Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments

Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments John Wallace University of California, Los Angeles with contributions from Mr. Leonardo Massone & Dr. Kutay Orakcal University of California, Los Angeles

Presentation Overview FEMA 356 Requirements P-M-V Modeling Preliminary test results Axial load issues 2

Modified Beam - Column Model Use of modified beamcolumn element with added shear spring for both horizontal and vertical wall segments Fiber model or general wall model with nonlinear shear backbone curve (uncoupled flexure/shear) If plastic hinge model EI effective might be less than 0.5EI g lightly-reinforced wall segments Spandrels Pier Joint 3

Modeling Approaches Frame and General Wall Models 4

P-M (flexural) Strength Provisions P n - M n for! c =0.003 Fiber model or general wall model Actual cross section Concrete Fibers Steel Fibers! Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated! However, in this case, where nonlinear shear behavior is anticipated, use enough elements to capture moment gradient.! Nonlinear backbone relations (force displacement) relations are commonly used to capture the shear behavior. 5

FEMA Modeling Parameters FEMA 356 Tables 6-19: Wall segments Modeling Parameters, Drift % Acceptable Drift % d e c Immediate Occupancy Performance Level Life Safety Collapse Prevention 0.75 2.0 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.75 d e - d V n IO LS CP V r c " y /h "/h 6

Shear Strength Provisions V n per ACI 318-99,02,05 Equation 21-7 V ' A %# f ' ( $ f & n cv ) c c t y * # # ' 3.0 for h / l + 1.5 c w w ' 2.0 for h / l, 2.0 c w w Linear interpolation allowed for intermediate values If axial load exceeds 0.15A g f c ; then force controlled $ need not be taken less than 0.15% (Wood, ACI SJ, 1990) 7

Shear Strength Database t # of Curtains Researcher Protocol 2 1 Sugano (1973) Monotonic 7 1 Barda Cyclic 6 0 Cardenas Monotonic 0 2 Hidalgo (2002) Cyclic 0 7 Hirosawa (1975) Cyclic 1 0 Aoya Cyclic* 5 0 * One full cycle, then monotonic to failure w f ' c = 3.15 to 6.3 inches 0.25% + $ + 0.67% ' 3.3 ksi, - = 1 ksi f ' 64 ksi, - = 14 ksi (7) < 0.12A f, (1)=0.15A f, (1)=0.22A f y ' ' ' g c g c g c 8

Shear Strength Expanded Database Vtest / Vn (ACI) 3 2 1 0 One Curtain Two Curtains 0 1 2 3 4 ($.fy) min $ need not be taken less than 0.15% (Wood, 1990) Shear strength is relatively insensitive to the web reinforcement For relatively thin walls, use of one or two curtains of web reinforcement, strength is similar Results similar for monotonic and cyclic tests 9

Shear Strength Restricted Database Vtest / Vn (ACI) 3 2 1 0 One Curtain Two Curtains 0 1 2 3 4 ($.fy) min Tests with at least minimum reinforcement $ need not be taken less than 0.15% (Wood, 1990) Shear strength is relatively insensitive to the web reinforcement For relatively thin walls, use of one or two curtains of web reinforcement, strength is similar Results similar for monotonic and cyclic tests 10

FEMA Modeling Parameters FEMA 356 Tables 6-19: Wall segments Modeling Parameters, Drift % Acceptable Drift % d e c Immediate Occupancy Performance Level Life Safety Collapse Prevention 0.75 2.0 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.75 d e - d V n IO LS CP V r c " y /h "/h 11

Shear Force-Deformation Behavior Shear backbone curve 2 V 3 y " y ' h 4 / Gc 0.4Ec 0 A 5 6 ' 7 V = V (i.e., no hardening) G c y n 2 1 3 ' Ec 4 5 61( 21 7 / 4 to 60 ' c = 0.4E % P / Ag & V ' f 91 ( : 8 0.6V ) ft * cr t n f t ' f c Strength of materials ; ' G< - =E! Sozen & Moehle, 1993 EPRI Report 12

Revised Backbone Relation Based on prior tests (limited database):! 5WCEE, Rome, 1973, pp. 1157-1166! 9WCEE, Tokyo, 1988, pp. IV 517-522! Hidalgo et al, 2002, EERI Spectra! Hirosawa, 1975, Japanese Report d e - d V cr 8 V 0.6V V n n r 0.4E c c "/h = 0.004 to 0.005 13

Observations Limited test data! Stiffness and Deformation capacity specimens tend to be stiff and strong, test control is challenging and reported stiffness and deformation values may be suspect! Residual strength most tests not continued beyond modest strength degradation (~20%)! One row in FEMA table 6-19 Nominal Strength! Test results indicated nominal strength in the range of 100 to 200% of the ACI value 14

New Data Since ~1995 Salonikios, Thomas N.; et al. (1999)! 11 tests on cantilever walls with axial load of 0.0 and 0.07A g f c! Aspect ratios of 1.0 (1.2m tall) and 1.5 (1.8m tall)! Cross section: 1.2m x 100mm (4 ft x 4 )! 4 tests with diagonal web bars for sliding Eurocode 8 requires 50%! Reasonably-well detailed (Eurocode 8) Hidalgo, Pedro A.; Ledezma, Christian A.; Jordan, Rodrigo M., (2002)! 26 tests for reverse bending (zero moment at mid-height), no axial load! M/Vl ratios: 1.0(3), 0.69(9), 0.5(7), 0.35(7): 1m x 2m tall; 1.5m x 1.05m tall! Cross section: 80 to 120 mm (3.15 to 4.72 ) by 1.0m to 1.7m (40 to 67 )! Light web reinforcement: 0%, 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.375% (only one) Greifenhagen, H.; Lestuzzi, P, (2005)! 4 tests on cantilever walls with axial load (0.027, 0.027, 0.043, 0.094A g f c )! M/Vl ratio: 0.69! Cross section: 1 m x 100 mm (40 x 4 )! Light web reinforcement: 0.3%, 0% (one case with no horizontal web bars) Massone, Orakcal, Wallace (2005, 2006) 15

Salonikious et al. 1999 Aspect ratio 1.0 tests V n = 342 kn per ACI 318 Flexural yielding (F max, 1 = 1.5* F max, 1.5 ) Sliding failure 10mm 10mm (0.0083) V max a b ' ' 5.23 fc twlw non-conforming = ' 0.006(1200 mm) ' 7.2 mm = ' 0.01(1200 mm) ' 12.0 mm LSW2: 0.28% H & V and P=0 LSW3: 0.28% H & V and P=0.07Agf c 16

Hidalgo et al. 2002 M/Vl w = 1.0 Specimen #2 Load (kn) 40mm V V ' n ' 5.74 fc twlw=57 kips (253 kn) crack ' 0.5V ' 30 kips (133 kn) n Displacement (mm) Vnhw (56.86 kips)(78.74") = y ' ' ' 0.02" (0.5 mm) 2 GA 0.4(3040 ksi)(186 in ) = ' 0.004 h '.004(78.74") ' 0.31" (8 mm) y = ' 0.0075(2000 mm) ' 15 mm d = ' 0.02(2000 mm) ' 40 mm e w 17

Hidalgo et al. 2002 M/Vl w = 1.0 Specimen #1 Load (kn) V f t l f V ' ' n ' 4.4 c w w=43 kips (193 kn) c = 2.81 ksi crack ' 0.5V ' 22 kips (98 kn) n Displacement (mm) Vnhw (43 kips)(78.74") = y ' ' ' 0.015" (0.4 mm) 2 GA 0.4(3020 ksi)(186 in ) = ' 0.004 h '.004(78.74") ' 0.31" (8 mm) y = ' 0.0075(2000 mm) ' 15 mm d = ' 0.02(2000 mm) ' 40 mm e w 30 40 18

Hidalgo et al. 2002 M/Vl w = 0.69 Specimen #8 Load (kn) V V ' n ' 6.6 fc twlw=76 kips (337 kn) crack ' 0.5V ' 38 kips (169 kn) n Displacement (mm) Vnhw (76 kips)(70.9") = y ' ' ' 0.0205" (0.52 mm) 2 GA 0.4(2720 ksi)(242 in ) = ' 0.004 h '.004(70.9") ' 0.284" (7.2 mm) y = ' 0.0075(1800 mm) ' 13.5 mm d = ' 0.02(1800 mm) ' 36 mm e w 30 35 19

Greifenhagen & Lestuzzi 2005 M/Vl w = 0.69 Specimen M3 Drift % ' P 8 0.05A g f c Diagonal tension Sliding failure V f t l f V ' ' n ' 7.06 c w w=42.6 kips (189 kn) c =2915 psi crack ' 0.5V ' 21.3 kips (95 kn) n Vnhw (42.6 kips)(22.24") = y ' ' ' 0.0069" (0.175 mm) 2 GA 0.4(3077 ksi)(111.6 in ) = ' 0.004 h '.004(565 mm) ' 2.26 mm y d = ' 0.02(565 mm) ' 11.3 mm e w = ' 0.0075(565 mm) ' 4.24 mm 20

Greifenhagen & Lestuzzi 2005 M/Vl w = 0.69 Specimen M4 Drift % ' P 8 0.09A g f c Sliding failure V f t l f V ' ' n ' 6.7 c w w=44.4 kips (198 kn) c =3539 psi crack ' 0.5V ' 22.2 kips (99 kn) n Vnhw (44.4 kips)(22.24") = y ' ' ' 0.0065" (0.166 mm) 2 GA 0.4(3390 ksi)(111.6 in ) = ' 0.004 h '.004(565 mm) ' 2.26 mm y = ' 0.0075(565 mm) ' 4.24 mm d = ' 0.02(565 mm) ' 11.3 mm e w 21

Presentation Overview FEMA 356 Requirements P-M-V Modeling Preliminary test results Axial load issues 22

Slender Wall Tests - Results External Instrumentation! Lateral displacement at different floor levels Internal Instrumentation! Shear deformation at different floor levels! Flexural deformation at different floor levels Uncouple deformations! Shear/Flexure! Assess data reliability Internal External Wall base instrumentation 23

Tests Results: Observations Consistent and repeatable results Top displacement! Small shear contribution, about 5% 1 st Story Displacement! 4-story walls! 30% shear contribution Displ. 1st floor (shear + flexural) [in] 0.8 0.4 0-0.4-0.8 Shear Xcorrected Y = 1.02 * X Y = 1.20 * X Shear Xoriginal Flexural displ. Y = 0.71 * X Utot Xcorrected Utot Xoriginal U flex (#'>?@A0-0.8-0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Displ. 1st floor (lateral) [in] 24

Test Results - Observations 40 40 " P(@Vn) P(@V = 62 [kips] n ) =62 kips " P(@V P(@Vn) n ) =62 = [kips] Lateral Load (kips) 20 0 Uf P(@Mn) = 29.4 [kips] P(@M n ) =30 kips #h B Uf 0 2 4 6 8 10 Flexural displacement [in/in] h 1st Floor 2nd Floor 20 0 Us P(@Mn) = 29.4 [kips] 0 0.1 0.2 Shear displacement [in] " flexure /" y " shear P(@M n ) =30 kips 1st Floor 2nd Floor Interaction between nonlinear flexure and shear deformations is evident even for relatively slender walls where V max ~ ½V n 25

Modeling P-M-V Interaction 1. Modified MVLE model to incorporate shear flexure interaction 2. Parallel pairs of flexure and shear fibers are used 3. Behavior of each set of springs described by a constitutive RC rotating-angle panel model (e.g., MCFT or RA-STM), that incorporates axial-shear interaction 4. Requires additional model iterations to establish equilibrium condition Strip (i) N, "u y M, "B V, "u x h ch! y - trial < xy - trial! x - unknown 26

Local Iteration Scheme Assigning Iteration Variable! y - trial < xy - trial! x - unknown guess #! 1 #! 2 Constitutive Material Models! 1 #! 2 - c1. - -!.concrete # - c2! y! x. - -!. steel - sy - sx Horizontal (Transverse) Equilibrium - y = - cy + $ y - sy ; yx - x = - cx + $ x - sx - x = > iterations #! x 27

Constitutive Panel Element Behavior 8 4 Shear Stress (MPa)12 0 Pang and Hsu (1995) Vecchio and Collins (1982) A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 Test Analysis 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 Shear Strain RC Panel Specimens tested under pure shear Shear Stress (MPa) 5 4 3 2 1 0 PV6 PV11 PV16 PV19 Test Analysis 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 Shear Strain 28

Model Assessment RW2 Lateral Load, P lat (kn) 200 150 100 50 0-50 -100-150 -200 P ax 8 0.07A g.f c ' P lat, " top RW2 Monotonic versus Cyclic comparison Test Analysis -100-80 -60-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Top Displacement, " top (mm) Thomsen & Wallace, ASCE JSE, April 2004; Massone et al, 13WCEE & 8NCEE 29

Lateral Load (kn) Model Assessment RW2 200 150 100 50 0-50 -100-150 Flexural Deformations Test Analysis U f ( ) 200 150 100 50 0-50 -100-150 Shear Deformations Test Analysis P P U s -200-20 -15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Lateral Flexural Displacement (mm) -200-6 -4-2 0 2 4 6 Lateral Shear Displacement (mm) flexural and shear displacements at first story level of RW2 coupled nonlinear flexural and shear deformations 30

Model Assessment 1200 Hirosawa (1975) Specimen 74: M/Vl w = 1.0 200 Hidalgo (2002) Specimen 10: M/Vl w = 0.7 Lateral Load (kn) 800 400 0 M/(Vl) = 1.0 Flexural Analysis Test Coupled Analysis Lateral Load (kn) 150 100 50 0 M/(Vl) = 0.69 Test Analysis 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Lateral Displacement (cm) 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Lateral Displacement (cm) 31

Presentation Overview FEMA 356 Requirements P-M-V Modeling Preliminary test results Axial load issues 32

Research Motivation & Sponsors Sponsors: St. Joseph Health System KPFF Consulting Engineers St John s, Santa Monica In collaboration with: California Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development (OSHPD) Example pushover 33

Test Specimens - Piers Prototype (Actual Building) ¾ Scale Test Specimen l p = 72 l p = 54 h p = 62.5 h p = 48 $ v = ~0.25% $ h = ~0.35% t p = 8 $ v = ~0.25% $ h = 0.35% t p = 6 34

Test Specimens Piers Hooks removed Specimen Geometry (inches) Reinforcement 3 4 P/A g f' c Specimens ID Height Length Thickness Edge 1 Vert. Web 2 Horiz. Web 2 (kips) (#) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) WP1-1-10 48 54 6 2 - #4 0.26% 0.35% 0.10 2 WP2-1-05 48 54 6 2 - #4 0.26% 0.35% 0.05 2 WP3-1-00 48 54 6 2 - #4 0.26% 0.35% 0.00 2 WH1-1-0 60 60 6 1-#4 1-#5 0.35% 0.26% 0.0 2 WH2-1-0 60 60 6 4 - #5 0.35% 0.26% 0.0 2 35

Prototype Horizontal Wall Segment l d = 18 l b = 83 h b = 78.5 2 - #6 or 2 - #9 Typical t b = 8 Weakened plane joint at mid-span: ½ to 2/3 of web bars cut and grooves introduced on both sides of panel 36

Spandrel Weakened Plane Joint 37

Test Program - Construction Cast upright, no joints 38

Test Program - Setup Reaction block Reaction block Actuator F a = 1 = 2 Steel reaction frame Top beam Specimen CL P 1 P 2 = top Reaction block Strong Floor Foundation Floor anchor rods = bottom Axial Load = P = P 1 + P 2 (controlled) Lateral Load = F (controlled for the first two levels) Lateral Displacement = (= top C = bottom 0 (controlled after first two levels) Top Rotation B = (= D = E 0/a =0 (controlled) 39

Test Program - Setup Reaction Frame Out-of-plane support Specimen Vertical Load Vertical Load Horizontal Load 40

Test Program Load History 60 40 Load [kips] 20 0-20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6-40 -60 Load Control cycle Disp 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0-0.5 6 11 16 21 26 31-1 -1.5-2 -2.5 Displacement Control cycle 41

Test Program - Instrumentation ~ 100 Sensors (load, strain, displacement) West Face Instrumentation (flexural deformations) East Face Instrumentation (shear and anchorage deformations) Pedestal sliding and uplift measured Variation of measurements used on repeated tests 42

Test Program - Objectives # Backbone Relations # Failure mode # Influence of details Jamb bars No hooks No Hoops/Ties Axial load failure 43

FEMA 356 Section 2.8 Alternative modeling parameters and acceptance criteria! 2.8.1 Experimental setup! 2.8.2 Data reduction and reporting! 2.8.3 Design parameters and acceptance criteria Observations! For the right owner/building, can be highly productive process! Caveats (uncertainty, surprises, etc)! Satisfaction, but ultimately, it s about 44

FEMA 356 Backbone Curves 2.8.3(1.2): Smooth backbone curve shall be drawn through the intersection of the first cycle curve for the (i)th deformation step with the second cycle curve of the (i-1)the deformation step, for all i steps. Force Backbone curve Deformation FEMA 356 Figure 2-4 45

FEMA 356 2.8.3(1.2) Approach 100 Resulting backbone curve applying 2.8.3(1.2) was suspect 50 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 46

Test-Derived Backbone Curves 100 Yield Strength degradation Load Crack 50 Residual 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Displacement 47

Test Photos ~5% Axial Load Yield level 3 x Yield Axial collapse 48

Axial Failure 49

Initial Stiffness: Pier test: P=0.05A g f c ~0.6V n Pre-cracked response (0.4E) Lateral Load Shear Experimental Flexure model/test Slip contribution flex-model shear-model total-exp flex-exp shear-exp Lateral Displacement 0.4E c is reasonable for uncracked shear stiffness Flexural stiffness appears impacted by slip. 50

Deformations Flexure/Shear Same Scale Lateral Load flex-exp shear-exp shear-envelope Lateral Displacement Flexural deformations are essentially elastic, nonlinear shear 51

Test Derived Backbone Relations (Pier) ~150%V n FEMA FEMA 356 Default Lateral Load Axial load collapse top disp.-exp shear-envelope shear-backbone shear- backbone (+) shear- backbone (-) shear- backbone (avg) 2% Lateral Displacement 1% Not as stiff in the post-cracked range as FEMA relation Post-cracked stiffness ~1/10 to 1/20 of the initial stiffness Peak strength (85 to 175%) of V n Consistent with prior tests Less pronounced strength degradation, less residual strength Deformation capacity > FEMA at initiation of strength degradation 52

Presentation Overview FEMA 356 Requirements P-M-V Modeling Preliminary test results Axial load modeling 53

Axial Capacity Model Shear Friciton d c M P V s h V d = dowel force A tr f st = force in horizontal steel P s = force in vertical steel V sf = force due to shear friction N = normal force B A tr f st h V d V sf N s v V P d P S c sin B ' Vsf cosb ( Ast f st tan ( nbars, webvd, web ( sv d c B ( Vsf sinb Ps, web ( nbars, boundary Ps, boundary sh ( N B ' N cos ( n n bars, boundary bars, web P V s, web d, boundary 54

55 Axial Capacity Model Axial capacity (Equilibrium and shear friction) Shear friction vs drift at axial failure Drift at axial failure (column test data) 5 5 7 3 4 4 6 2 C ( 5 5 7 3 4 4 6 2 ' m m v yt s m s h f A P F B B F tan tan 1 / 0 5 5 7 3 4 4 6 2 ( C 5 7 3 4 6 2 ( ( ' 5 7 3 4 6 2 B B B tan / tan / ) tan (1 2 1 1 v yt st v yt st Axial s h f A P C C s h f A P C L " 0 2 1, 5 7 3 4 6 2 " C ' Axial m h C C F

Shear Friction - Columns F m 2.5 2 1.5 1 C 1 =2.1445; C 2 =25; V r =0 Flexure test data C 1 =1.6; C 2 =3.125; V r =0 Shear test data: 0.5 F m ' C C 2 " 3 1 C24 5, 6 h 7 Axial 0 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Drift Ratio @ Axial Failure 56

Influence of Pier Geometry Shear crack plane B h B Column B l l l h/l = ½ (B=26.6 ) h/l = 1 (B=45 ) h/l = 2 (B=63.4 )! Assumed to extend full pier height, from corner-tocorner 57

Axial Capacity Model Wall Piers 0.12 (Astfyth/sv)/P0 0.08 0.04 F m =2.15-25("/h) B=65 P/P 0 =0.10 B=45 P/P 0 =0.10 B=25 P/P 0 =0.10 B=65 P/P 0 =0.05 B=45 P/P 0 =0.05 B=25 P/P 0 =0.05 B'@G Typical range for Lightly-reinforced pier B'HG B'EG 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Pier Drift Ratio 58

Shear Friction Column Tests 2.5 2 F m ' C 2 " 3 1 C C24 5, 6 h 7 Axial 0 F m 1.5 1 0.5 0 C 1 =2.1445; C 2 =25; V r =0 Flexure test data C 1 =1.6; C 2 =3.125; V r =0 Shear test data: C 1 =1.6; C 2 =30; V r =0.01 C 1 =1.6; C 2 =50; V r =0.01 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Drift Ratio @ Axial Failure 59

Axial Capacity Model Test Results 0.15 B'HG.degrees (A st f yt h/s v )/P 0 =0.025 V r =0 P/P0 0.1 (A st f yt h/s v )/P 0 =0.025 V r =0.2V n (A st f yt h/s v )/P 0 =0.015 V r =0.1V n C 1 =1.6 C 2 =30 (A st f yt h/s v )/P 0 =0.015 V r =0.1V n C 1 =1.6 C 2 =50 (A st f yt h/s v )/P 0 =0.015 V r =0.1V n C 1 =1.0 C 2 =25 Test Results 0.05 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Pier Drift Ratio 60

Lightly-Reinforced Wall Segments John Wallace University of California, Los Angeles with contributions from Mr. Leonardo Massone & Dr. Kutay Orakcal University of California, Los Angeles

Additional References Greifenhagen, H.; Lestuzzi, P, Static cyclic tests on lightly reinforced concrete shear walls, Engineering Structures, vol. 27, pp. 1703-1712, Sept. 2005 Palermo, D.; Vecchio, F.J., Compression field modeling of reinforced concrete subjected to reversed loading: verification, ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 155-164. Mar.-Apr. 2004. Hidalgo, Pedro A.; Ledezma, Christian A.; Jordan, Rodrigo M., Seismic behavior of squat reinforced concrete shear walls, Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 287-308. May 2002. Hwang, Shyh-Jiann; et al., Analytical model for predicting shear strength of squat walls, Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 43-50. Jan. 2001. Petrangeli, Marco, Fiber element for cyclic bending and shear of RC structures, II: Verification, Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Vol. 125, no. 9, pp. 1002-1009., Sept. 1999. Salonikios, Thomas N.; et al., Cyclic load behavior of low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls: Design basis and test results, ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 649-660. July-Aug. 1999. Salonikios, Thomas N.; et al., Cyclic load behavior of low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls: Failure Modes, Strength and Deformation Analysis, and design Implications, ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 132-142. Jan.-Feb. 2000. Kappos, A. J.; Salonikios, T. N., Premature sliding shear failure in squat shear walls: fact or myth? Proceedings of the Second Japan-UK Workshop on Implications of Recent, Earthquakes on Seismic Risk; pp. 169-180. 1998. Saatcioglu, M.; Wiradinata, S., The effect of aspect ratio on seismic resistance of squat shear walls, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering; pp. 7.3/17-23. 1986. Wiradinata, Sanusi, Behaviour of squat walls subjected to load reversals, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 1985. 171 pp. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.; Synge, A. J., Ductility in earthquake resisting squat shearwalls, Journal of the American Concrete Institute. Vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 257-269. July-Aug. 1982 Lefas, et al., Behavior of RC Structural Walls: Strength, Deformation Characteristics, and Failure Mechanism, ACI Structural Journal, 87(1), pp. 23 31, Jan Feb 1990. Saatcioglu, M., Hysteretic Shear Response of Low-Rise Walls, Concrete Shear in Earthquake, Elsevier Applied Science, New York, New York, pp. 105-114. Bold, underlined: Test results presented 62