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

net/publication/263429250

Deformation Limits for Structural Walls with Confined Boundaries

Article  in  Earthquake Spectra · August 2007

DOI: 10.1193/1.4000059]

CITATIONS READS

10 2,523

3 authors:

İlker Kazaz Polat Gülkan

Erzurum Teknik Üniversitesi Baskent University
33 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS    121 PUBLICATIONS   1,718 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmet Yakut
Middle East Technical University
113 PUBLICATIONS   925 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Japan-Turkey Joint Collaboration Project View project

Investigation of Seismic Isolation Efficiency on Building Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by İlker Kazaz on 27 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Deformation Limits for Structural Walls
with Confined Boundaries
İlker Kazaz,a) Polat Gülkan,b) Hon. M.EERI, and Ahmet Yakut,c) M.EERI

For accurate analytical assessment of performance and damage in reinforced

concrete members, well-defined deformation limits at particular damage states are
required. With advanced and computationally intensive finite element analyses,
we establish deformation limits at yield and ultimate limit states for adequately
confined rectangular reinforced concrete structural walls in terms of drift ratio,
plastic rotation, and curvature. To investigate the deformation limits of structural
walls, a parametric study on isolated cantilever wall models is performed. The
primary variables of the parametric study are the shear-span-to-wall-length ratio,
wall length, axial load ratio, normalized shear stress, the amount of horizontal
web reinforcement, and the amount of longitudinal reinforcement at the confined
boundary of structural wall models. Expressions and limit values are proposed for
yield and ultimate deformation capacity of structural walls, based on the most
influential parameters. The proposed equations are found to be promising
when compared to results of experiments. [DOI: 10.1193/1.4000059]

INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades, during which much research based on the concept that perfor-
mance objectives can be related to the level of structural damage, such as displacements and
drift, displacement-based design procedures have matured to a level where seismic assess-
ment of existing structures or design of new structures can be carried out to ensure that par-
ticular deformation-based criteria are met (Priestley et al. 2007). Within this scope, several
investigations have been conducted for the improvement of displacement-based procedures
and associated deformation limits. Limit states for displacement-based design and assessment
are defined in the form of drift ratios at structural level and section curvatures, rotations and
strains at component level. Procedures have been developed to relate the level of damage that
is associated with the structural response in terms of displacements (drift ratio) to strain-based
limit state (Wallace and Moehle 1992).
In this context, it has been found possible to express the yield and ultimate curvatures of
different reinforced concrete structural members by simple expressions based on moment-
curvature responses obtained from section analysis (Priestley et al. 2007). In combining these
findings with the simplified analysis approach based on the concept of plastic hinge length
Lp , several expressions with regard to deformation limits were derived for different structural
members and shear walls. Strain limits are defined for concrete in compression and steel

a)
Atatürk University, Department of Civil Engineering, Erzurum, Turkey
b)
Çankaya University, Department of Civil Engineering, 06810 Ankara, Turkey
c)
Middle East Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ankara, Turkey

1019
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 28, No. 3, pages 1019–1046, August 2012; © 2012, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
1020 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

in tension at serviceability and damage-control limit states as vital components of direct

displacement-based design procedures. The section limit states are expressed inclusively
as serviceability and damage-control, where “serviceability” implies that repair is not needed
after the earthquake, and “damage control” implies that only repairable damage occurs. The
procedure has found widespread application on structural walls due to the easy interpretation
of these members as isolated cantilevers.
The component deformation limits may be specified for the cracking, yielding, spalling,
reinforcement buckling or fracture, splice or anchorage failure, and loss of gravity load capa-
city damage states of reinforced concrete members. Using the experimental results from the
UW-PEER reinforced concrete column performance database, Berry and Eberhard (2003)
investigated the trends in concrete compressive strain, plastic rotation, drift ratio, and dis-
placement ductility at the onset of concrete spalling and longitudinal bar buckling damage
states as functions of various key column properties (e.g., axial load ratio and aspect-ratio).
Their research relied on moment-curvature analysis and plastic-hinge analysis to predict
trends in deformation measures at the onset of damage as functions of various key column
properties (e.g., axial load ratio and aspect ratio).
Investigation of deformation limits of structural walls is required to improve the limit
state definitions and corresponding limiting values. The need for further investigation
stems from the absence of comprehensive experimental data due to limitations in the experi-
mental setups and in the accuracy of the analytical procedures in predicting reinforced con-
crete response under varying stress conditions because the moment-curvature analysis
inherits the inadequacy of plane section hypothesis for walls in predicting the local deforma-
tion demands. This study utilizes a well-calibrated finite element modeling tool to investigate
the relationship between the global drift, section rotation, and curvature of rectangular struc-
tural walls and the most influential parameters that govern their response. The utility of finite
element modeling strategy has been verified with finite element simulations of various
benchmark shear wall test results, which can be found in Kazaz (2010). A parametric
study, taking into account wall length, shear-span-to-wall-length ratio, axial load level,
the amount of boundary element longitudinal reinforcement, and horizontal web reinforce-
ment as parameters, is conducted. The results of nonlinear static analyses are used to answer
several issues related to deformation limits of structural walls. The deformation limits at yield
and ultimate damage state for the curvature, rotation, and drift ratio are presented.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PARAMETRIC STUDY

Several analytical parametric studies were conducted on structural walls to investigate
their deformation and strength properties (Wallace and Moehle 1992, Priestley et al. 1998).
The parameters (variables) of these research studies were evaluated to form the parameter set
of this study. Unlike the current study, which makes use of nonlinear finite element analysis
for the investigation of the strength and deformation of reinforced concrete structural walls,
most of the previous analytical studies conducted on structural walls rely on the lumped
plasticity modeling. The primary interest of these studies has been the global response para-
meters, such as the drift or plastic rotation (Seneviratna and Krawinkler 1997) and shear
strength (Ghosh and Markevicius 1991).
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1021

A thorough examination of previous studies that were conducted to investigate the para-
meters influencing response of shear walls revealed the following primary parameters
(Wallace and Moehle 1992, Priestley and Kowalsky 1998, Derecho et al. 1978):
• Ratio of wall cross-sectional area to floor-plan area
• Fundamental period
• Shape of the structural wall cross-section
• Aspect ratio (H w ∕Lw ) and configuration in the plan
• Axial load (P∕f c ∕Aw )
• Length
• Amount of web reinforcement
• Normalized shear stress
• Percentage of the longitudinal reinforcement (ρb )
• Confinement of compression zone concrete
In the light of discussion that summarizes the outcomes of the previous parametric
research on structural walls, it was decided that the primary variables of the parametric
study would be shear-span-to-wall-length ratio, axial load ratio, wall length, normalized
shear stress, longitudinal reinforcement ratio at the boundary element, and horizontal
web reinforcement. The criteria in the selection of parameters are defined as:
• Shear-span-to-wall-length ratio (M∕V∕Lw ): Height to length ratio of walls signif-
icantly affects their behavior modes. As it decreases shear effects become more pro-
nounced. In this study, walls of 3 m, 5 m, and 8 m in length (Lw ) and 6 m, 9 m, 15 m,
and 24 m in effective height (he ) were analyzed (see Figure 1 and 2). Effective height
(he ) can be also considered as the effective shear span (Lv ¼ M∕V) of the models
analyzed here, since a point load was applied at the top of cantilever. A constant

Figure 1. Illustration of variables of the parametric study.

1022 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

Figure 2. Comparison of normalized moment distributions and deflected shapes of a cantilever

wall under triangular and point loads that creates equal shear and moment at the base.

inter-story height of 3 m was assumed each structure. Each pair of wall length and
effective wall height corresponds to different effective wall aspect ratios (he ∕Lw ):
0.75, 1.125, 1.2, 1.8, 1.875, 2, 3.0, 4.8, 5.0, and 8.0.
• Wall length (Lw ): Although not considered as an independent parameter in earlier
studies, wall length appears to be an important parameter affecting response of shear
walls. As will be shown in the following sections, for the walls that have the same
aspect ratio but different wall lengths the deformation characteristics can be quite
different. Here, three wall lengths that are common have been employed: 3 m, 5 m,
and 8m.
• Wall axial load ratio (P∕f c ∕Aw ): The common range of axial load ratios in practice
with cantilever walls is reported to be in the range 0 ≤ P∕ðf c Aw Þ ≤ 0.15 for short-
to-medium height buildings (Priestley et al. 2007). For simple calculation, for
gravity loads only it can be assumed that each wall resists 1–1.25% axial load
ratio per story (Priestley and Kowalsky 1998). In this study, the axial load ratios
used are 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, and 0.25 for each model. The range of values assigned
for axial load ratios aim to cover axial load conditions that results from both gravity
and dynamic loads.
• Wall boundary element longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρb ): The flexural wall
reinforcement ratio, defined as the ratio of total longitudinal steel area (As ) in
the boundary element to the area of boundary region, in typical rectangular
shear wall sections is in the range of 0.005 ≤ ρb ≤ 0.04. Four different values of
boundary element reinforcement ratio were used: 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.04.
By changing the amount of flexural reinforcement, strength of the wall is adjusted
to reflect the effect of different design force reduction factors (R).
• Horizontal web reinforcement (ρsh ): This parameter was not directly incorporated
as a parameter of the investigation, but it emerged as a design requirement. In most
of the analysis models minimum web reinforcement amount of 0.25% governed the
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1023

design. In one third of the models, the amount of web reinforcement required by the
Turkish Earthquake Code (TSC 2007) is used. This parameter has the same influ-
ence as the normalized shear stress.
• Normalized shear stress (ν): The normalized shear stress is defined as the maximum
average shear
pffiffiffiffi stress normalized with respect to square root of concrete compressive
strength, f c , which reads as
V max
ν¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;62;566
pffiffiffiffi (1)
t w Lw f c

The normalized shear stress is a useful parameter that discriminates the distinct behavior
modes of wall response. ASCE/SEI 41-06 Update (Elwood et al. 2007) expands the limit of
the flexure controlled region identified by the normalized shear stress in FEMA 356 (2000)
from 0.25 to 0.33 for reinforced concrete shear walls. This parameter is expected to show a
good correlation with the deformation capacity of walls.
For all walls analyzed in the current study, concrete compressive characteristic strength
(f c ) was taken as 25 MPa. Selection of this constant value can be attributed to two reasons.
First, the results of this study are intended to be immediately applicable in the domestic con-
struction industry. On the basis of recent ready-mix concrete production statistics in Turkey,
it was observed that grade C25-30 ( f c ¼ 25–30 MPa) concrete accounts for more than 70%
of the concrete production. Secondly, results of previous experimental and parametric studies
(Lefas et al. 1990) confirmed that concrete strength has negligible influence on strength and
deformation characteristics of reinforced concrete structural walls governed by flexure and
minor effect on walls under flexure-shear combined actions.

FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

A parametric study employing isolated wall models was initially carried out. Figure 1
illustrates the thematic wall model used in the analyses and the variables of the parametric
study. As displayed in the figure, a point load is applied at the top of the wall. Traditionally a
triangular load distribution mimicking the first mode shape is used in lateral load analysis.
However, in nonlinear analysis convergence problems may arise with force-controlled load-
ing schemes in the post-yield range. Although a hybrid loading scheme that starts with fixed
pattern force-controlled loading and moves on with a displacement-controlled loading was
developed and implemented in our computational platform ANSYS, the procedure failed to
reach the ultimate deformation capacity of the model for multipoint load application cases.
The procedure worked best with concentrated force. As shown in Figure 2, a wall structure
analyzed under a triangular load of intensity wo and a point load of magnitude wo H∕2 applied
at a height of 2H∕3 would have nearly the same displacements at the effective height
(he ¼ 2H∕3). The moment pattern, applicable to the walls, exhibits near-linear variation
up to he ¼ 2H∕3, equivalent to that of a cantilever wall with a concentrated lateral force
at that level. It was concluded that there is no drawback in using the model displayed in
Figure 1 in the analysis of walls.
Trial static analysis of cantilever walls under uniform and triangular load patterns dis-
played that even when cracking may extend up to mid-height of the wall, significant steel
yielding extends over only the lower one or two stories. This is also what is intended in
1024 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

Figure 3. Reduced finite element models of cantilever walls.

design. The upper stories can be effectively treated as a cracked beam. Using this analogy a
finite element model is developed to reduce the computation time. As shown in the model in
Figure 3, the first two stories of the cantilever wall was discreticized with solid continuum
elements (SOLID65 in ANSYS 2007) whereas the upper stories are modeled with
BEAM188. The incompatibility between the nodal degree of freedoms of the beam and
solid elements was overcame by modeling the transition with constraint element utilizing
the rigid beam option. BEAM188 takes into account the shear deformations. To define
the behavior of beam elements generalized nonlinear section properties were used. The
load-deformation behavior of beam elements was assigned in the form of bilinear force-dis-
tortion angle (F‐γ) and moment-curvature (M‐ϕ) relation for shear and bending behavior,
respectively. The initial flexural rigidity was taken as 0.5 EI w . This model proved to be repre-
sentative because all the response parameters under investigation fall within the lower stories.

MATERIAL MODELS
The stress-strain curve of the confined concrete at the boundary elements of walls is
calculated with different confined concrete models available in literature. Figure 4a displays
stress-strain curves calculated with these models. As seen in the figure the modified Kent and
Park model indicates a lower deformability of confined concrete compared to other models.
Although the Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) and Mander et al. (1988) models produce similar
curves, the former yields a more realistic behavior in the descending part of the stress-strain
curve. For the wall specimens the confined concrete stress-strain curve calculated with the
Saatcioglu and Razvi (1992) model was used.
For general engineering applications, the elastoplastic constitutive relationship, either
with or without strain hardening, is adopted for ductile reinforcing steel. In the analyses,
a bilinear stress-strain curve with strain hardening was fitted to the typical stress-strain curves
representing ASTM A615 Grade 60 and S420 reinforcing bars, ignoring the yield plateau as
shown in Figure 4b. Uniaxial behavior of longitudinal and transverse steels was modeled
with a bilinear isotropic hardening using the von Mises yield criterion based on this
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1025

Figure 4. Stress-strain curves of (a) confined concrete and (b) reinforcing steel.

curve. The modulus of elasticity of the steel material was taken as 200,000 MPa. The yield
stress and tangent modulus at onset of strain hardening is taken as 420 MPa and 1,500 MPa,
respectively. A strain hardening stiffness helps achieve easier convergence.
For walls with moderate amounts of boundary longitudinal reinforcement, ties are
required to inhibit buckling. Cyclic load reversals may lead to buckling of boundary long-
itudinal reinforcement even in cases where the demands on the boundary of the wall do not
require special boundary elements. Additionally, the confined concrete models are applicable
only if premature buckling of longitudinal reinforcement is prevented. Buckling of the
reinforcement also affects the drift capacity of reinforced concrete sections. Dhakal and
Maekawa (2002) and Berry and Eberhard (2005) have recently studied the subject. Dhakal
and Maekawa (2002) proposed a relationship between the average stress and average strain of
reinforcing bars including the effect of buckling. They found that the average compressive
stress-strain relationship including the softening in the post-buckling range can be completely
described in terms of the product of square root of yield strength (f y ) and the slenderness
ratio, s∕d b , of the reinforcing bar, where s is the unconfined length of the longitudinal rein-
forcement between the two transverse reinforcement and d b is the diameter of the longitu-
dinal bar. In order to take this into account the bilinear stress-strain curves of reinforcing steel
rebars under compression were modified as shown in Figure 4b. For further details of the
modeling approach, Kazaz et al. (2006) and Kazaz (2010) are relevant.

DESIGN FOR DUCTILITY AND DETAILING REQUIREMENTS

In the design of walls, boundary elements were assumed to extend over a region of 0.2Lw at
the edges (TSC 2007). For any given combination of the investigated parameters the wall yield
moment (M y ) is calculated. In the following step using the specified shear span length (Lv ), the
design shear force is calculated (V d ¼ M y ∕Lv ). The ratio of the horizontal and vertical web
reinforcement is assumed to be nominally 0.0025 in all models. If the factored shear force
(V e ¼ λV d ) exceeds the shear capacity calculated with V r ¼ Aw ð0.65f ctd þ ρsh f ywd Þ accord-
ing to TSC (2007), the required amount of web horizontal reinforcement is recalculated
1026 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

employing the same equation. Since codes specify that the amount of vertical reinforcement
(ρsv ) should not be less than the horizontal reinforcement (ρsh ) in the web, the same steel ratio
of vertical web reinforcement is used. The design shear force is factored only for flexural over-
strength. The amplification in the base shear due to higher mode effects was disregarded.
The deformation capacity of structural walls is controlled by the level of confinement in
the boundary elements. In TSC (2007) and ACI 318 (2002), the amount of transverse rein-
forcement that is required at the wall boundaries is calculated with similar expressions. The
expression in TSC is given by Ash ¼ 0.05sbc f c ∕f y . This is two thirds of the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement used to confine the column elements. The same equation with a multi-
plier of 0.09 is given in ACI 318. In the models analyzed here the thickness of the walls was
taken as t w ¼ 250 mm (bc ¼ 200 mm, confined zone width). The strain hardening ratio was
taken as 0.75%. The boundary element transverse reinforcement calculated according to TSC
was 8 mm diameter bars at 150 mm spacing (ϕ8∕150mm, assuming f y ¼ 420 MPa). Since
TSC states that vertical spacing of hoops and/or crossties shall not be more than half the wall
thickness or 100 mm, nor shall it be less than 50 mm, ϕ8∕100 mm is used as transverse
reinforcement. If the ACI 318 had governed the design, ϕ8 hoops at 85 mm spacing
would have been required as confinement steel at the boundary elements. In conclusion,
wall boundaries can be considered as well confined for TSC and adequately confined for
ACI 318. Obviously, confinement should be considered among the variables of the para-
metric study, but this would have increased the number of parameters sets to be analyzed
significantly, so this study is limited to appropriately confined members only.

CALCULATED RESPONSE PARAMETERS AND DAMAGE STATES

RESPONSE PARAMETERS
The benefit of nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) lies in the fact that many
response parameters in either global or local scale can be calculated. The deformation
response quantities obtained from FE analysis under statically applied loads and presented
in this study are displayed in Figure 5. As shown in Figure 5, vertical and horizontal

Figure 5. Locations of calculated response quantities.

DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1027

displacements are calculated at both edges and at the middle of section. The mid-section
displacements at each story are used to calculate the drift capacities of walls at yield and
ultimate. Horizontal edge displacements are used to calculate the shear component of the
total displacement and vertical edge displacements used for the section rotations over the
plastic region.
The total displacements are segregated into flexural and shear parts. For the calculation of
shear component of the total deformation that results from significant shear actions, the pro-
cedure that utilizes the shear distortion angle is adopted (Oesterle et al. 1976). The flexural
component of the displacement can be calculated by subtracting the displacement compo-
nents corresponding to diagonal and sliding shear from the total lateral displacement.
Another component of the deformation that has not been accounted for is due to slip-
page/pull-out of vertical bars from the foundation and bond slip. These deformation com-
ponents have been neglected in the analyses of this study.
In the finite element model shear force along a section is calculated by summing the
horizontal nodal forces along the faces of the elements at that section. The summation
can be done on the faces of elements lying along both sides of the section. Only sign of
the force changes. Bending moments are calculated by summing the moments of each finite
element’s nodal forces normal to the section surface about the section center.
Vertical strains at compression and tension boundary extremities of the wall are evalu-
ated. Although stress and strain results can be obtained at element integration points or as
average values at nodes, the vertical strains are computed by using the nodal vertical dis-
placements. The vertical strain is calculated by dividing the difference between the vertical
displacements at successive element edge nodes to the distance between these nodes
(i.e., element length). These edge strains pair-wise in a row are used to calculate the curvature
distribution ½ϕ ¼ ðεs − εc Þ∕Lw  along the height of the wall.
Rotations are calculated from the nodal vertical displacements along each end of the wall
by using the triangulation calculations. The height over which the rotations are calculated
depends on the spread of plasticity. At the lower 1 m of each story, vertical strains are
obtained row-wise along the length of wall in the horizontal direction.

DAMAGE STATE DEFINITIONS

In this study, the response quantities of wall models are presented at the yield and ulti-
mate damage states. The ultimate damage state is determined on the basis of one of the cri-
teria defined as the point on the load-deformation curve where strength drops abruptly or
degrades to 85% of the ultimate strength (V max ), or the steel strain at the tension side exceeds
εsu ¼ 0.1, or the reinforcing bars at the compression side buckles, accompanied by significant
crushing of concrete.
Yielding of a section can be determined on the basis of several definitions. It can be
assumed that when the tensile bar strain at the extreme fiber reaches εs ¼ 0.003, yielding
takes place in the section for walls controlled by flexure. This limit is consistent with pre-
viously proposed bar strains to determine the section yielding. In members with more than
one layer of vertical reinforcement, not all the tensile reinforcement yields simultaneously.
The force displacement diagram does not indicate overall yielding until the middle
1028 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

Figure 6. Example moment-curvature curve for wall section with Lw ¼ 5 m, initial section of
moment-curvature response.

reinforcement in the tensile boundary element yields. Alternatively yielding is determined on

the basis of moment-curvature relation at the wall base section. Paulay and Priestley (1992)
and Priestley et al. (2007) defined an equivalent yield curvature, ϕy ¼ ðM y ∕M y0 Þϕy0 , that is
obtained by factoring the yield curvature corresponding to the first yield of the tensile rein-
forcement at the extreme fiber (εy ¼ 0.0021) for elastoplastic idealization of load-
deformation curves. The coefficient is defined as the ratio of the equivalent yield moment
(M y ) to the yield moment at first yield (M y0 ). Here M y holds for the nominal yield moment
(M N ) that is defined as the moment where the extreme fiber strain in compression reaches
0.004 or extreme tension strain reaches 0.015, whichever occurs first. The bilinear curve is
obtained by drawing the first line from the origin to the point on the curve where the rein-
forcement yields for the first time extending up to the nominal yield moment. The second line
connects the first line at the top to ultimate point on the moment-curvature curve. The bili-
nearization procedure and determination of yield curvature is illustrated in Figure 6. Based on
this procedure, Priestley et al. (2007) proposed the following empirical curvature expression
to calculate the curvature for serviceability limit state
εy
ϕy ¼ 2
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;41;233 (2)
Lw

Where εy is the yield strain of the reinforcement and Lw is the wall length. In Figure 6, the
Priestley et al. (2007) definition of global yield provides an accurate representation of global
yield of wall members, so this definition was used in this study.

EVALUATION OF RESULTS AND PROPOSED DEFORMATION CAPACITIES

GLOBAL RESULTS: WALL DRIFT RATIOS

Second-floor total drift ratio (DRt ¼ Δ2nd ∕2hs ) is used to display the deformation capa-
city of the analyzed walls. Second-floor drift is used instead of the roof drift of cantilever
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1029

walls because the drift obtained at the roof level is not a meaningful measure to investigate
the deformation capacity of structural walls (Seneviratna and Krawinkler 1997), since most
of the displacement at the top results from the rotation of the lower part of the wall. Addi-
tionally, the base stories are the most critical regions when the deformability of the canti-
levered walls is considered. Second-floor displacements were preferred over first floor
values, because the total drift composed of shear and flexural deformation components
can be calculated more representatively over a two story height due to excessive diagonal
cracking and localized damage at the base story. Unless otherwise stated, the displacements
or drift related data presented in this study are at the second-floor level.

Yield Drift Ratio

As explained earlier, yielding of a member can be determined on the basis of several
definitions. The yield drift of the analyzed wall models was calculated at the global
yield point as defined by Priestley et al. (2007) in Figure 6. The relationship between
the yield drift capacity of walls and the wall parameters, which have an effect on DRy ,
are displayed in Figure 7. It is observed that wall length (Lw ) and the boundary element
longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρb ) affect the yield deformation of the walls significantly
as shown in Figures 7a and 7d. For other parameters, the correlation is found to be very weak.
The data obtained from the parametric study was used to obtain a relationship for the
yield drift ratio of the walls through regression analysis. The following equation that accounts

Figure 7. Effect of modeling parameters on the yield drift ratio.

1030 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

Figure 8. Comparison of predictions and numerical values for (a) yield and (b) ultimate drift
ratio The mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of DRPred ∕DRSim ratios of the data in each
plot are (a) μ ¼ 1.01 and σ ¼ 0.13, (b) μ ¼ 1.00, and σ ¼ 0.20, respectively.

for the most influential parameters is derived for the prediction of the yield drift ratio of a
wall member:
  
DRy ¼ 0.0125 e−0.116Lw ρ0.225b
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e3;41;394 (3)

where Lw is in meters. Figure 8a illustrates the comparison between the calculated and pre-
dicted yield drift ratios using Equation 3.
Ultimate Drift Ratio
The relationship between the ultimate drift ratio (DRu ) and the selected wall parameters is
illustrated in Figure 9. It is seen that wall ultimate drift ratio displays moderate-to-high level
correlation with many of the wall parameters except the boundary element longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio. As the wall length and axial load ratio increase ultimate deformation capacity
of walls reduces. The highest level of correlation is observed to be with the horizontal web
reinforcement and the normalized shear stress as shown in Figure 9f. It is worth noting that
the normalized shear stress relies on the maximum shear force carried by the member that
must be calculated either by an empirical equation or by conducting response analysis. Due to
this fact and the expectation that the influence of the normalized shear stress is reflected
through the wall length and horizontal web reinforcement, it was omitted from the regression
analysis. Regression analysis carried out to obtain an expression for prediction of ultimate
drift ratio yields Equation 4.
  P

fy
 
M∕V 0.235
−0.136Lw
DRu ¼ 0.4ðC L C S Þðεsu Þ e
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e4;41;159 1.0 − 2.5 1.0 − 1.5 ρsh (4)
Po fc Lw

In this equation, Lw is the wall length that is in meter units, P∕Po ð¼ P∕f c ∕Aw Þ is the
axial load ratio, ρsh is the horizontal web reinforcement ratio, and M∕V∕Lw is the shear
span-to-wall-length ratio. f y is the yield strength of the web reinforcement and f c is the
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1031

Figure 9. Effect of modeling parameters on ultimate drift ratio (DRu ).

concrete compressive strength. εsu is the ultimate tensile strain of the boundary element long-
itudinal reinforcement. C L and C S are coefficients that take into account the effect of loading
regime and wall cross-section shape, respectively. For rectangular walls and monotonic load-
ing condition, C L and C S are 1.0. For other wall section shapes and loading types, these
coefficients are determined from experimental data. As shown in Figure 8b, Equation 4
adequately predicts the calculated ultimate drift ratio of the walls analyzed here.
The drift capacity of walls at the ultimate point was further separated into flexural and
shear components in Figure 10. The ratio of shear displacement (Δs ) to the total displacement

Figure 10. (a) Flexural and (b) shear components of ultimate drift capacities of wall models.
(c) Ratio of shear deformation component to total deformation.
1032 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

(Δt ) ranges from 15% to 70% depending on the shear stress on the wall at the ultimate defor-
mation point. The shear deformation may constitute a significant portion of the total defor-
mation even though the shear stress carried by the walls is very low. The data in the figure
points out that the shear deformations must be taken into account while modeling the lower
stories of shear walls.

LOCALRESULTS: CURVATURES AND ROTATIONS

Some codes and guidelines give deformation limits for structural members in terms of
rotations or curvatures. Similar to the approach used for developing limits for drift ratios,
results of finite element analysis were used to investigate the curvature and rotation for
the walls. The yield and ultimate deformation capacities are presented separately for curva-
tures and rotations.
The rotations, which are assumed to represent the rotation of the base section, were cal-
culated just above the plastic zone length by using the vertical displacements calculated at
tensile and compressive edges in the same row. The plastic zone length is determined over the
region where the row curvature calculated from the element strains at the edges as shown in
Figure 5 is greater than the yield curvature value expressed by Equation 2. The base curvature
is calculated by fitting a best line to the curvature profile along the plastic zone length. The
intercept of the best fit line equation at the base level was adopted as the base curvature.
Yield Curvature
The yield curvatures obtained from the bilinearization of moment-curvature relations
using the finite element analyses results were investigated for all the selected wall parameters.
The wall length was found to be the most significant parameter affecting the wall yield cur-
vature as shown in Figure 11a. This figure reveals that wall length is an indispensible com-
ponent of curvature calculation. Although Equation 2 assumes a linear dependence of yield
curvature on wall length, its variation especially at small wall lengths needs to be taken into
account. The influence of boundary element reinforcement ratio is minor when compared to
wall length; however, inclusion of this parameter increased the accuracy of predicted yield
curvature further. Equation 5 obtained from regression analysis provides a good representa-
tion of yield curvature. The predicted yield curvatures with Equation 5 are plotted against the
FE analyses results in Figure 12a.
 
ϕy Lw ¼ 0.00534 ρ0.07
b
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e5;41;238 (5)

Ultimate Curvature
Examination of variation of ultimate curvatures with the wall parameters given in
Figure 13 reveals that wall length, shear span to wall length ratio, axial load ratio and hor-
izontal web reinforcement are the most significant parameters affecting the ultimate curva-
ture. As in the case of yield curvature, wall length is proved to be the best parameter in
predicting the ultimate curvature capacity of shear walls. Ultimate curvature is brought
to a dimensionless form by multiplying it with wall length. Investigation of wall curvature
in this form increased the effectiveness of the regression analyses. Equation 6 was obtained
from regression analysis and displays a good correlation with the analyses results as shown
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1033

Figure 11. Effect of selected wall modeling parameters on yield curvature.

Figure 12. Comparison of predictions and numerical values for (a) yield and (b) ultimate cur-
vature. The mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of ϕPred ∕ϕSim ratios of the data in each plot are (a)
μ ¼ 1.00 and σ ¼ 0.07, (b) μ ¼ 1.03 and σ ¼ 0.13, respectively.
1034 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

Figure 13. Effect of wall modeling parameters on ultimate curvature.

in Figure 12b. The coefficient in front of horizontal web reinforcement is related to the
ratio of reinforcement and concrete strengths (fy/fc). The correction factors used for the
section shape and loading type for the calculation of drift ratio in Equation 4 also apply
to Equation 6.

   
P fy M∕V 0.29
ϕu Lw ¼ 0.8ðCL C S Þðεsu Þ 1.0 − 2.4
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e6;41;291 1.0 − 1.5 ρsh (6)
Po fc Lw

Priestley et al. (2007) stated that the dimensionless limit curvature for damage-control
limit state (ϕdc Lw ) can be denoted with constant average value of 0.072, which provides an
adequate estimate within 10% of the all data except when axial load is combined with high
reinforcement ratio. If typical geometrical and material values are inserted in Equation 6 e.g.,
M∕V∕Lw ¼ 3.0, P∕Po ¼ 0.10, ρsh ¼ 0.0025, dimensionless curvature is calculated as 0.078.
This value agrees with Priestley et al.’s (2007) proposal. However, the variation is very sig-
nificant at the low-to-medium shear stress range (flexural walls), which is taken into account
by shear-span-to-wall-length ratio in the equation here, and the curvature capacity reduces as
the shear stress carried by the wall increases. Comparison of values estimated with Equation 6
and FE analyses results are displayed in Figure 12b. Equation 6 provides a much more exact
means of predicting the ultimate curvature capacity of structural walls when compared to
Priestley’s approximation given in Equation 2.
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1035

Yield Rotation
Yield rotation was calculated at the global yield point defined for the curvature by
Priestley et al. (2007). The most significant parameters that affect the yield rotation were
found to be the wall length, boundary element reinforcement ratio and shear span to wall
length ratio. Equation 7 that was obtained through regression analysis provides a good
approximation to the yield rotation of RC walls.
  M∕V 0.06
−0.126Lw
θy ¼ 0.0018 e ρb
0.072
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e7;62;560 (7)
Lw

Ultimate Rotation
Investigation of the parameters that affect the ultimate rotation revealed that the para-
meters that were found to be significant for ultimate drift and ultimate curvature were
also among the most significant parameters influencing the ultimate rotation. This is an
expected outcome because all of these ultimate response measures are correlated. Neverthe-
less, the degree of correlation between the wall parameters and selected deformation measure
varies. Although the most effective parameter in expressing the wall plastic rotation capacity
is found to be the wall shear stress in agreement with seismic assessment guidelines as seen in
Figure 14f, its influence is reflected through horizontal web reinforcement and wall length in
the regression analysis. The relationship between the ultimate rotation and the most

Figure 14. Effect of wall modeling parameters on ultimate plastic rotation.

1036 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

Figure 15. Comparison of predictions and numerical values for a) yield b) ultimate rotation. The
mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of θPred ∕θSim ratios of the data in each plot are (a) μ ¼ 1.00
and σ ¼ 0.08, (b) μ ¼ 1.04 and σ ¼ 0.26, respectively.

significant parameters is found to be best represented by Equation 8. The adequacy of the

equations proposed for yield and ultimate rotations are shown in Figure 15.
   
P fy M∕V 0.82
θp ¼ 0.025ðC L CS Þðεsu Þ 0.95 − 2.1
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e8;41;396 0.84 − 1.5 ρsh (8)
Po fc Lw

COMPARISON OF PROPOSED DEFORMATION LIMITS WITH

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In order to check the adequacy of the equations proposed for the response parameters at
different damage states, experimental results obtained from relevant shear wall tests were
compiled and compared with the proposed limits. The comparisons were only made for
the drift ratio because local results were not available from most of the tests.
Evaluation of Experimental Results
The important properties and summary of results of the experiments contained in the
database are presented in Table 1. The database is composed of 74 small-to-large scale
shear walls of which 54 are rectangular-, 4 are flanged-, and 16 are barbell-shaped walls.
19 of these specimens were tested under monotonically increasing static loads. The rest
of the specimens were tested under static cyclic loading of either increasing or variable dis-
placement amplitude.
The difficulty in evaluating the experimental data to reach consistent judgments on the
ultimate deformation limits of structural walls has been stated by Duffey et al. (1994). It was
reported that it was found to be infeasible to quantify the influence of various geometrical and
material parameters on ultimate drift limit because of significant simultaneous variations in
numerous parameters between experimental programs. Owing to such reasons certain cor-
rective actions were applied to the test data in hand before comparing them with the analytical
results.
Table 1. Test parameters and measured deformations at yield and ultimate of wall specimens
P
Lw tw Hw Hw
ρb ρsv ρsh Aw f c fc Vp
maxffiffiffi DRy DRu
No Specimen Shape Load εsu ðcmÞ ðcmÞ ðcmÞ Lw (%) (%) (%) (%) (Mpa) Aw f c (%) (%)
1 PCA-R11 R IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.47 0.25 0.31 0.4 44.7 0.09 0.30 2.26
2 PCA-R21 R IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 4.00 0.25 0.31 0.4 46.4 0.16 0.47 2.92
3 PCA-R32 R MC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 6.00 0.22 0.42 7 24.4 0.60 0.75 1.94
4 PCA-R42 R IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.50 0.28 0.31 7.5 22.7 0.32 0.49 2.22
5 PCA-B11 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.11 0.29 0.31 0.3 53 0.19 0.39 2.89
6 PCA-B21 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 0.3 53.6 0.49 0.56 2.27
7 PCA-B31 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.11 0.29 0.31 0.3 47.3 0.21 0.39 3.93
8 PCA-B41 B M 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.11 0.29 0.31 0.3 45 0.25 0.44 5.94
9 PCA-B51 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 0.3 45.3 0.58 0.61 2.77
10 PCA-B63 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 14.1 21.8 0.90 0.73 1.71
11 PCA-B73 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 7.9 49.3 0.71 0.77 2.89
12 PCA-B83 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 1.38 9.3 42 0.77 0.68 2.86
13 PCA-B93 B MC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 8.9 44.1 0.75 0.75 3.02
14 PCA-B103 B MC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 1.97 0.29 0.63 8.6 45.6 0.53 0.65 2.77
15 PCA-F13 F IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.89 0.30 0.71 0.4 38.5 0.69 0.56 1.11
16 PCA-F23 F IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 4.35 0.31 0.63 7.6 45.5 0.66 0.63 2.22
17 PCA-USJP4 R IC 0.1 158 5.7 438 2.78 1.26 0.37 0.37 4.9 31.7 0.22 0.26 1.51
18 UCB-SW15 B MC 0.1 239 10.2 306 1.28 3.52 0.83 0.83 7.9 34.5 0.76 0.58 3.5
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES

19 UCB-SW25 B IC 0.1 239 10.2 306 1.28 3.52 0.83 0.83 7.6 35.6 0.76 0.58 1.67
20 UCB-SW36 B M 0.1 239 10.2 306 1.28 3.52 0.83 0.83 7.8 34.8 0.76 0.65 5.67
21 UCB-SW45 B IC 0.1 239 10.2 306 1.28 3.52 0.83 0.83 7.5 35.9 0.69 0.63 2.25
22 UCB-SW56 R M 0.1 241 10.2 309 1.28 6.34 0.63 0.63 7.3 33.4 0.64 0.48 2.42
23 UCB-SW65 R IC 0.1 241 10.2 309 1.28 6.34 0.63 0.63 7 34.5 0.60 0.53 2.33
24 NWU-B112 B MC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 0.3 53.7 0.50 0.64 2.78
25 NWU-B122 B MC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 3.67 0.29 0.63 0.4 41.7 0.63 0.63 2.22
26 NWU-F32 B IC 0.1 191 10.2 457 2.4 2.29 0.25 0.31 5.9 27.9 0.41 0.48 2.22
1037

(continued )
Table 1. (continued )
1038
P
Lw tw Hw Hw
ρb ρsv ρsh Aw f c fc Vp
maxffiffiffi DRy DRu
No Specimen Shape Load εsu ðcmÞ ðcmÞ ðcmÞ Lw (%) (%) (%) (%) (Mpa) Aw f c (%) (%)
27 CU-RW27 R IC 0.1 122 10.2 382 3.13 2.89 0.33 0.33 7 43.7 0.25 0.60 2.19
28 CU-RW37 R IC 0.1 122 10.2 382 3.13 2.89 0.33 0.33 10 31 0.32 0.75 2.16
29 W28 R IC 0.1 150 20 200 1.33 1.27 0.28 0.32 10 34.2 0.25 0.62 2.10
30 WF28 F IC 0.1 150 20 200 1.33 1.27 0.28 0.32 10 34.5 0.32 0.48 1.96
31 W38 R IC 0.1 150 20 200 1.33 1.27 0.28 0.32 10 36.9 0.18 0.49 2.09
32 CI-19 R C 0.1 191 10.2 549 2.88 7.99 0.25 0.41 1 23.3 0.37 - 2.78
33 W110 R C 0.1 122 7.62 356 2.92 3.00 0.30 0.30 7.4 34.0 0.30 0.75 3
34 W210 R C 0.1 122 7.62 356 2.92 3.00 0.30 0.30 9.3 32.3 0.31 1.5
35 W310 R C 0.1 122 7.62 356 2.92 3.00 0.30 0.30 9.1 33.0 0.32 0.77 1.5
36 W410 R C 0.1 122 7.62 356 2.92 3.00 0.30 0.30 8.8 34.2 0.30 - 1.5
37 CP-211 R C 0.1 50 10.2 155 3.10 2.54 0.25 0.25 8.4 28.1 0.14 - 4
38 CP-311 R C 0.1 50 10.2 155 3.10 2.54 0.25 0.25 8.3 28.2 0.13 - 4
39 CP-411 R C 0.1 50 10.2 155 3.10 1.40 0.25 0.25 9.2 25.6 0.11 - 4
40 CP-511 R C 0.1 50 10.2 155 3.10 1.40 0.25 0.25 8.2 28.7 0.10 - 3.22
41 CP-611 R C 0.1 50 10.2 155 3.10 1.40 0.25 0.25 11.3 20.8 0.12 - 2.25
42 SW3012 R M 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 1.50 0.35 0 30.1 0.51 - 1.61
43 SW3112 R C 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 1.50 0.35 0 35.2 0.46 - 1.71
44 SW3212 R C 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 1.50 0.35 0 53.6 0.36 - 1.88
45 SW3312 R C 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 1.50 0.35 0 49.2 0.38 - 1.92
46 SW1113 R M 0.06 75 7.0 75 1.00 3.10 2.40 1.10 0 44.5 0.74 0.48 1.10
47 SW1213 R M 0.06 75 7.0 75 1.00 3.10 2.40 1.10 10 45.6 0.96 0.39 1.18
48 SW1313 R M 0.06 75 7.0 75 1.00 3.10 2.40 1.10 20 34.5 1.07 0.51 1.18
49 SW1413 R M 0.06 75 7.0 75 1.00 3.10 2.40 1.10 0 35.8 0.84 0.52 1.49
50 SW1513 R M 0.06 75 7.0 75 1.00 3.10 2.40 1.10 10 36.8 1.00 0.39 1.07
51 SW1613 R M 0.06 75 7.0 75 1.00 3.10 2.40 1.10 20 43.9 1.02 0.33 0.77
52 SW1713 R M 0.06 75 7.0 75 1.00 3.10 2.40 0.37 0 41.1 0.73 0.52 1.43
53 SW2113 R M 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 2.50 0.80 0 36.4 0.50 0.45 1.59
İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

(continued )
Table 1. (continued )
P V max
Lw tw Hw Hw
ρb ρsv ρsh Aw f c fc pffiffiffi DRy DRu
No Specimen Shape Load εsu ðcmÞ ðcmÞ ðcmÞ Lw (%) (%) (%) (%) (Mpa) Aw f c (%) (%)
54 SW2213 R M 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 2.50 0.80 10 43.0 0.54 0.38 1.18
55 SW2313 R M 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 2.50 0.80 20 40.6 0.67 0.40 1.01
56 SW2413 R M 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 2.50 0.80 0 41.1 0.44 0.48 1.39
57 SW2513 R M 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 2.50 0.80 20 38.3 0.57 0.45 0.73
58 SW2613 R M 0.06 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.30 2.50 0.80 0 25.6 0.58 0.42 1.61
59 WSH114 R IC 0.06 200 15 452 2.26 1.32 0.30 0.25 5.1 45 0.17 0.23 1.05
60 WSH214 R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.32 0.30 0.25 5.7 40.5 0.19 0.23 1.39
61 WSH314 R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.54 0.54 0.25 5.8 39.2 0.24 0.34 2.04
62 WSH414 R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.54 0.54 0.25 5.7 40.9 0.23 0.34 1.36
63 WSH514 R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 0.67 0.27 0.25 12.8 38.3 0.24 0.14 1.37
64 WSH614 R IC 0.08 200 15 452 2.26 1.54 0.54 0.25 10.8 45.6 0.29 0.28 2.07
65 SW415 R IC 0.08 65 6.5 130 2.00 2.83 0.31 0.39 0.1 36.9 0.41 0.17 1.85
66 SW515 R IC 0.08 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.02 0.47 0.31 0.1 31.8 0.49 0.18 0.74
67 SW615 R IC 0.08 65 6.5 130 2.00 2.83 0.31 0.31 0.1 38.6 0.41 0.19 1.69
68 SW715 R IC 0.08 65 6.5 130 2.00 3.02 0.39 0.39 0.1 32 0.53 0.23 1.69
69 SW815 R IC 0.05 65 6.5 130 2.00 2.93 0.31 0.31 0.1 45.8 0.33 0.18 2.00
70 SW915 R IC 0.05 65 6.5 130 2.00 2.93 0.31 0.31 0.1 38.9 0.37 0.18 2.00
71 A1M16 R M 0.1 130 20 270 2.08 5.00 0.61 0.61 1 28.3 0.34 0.52 4.64
72 A2C16 R IC 0.1 130 20 270 2.08 5.00 0.61 0.61 1 28.3 0.34 0.52 3.02
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES

73 B1M16 R M 0.1 55 8.4 114 2.08 5.63 0.59 0.59 1 47 0.27 0.35 3.46
74 B2C16 R IC 0.1 55 8.4 114 2.08 5.63 0.59 0.59 1 47 0.28 0.35 2.22

Ref.:1Oesterle et al. (1976), 2Oesterle (1986), 3Oesterle et al. (1979), 4Morgan et al. (1986), 5Wang et al. (1975), 6Vallenas et al. (1979), 7Thomsen and Wallace (1995), 8Han et al.
(2002), 9Shiu et al. (1981), 10Ali and Wigth (1991), 11Carvajal and Pollner (1983), 12Lefas and Kotsovos (1990), 13Lefas et al. (1990), 14Dazio et al. (2009), 15Pilakoutas and
Elnashai (1995), 16Ghorbani-Renani et al. (2009).
ρb ¼ the ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area
ρsh ¼ the ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section
ρsv ¼ the ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross section
Section Shape: R = Rectangular, B = Barbell, F = Flanged
1039

Loading: M = Monotonic loading, IC = cyclic loading with incremental displacement amplitude, MC = cyclic loading with variable displacement amplitude
1040 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

The degrading effect of cyclic loading regimes on the stiffness and strength of reinforced
concrete was not considered in the analyses carried out in this study. Past experimental stu-
dies have shown that the overall deformation under cycling loading may be at least 75% of
the deformation reached under monotonic loading. This is due to deterioration of concrete,
and the development of cyclic failure mechanisms associated with the load history and char-
acteristics of the specimens. Vallenas et al. (1979) proposed that as a general rule the overall
deformation capacity under a realistic ground motion could be expected to be over 75% of the
deformation capacity under monotonic loading conditions. In this perspective, we recom-
mend that it may be useful and necessary to reduce the ultimate deformations proposed
here by a factor of 0.75–0.8. So the CL coefficient in Equations 4, 6, and 8 takes the values
of 0.75 and 1.0 in case of cyclic and monotonic loadings, respectively.
In some studies the reported ultimate tensile strain (εsu ) of rebars used in the test speci-
mens vary significantly from that employed in this study (εsu ¼ 0.1). This complicates the
comparison of experimental results with each other and with the results presented here. From
the computational analysis it was found that both the displacement at the second-story and
the critical section tensile steel strain at the extreme boundary edge increase at the same
rate during loading. Both measures change proportionally. Based on this assumption the
ultimate deformation capacity of experimental walls is modified in proportion to the
ðεsu Þexp ∕0.1 ratio, where ðεsu Þexp is the ultimate tensile strain of rebars used in the experi-
ments. εsu in Equations 4, 6, and 8 accounts for this situation.
The wall cross section shape significantly affects the behavior of structural walls. It has
been reported that the barbell walls (framed-walls) pose significantly different damage char-
acteristics than walls with flanged and rectangular cross sections. The improved deformation
capacity of barbell shaped walls as compared to other shapes has been demonstrated by
Vallenas et al. (1979) and Oesterle et al. (1976). Rectangular walls are more susceptible
to lateral instability of the compressive zone under severe load reversals due to smaller thick-
ness and loss of lateral stiffness due to spalling of cover concrete, leading to failure by out-
of-plane buckling. Vallenas et al. (1979) reported that the maximum overall deformation
reached in the framed walls was 35% higher than the corresponding value for the rectangular
walls. The average drift ratios calculated from the data in Table 1 for rectangular and barbell
shaped indicates that barbell shaped walls have 25% larger deformation capacity than the
rectangular ones. It is proposed here that the C S coefficient in Equations 4, 6, and 8 should
take the values of 1.0 and 1.25 for rectangular and barbell shaped walls, respectively.
Comparisons with Experimental Results
Figures 16 and 17a compare yield and ultimate drift ratios obtained from experiments
with those predicted by Equation 3 and 4, respectively. The predictions are in good agree-
ment with experimental results when the difficulties in evaluating consistently the experi-
mental results are considered. The yield data includes fewer points due to lack of yield
deformation data in the works where these values were taken from and due to exclusion
of some test results from the data set since a specific yield point could not be identified
on the experimental load deformation curves, although a yield point was identified and
reported in the reference study based on the yielding of the tensile reinforcement. Further
discrepancies were observed in some test results where the apparent yield point on the cyclic
response curve is far beyond the expected yield location (Pilakoutas and Elnashai 1995).
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1041

Figure 16. Comparison of predicted and experimental drift ratios at yield.

Figure 17. Comparison of predicted and experimental drift ratios at ultimate calculated using (a)
ultimate drift ratio expression in Equation 4; (b) ultimate curvature given in Equation 6 and plastic
hinge analysis; (c) ultimate plastic rotation given in Equation 8 and plastic hinge analysis.

Another important reason that hinders the effective comparison of experimental results and
predictions is that Equation 4 was derived on the basis of second-story displacements of wall
models analyzed in this study, where as experimental displacements were obtained at the top
of the specimens.
As alluded to earlier, deformation limits are generally expressed in terms of drift, cur-
vature or rotation. The analyses results may sometimes be obtained in terms of only global
deformations depending on the complexity of model and the tool used for analysis. In such
cases additional section or member based analyses are required to express the response quan-
tities in terms of the desired variables. In order to compare the expressions proposed for the
deformation measures employed here with the experimental results, corresponding drift
values were also calculated using the limits given for rotation and curvature. Figures 17b
and 17c display the ultimate drift estimations of the specimens in the experimental database
using plastic hinge analysis method and Equations 6 and 8. In the plastic hinge analyses the
1042 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

tip displacement of a cantilever is obtained as the sum of its yield displacement, Δy , and
plastic displacement component, Δp . While the yield displacement is calculated by using
Equation 3, plastic displacement component is calculated by multiplying the height of
the cantilever by the plastic rotation θp at the base as expressed in Equation 8:

ϕy H 2w
Δ ¼ Δy þ Δp ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e9;41;591 þ ðϕ − ϕy ÞLp ðH w − 0.5Lp Þ (9)
3
The term ðϕ − ϕy ÞLp in Equation 7 refers to the plastic rotation θp and is based on the
governing assumption that the plastic curvature is lumped in the center of the equivalent
plastic hinge length, Lp . Ultimate curvature is calculated with Equation 6. The plastic
hinge length in Equation 9 is taken as half of the wall length, 0.5Lw . Figure 17 displays
that the trend in predicting the experimental drift ratios and correlation between the predicted
and actual values is satisfactory. The predictions slightly overestimate the actual values.
When Figures 17a, 17b, and 17c displaying the correlation of experimental versus pre-
dicted ultimate drift capacities of test specimens calculated by different methods are com-
pared, it is seen that the drift capacities obtained from plastic hinge analysis provides good
estimations of experimental results. This can be attributed to the fact that while Equation 4 is
derived on the basis of second-story displacements, the plastic hinge analyses method yields
the displacement at the top where the measurement is taken. Equation 4 is useful in evaluat-
ing the damage at the base stories of shear wall structures and in modeling the behavior of
shear wall elements between the stories. Besides, the accuracy of plastic hinge analyses
method can be increased by employing more accurate plastic hinge length values.
In order to evaluate the accuracy of predictive equations, an error measure defined as the
ratio of predicted drift ratios, ðDRu ÞPred , to experimental ones, ðDRu ÞExp , is calculated and
their mean and standard deviations for the experimental dataset is obtained for each of the
three procedures presented in Figure 17. The mean of ðDRu ÞPred ∕ðDRu ÞExp ratio for
Figures 17a, 17b, and 17c is calculated as 1.07, 1.15, and 1.04, respectively. The standard
deviation of the error measure for each plot in Figure 17 is calculated as 0.25, 0.25, and 0.28,
respectively. The mean and standard deviation of the error in Figure 16 is found to be 1.25
and 0.22, respectively.

CONCLUSION
In this study, deformation limits of adequately confined reinforced concrete structural
walls with rectangular section have been investigated analytically in terms of drift ratio, cur-
vature, and rotation. The effects on deformation measures of wall design parameters, such as
shear-span-to-wall-length ratio, web and boundary element reinforcement ratio, axial load
ratio, wall length and normalized shear stress were investigated. It was found that wall length
and boundary element reinforcement were the most significant parameters affecting the yield
deformation. Additional parameters such as axial load ratio, wall length, shear-span-to-wall-
length-ratio and horizontal web reinforcement were identified as the most effective para-
meters for ultimate deformation capacity. These parameters were used to propose damage
state based deformation limits in the form of equations. The proposed expressions are derived
from comprehensive analytical results based on reliable models and a large set of parameters.
Comparison of the proposed equations with experimental data has revealed that these
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1043

equations not only take into account the key parameters but also provide adequate predictions
for the yield and ultimate drift ratios. It is believed that this study improves the current state of
knowledge on the limit states of structural wall deformations. It has also been indicated that
the drift ratios computed with the proposed limits in terms of the curvature and rotation are
consistent when compared with the experimental results. So, the expressions proposed for
any of deformation measures employed here can be used to obtain the corresponding limits.
We have refrained from converting the regression equations that have been obtained in this
investigation to code-format propositions because they must then include appropriate safety
margins.
Experimental research drives much of what is contained in codes for the design and con-
struction of reinforced concrete structures. Ideally, no theory that is not supported by experi-
ment ideally enters the code requirements. Experimenters have known that it is a major
challenge to design and build laboratory specimens that emulate all features of prototype
structures in terms of their boundary conditions and characteristics. It is therefore useful
to design and conduct numerical experiments for reinforced concrete systems. If computa-
tional exercises achieve success in matching the limited measurements from the laboratory
then it becomes defensible that their indications for what has not been tested are reliable. An
outcome of this investigation has been that, even though experiments on reinforced concrete
members and components still constitute the main source in determining the deformation
limits of structural members, advanced and accurate analytical studies may provide further
insight to establish deformation limits by eliminating the limitations of test setups.

LIST OF SYMBOLS
bc For each of the orthogonal lateral directions, cross section dimension
of concrete core of column or wall end zone (distance between the centers
or outermost rebars)
fc Specified compressive strength of concrete
f ctd Design tensile strength of concrete
fy Yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement at the boundary region
f ywd Design yield strength of transverse reinforcement at the boundary region
db Diameter of the longitudinal rebar at the boundary region
he Effective wall height measured as the height over which the application
of point load creates the same base moment to that of a prescribed load
pattern
hs Story height taken as 3 m
s Unconfined length of the longitudinal reinforcement, spacing of transverse
reinforcement
tw Thickness of wall web
Ash Along the height corresponding to transverse reinforcement spacing s,
sum of projections of cross section areas of all legs of hoops and cross
ties of columns or wall end zones in the direction perpendicular to bc
considered
Aw Cross-sectional area of a structural wall
CL Coefficient that takes into account the effect of loading regime
CS Coefficient that takes into account the effect of wall cross-section shape,
1044 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

DR Drift ratio
EI w Flexural rigidity of the wall member
Hw Wall height
Lp Plastic hinge length
Lpz Region where the curvatures are greater than yield curvature
Lv Effective shear span length
Lw Wall length
My Yield moment strength at section at the bottom of cantilever wall
Po Nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity (f c Aw )
P∕f c ∕Aw Axial load ratio at the base
Vd Factored shear force calculated under simultaneous action of vertical loads
and seismic loads
Ve Shear force taken into account for the calculation of transverse reinforcement
of boundary column
V max Maximum shear force carried by the member or design shear force
Vr Shear strength of a cross section of wall
εc Concrete strain
εcu Ultimate concrete strain at the extreme compression fiber
εs Reinforcing steel tensile strain
εsu Ultimate strain capacity of the reinforcing steel (strain at rupture)
εy Yield strain of the reinforcing steel
ϕ Section curvature
ϕp Plastic component of the curvature
ϕy Curvature at yield
λ Factor taking into account the effect of strain hardening in the calculation of
moment capacity
θp Plastic hinge rotation
ρb Volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement at the boundary region
ρsh Ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section
½ðρsh Þmin ¼ 0.0025
ρsv Ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross section
ν Maximum shear stress in the direction under consideration

REFERENCES
Ali, A., and Wight, J. K., 1991. RC structural walls with staggered door openings, ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering 117, 1514–1531.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) 2002. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
and Commentary, ACI 318-02, Detroit, MI.
ANSYS, Inc. (ANSYS R11.0), 2007. ANSYS R11.0, Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc.,
Cannonsburg, PA
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O., 2003. Performance Models for Flexural Damage in Rein-
forced Concrete Columns, Report 2003/18, PEER Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O., 2005. Practical performance model for bar buckling, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering 131, 1060–1070.
DEFORMATION LIMITS FOR STRUCTURAL WALLS WITH CONFINED BOUNDARIES 1045

Carvajal, O., and Pollner, E., 1983. Muros de Concreto Reforzados con Armaduro Minima,
Boletin Technico, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Ingeniería, Ano 21
(72–73), Enero-Diciembre, 5–36 (in Spanish).
Dazio, A., Beyer, K., and Bachmann, H., 2009. Quasi-static cyclic tests and plastic hinge analysis
of RC structural walls, Engineering Structures 31, 1556–1571.
Derecho, A. T., Ghosh, S. K., Iqbal, M., Freskakis, G. N., and Fintel, M., 1978. Structural walls in
earthquake resistant buildings–Dynamic analyses of isolated structural walls–Development of
Design Procedure–Design Force Levels, Report to the National Science Foundation, RANN,
under Grant No. ENV74-14766, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL
Dhakal, R. P., and Maekawa, K., 2002. Modeling for postyield buckling of reinforcement, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering 128, 1139–1147.
Duffy, T. A., Farrar, C. R., and Goldman, A., 1994. Low-rise shear wall ultimate drift limits,
Earthquake Spectra 10, 655–674.
Elwood, K. J., Matamoros, A. B., Wallace, J. W., Lehman, D. E., Heintz, J. A., Mitchell, A. D.,
Moore, M. A., Valley, M. T., Lowes, L. N., Comartin, C. D., and Moehle, J. P., 2007. Update
to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions, Earthquake Spectra 23, 493–523.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356, Washington, D.C.
Ghosh, S. K., and Markevicius, V. P., 1991. Design of earthquake resistant shear walls to prevent
shear failure, Concrete Shear in Earthquake, in Proceedings, The International Workshop
on Concrete Shear in Earthquake, Houston, Elsevier Science Publishers, Inc., London-
New York.
Ghorbani-Renani, I., Velev, N., Tremblay, R., Palermo, D., Massicotte, B., and Léger, P., 2009.
Modeling and testing influence of scaling effects on inelastic response of shear walls, ACI
Structural Journal 106, 358–367.
Han, S. W., Oh, Y. H., and Lee, L. H., 2002. Seismic behavior of structural walls with specific
details, Magazine of Concrete Research 54, 333–345.
Kazaz, İ., Yakut, A., and Gülkan, P., 2006. Numerical simulation of dynamic shear wall tests: A
Benchmark Study, Computers and Structures 84, 549–562.
Kazaz, İ., 2010. Dynamic Characteristics and Performance Assessment of Reinforced Concrete
Structural Walls, Ph.D. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 379 pp.
Lefas, I. D., and Kotsovos, M. D., 1990. Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced
concrete walls under load reversals, ACI Structural Journal 87, 716–726.
Lefas, I. D., Kotsovos, M. D., and Ambrasseys, N. N., 1990. Behavior of RC structural walls:
strength, deformation characteristics and failure mechanism, ACI Structural Journal 87,
23–31.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R., 1988. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 114, 1804–1826.
Morgan, B. J., Hiraishi, H., and Corley, W. G., 1986. U.S.-Japan Quasi Static Test of Isolated
Wall Planar Reinforced Concrete Structure, PCA Report, Construction Technology Division,
Skokie, IL, 111 pp.
Oesterle, R. G., 1986. Inelastic Analysis for In-Plane Strength of Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls, PhD Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 332 pp.
Oesterle, R. G., Fiorato, A. E., Johal, L. S., Carpenter, J. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G.,
1976. Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - Tests of Isolated Walls, Report to National
Science Foundation, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 315 pp.
1046 İ. KAZAZ, P. GÜLKAN, AND A. YAKUT

Oesterle, R. G., Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., Fiorato, A. E., Russell, H. G., and Corley, W. G., 1979.
Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - Tests of Isolated Walls-Phase II, Report to National
Science Foundation, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 336 pp.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, Wiley, New York, 768 pp.
Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A. S., 1995. Cyclic Behavior of RC Cantilever Walls, PartI : Experi-
mental Results, ACI Structural Journal 92, 271–281
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J., 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design
of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Kowalsky, M. J., 1998. Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rec-
tangular cantilever structural walls, Bull. N. Z. Natl. Soc. Earthquake Eng. 31, 73–85.
Saatcioglu, M., and Razvi, S. R., 1992. Strength and ductility of confined concrete, ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering, 118, 1590–1607.
Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., and Krawinkler, H., 1997. Evaluation of Inelastic MDOF Effects for
Seismic Design, Report No. 120, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Shiu, K. N., Daniel, J. I., Aristizabal-Ochao, J. D., Fiorato, A. E, and Corley, W. G., 1981. Earth-
quake Resistant Structural Walls–Tests of Walls with and without Opening, Report to the
National Science Foundation, Constr. Tech. Lab., Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Thomsen, J. H., and Wallace, J. W., 1995. Displacement-based design of reinforced concrete
structural walls: an experimental investigation of walls with rectangular and T-shaped
cross-sections, CU/CEE-95/06, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson
University, Potsdam, N.Y.
Turkish Seismic Design Code for Buildings (TSC), 2007. Turkish Seismic Design Code for
Buildings, Ministry of Public Works and Resettlement, Ankara, Turkey.
Vallenas, M. V., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., 1979. Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Structural Walls, EERC Report 79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley.
Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1992. Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall
buildings, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 118, 1625–1644.
Wang, T. T., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., 1975. Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Framed Walls, EERC Report 75/23, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley.
(Received 24 March 2011; accepted 26 September 2011)

View publication stats