Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2
p
, where
N20 represents the fundamental period for low-amplitude vibrations (Wood et al. 1987,
Midorikawa 1990) and
2
p
accounts for concrete cracking for larger amplitude vibrations.
Roof displacement is estimated from the spectra by multiplying the spectral displacement
(of the single-degree-of-freedom oscillator) by 1.25 for five-story buildings, 1.5 for buildings
greater than ten stories, and by using linear interpolation between five and ten stories (similar
to the approach used in ASCE-41). A story height of 2.75 m is assumed, and spectral dis-
placements for both SIII and SIV simplified spectra are multiplied by 1.25 to estimate spectra
for 2% damping, which provide a better estimate of inelastic drift (Shibata and Sozen 1976).
Figure 10. (a) Wall damage at ground line, Axes A and 8; (b) overall view of collapsed building.
S288 WALLACE ET AL.
The resulting roof drift ratios range from about 0.8% drift for five-story buildings up to a peak
value of about 1.0% for buildings between 10 and 30 stories for the simplified SIV spectrum.
The drift at failure for compression-controlled walls is estimated to identify building
heights with vulnerable walls for both SIII and SIV simplified spectra as:
u
h
w
1140
max
h
w
Nh
s
, where the constant 11/40 is based on a linear increasing distribution
of lateral forces over the height of the wall (Wallace and Moehle 1992),
max
is estimated
equal to 0.004l
w
for compression-controlled walls, l
w
is the wall length, h
s
is the story
height, and N is the number of stories. In general, compression-controlled walls in 10- to
15-story buildings (SIII) and 10- to 20-story (SIV) buildings would be vulnerable to com-
pression failure. Walls in buildings below ten stories typically have axial load P 0.10A
g
f
0
c
and thus are unlikely to be compression-controlled.
THE ROLE OF AXIAL STRESS
Neither the Chilean (NCh433.Of96; INN 1996) nor the ACI code (ACI 318-08 2008) put
a limit on the level of axial stress allowed for gravity load or combined gravity and lateral
loads, although a limit of P
u
< 0.35P
0
was incorporated into UBC-94. As noted by Massone
et al. (2012), median axial wall stress has increased from about 0.1A
g
f
0
c
for pre-1965 con-
struction and 0.2A
g
f
0
c
for post-1980 construction. For taller buildings (15 to 25 stories), thin-
ner walls, and walls with larger tributary areas, axial load ratios of 0.3A
g
f
0
c
to 0.4A
g
f
0
c
are
possible (Massone et al. 2012).
To assess the impact of axial stress on wall deformation capacity, moment-curvature
relations (Figure 12a) were calculated for a typical wall web in a 12-story building in
Santiago. The wall cross section is 7 m 0.15 m with 8-25 mm diameter bars at each
wall boundary and 8 mm vertical web bars at 20 cm spacing. Two levels of axial stress
are considered, 0.2 and 0.3A
g
f
0
c
; ratios of cl
w
, or neutral axis depth to wall length, also
are plotted (Figure 12b). The relations plotted reveal negative slope (likely to produce
damage concentration) beyond the yield curvature with eventual concrete crushing and
Figure 11. (a) Displacement spectra and (b) estimated drift demands.
DAMAGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SEISMIC DESIGNOF RC STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS S289
relatively low curvature capacity (it is noted that the buckling of vertical bars is not consid-
ered). The plot of cl
w
indicates that this ratio is never less than approximately 0.45 for
P 0.3A
g
f
0
c
. It is noted that ACI 318-99, and subsequent editions, require Special Boundary
Elements for cl
w
> 0.24 (Wallace and Orakcal 2002).
ACI 318-08 (2008) requires that transverse reinforcement (A
sh
) at wall boundaries satisfy
Equation 21-5 A
sh
0.09sb
c
f
0
c
f
yt
, where s is vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement,
b
c
is the dimension of the confined core, f
0
c
is the concrete compressive strength, and f
yt
is
the yield stress of the transverse reinforcement. ACI 318-08 Equation 21-4, A
sh
0.3sb
c
f
0
c
f
yt
A
g
A
ch
1, where A
g
A
ch
is the ratio of the gross area to the confined core at
the wall boundary, is based on equating the pre- and post-spalling axial load for columns
using a simple model that accounts for the stress increase due to confinement of the column
core. This equation does not need to be satisfied at wall boundaries, although it was required
prior to ACI 318-99. For thin walls, the ratio of concrete cover to wall thickness is large, often
in the range of 0.2 to 0.3. In such cases, spalling of concrete cover results in substantial loss of
axial load capacity at a wall boundary, possibly overstressing wall boundary vertical rein-
forcement (and some web vertical reinforcement), resulting in abrupt strength loss due
to buckling of reinforcement. These observations suggest studies are needed to consider
whether Equation 21-4 should be reinstated, or whether relatively thin walls require even
more stringent detailing to adequately confine the core concrete and to restrain buckling
of reinforcement (i.e., the transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318-08 21-4 might
not be adequate). Alternative means to address this issue might be to limit the ratio of
cover to wall thickness or to specify a minimum wall thickness.
Wall lateral stability failures were observed for walls with apparent high axial stress
(Figure 3a, 3b) suggesting that it might be prudent to incorporate a minimum wall thickness
as a function of the unsupported wall height, e.g., t
w
h
s:
, where h
s
= unsupported wall
(story) height. The value used for might depend on the level of axial stress, neutral axis
depth, or expected maximum extreme fiber compressive strain; commonly suggested values
for range from 1/10 (Moehle et al. 2011) to 1/16 (UBC 1997).
Figure 12. (a) Moment - curvature relations and (b) neutral axis depths.
S290 WALLACE ET AL.
THE ROLE OF WALL CONFIGURATION
Common floor plans used for buildings in Chile, with long corridor walls in one direc-
tion and perpendicular walls in the transverse direction (sometimes referred to as a backbone
and rib pattern, or a fishbone pattern), results in buildings where lateral force resistance
is provided by walls with T- and L-shaped cross sections. Prior research on walls with
T-shaped cross-sections has revealed that these walls behave substantially different than
rectangular walls with symmetrically placed longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement (Wallace
1994, 1996; Thomsen and Wallace 2004). For a wall with a T-shaped cross section, the web
boundary is subjected to both large tensile and compressive strains (e.g., 0.025 in tension
and 0.01 in compression for TW2 at 1.5% lateral drift; Orakcal and Wallace 2006); there-
fore, this region typically must be well confined to avoid concrete crushing and reinforce-
ment buckling.
Load versus displacement results are presented for similarly detailed web boundaries for
walls TW1 and RW2 (Figure 13) tested by Thomsen and Wallace (2004). Significant loss in
lateral-load capacity was observed for wall TW1 at a little greater than 1% lateral drift when
all eight vertical boundary bars and some vertical web bars buckled. In contrast, wall TW2
(Figure 13, photo) reached lateral drift ratios in excess of 2.5% before lateral strength degra-
dation initiated. For wall TW2, strength loss resulted due to lateral instability (buckling) of
the well-confined web boundary, after concrete cover spalled. Lateral instability failures and
fracture of wall web boundary vertical reinforcement (Figure 14) suggest that the lack of
transverse reinforcement at web boundaries of T- and L-shaped walls could have played a
Figure 13. Load-displacement relations for TW1 and RW2.
DAMAGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SEISMIC DESIGNOF RC STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS S291
significant role in the level of damage observed to walls in Chile and existing U.S. code
requirements should be carefully reviewed.
DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN PROVISIONS AND MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
Sections 21.6.2 of ACI 318-99 and 21.9.6.2 of ACI 318-08 include provisions that are
derived from a displacement-based approach (Moehle 1992, Wallace and Orakcal 2002).
In the model used to develop ACI 318-99 provisions, the design displacement
u
is related
to local plastic hinge rotation (
p
) and extreme fiber compressive strain (
cu
) as:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;50;296
p
u
h
w
u
cu
c
l
p
l
w
2
(1a)
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;50;246
cu
2
u
h
w
c
l
w
(1b)
If the compressive strain exceeds a limiting value, taken as 0.003 in ACI 318-08, then
special boundary elements are required. In ACI 318-08, this approach is modified to define a
limiting neutral axis depth (instead of a limiting concrete compressive strain) as:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e3;50;166 c
ACI;limit
0.003l
w
2
u
h
w
l
w
667
u
h
w
l
w
600
u
h
w
(2)
In this approach, it is obvious that the result is sensitive to the values used for design
displacement
u
and plastic hinge length l
p
, where it is assumed that yielding spreads out over
Figure 14. Rebar fracture at web boundaries of T-shaped walls in Concepcin: (a) Centro Mayor
building and (b) Alto Ro Building @ 13-A (Figure 8).
S292 WALLACE ET AL.
a height (plastic hinge length) of l
p
l
w
2. Despite fairly low drift demands (Figure 11),
significant wall damage was observed (Figure 1) and it was evident that inelastic deforma-
tions did not spread out in poorly detailed, highly compressed walls commonly used in Chile;
therefore, it is important to reassess the ACI (and the ASCE 7) provisions in light of these
observations.
The approach presented by Wallace and Orackal (2002) is modified here to assess the
potential impact of variation of the plastic hinge length on the need for Special Boundary
Elements (SBEs), that is, the regions at wall edges where closely-spaced transverse reinfor-
cement is needed to provide nonlinear deformation capacity by ensuring a stable compression
zone (and thus, adequate spread of plasticity over the wall height). Given that the ACI 318-08
relation assumes a specified spread of plasticity l
p
l
w
2, the impact of concentrating
damage over shorter height was investigated by modifying the relationship presented by
Wallace and Orakcal (2002) to use plastic hinge length equal to a multiple of the wall thick-
ness l
p
t
w
:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e4;71;472
u
h
w
cu
t
w
l
w
l
w
c
2
t
w
h
w
y
l
w
11
40
h
w
l
w
t
w
l
w
2
2
t
w
h
w
t
w
l
w
(3)
Where t
w
is the wall thickness, c is the neutral axis depth, h
w
is the wall height, l
w
is the
wall length, and
y
is the yield curvature of the section. In this study, the yield curvature
is estimated as
y
sy
l
w
c; alternatively, yield curvature can be estimated as
1.5 to 2.0
sy
l
w
, where
sy
is the tensile reinforcement yield strain. The constant 11/40 is
based on a linear increasing distribution of lateral forces over the height of the wall (Wallace
and Moehle, 1992). For this preliminary study, wall aspect ratio h
w
l
w
is set to 10 (for a 20
story building; h
w
l
w
50m5m) and the ratio of l
w
t
w
is set to 25 for Chilean buildings
(5m0.2m). Concrete compressive strain is set to 0.003 (the value that defines when SBEs
are required by ACI 318-08). Results are presented in Figure 15a for a plastic hinge length of
l
p
t
w
, with set equal to 2, 6, and 12. Results for the ACI 318-08 model also are shown; it
is noted that the ACI model results are different than those produced with Equation 3 because
the ACI model neglects elastic deformations. For l
p
12t
w
, if the drift ratio is about 0.015,
Figure 15. Impact of plastic hinge length on SBE variable (a) cl
w
, (b) h
w
l
w
.
DAMAGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SEISMIC DESIGNOF RC STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS S293
the neutral axis must exceed 0.15l
w
before SBE are required. However, for the same neutral
axis depth, 0.15l
w
, if inelastic deformations are concentrated over l
p
2t
w
, a drift ratio of
only about 0.008 can be tolerated before SBEs are required. In the limit, if approaches zero
(a compression-controlled wall, where the extreme fiber concrete compressive stress reaches
0.003 prior to yield of tensile reinforcement at the opposite wall boundary, i.e., no spread of
plasticity), then only the elastic drift is reached, assuming rebar buckling does not occur prior
to reaching the yield displacement. For equal to zero and yield curvature of 2.0
sy
l
w
, the
resulting elastic drift is:
u
h
w
0.01h
w
l
w
0.0005N, for h
w
N2.5 m and l
w
5 m.
Elastic drift ratios are plotted on Figure 11b and suggest that compression controlled walls in
buildings between roughly 10 and 20 stories are more susceptible to damage. This result
is consistent with observed damage. Walls in buildings less than ten stories are likely to
have lower levels of axial stress < 0.10A
g
f
0
c
and are less likely to be compression-
controlled, which is consistent with the performance of buildings in Via del Mar in the
1985 earthquake.
Variation of the wall aspect ratio h
w
l
w
is shown in Figure 15b for walls where
plasticity spreads out over the ACI assumed plastic hinge length of l
p
l
w
2. Results
for l
p
2t
w
(not shown) are similar to that for well-detailed walls with large c/l
w
values
(large axial load). Figure 15b includes aspect ratios ranging from 5 to 20, or 10 to 40 stories,
respectively. Results indicate that buildings over 30 stories are less prone to damage even for
relatively large cl
w
values, for example, due to large axial load and/or large flexural com-
pression force, since drift levels greater than about 2% are required in most cases to require
SBEs and anticipated drift demands are generally less than 1.0% (Figure 11b). Figure 15b
also shows that well-detailed walls with small ratios of cl
w
values can easily achieve
1% roof drift ratios. Poorly-detailed walls or walls with large axial load (large cl
w
values)
for relatively short buildings (e.g., ten stories or less) require lateral drift ratios of about
0.5% to 1% before SBEs are required per ACI 318; however, displacement demands for
these shorter, stiffer buildings (fundamental period of approximately 0.5 sec) are only
about one-half of that needed to require SBEs. These observations again help explain
the higher concentration of damage in buildings with poorly detailed walls in the range
of 15 to 20 stories.
As noted previously, the design displacement for the displacement-based design
approach for shear walls in ACI 318 is obtained using ASCE 7 provisions as:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e5;50;247
u
ACI
x
ASCE C
d
e
I (4)
where
e
is the elastic displacement for cracked section properties reduced by the response
modification coefficient R (equal to 5 and 6 for bearing wall systems and building frame
systems, respectively), C
d
is the deflection amplification factor (equal to 5 for both systems),
and I is the Importance Factor. In current U.S. codes, the intent is to provide 90% confidence
of non-collapse for MCE shaking. In contrast, the current ACI confinement trigger is based
on 50% confidence of not exceeding the concrete crushing limit in the Design Basis Earth-
quake, which is much lower shaking intensity than the MCE.
It is necessary to adjust ACI 318-08 Equation 21-8 to be more consistent with the
building code performance intent. Three factors need to be considered (neglecting the
S294 WALLACE ET AL.
role of C
d
): (1) MCE exceeds DBE; (2) there is dispersion about the median response; (3)
damping is likely to be lower than the 5% value assumed in the ACI provisions (e.g., on the
order of 2% to 3%; ATC-72 2010). To address these issues, the displacement value used in
the denominator of Equation 21-8 in ACI 318-11 should be increased by a factor of approxi-
mately 1.5 to adjust to MCE level shaking and to consider dispersion, and by approximately
1.2 to 1.3 to account for potential lower damping ratios; therefore, for Equation 21-8, either a
multiplier of two should be applied to the ASCE 7-05 displacement, or the coefficient of 600
in the denominator should be approximately doubled to 1,200.
BUCKLING AND FRACTURE OF REINFORCEMENT
Poorly detailed and/or compression-controlled walls, that is, walls that lack closely
spaced transverse reinforcement to sustain a stable compression zone and ensure spread
of plasticity by confining core concrete and suppressing rebar buckling, exhibited poor beha-
vior (Figure 2). The longitudinal boundary bars, typically of 18 mm to 25 mm diameter in
Chilean buildings, are typically enclosed within 8 mmdiameter horizontal web reinforcement
spaced at s 20 cm on center with 90 hooks at the wall boundary (see Figure 2c); therefore,
sd
b
ratios are typically in the range of 8 to 11. Such large sd
b
ratios are likely to result
in buckling of vertical reinforcement following even modest tensile strain excursions, i.e.,
around 0.01 (Rodriguez et al. 1999). Damage appeared to initiate at the wall boundary (and
extend over a height of approximately two to three wall thicknesses), and then propagate
towards the interior of the wall, or towards the wall flange in the case of T-shaped cross
section walls.
Reinforcement at wall boundaries is subjected to large variations in tension and compres-
sive strains when subjected to earthquake (reversed cyclic) loading. Compressive strains are
large, especially for large axial stress and for web boundaries of walls with T-shaped cross
sections (Figure 16), potentially leading to compression failure. Alternatively, if reinforce-
ment is subjected to large tensile strain demands (exceeding yield), cracks open, and upon
reverse loading, all compression must be resisted by reinforcement, potentially leading
to buckling failure. As noted previously, due to larger variation in the tension and compres-
sive strain demands (Figure 16), web boundary longitudinal reinforcement for walls with
T-shaped cross sections are much more susceptible to buckling than are boundary longitu-
dinal reinforcement in walls with rectangular cross section (for the same axial stress ratio;
e.g., see Figure 13, Thomsen and Wallace 2004).
Given the typical wall configurations used in Chile (corridor and transverse walls), as
well as the lack of closely spaced transverse reinforcement at wall boundaries, it is not sur-
prising that damage at web boundaries of walls with T-shaped cross sections was common
(Figure 16). However, the quantity of transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318-08 does
not ensure that the post-spalling axial strength of the core concrete is sufficient to sustain the
axial load demand. In addition, relatively few tests have been conducted on T-shaped walls,
or walls with flanges, and in the tests where ductile behavior was observed, e.g., TW2
(Figure 13), the sd
b
ratio was substantially less than the limiting value (3.33d
b
versus
6d
b
). The findings suggest that more stringent detailing may be needed to ensure ductile
behavior at T-shaped walls.
DAMAGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SEISMIC DESIGNOF RC STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS S295
CONCLUSIONS
The M
W
8.8 earthquake that struck Chile on 27 February 2010 provides a excellent
opportunity to study the performance of reinforced concrete buildings designed using a
modern seismic code provisions and concrete design based on ACI 318-95. Based on recon-
naissance efforts and subsequent preliminary studies, a number of issues have been identified
to help us understand the observed damage, particularly the damage to shear walls, and to
identify areas where changes to ACI 318-08 may be warranted. Based on this preliminary
work, the following observations are noted:
Pre-1985 buildings in Chile typically performed well because of the large ratios of
A
W
A
f
(stiff buildings), relatively low wall axial stress (typically < 0.10A
g
f
0
c
), and
relatively low displacement demands.
Post-1985 buildings, and particularly buildings constructed since 2000, shear walls
tend to have larger axial stress ratios and larger roof drift ratios, particularly on soft
soils (SIV). For compression-controlled walls, where the concrete compressive
strain reaches 0.003 prior to yield of tension reinforcement, simplified estimates
of drift demands and drift capacities indicated that compression-controlled walls
in 10-15 and 10-20 story buildings were susceptible to failures for SIII and SIV
soils, respectively. These findings are generally consistent with observed damage.
Post-2000 buildings in Chile commonly include central corridor walls and multiple
transverse walls, creating T-shaped walls, which are susceptible to web boundary
damage due to the large reinforcement tensile strains accompanied by large concrete
Figure 16. Web boundary strain demands for T-shaped wall.
S296 WALLACE ET AL.
compressive strains that develop at web boundary. For poorly-detailed web bound-
aries, sudden loss of lateral strength due to buckling of vertical boundary and web
bars has been observed in tests and likely was a significant factor in the degree of
damage observed following the 2010 earthquake (along with axial stress).
In current U.S. codes the intent is to provide 90% confidence of non-collapse for
MCE shaking. In contrast, the current ACI 318-08 Equation 21-8 confinement trig-
ger is based on 50% confidence of not exceeding the concrete crushing limit in the
Design Basis Earthquake (which is much lower shaking intensity than the MCE and
is based on an assumed 5% damping ratio). To address these factors, the displace-
ment used in Equation 21-8 should be increased; a factor of two is suggested.
From the Federico Santa Maria Technical University: Carlos Aguirre and Arturo
Milln
From the Universidad de Chile: Professors Mara Ofelia Moroni, and Rodolfo
Saragoni
All of the members listed provided tremendous assistance, especially the students from
Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile and Federico Santa Maria Technical University.
Travel funds were provided by the EERI Learning From Earthquakes program (NSF
CMMI-0758529) and by NEEScomm (NSF CMMI-0927178). Opinions, findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily
represent those of the sponsor or others mentioned.
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-99), 1999. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), Farmington Hills, MI, 391 pp.
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-95), 1995. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), Farmington Hills, MI, 391 pp.
DAMAGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SEISMIC DESIGNOF RC STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS S297
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-08), 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (318R-08), Farmington Hills, MI, 465 pp.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-10), 2010. ASCE/SEI 7-10: Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, VA, 650 pp.
Applied Technology Council (ATC 72-1), 2010. Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings, Report No. PEER/ATC-72-1, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, CA, 242 pp.
Brown, J., and Kunnath, S. K., 2004. Low-cycle fatigue failure of reinforcing steel bars, ACI
Materials Journal 101, 457466.
Caldern, J. A., 2007. Update on Structural System Characteristics used in RC Building Con-
struction in Chile, Civil Engineering Thesis, University of Chile, 76 pp. (in Spanish).
Comit Inmobiliario (CChC), 2010. Communication based on INE data, Instituto Nacional de
Estadsticas (National Institute of Statistics), http://www.ine.cl/.
Centro de Investigacin, Desarrllo e Innovacin de Estructuras y Materiales (IDIEM), 2010. Peri-
taje Estructural Edificio Alto Ro, Ciudad de Concepcin, Informe Final, Descripcin de
Caida y Factores Asociados al Colapso, Revisin 1, Informe No 644.424-00, University
of Chile (in Spanish).
Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin (INN), 2008. NCh430.Of2008: Reinforced Concrete
Design and Calculation Requirements, Santiago, Chile, 17 pp. (in Spanish).
Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin (INN), 1996. NCh433.Of96: Earthquake Resistant Design of
Buildings, Santiago, Chile, 43 pp. (in Spanish).
Massone, L. M, Bonelli, P., Lagos, R., Lder, C., Moehle, J., and Wallace, J. W., 2012. Seismic
design and construction practices for reinforced concrete structural wall buildings, Earthquake
Spectra 28, this issue.
Midorikawa, S., 1990. Ambient Vibration Tests of Buildings in Santiago and Via del Mar, DIE
No.90-1, Departamento de Ingenieria Estructural, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile,
169 pp.
Moehle, J. P., Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes, Earthquake
Spectra 8, 403428.
Rodriguez, M. E., Botero, J. C., and Villa, J., 1999. Cyclic stress-strain behavior of reinforcing
steel including effect of Bbuckling, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 125, 605612.
Shibata, A., and Sozen, M. A., 1976. Substitute structure method for seismic design in R/C,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 102, 118.
Thomsen, J. H., and Wallace, J. W., 2004. Displacement-based Design of slender RC structural
walls experimental verification, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 130, 618630.
Uniform Building Code (UBC-97), 1997. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, California, 492 pp.
Wallace, J. W., 1995. Seismic design of RC shear walls; Part I: New code format, J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE, 121, 7587.
Wallace, J. W., 1996. Evaluation of UBC-94 provisions for seismic design of RC structural walls,
Earthquake Spectra 12, 327348.
Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1989. The 3 March 1985 Chile Earthquake: Structural
Requirements for Bearing Wall Buildings, EERC Report No. UCB/EERC-89/5, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
S298 WALLACE ET AL.
Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1992. Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall
buildings, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 118, 16251644.
Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1993. An evaluation of ductility and detailing requirements
of bearing wall buildings using data from the 3 March 1985 Chile earthquake, Earthquake
Spectra 9, 137156.
Wallace, J. W., and Orakcal, K., 2002. ACI 318-99 provisions for seismic design of structural
walls, ACI Structural Journal 99, 499508.
Wallace, J. W., and Thomsen, J. H., 1995. Seismic design of RC shear walls; Part II: Applica-
tions, J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 121, 88101.
Wood, S. L., Wight, J. K., and Moehle, J. P., 1987. The 1985 Chile Earthquake, Observations on
Earthquake Resistant Construction in Via del Mar, Civil Engineering Studies, Structural
Research Series No. 532, University of Illinois, Urbana, 176 pp.
(Received 26 July 2011; accepted 14 April 2012)
DAMAGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SEISMIC DESIGNOF RC STRUCTURAL WALL BUILDINGS S299