suite A (15 pairs) Perform-3D
Suite B (30 pairs)
Suite C (30 single) Opensees
Suite D (30 single)
Fig. 8. Variations in Monte Carlo probability of failure estimator vs. required
number of runs.
Monte Carlo simulations performed from Kim [13] were compared to
the closed-form solutions and results–see Fig. 7(b). A summary of
ground motion suites and models used for Monte Carlo simulations are
presented in Table 6. As it can be seen, results from Monte Carlo simu­
lations provide a fairly close estimation, compared to the closed-form
solutions. The differences in the closed-form solutions and Monte
Carlo simulations resulted from two main reasons, where (1) the closed-
form solutions were computed from worst-case scenarios resulting from
shear demands following either normal or lognormal distributions,
whereas shear demands from Monte Carlo simulations were directly
used to calculate reliability results, and (2) since Monte Carlo simula­
tions were performed 1000 times, there was a variation in the Monte
Carlo probability of failure estimator, and this is further discussed in the
next section.
4.1.2. Variations in Monte Carlo probability of failure estimator
Using the properties of the Monte Carlo probability of failure esti­
(a)
Fig. 9. MCE hazard shear design reliability, f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) (a) closed-form solutions and (b) comparative results showing Monte Carlo simulation results.
9
Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492
Model Random Variable Type Shear demand COV, ρD
30-Story Independent 0.23
0.33
20-Story Independent 0.44
30-Story 0.42
mator, Pf, the required number of samples can be calculated through
1 − Pf
n=
δ2 ∙Pf
where n is the required number of runs and δ is variation in Pf. This
relationship is further depicted graphically in Fig. 8. Since Monte Carlo
simulations were performed 1000 times, the variations in Pf was less
than 0.10 when Pf was less than 0.10, whereas variations increased as
smaller Pf was considered. For 1000 runs, the variations in Monte Carlo
probability failure estimator was 0.095, 0.125, and 0.179 for Risk Cat­
egories I and II, III, and IV, respectively. Thus, for 10% probability of
failure (Pf = 0.10), variation in Pf is within an appropriate range of δ <
0.10, using any set of 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. For future studies,
a higher number of Monte Carlo simulations is recommended for Pf less
than 0.10, as δ becomes higher.
4.1.3. Structural walls with f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi)
The same procedures were repeated to evaluate structural walls with
f’c ≥ 55 MPa (8 ksi). Statistical parameters for shear capacity were held
constant, as shown in Fig. 2(b). First, using closed-form solutions, the
relationship between reliability and γ were plotted on Fig. 9(a) for a
range of ρD; these were plotted upon examining normal and lognormal
distributions for shear demands and the more conservative case was
plotted for each combination of γ and ρD. Using a realistic shear
dispersion value (ρD = 0.40), γ for 90%, 94%, and 97% reliabilities
corresponded to approximately 1.10, 1.25, and 1.40, respectively. Using
a conservative shear dispersion value (ρD = 0.50), γ for 90%, 94%, and
97% reliabilities corresponded to approximately 1.15, 1.35, and 1.55,
respectively; these values are summarized in Table 5. The comparative
results computed from Monte Carlo simulations and closed-form solu­
tions are presented in Fig. 9(b). The reliability results calculated from
Monte Carlo simulations provide a fairly close estimation, compared to
the closed-form solutions.
4.1.4. Summary
A summary of reliability results from closed-form solutions is shown
(b)
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492

Table 7
Shear design reliability (%) | MCE hazard based on various values of γ, ρD, and ρC.
f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8ksi)

Capacity COV, ρC γ ρD ρD γ Capacity COV, ρC

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.40 (Measured) 1.0 85.3 83.4 81.4 79.2 77.2 93.6 90.4 86.7 83.3 80.1 1.0 0.20 (Measured)
1.5 97.6 96.7 95.5 94.2 92.7 99.6 99.0 97.9 96.5 95.1 1.5
2.0 99.6 99.2 98.7 98.0 97.3 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.0 98.3 2.0
0.50 1.0 79.3 78.3 76.8 75.3 74.0 86.7 84.4 82.0 79.3 77.4 1.0 0.30
1.5 94.6 93.6 92.5 91.0 89.6 96.8 95.9 94.9 93.7 92.7 1.5
2.0 98.4 97.9 97.2 96.4 95.6 98.7 98.4 98.0 97.4 96.7 2.0
0.60 1.0 73.7 73.2 72.5 71.7 70.7 80.6 79.5 77.8 76.3 74.4 1.0 0.40
1.5 90.6 89.8 88.6 87.5 86.4 92.0 91.4 90.7 89.8 88.7 1.5
2.0 96.5 95.9 95.2 94.3 93.3 95.4 95.0 94.6 94.1 93.6 2.0

(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Shear design reliability at various ground motion intensities for walls with (a) f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) (b) f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi).

on Table 7. In addition to using measured ρC for shear capacity, reli­ 5. Conclusions

ability results from more conservative ρC values were computed for
comparison. Linear interpolations of γ provide conservative estimates of
shear design reliability.
4.2. Shear design reliability | all hazard levels
In addition to MCE hazard results, shear design reliability was
computed at all hazard levels using mean shear demand ratios for
SLE25, SLE43, DBE, MCE and OVE hazard levels as 0.38, 0.44, 0.81, 1.0,
and 1.07, respectively. These mean shear demand ratios were normal­
ized at the MCE level, and were referenced from Kim [13]. Using these
means, reliability values were computed and presented as a function of
ground motion intensity, denoted as spectral acceleration at first mode
period, Sa(T1). The results are presented in Fig. 10. The single-hatched
region indicates reliability using γ = 1.5, the speckled region indicates
reliability using γ = 1.3, and the cross-hatched region indicates reli­
ability using γ = 1.0; all regions were computed with ρD between 0.20
and 0.60. The data points were fitted with maximum likelihood esti­
mation method by Baker [20]. It is apparent that using the current
recommendations of 1.5⋅ Fuc for shear demand results in over 90%
reliability for ground motion intensities up to Sa(T1) = 0.40 g and 0.50 g
for structural walls with f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) and f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi),
respectively. However, because the values shown in Fig. 10 were
computed based on a case study 30-story building, further studies will be
necessary to normalize these results for tall reinforced-concrete core
wall buildings and to make any recommendations. However, the results
do indicate that the current approach likely provides an adequate
margin against shear failure.
A methodology was developed to assess reliability of structural wall
shear design for tall reinforced-concrete core wall buildings. Given
statistical parameters for shear demand and capacity, closed-form so­
lutions and Monte Carlo simulations were utilized to evaluate reliability
of the current shear design acceptance criterion set forth by LATBSDC
(2014) [5]: γ ∙Fu ≤ κi⋅ϕ∙Fn,e where γ = 1.5, ϕ = 1.0, κi = 1.0. Reliabilities
were computed with various parameters for shear demand and capacity.
Based on the findings, the following conclusions were reached:
1. For realistic reliability recommendations, dispersion in shear de­
mand of ρD = 0.40 was used. For all ranges of f’c considered, γ = 1.25
is required to achieve 90% reliability, γ = 1.4 is required to achieve
94% reliability, and γ = 1.7 is required to achieve 97% reliability.
2. For conservative reliability recommendations, dispersion in shear
demand of ρD = 0.50 was used. For all ranges of f’c considered, γ =
1.3 is required to achieve 90% reliability, γ = 1.5 is required to
achieve 94% reliability, and γ = 1.85 is required to achieve 97%
reliability.
3. Using a conservative dispersion in shear demand of ρD = 0.50, the
reliability computed with γ = 1.5, ϕ = 1.0, and κi = 1.0, resulted in
94.2% for structural walls with f’c < 55.2 MPa (8ksi) and 96.5%
reliability for structural walls with f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi), condi­
tioned upon MCE hazard level ground shaking, for the 20- and 30-
story buildings studied.
4. Using 1.5⋅Fu for shear demand on a case study 30-story building
resulted in over 90% reliability for ground motion intensities up to Sa
(T1) = 0.40 g for structural walls with f’c < 55.2 MPa (8 ksi) and for

10
S. Kim and J.W. Wallace
ground motion intensities up to Sa(T1) = 0.50 g for structural walls
with f’c ≥ 55.2 MPa (8 ksi).
The shear design reliabilities in this study were conducted using
shear demand dispersion information from 20 and 30-story buildings at
one project site. However, to recommend any changes in the governing
building codes and tall building design guidelines, a reliability study
including a large population of tall buildings is further needed to cali­
brate γ and ϕ factors. There were also limitations in using the experi­
mental test results compiled from Wood [16] and Wallace [17]. All tests
documented from the two studies were quasi-static wall tests performed
on reduced-scale specimens under monotonic, repeated, or cyclic loads.
To evaluate structural behavior and capacity of reinforced concrete
structural walls under high seismic events, it will be necessary to
perform more nonlinear dynamic tests in the future to quantify shear
degradation associated with increasing nonlinear flexural yielding.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sunai Kim: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visuali­
zation, Writing – original draft. John Wallace: Conceptualization, Su­
pervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
11
Engineering Structures 252 (2022) 113492
References
[1] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI318). Am Concr Inst
2011.
[2] Tall Building Initiative: Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall
Buildings, Version 1.0. (PEER TBI 2010/05). Pacific Earthq Eng Res Cent 2010.
[3] An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of tall Buildings Located
in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC 2011) Los Angeles Tall Build Struct Des Counc
2011.
[4] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16). 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780872629042.
[5] An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of tall Buildings Located
in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC 2014) Los Angeles Tall Build Struct Des Counc
2014.
[6] Tall Building Initiative: Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall
Buildings, Version 2.03. (PEER TBI 2017/06). Pacific Earthq Eng Res Cent 2017.
[7] An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of tall Buildings Located
in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC 2017). Los Angeles Tall Build Struct Des
Counc 2017.
[8] An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of tall Buildings Located
in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC 2020) Los Angeles Tall Build Struct Des Counc
2020 [10] International Building Code (IBC). Int Code Counc 2012.
[9] Wallace JW, Segura C, Tran TA. Shear Design of Structural Walls. Los Angeles Tall
Build. Struct. Des. Counc. 2013.
[10] International Building Code (IBC). Int Code Counc 2012.
[11] California Building Code (CBC). Calif Build Stand Comm 2013.
[12] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10). Am Soc
Civ Eng 2010. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784404454.err.
[13] Kim S. Reliability of Structural Wall Shear Design for Tall Reinforced Concrete Core
Wall Buildings. Los Angeles: Dep Civ Environ Eng Univ California; 2016.
[14] CSI Perform-3D Version 5.0.0. Comput Struct Inc 2011.
[15] Opensees, v. 2.4.6. Pacific Earthq Eng Res Cent 2015.
[16] Wood SL. Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Walls. ACI Struct J
1990;87:99–107.
[17] Wallace JW. Behavior and Design of High-Strength RC Walls. ACI Struct J 1998:
259–79. SP-176.
[18] Melchers RE. Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction. New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1999.
[19] Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO. Structural Reliability Methods. 2.2.5. http://www.mek.
dtu.dk/staff/od/books.htm; 2005.
[20] Baker JW. Fitting Fragility Functions to Structural Analysis Data Using Maximum
Likelihood Estimation 2011. http://web.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/fragility/archi
ved_versions/Baker_(2011)_fragility_fitting.pdf (accessed April 6, 2016).