Bull Earthquake Eng

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0343-7

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Experimental seismic shear force amplification in scaled

RC cantilever shear walls with base irregularities

Francisco J. Jimenez1 • Leonardo M. Massone1

Received: 10 October 2017 / Accepted: 28 February 2018

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract RC structural slender walls under large seismic excitation are expected to reach
base moment capacity mainly affected by the first vibration mode. However, the base shear
could be affected by higher modes once yielding in flexure has occurred, which might
result in base shear underestimation in linear design. In this work, an experimental program
is carried out on five RC rectangular walls 1:10 scaled. All five specimens considered
irregularities at base, common in construction and one specimen did not consider shear
reinforcement or boundary detailing. Tests are carried on a unidirectional shaking table and
excitation is based on two Chile earthquake records with different intensities. Damage is
concentrated at the wall base for all specimens; primary due to flexure with some par-
ticipation of shear. For one of the records an average amplification of 1.3 is obtained, and a
decrease in height of the resultant equivalent lateral force closes to 0.4 hw. By increasing
the intensity of the input record, amplification grows to an average of 1.7, while it
decreases drastically when subjected to input records with low frequency content. No
significant difference is observed in shear amplification in specimens with a base central
opening, nor with setback, even though the cracking and failure mode was different for
such specimens. Ductility demand shows no correlation when two different earthquakes
are considered, whereas the frequency content and Arias intensity (Ia) of the input record
directly affected the shear amplification.

Keywords Seismic response  Shear wall  Base irregularities  Higher

modes shear amplification  Experimental test

& Leonardo M. Massone

lmassone@ing.uchile.cl
Francisco J. Jimenez
fjimenez@ing.uchile.cl
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Chile, Blanco Encalada 2002, Santiago, Chile

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

1 Introduction

On February 27, 2010 Chile was affected by an Mw 8.8 earthquake in the south-central
area. The damage observed in reinforced concrete (RC) structures was due to mainly base
moment and axial load, which resulted in concrete crushing and buckling of steel bars in
boundary elements of walls with poor detailing (Wallace et al. 2012). Although damage
was primary caused due to poor detailing, large axial loads and frequent irregularities also
affected the structural behaviour. A typical discontinuity in Chilean construction is the
result of the architectural requirements, where the lower floors (typically for parking) are
shorter in length than the upper floors (setback or flag-walls); and walls with openings,
primarily by gateways. The seismic event resulted in the modification of the reinforced
concrete design code, but the focus was on the flexural and axial damage, so that irreg-
ularities were not considered (Massone 2013). Furthermore, by providing a better detailing,
and therefore flexural ductility, the walls are more susceptible to brittle shear failure, if the
dynamic response is not well understood. Indeed, in the 22th February Christchurch
earthquake of 2011, some walls designed with modern code (post-1970s) were detailed for
flexural yielding, but failed in brittle shear compression (Kam et al. 2011). In the case of
flag-walls, there is little information in the literature about its general behaviour. Recent
work (Massone et al. 2017) has shown that the presence of such discontinuity affects the
damage distribution for slender cantilever walls given that plastic hinge tends to con-
centrate within the discontinuity region, which accelerates the damage process.
One of the phenomena associated with shear is the dynamic amplification. Shear
amplification takes place when base shear increases due to higher modes, especially when
the wall reaches the nonlinear range. This plasticization commonly develops at the wall
base, which is affected largely by the first mode, leaving higher modes nearly intact, and
increasing their participation after flexural yielding, causing a resultant equivalent lateral
force to be applied at a lower lever with a higher magnitude (base shear) since the
maximum base moment remains almost constant (see Fig. 1).
Shear amplification has been studied since the 1970s, when Blakeley et al. (1975)
proposed an amplification formulation for the New Zealand code (NZS 1982) that
increases the base shear with the number of floors. Derecho and Corley (1984) and others
(Keintzel 1984; Kabeyasawa and Ogata 1984) demonstrated that base shear increases with
ductility demand. Those mentioned author, as same as many researches, have reached
conclusions based on nonlinear time-history models using suites of records, whereas a
theoretical formulation was given by Eibl and Keinzel (1988), and Keintzel (1990), which

Fig. 1 Equivalent lateral forces and roof displacement in cantilever wall for the first two modes according
to a flexural model with lumped masses

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

have been extended and modified by Pennucci et al. (2010) and Fischinger et al. (2010), as
summarized by Rutemberg (2013). Besides, dynamic shear amplification has been
observed in experimental tests as well. Panagiotou and Restrepo (2007) observed a
moment base over-strength, defined as the ratio of maximum measured base moment and
the design base moment, of 2.71; while shear base over-strength factor observed was 4.20,
yielding in an increase of 1.5 times for shear. Also, Ghorbanirenani et al. (2012) recorded a
shear amplification factor of 2.2 in their test. Both test programs have been reproduced
numerically (Martinelli and Filippou 2009; Luu et al. 2011). Recently Isakovic et al.
(2016), in a parametric non-linear study of coupled walls with one row of openings,
conclude that in this case it is conservative to use expressions for cantilever walls.
Different shear amplification factors are used in design codes. Amplification in the New
Zealand code depends on the number of floors; while Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004) formulation
requires moment resistance, period, ductility and response spectrum shape. On the other
hand, it is absent in the ACI 318-14 (ACI 2014), Chilean code and other current codes.
In order to investigate the impact of dynamic shear amplification an experimental
program that consists of five RC walls specimens at 1:10 scale is performed. Testing takes
place in a unidirectional shake table, in the structural dynamic laboratory at the University
of Chile. Specimens are constructed as cantilever elements, with masses lumped at five
levels.

2 Experimental program

2.1 Prototype design and scale factors

The prototype wall corresponds to a wall designed according to Chilean code (MINVU
2011; INN 2012) and ACI 318-14 code. It is located according to Chilean code in seismic
zone 3 and soil type C, which corresponds to a PGA = 0.4 g and a soil with shear velocity
between 350 and 500 m/s. The thickness is 40 cm, and the length (lw) 1.5 m is defined for
a minimum length to cross-section ratio of 3, which is similar to analytical studies by Rejec
et al. (2012) that include wall sections of lw = 2 m and bw = 30 cm with satisfactory shear
amplification results. Total height (hw) is 21.5 m (hw/lw * 14) distributed in 8 levels, with
a 2.7 m story height (Fig. 2a). The total mass is 100 ton, which considers a tributary area of
12.5 m2 per floor (common values range between 10 and 25 m2) and a total gravitational
load of 1 ton/m2. Nominal compressive concrete strength is fc0 = 25 MPa, resulting in an
axial force of 0.07Agfc0 . Wall special boundary detailing consistent with ACI 318-14 were
fulfilled, providing enough transverse reinforcement at the boundary (Fig. 2b) as confining
length and reinforcement. Fundamental period, considering the uncracked section, is
1.12 s; higher than common 8-story buildings in Chile (Lagos et al. 2012), however
observable in other places. Incorporation of discontinuities considered: lengthening (set-
back) of 20% above the wall base—flag wall, which has been analytically studied by
Massone et al. (2017), a central opening at base with a short span of 10% of total length,
similar to the numerical research by Isakovic et al. (2016), and a central opening with a
span of 30% of total length.
The length scale factor used is k = 10 and the scale method used is the described by
Carvalho (1998) in which simultaneously fulfil the Froude and Cauchy laws for dynamic
analysis. On one hand, the Froude similitude is adequate for phenomena in which the
gravity forces are important. On the other hand, the Cauchy similitude is associated to

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 2 Prototype dimensions. a Elevation and b detailing

phenomena in which restoring forces are derived from stress–strain constitutive relation-
pffiffiffi
ships. Among other parameters to scale, there is a time scale kt = k = 3.16, while
acceleration, strain and stress are being equal to a factor of 1.

2.2 Design and properties of the test specimens

The relevant scale factor (10) requires careful selection of materials and dimensions for a
correct specimen characteristic scaling. One aspect is ductility, for which steel properties
need to be maintained (e.g., steel ratio, stress–strain curve), and are selected to closely
represent the prototype. In the case of concrete, the aggregate size is also relevant, and a
small size was selected. The selected concrete mix corresponds to a dry pre-mixed with a
nominal maximum aggregate size of 2.5 mm (prototype considers a 20 mm maximum
aggregate size). Water/cement (W/C) ratio of 0.26 is used, and a plasticizer is used in a
weight ratio of 0.78% to avoid concrete vibration. The average strength at the end of the
tests is 42 MPa (39.4–46.3 MPa). Longitudinal steel bars have a local steel classification
called A440-280H, which are bars of 6 mm diameter (not ribbed, but well anchored to
reach expected flexural strength) with a tested yield stress of fy = 387 MPa and initiation
of hardening at a strain 0.0043 and tested ultimate strength of fu = 556 MPa with a fracture
strain of 0.20. Steel for shear reinforcement bars and hoops is classified as AT56-50H with
a bar diameter of 4 mm, a tested yield stress of fy = 487 MPa and a tested ultimate strength
of fu = 685 MPa.
Final design of test walls (scaled) is presented in Fig. 3. All walls are 4 cm thick and
2.15 m high. Walls M1, M3, M4 and M5 are 15 cm long, while M2 is 15 cm at base (first
10 cm in height) and 18 cm long in the remaining height, i.e. 20% lengthened. The cross-

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 3 Wall and steel reinforcement detailing (dimensions in mm—section not to scale)

section aspect ratio is 0.27, which is considered a wall according to ACI 318 (2014). Wall
M3 has an opening at base of 10 cm in height and 1.5 cm in length (10% of total length),
and wall M4 has an opening of the same height and 4.5 cm in length (30% of total length).
Wall M5 is equal to wall M1, but without shear reinforcement and transversal boundary
reinforcement. All walls have two longitudinal bars at each boundary, that are bonded in
height and anchored within the foundation by a 90° hook extended 15 cm inside it. Also
two longitudinal debonded bars (greased and covered) are disposed at the inside side of the
boundary wall, which do not work in flexure, but help installing hoops for boundary
detailing (except with wall M5 which has only bonded bars at each end because hoops are
not provided). Transverse boundary reinforcement in walls M1, M2, M3 and M4 within the
first story corresponds to 4 mm diameter hoops spaced at 40 mm (* 6 times the longi-
tudinal bar diameter). The boundary detailing was placed mainly to prevent bar buckling
(Massone and Moroder 2009; Massone and López 2014), which combined with a low axial
load (Wallace et al. 2008), are enough to provide displacement capacity required to
observed the dynamic response in the nonlinear range. The same rebar diameter is used for
shear reinforcement spaced at 80 mm (* d/2). Due to scale limitations, a single layer of
horizontal distributed reinforcement was placed.

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Each wall has two holes placed horizontally and spaced at 10 cm throughout five levels,
where bars are placed to set metal plates that provide the required mass (inertial force) and
axial load. The foundation of each specimen is 20 cm height, 30 cm wide and 45 cm long,
these dimensions are considered to obtain minimum deformation and included 10
removable anchors attached to the base to prevent unwanted pedestal displacement or
lifting. Also, foundations are heavily reinforced to avoid unwanted cracking (/12 mm
spaced at 80 mm).
The design of the specimen tried to maintain most of the static and dynamic features
invariants for different specimens. Considering tested material properties, moment
capacity at the wall base is Mn = 3.48 kN m, base yield moment is My = 3.33 kN m and
base yield curvature is /y = 0.021 1/m, which are equal for all specimens under study.
Moment capacity is calculated according ACI318-14 code and is designed to be reached
while test is performed. Yield properties are calculated with a nonlinear fibre model,
defined with usual material properties (Kent and Park 1971; Mander et al. 1984). The shear
strength for walls M1 and M2 is 12.3 kN, for M3 and M4 is 10.4 kN, and for M5 is 6.1 kN
according to ACI318-14. The nominal fundamental and second mode periods are
T1 = 0.37 s and T2 = 0.06 s, for walls M1, M3, M4 and M5, whereas for wall M2 these are
T1 = 0.30 s and T2 = 0.05 s.

2.3 Construction, test set up and instrumentation

Concrete is placed in specimens entirely on the same day in two groups, first group
includes M2, M3 and M5; and the second group includes M1 and M4; making sure that the
composition and procedures are maintained. They were casted horizontally, because of the
difficulty of pouring concrete in a narrow element. Small size aggregate (maximum size
2.5 mm) and a plasticizer are used for the same reason. Prior to test, the specimens are
stored in a closed laboratory and cured for a few days. For the test setup, 50 steel plates are
disposed in order to add inertial and axial forces to the specimens during testing, resulting
in a total mass in each wall of 1017 kg, which is consistent with an axial compression of
0.07Agfc0 for nominal concrete strength (0.043Agfc0 for actual material properties for M1).
A steel structure supports laterally the walls (Fig. 4b), preventing out of plane movement.
Instrumentation includes six unidirectional 24-bits accelerometers EPISensor ES-U2
placed at each level (including the base) aligned to the movement of the shake table to
capture inertial forces, which has an excellent match in similar test (Ghorbanirenani et al.
2012) with the force measured by means of a load cell. Acceleration is measured with a
sampling rate of 200 Hz and filtered with a Butterworth filter (order 4). Also, two linear
variable differential transformers (LVDT) are installed vertically (over an average length
of about 100 mm and separated 150 mm), one at each edge of the wall to measure average
curvature at wall base. In addition, the test setup includes a vertical accelerometer at each
end of the foundation, and an accelerometer measuring foundation movement, in order to
capture any possible unwanted base displacement or lifting. An additional accelerometer
also measures out-of-plan acceleration on the fourth floor. Instrumentation is schematically
shown in Fig. 4a. An example of actual test setup for specimen M1 is shown in Fig. 4b.

2.4 Input ground acceleration

Two input ground motion records are considered. One is a synthetic record based on
Constitucion record from the 2010 Chile earthquake. For this record, time is scaled at
kt = 3.16 to be consistent with the considered scale laws (Carvalho 1998). This time

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 4 Test setup. a General view and instrumentation and b specimen M1

scaling results in a pronounced peak in acceleration spectrum (Sa) at T = 0.12 s, and

variation of natural period within different walls could result in different results. Thus, a
synthetic record is manipulated to smooth this behaviour following the method described
by Al Atik and Abrahamson (2010), preserving the nonstationary character of the ground
motion, in which the original time-history acceleration record and the desired acceleration
spectra corresponds to the input functions. Also, Llolleo record from the 1985 Chile
earthquake is used without any time scale (providing more energy to the first mode, which
would be consistent with a softer soil or stiffer structure), yielding an acceleration slightly
lower than the original record. Despite of this, small scatter within different runs was
obtained that resulted in good repeatability. Displacement spectra (Sd) and acceleration
spectra obtained from tests are shown in Fig. 5 (acceleration is scaled to compare input
with different PGA). The specimens are subjected to forcing actions, scaled in acceleration,
in the following sequence: synthetic constitucion (C) record scale to 10% (C010), 100%
(C100), 130% (C130), 150% (C150) and 200% (C200), and when possible to the Llolleo
record scaled to 100% (L100) and 150% (L150). The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and
R
p t 2
Arias intensity (Ia ¼ 2g 0 ag ðt Þdt, with ag input acceleration) for the entire input record
values for each record are presented in Table 1.
Constitucion record was originally measured in a subduction earthquake, and it is rich in
high frequency content as is observed both in acceleration spectra (Fig. 5a, red lines) in
which high values are concentrated between T = 0.1 and 0.3 s and Fourier Transform of
ground acceleration (Fig. 5c, red lines), where energy is concentrated between 3 and
10 Hz. In the case of Llolleo record, the original ground motion was also obtained in a
subduction earthquake, but as it was not time-scaled, the energy provided for frequencies
of 4 Hz or higher is limited (Fig. 5c, blue lines). Also, time scaling that results in length
scaling for Constitucion record, produced reduced displacement demand compare to
Llolleo displacement demand (Fig. 5b). The acceleration–spectra for different tests vary

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 5 Actual input record. a Acceleration spectra, b displacement spectra and c Fourier transform of
ground acceleration (*scaled in acceleration to compare with 100% scaled input acceleration)

respect to the mean values in about 5% or less for most of the cases. Some of these
differences are observable in Fig. 5a, b (envelop and average responses are shown) and
they are typically due to limited performance of the shake table.

3 Test response

3.1 Failure patterns

Figure 6 shows the final stage (after the latest record) of all specimens. Specimens M3 and
M4 failed (severe damage that made impossible applying further records) after applying
the L150 record, whereas specimen M5 failed with C200 that resulted in a brittle failure. In
the case of wall M1 all records were applied without collapse, whereas records for M2
were only applied up to L100 without collapse, but the test was stop given a potential risk

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 1 Main tests characteristics

Wall/test PGA (g) Ia (g s) Droof (mm) D1 (mm) Vb (kN) Mb (kN m) T1 (s) T2 (s)

M1
C010 0.06 0.0031 2.6 0.4 0.26 0.3 0.56 0.09
C100 0.65 0.57 55 11.7 3.73 3.34 0.87 0.12
C130 0.84 0.94 60 10.2 3.87 2.93 0.91 0.13
C150 0.98 1.25 63 11 4.21 3.24 0.94 0.14
C200 1.13 2.07 76 12.4 4.97 3.32 0.99 0.13
L100 0.48 0.65 129 56.8 2.6 3.75 1.14 0.14
L150 0.62 1.35 200 104.5 3.1 3.8 1.41 0.14
M2
C010 0.06 0.0022 1.9 0.6 0.24 0.29 0.46 0.07
C100 0.74 0.62 45 19.8 3.17 3.29 0.85 0.09
C130 0.94 0.99 62 25.9 3.96 2.77 0.99 0.1
C150 1.03 1.3 83 29.1 3.44 3.09 1.06 0.1
C200 1.24 2.18 115 64.9 5.04 3.15 1.34 0.1
L100 0.47 0.65 209 124.1 2.36 3.63 1.67 0.11
M3
C010 0.05 0.0017 2 0.3 0.23 0.24 0.5 0.09
C100 0.72 0.57 54 8.7 4.29 3.48 0.82 0.12
C130 0.87 0.96 62 11.2 4.85 3.33 0.87 0.12
C150 1.23 1.23 63 15.2 5.1 3.29 0.9 0.13
C200 1.26 2.13 72 15.4 5.36 3.37 0.95 0.13
L100 0.47 0.67 131 61.9 2.88 4.09 1.08 0.14
L150a 1.09 0.99 182 115.1 3.98 5.7 1.2 0.14
M4
C010 0.01 0.0001 0.8 0.5 0.07 0.08 0.48 0.08
C100 0.62 0.5 54 11.2 3.79 3.26 0.87 0.12
C130 0.83 0.85 55 11.5 3.53 2.84 0.93 0.13
C150 0.95 1.11 58 12.1 4.08 3.24 0.95 0.13
C200 1.1 1.84 73 15.5 5.16 3.59 1 0.14
L100 0.51 0.62 119 45 2.48 3.73 1.26 0.13
L150a 0.8 0.61 191 84.4 4 4.97 1.2 0.14
M5
C010 0.05 0.0016 1.7 0.2 0.21 0.19 0.54 0.08
C100 0.74 0.62 53 9.5 3.55 3.27 0.8 0.11
C130 0.93 1.04 60 10.7 4.3 3 0.88 0.12
C150 1.07 1.33 58 10.9 4.79 2.93 0.92 0.12
C200a 1.1 1.07 61 61.3 4.17 2.86 0.96 0.13
a
Specimen collapse
Droof, D1, Vb, Mb correspond to peak values

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 6 Final state of test specimens at the base (M5b: Picture just before collapse)

of collapse and the large roof displacement observed. M1 presented horizontal flexural
cracks; all of them of minor dimensions except for the one at the wall-foundation interface.
Wall M2 presents a similar behaviour as M1, except that the main crack changes to the
location at the upper part of the discontinuity region. Walls M3 and M4 presented a
horizontal crack at wall-foundation interface that resulted in flexural yielding, also both
developed a diagonal crack in the upper part of the opening and presented loss of concrete
cover at boundaries, near the wall base. For Wall M4, longitudinal rebar in the south
boundary slipped from concrete. Finally, wall M5 presented a brittle failure with a large
diagonal crack near the wall base.

3.2 Time-history (TH), peak and frequency–space response of selected walls

To provide details of the response observed in the specimens, a series of figures are
included that incorporate: (a) TH base shear, (b) TH base moment, (c) TH roof drift,
(d) TH spectrogram of base shear, (e) story acceleration at the time of maximum base
shear, moment and roof drift, and (f) spectral-ground acceleration measured with observed
experimental period. TH base shear and moment are obtained by means of inertial forces
derived from acceleration measurement at all levels that are provided with mass, while TH
roof drift from integrating measured acceleration. Spectrogram is calculated with a window
of 5 s, showing the period (T) in the vertical axis to compare with spectral acceleration
(darker colours indicate period prevalence). Profile accelerations for maximum values also
display two arrows that indicate resultant height of forces (Mb/Vb) for maximum base shear
and moment, and the influence of modes 1 and 2 for these peaks. Influence of each mode is
obtained by means of minimum squares of a combination with the linear–elastic mode
shapes. Spectral acceleration is generated with a linear elastic model with 5% damping.
Data from selected walls and records, such as base wall M1, set-back wall M2 and 30%

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 7 M1 C100 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M1C010
values)

Fig. 8 M1 C200 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M1C010
values)

central-base opening M4, with C100, C200 and L100 records are shown (Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15).
According to TH shear response, the peak base shear is observed at t & 10 s for walls
M1, M2 and M4 in test C100 and C200 (see Figs. 7a, 8a, 10a, 11a, 13a, 14a), and the
profile of acceleration at maximum Vb have similar shape, except for M2C100 (flag-wall,
Fig. 10e) in which the shape is in the opposite direction. In addition, walls have almost the

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 9 M1 L100 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M1C010
values)

Fig. 10 M2 C100 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M2C010
values)

same participation of the second mode of * 1.1 g/2 and * 2.1 g/2 for C100 and C200,
respectively (see Figs. 7e, 8e, 10e, 11e, 13e, 14e) at peak shear response. Peak value for
L100 tests is produced at t * 30 s (see Figs. 9a, 12a, 15a), with a modal participation in
acceleration profile of 0.29 g/1 ? 0.21 g/2 (mean value) for walls M1 and M2 (see
Figs. 9e, 12e), and 0.26 g/1 ? 0.30 g/2 in wall M4 (see Fig. 15e), where in all cases the
acceleration direction is the same. Base moment analysis shows similar values for walls

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 11 M2 C200 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M2C010
values)

Fig. 12 M2 L100 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M2C010
values)

M1, M2 and M4 in C100 test at almost the same time t * 7 s (see Figs. 7b, 10b, 13b), and
in addition, for walls M1 and M4 high base moment values are as well observed at
t * 21 s and the shape of acceleration profile are similar (see Figs. 7e, 13e), while wall
M2 neither presents this moment increase at t * 21 s nor the same profile pattern
(Fig. 10e). In C200 test, the maximum Mb is observed at t * 28 s in walls M1 and M4

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 13 M4 C100 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M4C010
values)

Fig. 14 M4 C200 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M4C010
values)

(see Figs. 8b, 14b), also low participation of mode 2 for both walls is reached (see Figs. 8e,
14e), whereas, for wall M2 base moment has an asymmetric behaviour and peak value is
reached at 8.7 s as is observed in Fig. 11b, with much higher participation of second mode
(see Fig. 11e). Finally, maximum Droof occurs at different times for walls M1, M2 and M4
in tests C100, C200 and L100, and high values are observed through the tests (see Figs. 7c,

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 15 M4 L100 response. TH (peaks values highlighted): a Vb, b Mb and c Droof; d Vb spectrogram,
e acceleration profile at time of peak values and f Sa with measured natural periods (dashed line for M4C010
values)

8c, 9c, 10c, 11c, 12c, 13c, 14c, 15c), without matching when the maximum moment Mb is
reached for most tests, except with M1C100, M1C200 and M4C200.
For modal analysis, a spectrogram and Sa with measured values are included. Periods of
darker colours in spectrograms, that indicates a prevalent response, are closely linked to
apparent measured period, as is appreciated when sub figures (d) and (f) for Figs. 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are compared. Also, the spectrogram response related to T1, in the
beginning of some of the tests, is located corresponding with T1 measured in C010 (i.e. in
the linear range), as is observable in the range from 5 to 7.5 s for C100 and from 10 to
12.5 s for L100 in the figures previously referred. This period change is associated with a
stiffness decrease, and is one of the main sources of shear amplification (other important
factors are over-strength and higher mode contribution by no-linear response) as there is a
large first mode shift, typically diminishing the acceleration spectrum value, while second
mode remains with little variation.

3.3 Fourier analysis: fundamental periods and energy

From the acceleration measures at each level, the apparent natural period during the test is
obtained. These periods are obtained by applying Fourier Transform to acceleration
response at each level. Also these frequency-space values are normalized by the Fourier
transform of the base acceleration to pick the apparent natural frequencies. The measures
are plotted for each test in Fig. 16a, b for modes 1 and 2, respectively. The elastic natural
periods in walls are T1 = 0.37 s and T2 = 0.06 s (T1 = 0.30 s, and T2 = 0.05 for wall M2)
according to the lineal model. However, for C010 that keeps the walls in the lineal range,
the periods observed are T1 = 0.53 ± 0.04 s (the ± indicates the maximum variation
between specimens) and T2 = 0.086 ± 0.003 s (0.46 and 0.071 for wall M2), resulting in
a * 40% higher value than the lineal model. In order to incorporate this stiffness decrease
in the lineal model, the effective flexural inertia is reduced homogeneously along the wall

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 16 Measured natural periods. a T1 and b T2 and energy in records for c mode 1 and d mode 2

height to reach the periods observed in C010. The stiffness keeps decreasing in the fol-
lowing runs as intensity (and ductility) increases, especially for wall M2 due to the
development of an important crack in the setback that impacts the wall stiffness. However,
the lineal model is analysed according to the experimental response obtained for C010
only. In this context, natural fundamental period measured in C100–C200 (except for wall
M2) increases to 0.93 ± 0.13 s, i.e. 82% more than in C010, but between the same ground
motions T2 increases only to 0.13 ± 0.01, which is an increase of * 50% (except for wall
M2). This difference is more obvious when wall M2 or Llolleo records are included, and it
is consistent to considering damage (or stiffness decrease) concentrated at wall base. As
can be seen, for setback wall M2 first mode stiffness decreases 17% more than the other
walls for L100 (see Fig. 16a) due to concentration of damage at wall base, while mode two
stiffness decreases 16% less for M2 for the same input because of the additional moment
resistance in height (3 cm more in length above the discontinuity with the same longitu-
dinal reinforcement).
Fourier transform also allows to measure energy by mode using Rayleigh’s theorem.
This theorem refers to energy that could be measured by integrating a time function y(t) or
the Fourier transform of this time function Y(f), that is, energy = $?? 2 ??
-?|y(t)| dt = $-?|Y(f)|
2

df. In this research, the input function (in the time–space) is the acceleration, and its
corresponding Fourier transform is integrated from 0 to 1.9 Hz to get the mode 1 energy
and from 5.0 to 12.6 Hz to get mode 2 energy (for tests C010 these values are 0–3.4 and
7.6–17.4 Hz, respectively). The ratio of energy in modes 1 and 2 to total energy are plotted
in Fig. 16c, d, respectively. These modes concentrate 83 ± 8% of the total energy (except
for test where the wall collapsed, reaching a minimum of 64%) and modal participation at

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Vmax is 87 ± 12% in tests. Besides, energy in mode 1 shows a constant decrease when
intensity increases for Constitucion record from 37 ± 7 to 14 ± 3% (test M5 with C200 is
not included because of collapse) of the total energy, but for Llolleo record, that is not rich
in high frequencies content, this value is much higher: 66 ± 2% for L100 and 55 ± 5% for
L150. On the other hand, the energy associated to mode 2 increases as intensity does for
constitucion record going from 51 ± 11 for C010 to 68 ± 2% for C200. Meanwhile, the
energy in Llolleo record related to mode 2 is only 14 ± 4% according to the nature of a
low frequency content signal. These experimental results are the first evidence of the
impact of higher modes in the structure, and therefore, of shear amplification. In addition,
modal energy is correlated to the intensity and frequency content of the earthquake,
although structural characteristics are not included at this point (e.g., irregularities).

3.4 Ductility demand

Maximum roof relative displacement (Droof) and peak relative displacement of the first
story (D1) for all tests are described in Table 1, and shown in Fig. 17a, b, respectively. For
C010 record, the roof displacement keeps under 2.6 mm = 0.0012 hw, while in the first
story its value is 0.6 mm = 0.0014 h1. For tests C100–C200 the peak roof displacement
increases moderately, which means that there is a small increase in ductility demand,
despite the larger increment of earthquake intensity. These values are
54 ± 1 mm = 0.025 ± 0.001 hw (45 mm = 0.021 hw for wall M2) for C100 and
67 ± 8 mm = 0.032 ± 0.004 hw (115 mm = 0.053 hw for wall M2) for C200. Also, when
focused on the first story, the peak response is 0.024 ± 0.004 h1 in C100 and
0.032 ± 0.04 h1 in C200, similar to roof value ratios, even though peak displacements are
not simultaneous in time. The similar magnitude indicates that most deformations con-
centrate within the first story (plastic hinge). On the other hand, L100 and L150 present
larger displacement demands whose values are 129 ± 6 mm = 0.058 ± 0.003 hw
(209 mm = 0.055 hw for M2) for L100 record and 191 ± 9 mm = 0.089 ± 0.004 hw for
L150. These measurements are consistent with the ductility demand that is shown in the
displacement spectrum (Fig. 5b). In addition, first floor displacement results for Llolleo
records are 53 ± 9 mm = 0.126 ± 0.020 h1 (124.1 mm = 0.292 h1 for M2) for L100 and
99.8 ± 15.4 mm = 0.234 ± 0.036 h1 for L150.

Fig. 17 Wall relative maximum lateral deformation—a roof displacement and b 1st story displacement

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

3.5 Flexural demand

The peak base moment for the applied records C100–C200 is maintained in a range of
3.17 ± 0.32 kN m (Fig. 18a), which is close to the moment capacity of Mn = 3.48 kN m
and yield moment of My = 3.33 kN m. This result indicates that a plastic hinge has been
formed, and this flexural limitation produces a Mb peak between 5 and 10 s for C100 (see
Figs. 7b, 10b, 13b) and between 25 and 30 s for C200 correlated to larger Droof (Figs. 8b,
c, 14b, c), except for M2C200, which is at 8.7 s, influenced by second mode participation
with high frequency content and large reduction of Sa (T1) (Fig. 11b, d, e, f). The larger
displacement (ductility) demand of L100 and L150 records results in an increase of the
base moment of about 15% in average (M3 with L150 and M4 with L150 are excluded),
which can be attributed to material (steel) hardening (Fig. 18a) and no main differences in
modal participation are observed between setback wall M2 and base wall M1 (Figs. 9e,
12e).
Higher modes have an important participation in the moment distribution over the
height in walls. In Fig. 18b the envelopes of the bending moment distribution grouped in
C100–C200 and L100–L150 records for all walls are plotted. For Llolleo records, which do
not have important high frequency content, the envelopes are similar among them and have
the typical pattern that is consistent with an equivalent horizontal force profile as an
inverted triangle with a smooth and regular decrease of moment in upper levels. In con-
trast, for Constitucion records, bending moment envelopes have an inflexion point in level
2 that produces an average bending moment in level 3 of 0.55 Mb (Mb being the base
moment) for all constitucion record envelopes, while this value is 0.30 Mb for Llolleo
records. This flexural amplification in height is considered in some design codes such as
Eurocode (CEN 2004) and Canadian Code (NRCC 2005), and according to the results do
not depend on base openings as is observed in Figs. 13e, 14e, 19e and 20e, where both
height of resultant forces (Mb/Vb) and modal participation for walls M1 and M4 (with a
central opening) are almost the same at maximum Mb, while influence of setbacks is
understood as a stiffness matter.
As is observed in the moment-roof displacement hysteresis of M1 for C200 test in
Fig. 19a, the bending moment is well correlated to top relative displacement. Such
behaviour means that the base moment demand is linked to mode 1 response. This happens
because acceleration in the upper part of the wall (top stories) controls the moment
resultant at wall base (larger moment arm) and larger accelerations are observed in upper

Fig. 18 Maximum moment—a base moment and b vertical moment distribution

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 19 Overall response of M1 for C200—a base moment versus roof displacement, and b base shear
versus roof displacement

Fig. 20 Maximum base shear—a peak shear value, and b average of 10 largest peaks

stories in the first mode. Moreover, wide loops in the hysteresis are explained by inelastic
behaviour. In the case of shear (Fig. 19b), there is no direct correlation to roof displace-
ment, since in this case acceleration in lower levels are relevant for base shear and are not
controlled by the first mode, but by higher modes.

3.6 Shear demand

Unlike maximum base moment, which is maintained near a fixed value (yielding), peak
base shear keeps growing for records C010–C200, whereas for records L100 and L150 it
decreases (see Fig. 20a). Maximum base shear for Constitucion record increases from
3.76 ± 0.56 in C100 to 5.17 ± 0.20 kN in C200 (M5 for C200 not considered because the
wall collapsed). All these peak shear values for constitucion have important scatter, which
could be related to the irregularities. To clarify this dispersion, it is considered both
maximum Vb (1 peak, Vb being the base shear) and the average of the largest 10 peak
values for base shear, in order to observe whether trends are maintained and are not just
isolated peak points. The results of the average of 10 peaks base shear are plotted in
Fig. 20b where values have less scatter and with similar values independent of irregu-
larities, proving that the sustained increment of base shear for records C010–C200 is
related to the dynamics of the problem.

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Maximum Vb is located between 8.8 and 11 s for constitucion record in all walls, i.e. in
the range with larger high frequencies influence as is observable in Figs. 7a, d, 8a, d, 10a,
d, 11a, d, 13a, d and 14a, d no matter the type of discontinuities. Flag-wall type (M2)
present slightly different results of base shear due to stiffness differences, since experi-
mental T2 is slightly lower (Fig. 16b) and Sa is sensitive to this parameter (see Fig. 5a), but
not because of higher mode participation as is explained later. Moreover, base shear
notably deceases for Llolleo records since the records are not rich in high frequency
contents according to both shear estimate criteria (1 and 10 peaks).
In tests where constitucion records were considered, base shear versus roof displace-
ment hysteresis present an erratic behaviour (see Fig. 19b for wall M1 for C200) as a result
of higher modes participation, which increases as intensity does. Furthermore, other
authors (Panagiotou and Restrepo 2007; Ghorbanirenani et al. 2012) have observed weak
or definitely no correlation between base shear and displacement when higher modes have
an important participation in shear response. Figure 19 explains this phenomenon: when
higher modes are participating, base shear could reach a peak value, while roof dis-
placement is underneath its peak (Fig. 19b), whereas for base moment, peak moment tends
to be correlated to peak roof value (Fig. 19a). Besides, when looking into the envelope
shear distribution over the height of wall M1 (Fig. 21a), there is an important increase of
shear in the lower levels for the records C100–C200, expected when a higher mode is
active, and is not observable for other records (Llolleo) where shear increases modestly,
and shear amplification is not highly expected due to the energy content. In this last case,
the shear distribution is more consistent with an equivalent horizontal force profile from an
inverted triangle as it has been seen before (Priestley 2003).
The location of the resultant of the equivalent horizontal force profile allows under-
standing the impact of higher modes. Thus, the base moment to base shear is determined and
normalized by the wall height in Fig. 21b when the peak base shear is being reached. In the
case of C010 it reaches 0.46 ± 0.06 of the total height (hw). For records C100–C200 there is
a progressive increase in the maximum base shear, which corresponds to a lower resultant
lateral force, starting at 0.38 ± 0.02 hw (0.31 hw for M2) and going as low as
0.18 ± 0.02 hw (0.12 hw for M4), with no important difference among walls with irregu-
larities even for setback wall M2 (that have a lower peak Vb). Also, influence of higher modes
at maximum Vb is almost the same (see Figs. 7e, 8e, 10e, 11e, 13e, 14e) despite of walls
differences. While for L100 record, height of resultant force reaches 0.61 ± 0.07 hw, similar

Fig. 21 Force distribution—a shear envelope distribution over the height for wall M1, and b force resultant
height versus base shear for all walls when reaching the maximum base shear

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

to consider an equivalent horizontal force profile as an inverted triangle. This result is due to
low influence of higher modes, and is not influenced by setbacks or central openings, even if
modal participation differs slightly among walls (Figs. 9e, 12e, 15e). Equivalent forces
applied at low height, as seen between C100 and C200 indicates involvement of higher
modes, since the base of the wall has reached its moment capacity amplifying the base shear.

3.7 Shear amplification results

In order to determine the shear amplification factors, a linear elastic model was considered
for the normalization, instead of using C010, because measurement and shake table control
errors are relatively larger for the low intensity runs. The lineal model (see Fig. 1) is a
flexural model with lumped masses distributed in five stories that considers only transla-
tional degrees of freedom and a fix condition at the wall base. In addition, the stiffness is
reduced according to the first two natural period values measure in C010 (where the walls
were kept in the elastic range) for each wall. The stiffness considered are 0.42, 0.38, 0.46,
0.55 and 0.43EIg (product of elastic modulus and gross inertia) for walls M1, M2, M3, M4
and M5, respectively. On the other hand, the dynamic amplification factor (xV) is defined
as the ratio between the experimental base shear to base moment ratio (VbEXP/MbEXP) to
the same ratio determined for the linear models (VbL/MbL), capturing the amplification due
VbEXP VbL
to flexural yielding, as xV ¼ M bEXP
= MbL . This definition is not dependent on a specific code,
but compares experimental and lineal results.
As was analysed previously, experimental maximum base moment is maintained in a
bounded range near yielding. Then xV is the ratio of shear over-strength and flexural over-
strength. Furthermore, this amplification factor could use any lineal model. In this case, it
is used an equivalent lateral force (ELF) model defined as the design response of the
fundamental mode of the structure with 100% of the mass, as early done by other authors
(Eibl and Keinzel 1988), and a modal spectral analysis (MSA) with the square-root-sum-
of-squares modal combination and a damping ratio of 5%, as many design codes use
nowadays. Both lineal analyses use actual input (particular measured record) for spectrum
and these amplification factors are identified as xV and xV*, for ELF or MSA, respectively.
Relevant differences are expected between both approaches, and are tabulated in Table 2.
In the case of normalization by MSA, the lineal model already includes the combination of
several modes in the linear range. Thus, the shear amplification indicates how the shear
increases when going from the lineal to the nonlinear range. In the case of normalization by
ELF, only the first mode is relevant, which implies that the shear amplification includes
two effects: (a) mode contribution or combination and (b) nonlinear response. Thus, ELF
normalization would result in larger values for the dynamic shear amplification, which
means that typical xV values yield more conservative results if MSA procedure is per-
formed for design as Rejec et al. (2012) reported.
The dynamic shear amplification reached in all tests is shown in Fig. 22. As was
expected since the specimens were maintained in the linear range, amplification for record
C010 is close to 1 (i.e. not amplified) in MSA, while a factor near to 1.5 was reached for
ELF due to the limited influence of higher modes in the model. Amplification gradually
increases from C100 to C200, presenting mean amplification of 1.30 in C100 and 1.69 in
C200, for results normalized by MSA. L100 and L150 present amplification with values
close to 1.10 and 1.28, respectively. In despite of ductility demand increment, shear
amplification decreases compared to constitucion record. This is explained because of
among the main factors that impact the shear magnification (over-strength, fundamental

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 2 Maximum base shear according to experimental response and linear analysis
Wall/test EXP ELFb MSAb

Vb (kN) Mb (kN m) Vb (kN) Mb (kN m) Vb (kN) Mb (kN m)

M1
C010 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3
C100 3.7 3.3 3.8 6.4 3.9 4.6
C130 3.9 2.9 5.0 8.3 5.6 6.1
C150 4.2 3.2 5.8 9.7 6.5 7.1
C200 5.0 3.3 7.8 13.0 8.3 9.4
L100 2.6 3.7 9.8 16.3 6.8 11.2
L150 3.1 3.8 13.8 23.0 9.6 15.8
M2
C010 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3
C100 3.2 3.3 3.9 6.3 3.7 4.7
C130 4.0 2.8 5.1 8.3 4.9 6.2
C150 3.4 3.1 5.9 9.7 5.7 7.2
C200 5.0 3.1 7.9 12.9 8.0 9.6
L100 2.4 3.6 10.4 16.9 7.8 12.4
M3
C010 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
C100 4.3 3.5 3.7 6.0 4.1 4.5
C130 4.9 3.3 4.9 8.1 5.4 6.0
C150 5.1 3.3 5.8 9.6 5.9 7.0
C200 5.4 3.4 7.7 12.7 8.3 9.3
L100 2.9 4.1 9.2 15.2 6.8 10.8
L150a 4.0 5.7 12.9 21.3 9.9 15.2
M4
C010 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
C100 3.8 3.3 3.6 6.0 3.8 4.4
C130 3.5 2.8 4.8 7.9 5.0 5.8
C150 4.1 3.2 5.6 9.2 6.0 6.8
C200 5.2 3.6 7.5 12.4 7.8 9.1
L100 2.5 3.7 9.5 15.7 6.9 11.2
L150a 4.0 5.0 12.3 20.4 9.1 14.5
M5
C010 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
C100 3.5 3.3 4.0 6.7 4.1 4.8
C130 4.3 3.0 5.3 8.9 5.1 6.3
C150 4.8 2.9 6.1 10.2 6.5 7.4
C200a 4.2 2.9 5.8 9.8 7.2 7.3
a
Specimen collapse
b
Linear model considers spectrum of particular test and stiffness according to C010 measures

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 22 Shear dynamic amplification—a based on ELF, and b MSA

period shift and influence of higher modes), only the over-strength is completely repre-
sented, but as is observable in Fig. 9f neither the fundamental period shift (which use to
diminish spectrum demand in acceleration) nor second mode participation (Fig. 9e) have
an important participation in the shear response.
In order to compare shear amplification factor for different parameters, Fig. 23a shows
the amplification versus the top displacement. Although there is correlation between those
variables for a specific record, they do not correlate for different records (Constitucion and
Llolleo records are grouped by a dotted line). Wall M2 presents a different behaviour due
to its different period. The differences between walls, however, are less relevant than the
impact of increasing the record intensity. In the other hand, a good correlation between the
amplification and Arias intensity (Ia) is observed in Fig. 23b.
For this study, the experimental shear amplification results are compared with the
proposals of two previous works: Blakeley et al. (1975), included in the New Zealand code
in 1982, and Eibl and Keinzel (1988), included in the European code in 1993. The values
obtained from these formulations can be compared directly with the experimental results,
since the amplification factor has no scale.
Blakeley et al. (1975) proposes,
xV ¼ 1:3 þ n=30  1:8 if n [ 6 ð1Þ
where n = 8 (number of stories), then xV = 1.57. In particular, this study compares the
results of the nonlinear model with the shear design from a static model, including the
effect of nonlinear response and modal combination.

Fig. 23 Dynamic shear amplification versus—a roof displacement and b Arias intensity

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 24 Comparison of dynamic 3.5

shear amplification Eibl and Keintzel
3 Blakeley et al.

ω v experiment
2.5
y = 0.74x
R² = 0.35
2

1.5

1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ω v model

In the case of Eibl and Keinzel (1988), their proposal expression is,
s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  
My 2 max Sad 2
xV ¼ Kc þ 0:1 K ð2Þ
KMI Sa ðT1 Þ

where K is the response modification factor, considered as K = MME,1/My with MME,1 the
moment for the first mode response of MSA with 100% of the translational mass, MI is the
design moment at the base (MI = MME,1/K for this case), My = 3.3 kN m is the yield
moment, T1 the fundamental period and max Sad the acceleration on the spectrum plateau,
which for this study is considered as max Sad = Sa(T2). The periods T1 and T2 are the
measured values obtained during C010 record of each wall. c = 1 according to the authors
recommendations.
Figure 24 shows the comparison between the observed dynamic shear amplification
(xv, based on ELF for consistency with the analytical expressions) in the tests and the
predictions by Blakeley et al. (1975) and Eibl and Keinzel (1988). The simplified for-
mulation offered by Blakeley et al. (1975) mainly includes the effect of higher modes
observed as modal combination observed in taller structures, avoiding some of the most
representative parameters such as over-strength and the contribution of higher modes in the
nonlinear response, yielding an unconservative prediction in several cases. On the other
hand, the proposal by Eibl and Keinzel (1988) provides a better correlation with the
experimental values predicting, by means of a simple formulation of the dynamic theory
that incorporates two characteristic modes, in average (linear trend) a conservative esti-
mation of shear dynamic amplification. Other current formulations, such as the one by
Priestley (2003) would provide similar results, but incorporates a larger number of modes.

4 Conclusions

A series of 5 1:10 scaled cantilever walls with different base irregularities were tested in a
shake table. The design and detailing of specimens followed common design practice as
ACI-318. As for the input, two signals were used, one based on constitucion 2010 record
scaled in time properly, and another record, Llolleo 1985 not scaled in time, both with a
good repeatability.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Final damage pattern for each wall was analysed, obtaining different failure modes in
each specimen. Base wall M1 developed horizontal cracks mainly at the wall base, flag-
wall type wall M2 accumulated damage in the upper part of the discontinuity as a hori-
zontal crack, walls M3 and M4, which have a central opening at the base, yielded in flexure
with an important horizontal crack at the wall-foundation interface, but also both devel-
oped a diagonal crack over the opening, and finally wall M5 that lacks of confinement and
shear reinforcement showed a brittle collapsed due to a large diagonal crack. In addition,
natural frequencies, modal energy, overturning moment, horizontal base shear, and relative
roof displacement were analysed, obtaining several evidences of higher modes participa-
tion, which resulted in base shear amplification, while base moment reached its capacity.
The dynamic amplification factor of shear was obtained by comparing two linear
models: Equivalent lateral forces (ELF) and modal spectral analysis (MSA). The first one
is useful for observation of mode combination and nonlinear effects, while the second one
only shows the nonlinear effect, which is more appropriate for comparison with current
code design. Mean amplification values for all walls according to MSA are * 1 (i.e. no
amplification) in C010 where walls behave elastic, 1.3 in C100 and 1.69 in C200, while
low amplification (* 1.1) was observed in Llolleo record that is not rich in high frequency
content. Results are consistent with a decrease of the height of the resultant equivalent
horizontal forces. Furthermore, these amplification values vary with the type of earthquake
(frequency content and intensity) and the ductility demand of the structure. The frequency
content and Arias intensity (Ia) of the record directly affect the amplification, but ductility
shows no direct correlation with amplification when looking into two different records.
Despite of different failure modes, no significant influence was observed in shear ampli-
fication. In the case of flag-wall type discontinuity, changing stiffness (or period) seems to
be more relevant regarding the shear amplification, which is captured by the linear model.
The experimental response is compared with two formulations from the literature used
in previous design codes: Blakeley et al. (1975) and Eibl and Keinzel (1988). The first one
achieves a poor representation of the experimental results and underestimates the results in
several cases, given that the expression is only related to the building height. Whereas, the
formulation by Eibl and Keinzel (1988), similar to other modern shear amplification
methods that include several of the parameters that affect the shear amplification, achieves
a reasonable correlation with the observed data.

Acknowledgements This study was financially supported by Chile’s National Commission on Scientific
and Technological Research (CONICYT) under the project Fondecyt 2013, Regular Research Funding
Competition under Grant No. 1130219. The contribution by prof. Fabián Rojas with the synthetic record
generation is also acknowledged.

References
ACI 318 (2014) Regulation requirements for structural concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills
Al Atik L, Abrahamson N (2010) An improved method for non-stationary spectral matching. Earthq Spectra
26(3):601–617
Blakeley R, Cooney R, Megget L (1975) Seismic hear loading at flexural capacity in cantilever wall
structures. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 8(4):278–290
Carvalho E (1998) Seismic testing of structures. In: 11th European conference on earthquake engineering,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 53–64
CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of concrete structures; part 1 general rules, and rules for buildings (EN-
1992-1-1), Brussels

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Derecho A, Corley W (1984) Design requirements for structural walls in multistory buildings. In: 8th world
conference on earthquake engineering, vol 5, San Francisco
Eibl J, Keinzel E (1988) Seismic shear forces in RC cantilever shear walls, vol 6. In: 9th World conference
on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto
Fischinger M, Rejec K, Isakovic T (2010) Shear magnification factors for RC structural walls in Eurocode 8.
In: 14th European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid
Ghorbanirenani I, Tremblay R, Léger P, Leclerc M (2012) Shake table testing of slender RC shear wall
subjected to eastern North America seismic ground motions. J Struct Eng 138(12):1515–1529
INN (2012) NCh433 Of.1996—seismic structures design. National Standards Institute, Chile (in Spanish)
Isakovic T, Eser N, Fischinger M (2016) Inelastic shear response of RC coupled structural walls. In: 2016
conference New Zealand Society for Earth Engineering (NZSEE)
Kabeyasawa T, Ogata K (1984) Ultimate-state design of RC wall-frame structures. Trans Jpn Concr Inst
6:629–636
Kam W, Pampanin S, Elwood K (2011) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the 22
February Christchurch (Lyttelton) Earthquake. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 44(4):239–278
Keintzel E (1984) Ductility requirements for shear wall structures in seismic areas. In: 8th world conference
on earthquake engineering, vol 5, San Francisco, CA
Keintzel E (1990) Seismic design shear forces in reinforced concrete cantilever shear wall structures. Eur J
Earthq Eng 3:7–16
Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. ASCE J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990
Lagos R, Kupfer M, Lindenberg J, Bonelli P, Saragoni R, Guendelman T, Massone L, Boroschek R, Yañez
F (2012) Seismic performance of high-rise concrete buildings in Chile. Int J High-Rise Build
1(3):181–194
Luu H, Ghorbanirenani I, Léger P, Tremblay R (2011) Structural dynamics of slender ductile reinforced
concrete shear walls. In: 8th international conference of structural dynamics, EURODYN 2011,
Leuven, Belgium, pp 355–362
Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1984) Seismic design of bridge piers. Research report no. 84-2.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Martinelli P, Filippou F (2009) Simulation of the shaking table test of a seven-story shear wall building.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(5):587–607
Massone LM (2013) Fundamental principles of the reinforced concrete design code changes in Chile
following the Mw 8.8 Earthquake In 2010. Eng Struct 56:1335–1345
Massone LM, López EE (2014) Modeling of reinforcement global buckling in RC elements. Eng Struct
59:484–494
Massone LM, Moroder D (2009) Buckling modeling of reinforcing bars with imperfections. Eng Struct
31(3):758–767
Massone LM, Rojas FR, Ahumada MG (2017) Analytical Study of the response of reinforced concrete walls
with discontinuities of flag-wall type. Struct Concr 18(6):962–973
MINVU (2011) DS 61—seismic structures design. Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Santiago
(in Spanish)
NRCC (2005) National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Canadian commission on building and fire
codes, 11 ed. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa
NZS (1982) NZS 3101: part 1, concrete structures standard; part 2, commentary on the design of concrete
structures. New Zealand Standards, Wellington
Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI (2007) Lessons learnt from the UCSD full-scale shake table testing on a 7-story
residential building. SEAOC Convention, Squaw Creek
Pennucci D, Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM (2010) Evaluation of higher mode effects in tall building response. In:
14th European conference earthquake engineering, Ohrid
Priestley M (2003) Does capacity design do the job? An examination of higher mode effects in cantilever
walls. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 36(4):276–292
Rejec K, Isakovic T, Fischinger M (2012) Seismic shear force magnification in RC cantilever structural
walls, designed according to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng 10:567–586
Rutemberg A (2013) Seismic shear forces on RC walls: review and bibliography. Bull Earthq Eng
11:1727–1751
Wallace JW, Elwood KJ, Massone LM (2008) Investigation of the axial load capacity for lightly reinforced
wall piers. J Struct Eng ASCE 134(9):1548–1557
Wallace JW, Massone LM, Bonelli P, Dragovich J, Lagos R, Lüders C, Moehle J (2012) Damage and
implications for seismic design of RC structural wall buildings. Earthq Spectra 28(S1):S281–S299

123