Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 42

A Displacement-Based Method of Analysis: Application to a Full-Scale 7-

Story Building Slice Tested at UC San Diego

Marios Panagiotou 1 M.ASCE, Jos I. Restrepo 2 M.ASCE

This paper describes a displacement-based method of analysis for regular buildings with
reinforced concrete bearing walls acting as the lateral force resisting system. This method is
specifically applied to a full-scale 7-story reinforced concrete building slice, built and tested
on the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Large Outdoor
High-Performance Shake Table at the University of California, San Diego. The 7-story
building was designed and tested to gain understanding on four issues relevant to optimizing
construction: (i) reduction in the longitudinal reinforcement; (ii) intended control of the
plastic hinge length; (iii) use of a single curtain of transverse reinforcement to transfer shear;
and (iv) use of resistance-welded reinforcement in the boundary elements of the first level of
the walls. The method of analysis considers two performance levels: Immediate Occupancy
and Life Safety, each anchored at a specific seismic hazard level. Capacity design is
implemented to ensure the intended performance at life safety. The method explicitly
accounts for the effects of system overstrength and higher modes of response. The paper
makes a comparison between design forces and required reinforcement amounts obtained
from the displacement-based method and those calculated using ASCE-7 2005. For the 7-
story building the method proposed results in: 57 percent less required longitudinal
reinforcement and 390 percent larger shear force demand at the base of the building than
those calculated using ASCE-7 2005.

CE Database Subject Headings: Displacement-based design; Capacity design; Load bearing

walls; Lateral forces; Reinforced concrete; Seismic design.

Reinforced concrete (RC) walls have excellent reputation at resisting earthquake-induced
lateral forces in low to medium rise buildings in high-seismic regions (Fintel 1997) and are a

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, USA
Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

preferred lateral force resisting system in many parts of the world. Since the advent of
ductile seismic design, the design of RC walls recognizes the inherent ductility in such
structural elements. Code derived lateral forces required for elastic response are divided by a
response modification coefficient that qualitatively recognizes the ductility capacity in these
walls. Recently a number of displacement-based (DB) methods of analysis have been
proposed by different researchers that determine design lateral forces for RC wall buildings.
Without relying on a response modification coefficient, many of these methods incorporate
principles of concrete mechanics and structural dynamics, which make them quite suitable for
performance-based seismic design. A discussion of the different methods can be found in Fib
(2003), Sullivan et al. (2003), and Englekirk (2007). These methods differ on the way they
determine the fundamental period of the building, use of elastic or inelastic design spectrum,
consideration of the higher modes of response and use of one or multiple performance levels
in the design. None of these approaches explicitly considers the significant interaction that
exists between walls and elements framing to them.

This paper describes a displacement-based method of analysis. The method is specifically

employed to determine the design lateral forces for a full-scale slice of a 7-story reinforced
concrete residential building tested under input ground motion excitation in the George E.
Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Large Outdoor High-Performance
Shake Table at the University of California, San Diego. Key results of the test program are
presented in an accompanying paper (Panagiotou et al. 2009).

Description of the Test Structure

The test structure represented a slice of a 7-story multistory residential load bearing wall
building prototype located in Los Angeles, California (Englekirk 2007). The building slice is
referred to as the building hereafter in this paper. Figure 1 shows an overall view of the
building and its main components; Fig. 2 presents the main dimensions and definition of level
number. The lateral force resistance in the building was provided by a 3.66 m long load
bearing reinforced concrete rectangular wall, referred to as the web wall. The web wall,
which was 0.20 m thick at the first and seventh levels and 0.15 m elsewhere, provided lateral
force resistance in the east-west direction and supported seven 0.20 m thick slabs spaced at
2.74 m. Two transverse walls built east and west of the web wall provided lateral and
torsional stability to the building. The precast segmental west wall was jointed using mortar
bed joints and then prestressed. This wall had a footing that allowed rocking in the east-west

direction. The east wall, referred to as the flange wall hereafter, was 4.87 m long, 0.20 m
thick at the first story and 0.15 m thick elsewhere. The web and the flange walls were cast
into a T-shaped footing that was tied down to the moving platen of the shake table. The
building height, measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the roof slab, was 19.2
m. The building total weight, excluding the foundation, was 2046 kN. Table 1 lists the
tributary seismic weights in the building.

The slab between the web and flange walls was 635 mm wide by 203 mm deep, and at the
east and west ends it had a 140 mm deep by 51 mm wide slots. With this geometry, the slab
acted like a near-pinned link, enabling the transfer of in-plane forces (shear, bending moment,
and axial force) and reduced out-of-plane bending moments and shear forces. A 635 mm
wide vertical gap between the web and the flange was left to avoid shear transfer between the
web and flange walls. The precast segmental wall was connected to each of the slabs with a
horizontal steel truss with proprietary low-friction ball bearing connections. The north and
south ends of the slabs were supported on four gravity columns consisting of 102 mm
diameter extra strong steel pipes filled with high-performance grout to bond a concentric
high-strength steel threaded bar that was used to form the columns end connections. The
gravity columns were pinned at the ends and were able to carry axial tension and
compression. Panagiotou et al. (2007a) presents a complete discussion of the reinforcing
details and construction of the building.

The walls and slabs were built using tunnel form construction. So, horizontal construction
joints in the wall were located at the top of the slabs and again at 102 mm above the top of
the slabs. Concrete with specified compressive strength of 27.6 MPa and ASTM A615 Grade
60 steel reinforcement were used throughout.

Seismic Design
Design lateral forces for the building were obtained using two different methods. Englekirk
(2007) discusses the first method. The second method presented below, addresses the
performance of the building at two seismic hazard levels for a site in Los Angeles:

(i) Immediate Occupancy (IO) corresponds to a seismic hazard level associated with
frequently occurring earthquakes, of low intensity, with 50% probability in exceedance in 50
years (return period 72 years). The displacement and acceleration design spectra for this

hazard level and for 5 percent viscous damping is shown in Fig. 3. Note that the
displacement spectrum is linear in the period range exceeding 0.48 sec., where the spectral
velocity is constant; this linear portion has a slope aIO = 0.06 m/sec The limit states selected
for the building performance at IO are such that no visual damage occurs in the prototype
building. This is translated into the following strains and interstory drift limits: (i) maximum
tensile strain of 1 percent in the wall longitudinal reinforcement; (ii) compressive strain of 0.4
percent in the concrete and (iii) interstory drift ratio of 1 percent. The interstory drift ratio
limit is set to control damage to non-structural elements (Lang and Restrepo 2006).

(ii) Life Safety (LS) corresponds to a seismic hazard level associated with the design basis
earthquake (DBE) (ASCE-7 2006). The displacement and acceleration design spectra for this
hazard level and for 5 percent viscous damping is shown in Fig. 3. The linear portion of the
displacement spectrum has a slope aLS = 0.21 m/sec. Extensive yielding and nonlinear
inelastic response is anticipated for the building walls responding to strong intensity
earthquakes; therefore, structural damage is accepted in critical regions in the building, in this
case at the base of the critical walls. Limit states associated with expected building
performance at LS are: (i) maximum tensile strain of 5 percent in the longitudinal
reinforcement; and (ii) maximum roof drift ratio of 3 percent. Note that in this procedure, the
concrete compressive strain is not considered a limiting strain for the design of walls.
Instead, this strain is calculated from the curvature demand required by the governing limit
state. Transverse reinforcement is provided in the potential plastic hinge regions of the walls
to ensure the compressive strain demand is met. Maximum tensile strain limit is set to avoid
fracture of the longitudinal reinforcement while the maximum roof drift ratio limit is used to
restrict large deformation (P-Delta) effects.

The displacement-based method of analysis makes the following four assumptions: (i) the
bending moment at the critical section at the base of the cantilever walls, where plastic hinges
will ultimately develop, is due to the first mode of response only; (ii) all walls are cracked
and no tension stiffening exists in the reinforced concrete walls; (iii) the walls are uncoupled
from other structural elements and act as Euler-Bernoulli cantilevers when resisting lateral
forces; and (iv) the lateral deformations in the building at IO are solely due to the first mode
of response. The second assumption results in a conservative design, particularly in regions
of low seismic hazard, where the likelihood of significant cracking caused by ground shaking
at IO is low. The fourth assumption limits the number of stories in a building where the

method proposed is suitable; as the number of floors increases, the participation of the higher
modes of response increases to the extent that their contribution to lateral displacements, and
more importantly, to interstory drifts become non-negligible. The design procedure is
performed in the following five steps:

Mechanism of Inelastic Deformation

The preferred mechanism of inelastic deformation in cantilever walls is through the
development of plastic hinges at their bases. Capacity design is used to ensure that this
mechanism develops and is maintained throughout. Other plastic mechanisms are
deliberately precluded from developing through the design strength hierarchy. This requires
adequate flexural strength above the potential plastic hinge regions, adequate shear strength
and development of the longitudinal reinforcement throughout the entire length of the wall.

First Mode Design Lateral Forces

The design bending moments at the base of the walls are determined using lateral forces
derived from the first mode of response. Using code-prescribed load combinations and
strength reduction factors, the longitudinal reinforcement in the walls at their bases is
established. Because of space limitations, we have not defined all the variables in the
equations that follow. The reader is referred to the notation at the end of this paper. For
cantilever wall buildings the shape of the first mode is approximately represented by the
following polynomial expression:

5 3 2
1 h 10 hi 20 hi
1,i = i - + (1)
11 hn 11 hn 11 hn

This mode shape is obtained from the deformed shape of a prismatic cantilever wall subjected
to distributed lateral forces whose magnitude are directly proportional to the height. The
mode shape allows the computation of the first mode modal weight, We ,1 , participation factor,

1 , and contribution factor, 1* ,

n n

Wi 1,i Wi 1,i
We,1 = ni=1 , 1 = n
and 1* = 1 1,n (2)
Wi (1,i ) ( )
2 2
Wi 1,i
i=1 i=1

Using the values of hi and Wi listed on Table 1, and making use of Eqs. 1 and 2,

We ,1 = 0.66 Wt and 1* =1.46 . The target roof displacements are calculated for the limit states

governing the IO and LS performance objectives, respectively. For IO, the two strain limits
states are met by conservatively assuming the roof displacement in the critical wall, the
longest in a regular building (Paulay and Restrepo 1998), does not exceed the yield roof
displacement, y ,r , that is IO ,r y ,r . This assumption has the advantage of not needing to

choose a value for the plastic hinge length. Note that for such moderate plastic strain values
the plastic hinge is spreading and has not necessarily reached its maximum value (Hines et al.
2004). The yield displacement for the prismatic cantilever examined to obtain the mode
shape is:

11 11 hn 2
= y ,r = y hn 2
y (3)
40 40 w
where y = is the idealized yield curvature as defined in Priestley et al. (2007). When
the yield displacement is reached and the buildings lateral displacement is compatible with
the first mode shape presented above, the maximum interstory drift ratio is:

15 y , r 3 hn
y ,r
= = y (4)
11 hn 8 w

The first definition given in Eq. 4 relates the interstory drift ratio to the roof drift ratio while
the second relates the interstory drift ratio and the geometrical aspect ratio of the critical wall.
Coefficient y = 0.0034 was calculated from a moment-curvature analysis of the web wall.

As pointed out by Priestley et al. (2007) coefficient y depends only on the cross section and

the yield strain of the longitudinal reinforcement. That is, the coefficient y is rather

independent from the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. With such value of y and checking

that y ,r is equal or less than the IO interstory drift limit state of 1 percent, the geometrical

aspect ratio of the web wall calculated by solving Eq. 4 is 7.8. The aspect ratio of the

web wall is = 5.25, which meets the IO design requirement. With the given web wall

geometry, the roof displacement estimated using Eq. 3 is y ,r = 94 mm.

The roof displacement LS ,r calculated for LS considers the elastic and plastic contributions

(see Fig. 4). This displacement is given by:

M LS 11 M LS hn p p
y , r + =
p ,r + ( , LS -1) 1- y hn (5a)
Mn 40 M n
w 2hn w

11 hn p
LS , r + ( , LS -1) y hn (5b)
40 w w

where the LS curvature ductility , LS = in the critical section of the wall is calculated

using the curvature LS corresponding to the governing LS limit state. In Eq. 5(a) the

bending moment ratio has a small influence in the value of LS ,r and can be assumed
equal to unity for all practical purposes. Also, ratio becomes negligible when

> 4. These simplifications lead to Eq. 5(b) shown above. The roof drift ratio at LS, is

LS ,r
calculated by dividing both sides of Eq. 5(a) or (b) by hn , that is, y ,r = .

The spread of plasticity in the web wall of the building is, theoretically, deliberately
precluded from extending a distance beyond 1.4 m from the wall base by special detailing of
the longitudinal reinforcement. The spread of plasticity in the wall is constrained for two
reasons: (i) to optimize construction; and, (ii) to reduce the uncertainty in estimating the
plastic hinge length. Constraining the plastic hinge length to within the base of the wall and
the first suspended slab brings is advantageous, allowing for special reinforcing detailing
only in the first level of the walls. Building on Hines et al. (2004) observation that there are
large variations between measured equivalent plastic hinge lengths in walls and those

estimated for using existing approaches, it is expected that for this type of plastic hinge, the
shape of plastic curvatures in the wall tends towards being rectangular rather than linear, as is
usually the case when plasticity spreads unconstrained. When the strain penetration of the
longitudinal reinforcement in the wall is considered, the plastic hinge length in the web wall
= =
is p 1.56 m 0.43 w . As it will be examined below and discussed in the companion paper

(Panagiotou et al. 2009), the amount of longitudinal reinforcement at the second level in the
web wall was below that needed to fully constrain the spreading of plasticity to within the
desired length.

In this building, the governing LS limit state was the roof drift ratio, which was set at y ,r = 3

percent. So, LS ,r = 567 mm, and from the simplified Eq. 5(b), for , LS = 18. This value

corresponds to a displacement ductility = LS ,r / y ,r equal to 6. The calculated moment-

curvature analyses of the critical section of the web wall for various ratios of longitudinal
reinforcement indicate that the tensile strain in the reinforcement at , LS = 18 is slightly

smaller than the LS strain limit of 5 percent.

The following step in the method requires converting of the limiting IO and LS roof
displacements into equivalent displacements, IO ,e and LS ,e , respectively, of linear single-

degree-of-freedom oscillators:

y,r LS,r
IO,e and =
LS,e (6)
1 1* C

The definition of IO ,e is taken from Chopra (2001). The definition for LS ,e is based on

empirical relationships relating the displacement responses of inelastic to elastic oscillators of

equal initial periods (Chopra 2001; Ruiz-Garcia and Miranda 2003). A specific study of the
360o component Sylmar ground motion obtained during the 1994 Northridge, California,
earthquake gives values of C between 0.7 and 1.2 in the period range of 1 to 2.2 sec for

= 6. This motion was used in the experimental program to represent the design basis
earthquake. The maximum value of C = 1.2 was adopted for the design. The relatively

small value of C for the specific ground motion is due to the fact that the predominant

periods of the distinct pulses contained in this motion are smaller than the period of the
building (Ruiz-Garcia and Miranda 2006; Panagiotou 2008). The equivalent displacements
6 are IO ,e 64
calculated from Eq.= = mm and LS ,e 323 mm. The maximum periods

TIO and TLS corresponding to the critical limit states at IO and LS, respectively, are computed
using the equivalent displacements and the slope of the linear portion of the displacement
spectra. This procedure is graphically explained in Fig. 3 and gives in
TIO = 1.06 sec. and TLS = 1.53 sec.

The smallest of the periods obtained indicates which performance level controls the design of
the building. In the design of the building, IO governs. In the final design, the fundamental
period of the building, calculated ignoring tension stiffening, must be such that
min (TIO , TLS ) . When TLS > TIO , the LS strain limit may be revised
T1 TD where TD =

iteratively until TLS TIO . This allows relaxation of the reinforcing detailing in the potential
plastic hinge regions. For example, when the longitudinal reinforcement LS tensile strain
limit is revised to 3 percent, then , LS = 10, LS ,r = 344 mm, LS ,e = 236 mm, and

TLS = 1.12 sec. Once the period TD is established, the first mode design base shear, Vb ,1 , is

calculated as follows:

y,r 2 We,1

Vb,1 = * (7)
1 TD g

For the building, Eq. 7 gives Vb ,1 = 292 kN . The design base shear coefficient, as defined by

ASCE-7 (2006) is Cs = 0.15. The first mode base shear is distributed in lateral forces F1,i in

proportion to Wi 1,i (Chopra 2001), (see Table 2). The design bending moment at the wall

base, M u , computed by taking moments of the lateral forces about the wall base, is

M u = 4243 kN-m. Note that the design of the building is rather simple. In buildings with
walls of different geometries, the design engineer needs to apportion the lateral forces
between the different walls. Paulay and Restrepo (1998) commented that current distribution
methods based on elastic properties of the gross section of a wall is a possible way to achieve
this, but it is not necessarily the most effective. They proposed other alternatives.

System Static Overstrength Lateral Forces
The system static overstrength lateral forces (SSOLF) are those lateral forces, greater than the
design lateral forces, required to push the critical building wall (with its actual boundary
conditions and longitudinal reinforcement specified at the critical sections) to the governing
LS limit state. This analysis used expected rather than specified material properties. In
practice, the SSOLF could be determined using an adaptive pushover analysis of a
representative mathematical model built in a nonlinear analysis software (Reinhorn 1997;
Satyarno et al. 1998). In the design of the building it is useful to estimate these forces as the
addition of two independent and additive mechanisms: (i) an element mechanism that
assesses the effects of flexural overstrength at the critical section of the wall; and (ii) a system
mechanism that assesses the effects caused by kinematics on the slabs framing onto the
laterally deformed wall. These two mechanisms are examined below.

Element Mechanism
Excess in the flexural strength in the plastic hinge of a cantilever wall is caused by excess
longitudinal reinforcement, expected rather than specified material properties, hardening in
the longitudinal reinforcement and larger axial compression in the wall. When these factors
are considered, the flexural capacity at the critical section at LS is such that M LS > M u , the

M LS, j
flexural overstrength factor is defined as
= . To attain the LS limit state on the
LS, j Mu

bare cantilever wall, the first mode lateral forces must be increased to LS, j F1,i , see Fig. 5.

Factor LS, j may be computed from moment-curvature analyses of the critical section of the

wall, as detailed, for each load combination, j. These analyses are performed using expected
material properties. Because of the relatively low axial compression force levels that nearly
all building cantilever walls experience, demands for combined flexure-axial load design
most often governed by the flexural overstrength factor found for the load combination
resulting in the minimum axial force in the wall. For the revised LS tensile strain limit of 3
percent, the flexural overstrength factor for the single load combination is LS =

System Mechanism
In 1985, Bertero et al. examined comprehensively the increase in lateral resistance caused by
deformation compatibility between walls and gravity load elements framing into them. This
interaction causes large increase in the shear force demand in walls as well as an increase in

the system moment capacity. Because such forces arise from deformation compatibility, this
source of additional strength is referred to here as kinematic overstrength. The initial design
of the building ignored this mechanism completely, however, since this mechanism had a
large effect on the buildings response (Panagiotou et al. 2009), it was included as part of the
design in this paper.

Figure 6 depicts a two-dimensional deformed state sketch of the building at its peak westward
displacement. The migration of the neutral axis depth towards the extreme compressive fiber
and corresponding development of large strains in the tensile reinforcement in the plastic
hinge region of the wall causes significant elongation of the tension chord of the wall. For
example, for the revised LS tensile strain limit of 3 percent in the extreme longitudinal bar in
tension, the expected tensile chord elongation at the first level of the web wall is 47 mm. The
accumulated elongation in levels 2 to 7 is expected to only slightly increase above 47 mm
because of anticipated elastic response of the web in these levels. Although ignored in the
initial design of the building, this elongation is sufficiently large enough to mobilize a local
mechanism in the slotted slab. The wall tensile chord lengthening causes slab end rotations
of at least 0.077 radians. At such a large rotation, the slab develops its small flexural capacity
at the slotted ends over the entire 4.88 m length of the slots at each floor. Plastic analysis of
the local mechanism gives a shear force QK = 131 kN and a shear span a = 379 mm, see Fig.

6. Here, eighty percent of the slab shear force QK flows toward the wall and are resisted at

the base by a compressive force acting at an eccentricity e from the walls centerline. The
remaining twenty percent is carried by the gravity columns. The additional web wall base
compressive force adds to the force needed for equilibrium in the flexural overstrength
mechanism. Initially it seems counterintuitive that there is no tensile force resisting moment
at the base of the wall. This is because the tensile force in the reinforcement has already been
considered in its entirety to resist bending in the flexural overstrength mechanism and these
two mechanisms are considered independent and additive. Furthermore, for compatibility,
the eccentricity between the compressive forces in the critical section in the two mechanisms
must be the same, requiring an iterative process; therefore, the superimposition of the two
mechanisms should be considered as a first order approximation.

Swaying of the wall also induces combined three-dimensional bending in the slabs. This is
because the gravity columns that are located at the slab north and south edges restrain the slab

from rotating, thus enabling the development of a moment M w at each level (see Fig. 6). A

nonlinear finite element analysis of the slab gave a moment capacity of M w = 204 kN-m, this
moment is resisted by a tension-compression pair by the gravity columns.

In the undeformed state, the lateral forces FK,W,i needed to form the mechanism shown in Fig.

6 are given by:

FK,W, i =
M w + Qk e + a +
2 ) (8)

Eq. 8 ignores the additional, but small, lateral forces carried by the flange wall.

These lateral forces take the form of a harmonic series, with the force in the lowest level
being the greatest. In multistory buildings the height of these resultant lateral forces is
generally low. In the case of the building, it is located at 39 percent of the roof height. Table
2 lists forces FK,W,i calculated for the building displaced westward. Compared with the first

mode lateral forces F1,i (see Table 2), the forces FK,W,i are not negligible. In fact, it is quite

remarkable that despite the sum of slab moments on all seven levels is

2 )
7 M w + Qk a + w = 0.73 M u , the base shear ratio is Vk ,W Vb ,1 = 2.07. Such a large

ratio suggests that kinematic effects induced by slabs and/or gravity load beams framing into
cantilever walls should be considered in design, even if only in an approximated way or
accounted for with a pushover analysis.

Kinematic effects caused by the swaying of the building eastward can be used to estimate in a
similar way in the westward direction examined above. The lateral forces FK,E,i required to

develop the eastward mechanism are listed in Table 2. The lateral forces in this direction are
smaller than those determined for the westward direction, yet they sum up to a base shear that
is comparable to that calculated for the first mode. This is because the base moment caused
by the reacting vertical force (tension) in the wall has the same sign of the slab moments,
while the opposite occurs in the westward direction.

Higher Mode Effects
Higher modes are well known for having a significant effect on the response of structural
walls (Blakeley et al. 1975; Derecho et al. 1981; Paulay and Priestley 1992; Rutemberg
2006; Panagiotou and Restrepo 2008). Many codes New Zealand Standards (NZS 4203),
Canada (CSA 2005), EuroCode 8 (CEN 2004) or design guidelines (SEAOC 1999)
incorporate procedures to account for the effects of higher modes in design. Typically, these
procedures multiply the design lateral forces by a dynamic magnification factor greater than

In the design of the building a different approach is implemented to consider the higher
modes of response. Parametric analyses performed by Panagiotou (2008) suggest that in
most wall buildings, including regular tall buildings, the effects of the higher modes of
response are largely dominated by the second translational mode. For the design of the
building, the second mode is approximated by the following cubic polynomial:

3 2
h h h
2,i = 2.4 i 8.6 i + 5.2 i (9)
hn hn hn

The second mode modal weight, We ,2 , participation factor, 2 , and contribution factor, 2 ,

are calculated using the generalized form of Eq. 2. For the building, We ,2 = 0.17 Wt , and

*2 =0.62. Because the first-mode period and the structural system type are known, the second
mode period can be approximated. For prismatic Euler-Bernoulli cantilever beams of
uniform distributed mass, the second mode is T2 = . The DBE spectral acceleration,
corresponding to T2 is available from the design spectra. Thus, the second-mode base shear

Vb ,2 = We ,2 (10)

For most medium-rise buildings, there is no gain by computing T2 accurately. This is

because T2 most often falls in the region of constant spectral acceleration. Assuming this for

the building, S a = 1.81g , see Fig. 3, and Vb ,2 = 615 kN, which is equal to 2.1Vb ,1 . The second

mode base shear is distributed in lateral forces F2,i in proportion to Wi 2,i , listed in Table 2.

Note that no base shear force reduction is made in Eq. 10 for the inelastic response of the
wall. It is assumed that the second mode of response of the building is not significantly
affected by nonlinear response at the base of the wall (Rodriguez et al. 2001, Panagiotou

Design Envelopes

At every story level, system overturning, shear forces and axial forces are computed from the
two mechanisms evaluated before and from the second mode, and then combined using the
square root sum of the squares (SRSS) rule to obtain design actions as follows:

U i = (1.0U D ,i + 1.0U Lr ,i ) 1.0 ( U1,i + U K ,i ) + (U 2,i )

2 2
LS (11)

For the web wall bending moment, Eq. 11 is used where i = 2 to 7. This is because at the base
of the web wall the design moment is established previously and the values shown in Fig.
7(a) include flexural overstrength. Note that in Eq. 11, the forces of the element and system
mechanisms are added before squaring them because they develop concurrently. Note also
that because of the experimental nature of the building , load factors in Eq. 11 are all set
equal to unity.

System and Web Wall Overturning Bending Moment Envelopes

Figure 7(a) plots the system overturning moment and the web wall bending moment
envelopes for the eastward and westward response. The system overturning moment demand
varies approximately linearly with height as a result of the combined first and second modes.
This figure shows asymmetry among the east and westward system overturning moment
envelopes which is caused by the slotted slabs and flange wall that act together as an
outrigger system. The system overturning moment is partially resisted by the wall in
bending, while the remainder is resisted by a tension-compression couple in the web wall-

outrigger system. The base web walls share of the system overturning moment is 70 and 60
percent in the west and east directions, respectively.

System Shear Force Envelopes

Figure 7(b) plots the system shear force design envelopes obtained for the eastward and
westward demands. Shear forces are significantly influenced by the second mode and
kinematic effects, particularly in the lower levels of the building. The maximum base shear
force of 1.2 MN is 4.1Vb ,1 and equivalent to a base shear coefficient of Cs = 0.59. The

asymmetry among the east and westward shear force envelopes is chiefly due to the
kinematic effects discussed earlier.

Web Wall Axial Force Envelopes

The axial forces in the web wall are plotted in Fig. 7(c). Under gravity loading only, the web
wall experiences a compressive axial force of 809 kN at the base. The outrigging action of
the slab causes axial force changes in the web wall raising it to N u = 1534 kN = 0.06 Ag f c'

during westward response and reducing it to only N u = 75 kN = 0.003 Ag f c' during eastward


Web Wall Design

Potential Plastic Hinge Region

As was discussed previously, the reinforcement in the web wall is determined from the single
load combination presented in Eq. 11, using U Lr = 0, using strength reduction factors for
bending and shear equal to one. For practical applications, the load combination with the
lowest axial force would govern the design for combined bending and axial force; strength
reduction factors would be those recommended by a design code and would less than one.

The longitudinal reinforcement in the potential plastic hinge region of the web wall is
calculated from the first mode base moment M u = 4243 kN-m and the gravity load axial force

Nu = 809 kN. With specified material properties f y = 414 MPa and f c' = 30 MPa, the

required longitudinal reinforcement ratio for the ( M u , N u ) pair is l = 0.59%. Figures 8 and

9 show relevant reinforcing details for the web wall. The longitudinal reinforcement in this

region of the web wall consisted of eight #5 bars in the boundary elements. In between
boundary elements, thirteen #4 longitudinal bars were detailed in a single curtain (see Fig. 8).
The reinforcement ratio in the first level of the web wall was l = 0.66%.

Moment-curvature analyses were performed on the section of the wall using the expected
wall section axial forces considering the kinematical effects, allowing for the calculation of
the expected east and westward neutral axis depths. Figure 10 shows the strain profiles
obtained from the moment-curvature analyses for the LS tensile strain limits. The boundary
elements extend from the edge of the wall towards the wall centerline a length beyond where
the longitudinal bars will experience tensile and compressive strain cycles.

The transverse reinforcement in the boundary elements consisted of #3 weld-resistance grids

spaced at sh = 102 mm. Distance sh provided adequate lateral stability to the longitudinal #5

bars ( = 6.4 ) for the expected plastic strain range of about 3.5 percent. The critical strain
for the confinement of the concrete core in the boundary elements was due to a second phase
of the test program when the system resisted lateral forces with a monolithic T-wall and the
flange of this wall was in tension (see Fig. 10 where the maximum expected concrete
compressive strain occurs in Phase II and is only c = 0.5% ). At this compressive strain
level, only minimum confinement of the concrete core is needed.

In the design for shear, the entire shear force of Vu = 1.2 MN was allocated entirely to the web
wall, thus ignoring the small participation of the flange wall. Even with this shear force
demand, ACI 318-05 (ACI 2005) requires minimum shear reinforcement. Just above
minimum shear reinforcement is required for the second phase of the experimental program.
A single reinforcement curtain #4 bars at 203 mm on centers is prescribed for the potential
plastic hinge region of the web wall [see Figs. 8(a) and 9]. This results in a transverse
reinforcement ratio t = 0.31%.

Other Regions
The previous section described the design of the plastic hinge region in the web wall.
Capacity design was used to design this region for shear. This required assessing the probable
shear force demand and included (i) increased shear due to flexural overstrength; (ii)

increased shear caused by kinematical effects; and (iii) increased shear due to the second
mode. The same procedure is used in this section for the design of the web walls
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement above the plastic hinge region.

The design of the longitudinal reinforcement above the plastic hinge region must consider the
axial-flexure-shear interaction. Codes generally consider the effect of diagonal cracking
caused by shear indirectly, through their prescriptions for the development of the flexural
reinforcement. The design of the longitudinal reinforcement in the web wall was carried out
using the fictitious bending moment approach proposed by Presland et al. (2001). This
approach recognizes explicitly that in a section of a diagonally cracked beam-column
element, the presence of shear increases the tensile force demand in the section, while it
ignores the reduction in the compressive force demand. Using the Mrsch parallel angle
truss analogy (Mrsch 1909, Collins and Mitchell 1991), the additional tensile force needed
for equilibrium in the section is T =u . A similar additional tensile force demand
( 2 tan v )
is obtained from flexure theory if the bending moment demand in the section is fictitiously
increased from M u to M v where

M v = M u + T jd
= Mu + jd (12)
2 tan v

Values of M v are calculated for the web wall assuming jd = 0.8 w . Because minimum shear

reinforcement is required for the first phase of testing, it is assumed that v = 35 degrees in

Eq. 12. Values of M u and M v are plotted in Fig. 11 for levels 2 to 7 and for the east and

westward directions. The values of M v computed for the east and westwards directions are

paired with the corresponding axial forces N u to calculate the required longitudinal
reinforcement ratios in these levels. The longitudinal reinforcement ratios required and
provided are listed in Table 3, showing that the reinforcement ratios provided in levels 2 to 4
of the web wall are smaller than those required by the proposed analysis. This is because at
the time the building was designed, kinematical effects caused by the framing slabs onto the
web wall were ignored and the demands, when including these effects, are more stringent.

The expected moment strengths M E determined for the web wall for levels 2 to 7 for the east
and westward directions are shown in Fig. 11. Expected moment strengths are determined
using the ACI 318-05 (ACI 2005) simplified flexure method, using the longitudinal
reinforcement provided, the corresponding axial force pair and expected material properties
of f y = 456 MPa and f c' = 35 MPa. The extent of the flexural strength deficiency in the web

wall becomes evident when the expected moment strengths M E are compared with the

moments M v in this figure. When M v M E , yielding of the wall is likely to occur. The
flexural strength deficit is pronounced when the wall is deflected eastwards, as yielding of the
wall is likely throughout levels 2 and 3, and at the base of level 4. In the westward direction,
yielding of the web wall is likely to spread through the bottom half of level 2 and at the base
of level 3. Because of the final detailing of the longitudinal reinforcement in the web wall,
yielding of the wall is no longer expected only at the base of the wall, as initially intended.

Figure 8(b) shows the longitudinal reinforcement arrangement of level two. All longitudinal
bars start in a single curtain, 104 mm above the first floor slab. These bars were spliced with
bars fully anchored in the upper half of level 1 (see Fig. 9). To enhance the splicing of the
longitudinal reinforcement at the ends of the web wall, U-shape #3 reinforcement was used in
the lower half of levels two throughout six.

Shear force demand in level two also led to minimum reinforcement. The transverse
reinforcement was also controlled by the second phase demands. A single reinforcement
curtain #4 bars at 203 mm on centers was provided at levels two through six [see Figs. 8(b)
and 9], resulting in a transverse reinforcement ratio t = 0.41%. The detailing of the
reinforcement at level 7 was identical to that at level 1; at some point in the test program, it
was envisaged that the wall would be coupled at the top by a stiff beam that would force a
plastic hinge there.

Comparison with ASCE-7

This section compares design quantities obtained from the displacement-based method of
analysis presented in this paper with those calculated from the equivalent lateral force
procedure (ELFP) of ASCE-7 (2006). We note that such comparison is difficult, because the
displacement-based design method used C factors that were explicitly derived for the

specific design basis ground motion and this cannot be done with the ASCE-7 method. The
fundamental period for the building given by Eq. 12.8-7 of ASCE-7 is T1 = 0.45 sec. The
upper limit of the fundamental period based allowed under clause 12.8.2 of ASCE-7 is
T1 = 0.63 sec. For the longest period, the design base shear coefficient obtained from the
spectrum of the design earthquake (Design basis earthquake response spectrum) and for a
response modification coefficient R = 5 , is Cs = 0.28. The ASCE-7 base shear coefficient is

190 percent greater than the base shear coefficient of Cs = 0.15 derived using the method of
analysis presented in the paper, which is due to: (i) the interpretation of what is the
fundamental period of the building; (ii) the difference between the use of a response
modification coefficient R, independent of the period of the building, and the inelastic
displacement ratio C explicitly derived for the specific ground motion; and (iii) the use of the
total seismic weight of the building by the ELFP. For Cs = 0.28, and for, the ASCE-7
distribution of lateral forces, the design base moment is equal to Mu = 7463 kN-m. This value
is 176 percent greater than the value Mu = 4243 kN-m estimated from the displacement-based
method. Such a large difference in moment is also reflected in the foundation design
moments. In terms of longitudinal reinforcement ratios, the amount required at the base of
the web wall by ASCE-7 is l = 1.36%, for the single load combination (Eq. 11). This
reinforcement ratio is 230 percent greater than that required by the method presented in this
paper. This amount of longitudinal reinforcement will be carried through the second level,
leading to l = 1.82% and then decreased in the upper levels. The design base shear force
based on the ASCE-7 ELFP is equal to Vu = 307 kN, a value 3.9 times smaller than the value
Vu = 1197 kN obtained with the displacement-based method. This very large difference is due
to the fact that the ASCE-7 ELFP does not consider the effect of system overstrentgh as well
as the effect of higher modes to estimate shear force demand. In the particular case of the
building, the large differences in the evaluation of design shear forces had no impact on the
final design.

This paper described an analytical displacement-based method of analysis for determining
seismic design forces in regular buildings with bearing walls acting as the lateral load
resisting system. The method is specifically applied to the full-scale 7-story reinforced
concrete building built and tested on the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake

Engineering Simulation Large Outdoor High-Performance Shake Table of the University of
California, San Diego. The method relies on capacity design to ensure the intended seismic
performance and explicitly accounts for the effects of system overstrength and higher modes
of response. The following conclusions are drawn:
1. Displacement-based design methods aimed at specific performance objectives, are
important tools for performance-based design. They can be combined with capacity
design procedures to effectively estimate and control the inelastic system response.
2. The kinematic interaction between the web wall, flange wall, and the slab, defined as
kinematic system overstrength, is calculated explicitly in the proposed method.
Initially neglected, it is demonstrated that kinematic interaction have a significant
effect on the design of the wall in the building.
3. The effect of higher modes of response is assessed explicitly by the proposed analysis
method. Higher modes are shown to increase the shear force demand in the wall.
4. This method resulted in requiring 57 percent less longitudinal reinforcement at the
base of the building in comparison with the ELFP of ASCE-7. This was primarily due
to (i) the different way the two methods estimated the design fundamental period of
the building; (ii) the difference between the use of a response modification coefficient
R, independent of the period of the building and the inelastic displacement ratio C;
and (iii) the use of the total seismic weight of the building by the ELFP.
5. This method of analysis resulted in 390 percent greater shear force demand at the base
of the wall in comparison with the ELFP of ASCE-7. This was due to the fact that the
ELFP does not account for the effects of kinematic system overstrength and higher
modes of response. In this particular case, such large difference in the shear force
demand had no effect in the final design.

The authors sincerely thank the Englekirk Board of Advisors, a University of California San
Diego industry group supporting research in Structural Engineering. In special they thank Dr.
Robert Englekirk for his support and advice.

a: Shear span in slotted slab
Ag: Wall gross-section area

aIO: Slope of the linear portion of the immediate occupancy displacement
aLS: Slope of the linear portion of the life safety displacement spectrum
CS : Base shear coefficient
C : Constant ductility inelastic to elastic displacement ratio

db : Bar diameter
e : Eccentricity of compressive force at base of wall due to kinematic
overstrength for westwards response
fc: Concrete compressive strength
Fk ,W , i : Westward lateral force due to kinematic overstrength at level i

Fk , E , i : Eastward lateral force due to kinematic overstrength at level i

fy: Steel yield strength

F1,i : First mode lateral force at level i

F2,i : Second mode lateral forces at level i

g: Acceleration of gravity
hi : Height at level i
hn: Total building height
i: Level number
j: Load combination
jd : Internal lever arm between the section resultant tensile and compressive forces
p : Wall plastic hinge length

w : Length of wall

ME : Expected moment strength

M LS : Wall base moment at life safety

M LS , j : Moment at life safety for load combination j

Mn : Wall nominal base moment

Mo : Calculated base moment at 3% steel tensile strain for eastward or westward

Mv : Fictitious bending moment demand to consider for the flexure shear
interaction in a section

Mu : Design base moment

M u ,i : Bending moment demand

Mw : Slab plastic moment capacity

QK : Slotted slab plastic shear force

Pu: Design compressive axial force
Pu,j: Wall axial load for load combination j
R: Response modification coefficient
Sa: Spectral acceleration
Sd: Spectral displacement
sh : Distance between confinement grids
t: Time
T: Period of free vibration
TD : Design fundamental period

TIO : Maximum fundamental period at immediate occupancy limit state

TLS : Maximum fundamental period at life safety limit state

T2: Second mode period of building
Vb ,1 : First mode design base shear

Vb ,2 : Second mode design base shear

VK ,W : Base shear force due to westward kinematic system overstrength

Vu : Design shear force

UD,i : Design quantity (bending moment, shear force or axial force) due to dead load
at level i
ULr,i : Design quantity (bending moment, shear force or axial force) due to reduced
live load at level i. In the building ULr,I = 0
U1,i: Design quantity (bending moment, shear force or axial force) at level i due to
first mode lateral forces
UK,i : Design quantity (bending moment, shear force or axial force) at level i due to
kinematical effects
U2,i : Design quantity (bending moment, shear force or axial force) at level i due to
second mode lateral forces
Vu : Design base shear force

Wi: Seismic weight at level i
We ,1 : First mode effective seismic weight

We ,2 : Second mode effective seismic weight

Wt: Total seismic weight excluding foundation weight

1 : First mode participation factor

2 : Second mode participation factor

1* : First mode contribution factor

2* : Second mode contribution factor

IO ,e : Equivalent SDOF target displacement at immediate occupancy

IO , r : Roof target displacement at immediate occupancy

LS ,e : Equivalent SDOF target displacement at life safety

LS ,r : Roof target displacement at life safety

p ,r : Plastic roof displacement

y ,r : Yield roof displacement

: Additional tensile force needed for equilibrium in the wall section dut to
flexure-shear interaction
c: Concrete compressive strain
s: Reinforcing steel strain
y: Reinforcing steel yield strain

y ,r : Maximum interstory drift ratio at y , r

v : Angle of inclination, measured with respect to the line at ninety degrees from
the longitudinal axis of the element, of the diagonal compression stress field
carrying the shear force
y : Geometrical coefficient of wall

: Displacement ductility
: Wall curvature ductility
,LS : Wall base curvature ductility at life safety

l: Web wall longitudinal reinforcement ratio

t: Web wall transverse reinforcement ratio
LS : Wall base curvature at life safety

y : Reference wall yield curvature

1,i : First mode shape at level i

2,i : Second mode shape at level i

LS , j : Base moment flexural overstrength factor at life safety limit state for load

combination j
LS,E : Web wall flexural overstrength factor for eastward response
LS,W : Web wall flexural overstrength factor for westward response

American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2005). Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, ACI Committee 318-05, Farmington Hills, 430 p.

American Society of Civil Engineers (2006). Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures, ASCE/SEI 7-2005, Reston, VA.

Bertero, V. V., Atkan, A. E., Charney, F., and Sause, R. (1985). Earthquake simulator tests
and associated experiments, analytical and correlation studies of one-fifth scale model,
Earthquake Effects on Reinforced Concrete Structures, U.S.-Japan Research, ACI
Publication SP-84, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, pp. 375-424.

Blakeley R. W. G., Cooney, R. C., and Megget, L. M. (1975). Seismic shear loading at
flexural capacity in cantilever wall structures, Bulletin New Zealand National Society
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, pp. 278290.

Canadian Standard Association (CSA) (2005). Standard A23.3-04. Design of Concrete

Structures, Rexdale, Canada. 214 p.

CEN (2004). EC8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. European committee for
standardisation, Brussels, Belgium.

Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake

Engineering, Second Ed.. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Chopra, A. K., and Chintanapakdee, C. (2001). Comparing response of sdof systems to near-
fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 417-442.

Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. (1991). Prestressed Concrete Strcutures, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Hills, N.J., 766 p.

Derecho A. T., Iqbal M., Ghosh S. K., Fintel M., Corley W. G., and Scanlon A. (1981).
Structural walls in earthquake-resistant buildings dynamic analysis of isolated structural
walls development of design procedure design force levels, Portland Cement
Association, Skodie, IL.

Englekirk, R. E. (2007). Rational seismic design procedures for shear wall braced
buildings. Charles Pankow Foundation, CA, USA,
Accessed 13 Jan. 2009.

Federation International de Beton (FIB) (2003). Displacement-based seismic design of

reinforced concrete buildings, State-of-Art Report, Switzerland, 196 p.

Fintel, M. (1997). Performance of buildings with shear walls in earthquakes of the last thirty
years, Precast Prestressed Concrete Journal, Vol. 40, No. 33, pp. 62-80.

Goel, R. K., and Chopra, A. K. (1998). Period formulas for concrete shear wall buildings,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 426-433.

International Conference of Building Officials (1997). Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA.

Hines, E. M., Restrepo, J. I., and Seible, F. (2004). "Force-displacement characterization of

well-confined bridge piers," ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 537-548.

Lang, A. F, Restrepo, J. I. (2006). Seismic performance evaluation of gypsum wallboard

partitions, Proceedings, 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(EERI), San Francisco, California, U.S.A., 2006, Paper No. 1353.

Moehle, J. P. (1992) Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes,

Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 403-428.

Mrsch, E., (1909). Concrete-Steel Construction, the Engineering News Publishing

Company, New York, 368 p. Digitized by Google.

te-steel+construction#PPP4,M1. Accessed 28 Jan. 2009.

New Zealand Standards (NZS) 4203 (1992). Volumes 1 and 2: Code of Practice for General
Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings. Wellington, New Zealand.

Ozcelik, O., Luco, J. E., Conte, J. P., Trombetti, T. L., and Restrepo, J. I. (2008).
Experimental characterization, modeling and identification of the NEES-UCSD shake
table mechanical system, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 37, No.
2, pp. 243-264.

Panagiotou, M. (2008). Seismic design, testing and analysis of reinforced concrete wall
buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California,
San Diego, CA.

Panagiotou, M., and Restrepo., J. I. (2007a). Design and computational model for the UCSD
7-story structural wall building slice, SSRP 07-09 Report, Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA

Panagiotou, M., and Restrepo, J. I. (2007b). Lessons learnt from the UCSD full-scale shake
table testing on a 7-story residential building slice, Proceedings, SEAOC Convention.
Reno, Nevada.

Panagiotou, M., Restrepo., J.I. (2007c). Design and Computational Model for the UCSD 7-
Story Structural Wall Building Slice, SSRP 07-09 Report, Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Panagiotou, M., and Restrepo, J. I. (2008). Dual plastic hinge concept for arresting higher
mode effect on high-rise cantilever wall buildings. (In Press - Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics).

Panagiotou, M., Restrepo, J. I., and Conte, J. P. (2007b). Shake table test of a 7-story full
scale reinforced concrete structural wall building slice phase II: t-wall. SSRP 07-08
Report, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA.

Panagiotou, M., Restrepo, J. I., and Conte J. P. (2009). Shake table test of a 7-story full scale
reinforced concrete wall building slice - Phase I - rectangular wall. (In review - ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering).

Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, New Jersey.

Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and
masonry buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Paulay, T., and Restrepo, J. I. (1998). Displacement and ductility compatibility in buildings
with mixed structural systems, Journal of the New Zealand Structural Engineering
Society, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 7-12.

Presland, R. A., Restrepo, J. I., and Park, R., (2001) Seismic performance of retrofitted
reinforced concrete bridge piers: Laboratory testing of the proposed Thorndon Overbridge
retrofit scheme, Research Report 2001-03, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 513 p.

Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi G. M., and Kowalsky M. J. (2007). Displacement Based Seismic
Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.

Reinhorn, A., (1997). Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations. In: Seismic
Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Krawinkler and Fajfar (editors),
Balkema, pp. 277-287.

Ruiz-Garca, J., Miranda, E. (2003) Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing
structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1237-

Ruiz-Garcia, J., and Miranda, E., (2006), Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of
structures built on soft soil sites, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Issue 35, pp. 679694.

Rutenberg, A., and Nsieri, E. (2006). The seismic shear demand in ductile cantilever wall
systems and the EC8 provisions, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 121.

Satyarno I., Carr A. J., and Restrepo, J. (1998). Refined pushover analysis for the
assessment of older reinforced concrete buildings, Proceedings, New Zealand Society of
Earthquake Engineering Technology Conference, Wairakei, New Zealand, pp. 75-82.

Structural Engineers Association of California (1999). SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design
Recommendations of the SEAOC Seismology Committee, Sacramento, CA.

Sullivan, T. J., Calvi, G. M., Priestley, M. J. N., Kowalsky, M. J. (2003). The limitations and
performances of different displacement based design methods, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 7, Special Issue, pp. 201-241.

Table 1. Seismic weights and corresponding height*
Weight (kN)
Height hi
Reference& Web Flange Segmental
(m) Slab Other Total
wall wall wall
0.0 W0 22 0 31 20 0 73
2.6 W1 39 169 55 39 8 310
5.4 W2 33 156 48 39 8 285
8.1 W3 33 156 48 39 8 284
10.9 W4 33 156 48 39 8 284
13.6 W5 33 156 48 39 8 284
16.4 W6 39 156 49 40 8 291
19.1 W7 22 156 30 20 6 235
* Does not include the foundations weight, height measured from the wall base
& Refer to Fig. 2

Table 2. Design lateral forces
Lateral Force (kN)
Level, i
F1,i Fk ,W , i Fk , E , i F2,i
7 78 33 14 -263
6 77 38 16 -113
5 57 46 19 66
4 40 58 24 196
3 24 77 32 268
2 12 116 48 267
1 3 237 98 195
Sum 292 605 250 615

Table 3. Required and provided longitudinal reinforcement ratios for Levels 2 to 7

Level (%)

Required Provided

7a 0.25c 0.61
6b 0.57 0.81
5 0.83 0.81
4 1.01 0.81
3b 1.12 0.81
2 1.28 0.81

Notes: a: b = 203 mm
b: b = 152 mm
c: minimum reinforcement ratio

Figure 1. South-west view of building.

Figure 2. Dimensions, building geometry and lumped seismic weights.


Figure 3. Design acceleration and displacement response spectrum, 5 percent damping ratio.

Figure 4. First mode bending moment diagrams, curvature diagram and target displacements.

F1,i LS, j F1,i

MLS, j
LS, j =

Critical section Known section

LS, j Vb,1 B B
........ .. .. .. ........
Section AA MLS, j Section BB
Pu.1 Pu. j

a) First mode lateral forces and reactions b) Lateral forces and reactions
at flexural overstrength

Figure 5. Deformed state, lateral forces and reactions of bare wall before and at flexural overstrength.


slab edges

Mw Qk
Qk Yield line


Tensile chord
Vk,W elongation

7Qk 7Qk

Figure 6. System mechanism mobilizing yield lines in slabs framing into the web wall.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. System and web wall design envelopes: (a) Moment, (b) Shear force, (c) Axial force.

Figure 8. Building plan view of reinforcement.

Figure 9. Web wall elevation levels 1 & 2 showing longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.

West end of End of
end of
web wall boundary
web wall
0.03 element
Nu=75 kN

Strain (mm / mm)

Nu=1534 kN

End of East
boundary end of
element T-wall
0.01 Nu=1230 kN

-1828 0 2641
Length (mm)

Figure 10. Strain profiles of web and T-wall for westward and eastward response for 3 percent
tensile strain of extreme reinforcing steel.

Eastward Westward

ME ,i

MV ,i

Height h i (m)

8.2 Mu ,i


0.0 -4.7 6.9
-10 -5 0 5 10
Bending Moment (MN-m)

Figure 11. Web wall bending moment envelopes: design, expected and provided strength.