1124

Ductility of concrete walls: the Canadian seismic

design provisions 1984 to 2004
Perry Adebar, James Mutrie, and Ronald DeVall

Abstract: The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) references Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard
A23.3 for the design of concrete structures. The seismic design provisions in the 2004 edition of CSA A23.3, which
ensure concrete walls without confinement reinforcement have adequate flexural displacement capacity (ductility), have
been completely revised from the provisions in the 1994 edition of CSA A23.3 standard, which are similar to the pro-
visions in the 1984 edition. The new provisions require an estimate of the displacement demand of the seismic force
resisting system due to the design earthquake. For ductile walls that are part of a system with good displacement con-
trol, the new provisions are less restrictive than the old provisions, while for moderately (nominally) ductile walls, the
new provisions are considerably more restrictive than the old provisions. A comprehensive review of the 1984 and
1994 provisions and the background to the 2004 provisions are presented, and it is explained why the seismic design
provisions required significant changes.
Key words: building codes, concrete walls, displacement-based design, ductility, seismic design.
Résumé : Le Code canadien du bâtiment (CNB) fait référence à la norme CSA A23.3 (Design of Concrete Structures)
de l'Association canadienne de normalisation. Les dispositions de conception contre les séismes contenues dans l'édition
2004 de la norme CSA A23.3, qui assurent que les murs de béton sans renforcement de confinement possèdent une ca-
pacité de déplacement en flexion (ductilité) adéquate, ont été complètement révisées par rapport aux dispositions de
l'édition de 1994 de la norme CSA A23.3, lesquelles sont similaires à celles de l'édition de 1984. Les nouvelles dispo-
sitions demandent une estimation de la demande de déplacement sur le système de résistance aux forces sismiques cal-
culées selon de générées par le séisme utilisé pour la conception. Quant aux murs ductiles qui font partie d'un système
ayant un bon contrôle du déplacement, les nouvelles dispositions sont moins contraignantes que les anciennes, alors
que pour les murs modérément (essentiellement) ductiles, les nouvelles dispositions sont considérablement plus contrai-
gnantes que les anciennes. Une révision complète des dispositions des codes de 1984 et de 1994 et les antécédents des
dispositions du code de 2004 sont présentés, et nous expliquons pourquoi les dispositions du code ont dû être considé-
rablement modifiées.
Mots clés : codes du bâtiment, murs de béton, conception basée sur le déplacement, ductilité, conception contre les
séismes.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Adebar et al. 1137

Introduction
To ensure adequate seismic performance, a concrete (flex-
ural) wall must have sufficient strength, particularly, shear
strength greater than shear demand associated with flexural
hinging, and sufficient displacement capacity. The flexural
displacement capacity (ductility) of a concrete wall is di-
Received 3 June 2004. Revision accepted 21 June 2005.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cjce.nrc.ca on 24 November 2005.
P. Adebar.1 Department of Civil Engineering, The University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
J. Mutrie. Jones Kwong Kishi, North Vancouver,
BC V7P 3P7, Canada.
R. DeVall. Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd., 1285 West
Broadway, 3rd Floor, Vancouver, BC V6H 3X8, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 30 April 2006.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: adebar@civil.ubc.ca).
rectly related to the vertical length of the plastic hinge, the
horizontal length of the flexural compression zone, and the
compression strain capacity of concrete.
When the maximum compression strain demand is ex-
pected to exceed the compression strain capacity of uncon-
fined concrete, confinement reinforcement must be provided
in the ends of the wall. Alternatively, the wall geometry can
be modified to reduce the flexural compression zone length,
and hence reduce the maximum compression strain demand.
Because of the increased costs and difficulties associated
with providing confinement reinforcement in walls, design-
ers usually avoid providing such reinforcement. Thus, the
primary function of seismic design provisions for wall
ductility is to define the maximum length of the flexural
compression zone in concrete walls without confinement re-
inforcement.
The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) references
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard A23.3 for
the design of concrete structures. The wall ductility provi-
sions in the 1994 CSA A23.3 standard (CSA 1994) are simi-
lar to the provisions in the 1984 CSA A23.3 standard (CSA

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32: 1124–1137 (2005) doi: 10.1139/L05-070 © 2005 NRC Canada
Adebar et al. 1125

1984). According to these provisions, the maximum length Fig. 1. Deformations of concrete walls subjected to lateral load:
of the flexural compression zone in concrete walls without (a) vertical strain profile at curvature capacity of a concrete wall,
confinement reinforcement depends only on the wall length (b) vertical strain demands at the base of a typical wall, (c) cur-
and the ratio of elastic-force demand to strength of the seis- vature profiles over the height of a typical wall, and (d) dis-
mic force resisting system (SFRS). Whereas, the wall ductil- placement profiles over the height of a typical wall.
ity provisions in the 2004 CSA A23.3 standard (CSA 2004)
require an estimate of the displacement demand of the SFRS
due to the design earthquake forces. The maximum com-
pression zone length depends on the wall length and ratio of
top wall displacement to wall height (global drift).
This paper presents the background to the 1984 and 1994
CSA A23.3 seismic design provisions and the 2004 CSA
A23.3 seismic design provisions that specify when confine-
ment reinforcement is required in the ends of concrete walls
to achieve the required ductility. It also presents a critical re-
view of the assumptions that were used to develop the 1984
and 1994 provisions and explains why significant changes
were necessary, particularly, for moderately (nominally)
ductile walls.

Fundamental principles
The objective of wall ductility provisions is to ensure that
curvature capacity φc of a concrete wall is greater than or
equal to curvature demand φd imposed on the wall by the de-
sign earthquake:
[1] φc ≥ φd
Curvature capacity is given by
⑀cm
[2] φc =
c
where ⑀cm is the maximum compression strain (i.e., com-
pression strain capacity) of concrete and c is the horizontal
length from the compression face of the wall to the location
of zero vertical strain — the flexural compression zone
length. The vertical strain profile associated with the curva-
ture capacity is shown in Fig. 1a.
As shown in Fig. 1b, total curvature demand φd is made
up of an elastic portion that is referred to as yield curvature
of the section φy and inelastic curvature demand φid . It is
given as
[3] φd = φy + φid
There are two different approaches for estimating curvature
demand; herein referred to as displacement approach and
ductility approach.

Displacement approach
In the displacement approach, inelastic curvature demand
φid is determined directly from inelastic displacement de-
mand at the top of the wall ∆ id as follows (Fig. 1):
θid ∆ id
[4] φid = = above the centre of plastic hinge (hw – 0.5lp). Thus, the re-
lp lp(hw − 0.5lp) quirement that curvature capacity be greater than or equal to
curvature demand can be expressed as
where inelastic curvature demand is equal to inelastic rota-
tional demand θid divided by plastic hinge length lp and in- ∆ id
elastic rotational demand is equal to inelastic displacement [5] φc ≥ φy +
demand at top of wall divided by height of wall measured lp(hw − 0.5lp)

© 2005 NRC Canada

1126 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

which can be rearranged to give the requirement that inelas-
tic rotational capacity θic of the wall be greater than or equal
to inelastic rotational demand θid as
∆ id
[6] (φc − φy)lp ≥
(hw − 0.5lp)
One advantage of expressing bending deformations in terms
of inelastic rotation rather than total curvature is that inelas-
tic rotation is equal to inelastic drift, and it is obvious what
is a small or large value of inelastic drift; whereas the corre-
sponding curvature depends on the particular wall length.
Equation [6] is the basis of wall ductility provisions in the
2004 CSA A23.3 standard.
Ductility approach
In the alternative approach — herein referred to as ductil-
ity approach — total curvature demand is estimated from
curvature ductility demand µ φd and yield curvature as fol-
lows:
[7] φd = µ φd φy
Background to 1984 and 1994 seismic
design provisions
The seismic design provisions in the 1984 and 1994 CSA
A23.3 standard, which specify when confinement reinforce-
ment is needed in the ends of walls, are based on a ductility
approach and can be derived using eq. [11] by introducing
the following expression for yield curvature:
⑀sy + ⑀cy
[12] φy =
lw
where ⑀sy is maximum tension (steel) strain in the wall at the
yield point, ⑀cy is maximum compression strain in the wall at
the yield point, and lw is the wall length. If eqs. [1], [2], and
[12] are substituted into eq. [7] and the results are rear-
ranged as the ratio of maximum flexural compression zone
length to wall length to ensure that curvature capacity is
greater than curvature demand, the following expression is
obtained:
c ⑀cm 1
[13] ≤
lw (⑀sy + ⑀cy) µφ d

The total displacement demand, which is made up of an The following strain values were used in the derivation of
elastic portion referred to as yield displacement ∆ y and an the 1984 standard provisions: ⑀cm = 0.004 for unconfined
inelastic portion ∆ id , can similarly be determined from dis- concrete, ⑀sy = 0.002 (grade 400 MPa reinforcement), and
placement ductility demand µ φd and yield displacement as ⑀cy = 0.00067. With these strain values, eq. [13] simplifies to

∆ d = ∆ y + ∆ id = µ ∆d ∆ y c 1.5
[8] [14] ≤
lw µφ d
Paulay (2001) recommends that yield displacement at top
of a wall be determined from yield curvature at base of the When eq. [10] for curvature ductility demand is substituted
wall assuming a first mode curvature distribution. It is repre- in the above equation, the expression becomes
sented as
c (µ − 1) 0.28 hw2
[15] ≤ 1.5 1 + ∆d
[9] ∆ y = 0.28φyhw2 lw lp(hw − 0.5lp)

Combining eqs. [3], [4], [7], [8], and [9] and rearranging to
solve for curvature ductility demand as a function of dis-
placement ductility demand gives the following expression:
(µ − 1)0.28hw2
[10] µφ d = 1 + ∆d
lp(hw − 0.5lp)
Thus, the requirement that curvature capacity is greater than
or equal to curvature demand can be expressed as
(µ ∆d − 1) 0.28φyhw2
[11] φc ≥ φy +
lp(hw − 0.5lp)
Paulay pioneered the ductility approach for walls over
30 years ago and continues to advocate such an approach
(Paulay 2001). Comparing eq. [5] from the displacement ap-
proach to eq. [11] from the ductility approach reveals the
difference in the two approaches. In the ductility approach,
inelastic displacement demand is estimated from displace-
ment ductility demand and yield displacement, which in turn
is estimated from yield curvature. In the displacement ap-
proach, inelastic displacement demand is an input.
The vertical length of a plastic hinge in a wall can be ex-
pressed in a general form as
[16] lp = χlw + ψhw
where χ and ψ are constants. By substituting eq. [16] into
eq. [15] gives the following general expression for the ratio
of maximum compression zone length to a wall length for a
wall without confinement reinforcement:
c (µ ∆d − 1) 0.56
[17] ≤ 1.5 1 +
lw (χlw / hw + ψ)(2 − χlw / hw − ψ)
In their 1975 paper, Paulay and Uzumeri used two different
recommendations for plastic hinge length. One is given by
χ = 0.4 and ψ = 0.05, while the other is given by χ = 0.2 and
ψ = 0.075. Equation [17], with these χ and ψ values, is the
theoretical basis of the wall ductility provisions in the 1984
and 1994 CSA A23.3 standards.
Simplified expressions
The following simplified expression for curvature ductility
demand was developed for the 1984 CSA A23.3 standard as
an approximation to eq. [10]:

© 2005 NRC Canada

Adebar et al. 1127

[1 + 4 (µ ∆d − 1)](16 + hw / lw) Fig. 2. Comparison of exact expression eq. [10] with two differ-
[18] µ φd =
32 ent plastic hinge models and the approximate expression eq. [18]
for two displacement ductility levels.
Figure 2 compares eq. [18] to eq. [10] with lp given by
eq. [16] and χ = 0.4 and ψ = 0.05, and χ = 0.2 and ψ =
0.075.
Substituting eq. [18] into eq. [14] gives the following
simplified expression for a ratio of maximum flexural com-
pression zone length to a wall length for a wall without con-
finement reinforcement:
c 48
[19] ≤
lw [1 + 4(µ ∆d − 1)](16 + hw / lw)

The influence of wall height-to-length ratio hw/lw depends

on the assumed values of χ and ψ; the more the relation be-
tween the plastic hinge length and the wall length (larger χ
and smaller ψ), the greater the significance of hw/lw. Accord-
ing to eq. [19], when wall height-to-length ratio hw/lw is in-
creased from 5 to 10 — a 100% increase — the ratio of
flexural compression zone length to wall length reduces by
only about 24%. A conservative value of hw/lw = 10 was
used to develop further simplified expressions for maximum
flexural compression zone length in the 1984 and 1994
A23.3 standard.
According to the well-known equal displacement assump-
tion, displacement ductility is equal to the ratio of maximum
force demand (from a linear analysis) to actual strength of
wall, which can be expressed in terms of force reduction fac-
tor R that is used to design the wall and wall overstrength
factor γ w as
R count for wall overstrength factor γ w for slender walls
[20] µ ∆d =
γw
When hw/lw = 10 and eq. [20] are substituted into eq. [19]
and R = 4 is assumed, the ratio of maximum compression
zone length to wall length for ductile walls without confine-
ment reinforcement is expressed as
c 0.615γ w
[21] ≤ yield curvature.
lw 5.33 − γ w
The final expression for maximum flexural compression
zone length that appeared in the 1994 CSA A23.3 standard
for ductile (R = 3.5 or 4) walls without concrete confinement
is
c
[22] ≤ 0.14γ w ≤ 0.55
lw
Note that eqs. [21] and [22] give the same result when wall
overstrength factor γ w has a minimum value of 1.0. The final
expression for maximum compression zone length that ap-
peared in the 1994 CSA A23.3 for nominally ductile (R = 2)
walls without concrete confinement is
c Discussion of 1984 and 1994 provisions:
[23] ≤ 0.33γ w ≤ 0.55
lw
The final expressions that were incorporated into the 1984
CSA A23.3 standard were similar to eqs. [22] and [23] but
not identical. For brevity, these are not discussed here.
Figure 3 compares the 1994 expressions given by
eqs. [22] and [23] to the approximate expression, eq. [19],
and the exact expression, eq. [17], for χ = 0.4 and ψ = 0.05,
and χ = 0.2 and ψ = 0.075. Equation [20] was used to deter-
mine µ ∆d in both eqs. [17] and [19]. The approximate ex-
pression, eq. [19], gives similar maximum compression zone
lengths to the exact expression, eq. [17], over a wide range
of wall slenderness. The simplified limits give similar results
for slender walls but more conservative results for most
walls.
Figure 4 compares how the three different approaches ac-
(hw/lw = 10). The figure indicates that the approximate solu-
tion eq. [19] gives similar results as the exact solution
eq. [17]. The 1994 CSA A23.3 standard limits given by
eqs. [22] and [23] are simple linear functions of wall
overstrength factor γ w and are conservative compared with
the actual nonlinear relationship. The very large compres-
sion zone lengths permitted by eqs. [17] and [19] are of con-
siderable concern and are discussed later in the section on
The 1994 CSA A23.3 standard limit on flexural compres-
sion zone length given by eq. [22] can be rearranged into a
similar form as eq. [1] as follows:
0.004 0.004
[24] ≥
c 0.14γ wlw
where the left side of the expression is the curvature capacity
φc of the wall. Thus, the 1994 CSA A23.3 standard limit for
ductile (R = 3.5/4) walls may be described as a minimum cur-
vature capacity of 0.004/0.14γ wlw. The 1994 CSA A23.3 stan-
dard limit for nominally ductile (R = 2) walls may similarly
be described as a minimum curvature capacity of 0.004/0.33
γ wlw.
the need for change
Plastic hinge length
As mentioned, Paulay and Uzumeri (1975) considered two
models for plastic hinge length that can be summarized by

© 2005 NRC Canada

1128
Fig. 3. Influence of wall slenderness according to exact expression
eq. [17] with two different plastic hinge models, the approximate
expression eq. [19], and code limits given by eqs. [22] and [23]
for ductile (R = 4) walls and nominally ductile (R = 2) walls.
Fig. 4. Influence of wall overstrength according to exact expres-
sion eq. [17] with two different plastic hinge models, the approxi-
mate expression eq. [19], and code limits given by eqs. [22] and
[23] for ductile (R = 4) walls and nominally ductile (R = 2) walls.
eq. [16] with χ = 0.4 and ψ = 0.05, and χ = 0.2 and ψ =
0.075. Recent thinking, e.g., Paulay (1986), Uniform Build-
ing Code (ICBO 1997), Blue Book (SEAOC 1996), is that
plastic hinge length lp is about equal to wall length lw and
that a safe estimate would be to use half the wall length
0.5lw. Paulay (2001) recently suggested that plastic hinge
length should be given by eq. [16] with χ = 0.2 and ψ =
0.044. Figure 5 compares the ratio of plastic hinge length to
the wall length according to these five different approaches.
It can be seen that 0.5lw and 1.0lw are approximately the up-
per and lower bounds of the two expressions used by Paulay
and Uzumeri in 1975. Also shown in Fig. 5 are experimen-
tally measured plastic hinge lengths from a recent large-
scale test on a slender wall (Adebar et al. 2004).
As there is some doubt about the plastic hinge length, it is
useful to examine how the 1994 CSA A23.3 standards limits
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005
Fig. 5. Comparison of five different models for plastic hinge
length.
Fig. 6. Influence of assuming plastic hinge length is proportional
to wall length.
compare with the theoretical limits when different plastic
hinge lengths are used. Figure 6 compares the limit on maxi-
mum compression zone length computed from eq. [17] for
χ = 0.5 and ψ = 0, and χ = 1.0 and ψ = 0. The results indicate
that if plastic hinge length is proportional to wall length (any
value of χ with ψ = 0), the ratio of maximum flexural com-
pression zone length to wall length is much more sensitive to
wall height-to-length ratio hw/lw; that is, the curves have a
steeper slope in Fig. 6 compared with Fig. 3. If plastic hinge
length is equal to 0.5lw, the 1994 CSA A23.3 standard limits
given by eqs. [22] and [23] are unconservative for walls with
height-to-length ratios greater than about 6.
Yield curvature
In the ductility approach, curvature demand is estimated
as the product of yield curvature and curvature ductility de-
mand as given by eq. [7], where the latter is a large number
© 2005 NRC Canada
Adebar et al. 1129

such as 10 for ductile walls. Thus, any errors in the estimate Fig. 7. Bending moment – curvature response of (a) a concrete
of yield curvature will be increased by an order of magni- wall with low axial compression and large amount of vertical re-
tude in the estimate of curvature demand. inforcement and (b) a concrete wall with large axial compression
Following the early work of Paulay (see for example and a small amount of vertical reinforcement as is typical in
Paulay (1986)), the 1984 and 1994 CSA A23.3 seismic de- high-rise buildings.
sign provisions are based on the assumption that yield curva-
ture is equal to curvature at first yield of reinforcement. At
that curvature, maximum tensile strain in the wall is equal to
about the yield strain of reinforcement, which is 0.002 for
grade 400 MPa steel. For walls with small flexural compres-
sion zone lengths at maximum curvature, compression strain
in the wall when reinforcement first yields is reasonably in-
sensitive to axial compression and geometry of the wall and
can be estimated as 0.00067. Thus curvature at first yield of
reinforcement will be about 0.00267/lw in such walls.
In recent years, Paulay (2001) has recommended that
yield curvature be significantly increased from curvature at
first yield for certain walls, and the reason is illustrated in
Fig. 7a. For the bending moment – curvature response
shown in Fig. 7a, the equivalent linear response is a straight
line passing through the point of first yielding of reinforce-
ment, and the yield point is where the equivalent linear re-
sponse crosses a horizontal line at the nominal capacity (i.e.,
plastic capacity) of the wall. Depending on the shape of the
bending moment – curvature relationship, curvature at this
yield point may be much larger than curvature at first yield.
For rectangular walls with uniformly distributed reinforce-
ment, Paulay (2001) suggests that yield curvature be in-
creased by a factor of 1.5 from curvature at first yield.
If yield curvature in eq. [11] is increased by a factor of
1.5 for rectangular walls with distributed reinforcement, cur-
vature demand will increase proportionally, and maximum
flexural compression zone length given by eqs. [17] and [19]
must be reduced proportionally. Similarly, the 1994 CSA
A23.3 standard limits given by eqs. [22] and [23] must be
reduced by a factor of 1.5.
Paulay (2001) assumes that equivalent linear-elastic re-
sponse of walls is always secant to the point of first yielding
of reinforcement. An alternative approach is to assume that In fact, as shown in Fig. 7b, the assumed yield curvature of
equivalent stiffness EcIe is whatever value gives the best esti- 0.00267/lw is actually too large for walls with a low percent-
mate of maximum displacement demand using a linear dy- age of vertical reinforcement and subjected to significant
namic analysis. Such an equivalent linear response would compression.
not always intercept the point of first yielding of reinforce- Another issue is that curvature at first yield of reinforce-
ment. Ibrahim and Adebar (2004) used the criterion of equal ment will be larger in walls where the flexural compression
area under the nonlinear and bilinear load–deflection curves zone is larger at maximum curvature. In a ductile (R/γ w = 4)
to determine the equivalent stiffness EcIe. They found that wall, the compression zone length is limited to 0.14lw. Thus,
EcIe is related more to gross (uncracked) section stiffness it is reasonable to assume a compression zone length of
EcIg than to first yield of reinforcement, and for concrete 0.25lw at first yield of reinforcement in such a wall. This
walls with a low percentage of vertical reinforcement and compression zone length corresponds to a yield curvature of
significant axial compression, EcIe is close to EcIg, even after 0.00267/lw and maximum tension strain of 0.002.
the wall is severely cracked from previous cycles (Fig. 7b). According to the provisions in the 1994 CSA A23.3 stan-
Assuming that yield curvature is defined by the point where dard (eq. [23]), nominally ductile walls with an overstrength of
the equivalent linear response intercepts the nominal capac- 1.67 are permitted to have a flexural compression zone length
ity Mn on an equivalent bilinear bending moment – curvature as large as 0.55lw at maximum curvature, which is about four
response, a general definition of yield curvature is given by times the compression zone length of 0.14lw permitted for duc-
tile walls. Such nominally ductile walls will also have propor-
Mn
[25] φy = tionally larger compression zone lengths at yielding, and hence
Ec I e proportionally larger yield curvatures. Unfortunately, this was
not accounted for in the derivation of the 1984 and 1994 CSA
If this definition of yield curvature is used, then the 1994 A23.3 provisions, and partly explains why the 2004 provisions
CSA A23.3 provisions are not unconservative for all walls. are more restrictive for moderately ductile walls.

© 2005 NRC Canada

1130 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

System yield displacement Fig. 8. The influence of interconnecting floor slabs on two walls
The SFRS of a building often includes walls of different of different length: (a) bending moment – deflection relation-
lengths. As concrete floor slabs rigidly interconnect the lat- ships, and (b) reduction in system stiffness after long wall yields
eral displacement of all walls at every floor level, there is a for varying numbers of interconnections (floor levels).
complex interaction between such walls. To understand this
interaction, consider a simple two-wall example where the
walls are idealized as elastic–plastic. The wall 2 is longer
than the wall 1. The yield displacement of wall 2 is equal to
half the yield displacement of wall 1 (∆ y2 = ∆ y1 / 2), and wall
2 is twice as strong as wall 1 (Mn2 = 2Mn1), thus the elastic
stiffness of wall 2 is four times the elastic stiffness of wall 1
(k2 = 4k1).
Figure 8 shows the response of the two separate walls
when they are each subjected to a lateral load at the top. The
figure also shows the combined response of wall 1 and wall
2 if they are interconnected only at the top of the walls —
the combined response is exactly equal to the sum of the two
individual wall responses. After wall 2 yields at ∆ y2, the
stiffness of the combined system is reduced to the elastic
stiffness of wall 1.
Figure 8 also shows the response of the two walls that are
interconnected at numerous points over the height because
of floor slabs in a multi-story building. In the elastic range,
the response of both two-wall systems is similar; however
after the long wall (wall 2) yields, the responses are very dif-
ferent. When the walls are interconnected by floor slabs,
wall 2 is not able to deform in a plastic shape at the same
time that wall 1 deforms in an elastic shape. The lateral de-
flections of the two walls must remain the same at every
floor level. Thus, a redistribution of shear forces occurs in
the lower levels so that there is very little plastic rotation in
wall 2 until a plastic hinge also forms in wall 1. As this re-
distribution occurs only in the lower few stories, the stiffness
of the multi-story system is not significantly reduced until
both walls yield.
Figure 8b summarizes how the number of interconnec-
tions (floor levels) influences the reduction in stiffness of the
example system after a plastic hinge forms at the base of the
longer wall. When the walls are only interconnected at the
top (one level), there is an 80% reduction in system stiffness
when the long wall yields — the long wall provides 80% of
the sum of stiffness of the two cantilever walls. On the other
hand, when there are more than 15 interconnections between
the two walls, yielding of the long wall results in only about
10% reduction in system stiffness. coefficient 0.28 in eq. [9] must be modified depending on
The yield displacement of the interconnected two-wall the relative lengths (stiffnesses) of the different walls.
system is greater than the yield displacement of wall 2, less
than the yield displacement of wall 1, and depends on the Coupled walls
relative strengths of walls 1 and 2. A safe (smaller than ac- Coupled walls are a system where walls are intercon-
tual) estimate can be made by ignoring the reduction in sys- nected at every floor level by coupling beams in addition to
tem stiffness after the long wall yields (shown as “idealized” floor slabs. The issue here again has to do with yield dis-
in Fig. 8a). It is given by placement of the system. Figure 9 shows the push-over re-
sponse of a coupled wall system subjected to a first mode
M n1 + M n2 distribution of forces (Adebar and Ibrahim 2002). The re-
[26] ∆y =
k1 + k2 sponse is highly nonlinear, but may be reasonably approxi-
mated as bilinear. The effective yield point, however, does
This simple two-wall example demonstrates that yield dis- not correspond to yielding of walls. The dramatic reduction
placement of a wall cannot be determined a priori without in stiffness of the system is due entirely to yielding of cou-
knowledge of the system — without a displacement analysis pling beams. Thus, the effective yield displacement of a cou-
of the system. From a ductility perspective, the issue is that pled-wall system must be estimated from the strength of the
when walls of different lengths are combined together, the system and the effective elastic stiffness of the system.

© 2005 NRC Canada

Adebar et al.
Fig. 9. Push-over response of a highly coupled wall system sub-
jected to a first mode distribution of lateral load (from Adebar
and Ibrahim 2002).
From a ductility perspective, the issue is that the curvature
distribution in coupled walls at the point that the system
yields, is different than a cantilever wall. To the authors’
knowledge, no one has extended the ductility approach to
coupled walls. It is relatively straightforward to extend the
displacement approach to treat coupled walls, and this is one
of the strongest arguments for adopting a displacement ap-
proach in the 2004 CSA A23.3 standard.
2004 seismic design provisions
The provisions in the 2004 Canadian standard CSA A23.3
standard, which specify when confinement reinforcement is
required in walls, are displacement based and are expressed
in terms of inelastic rotations, as shown in eq. [6]. In order
that a concrete wall has adequate ductility (displacement ca-
pacity), the inelastic rotational capacity must be greater than
or equal to the inelastic rotational demand.
Inelastic rotational capacity
The inelastic rotational capacity of a wall is given by
θic = (φc − φy)lp
[27]
where total curvature capacity φc depends on maximum
compression strain of concrete ⑀cm and the flexural compres-
sion zone length c as given by eq. [2]. Substituting eq. [2]
into eq. [27] as well as φy = 0.004/lw and lp = 0.5lw results in
the following expression for inelastic rotational capacity of a
concrete wall:
⑀cmlw
[28] θic = − 0.002 ≤ 0.025
2c
where ⑀cm may be taken as 0.004 for unconfined concrete,
and a description of how to determine ⑀cm for walls with
confinement is given by Mitchell et al. (2003a).
Regardless of the demands on the system, all walls must
have a minimum rotational capacity, and it is recommended
that this be 0.004 for ductile walls and 0.003 for moderately
ductile walls. The value of θic as well as ⑀cm = 0.004 for un-
confined concrete is substituted into eq. [28] and the results
are rearranged in maximum flexural compression zone
lengths of 0.33lw and 0.40lw for ductile and moderately duc-
1131
tile walls without confinement reinforcement, respectively.
Up to these flexural compression zone lengths at maximum
curvature, the assumed yield curvature of φy = 0.004/lw is
safe.
When concrete compression strain demands are small, the
inelastic rotational capacity of a concrete wall may be lim-
ited by tensile strain capacity of reinforcing steel, which for
bonded reinforcing bars embedded in concrete is about 5%.
This strain capacity is much less than the strain capacity of
bare reinforcing bars owing to localization of strains at con-
crete cracks. A conservative curvature capacity of 0.05/lw re-
sults from assuming zero compression strain in concrete;
and for a plastic hinge length of 0.5lw, the corresponding in-
elastic rotational capacity is 0.025. This is the upper limit of
inelastic rotational capacity indicated in eq. [28].
As the 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC
2005) limits maximum inter-story drift to 2.5%, and global
drift is always less than maximum inter-story drift, the in-
elastic portion of global drift (i.e., inelastic rotation) will al-
ways be less than 0.025 for a concrete wall meeting the
requirements of the 2005 NBCC.
To the authors’ knowledge, there are no recommendations
for plastic hinge length of coupled walls. It is expected that
walls with a low degree of coupling will act similar to sepa-
rate cantilever walls. The wall length to be used in eq. [28]
for estimating rotational capacity of such walls is the indi-
vidual wall segment length. On the other hand, very highly
coupled walls will act similar to a single solid wall with
openings. In the absence of any better information, it is rec-
ommended that the wall length used in eq. [28] to estimate
rotational capacity of highly coupled walls be taken as the
overall length of the coupled wall system. This approach is
consistent with how the procedures for cantilever walls were
extended to coupled walls in the 1984 and 1994 CSA A23.3
provisions (CSA 1984, 1994).
Inelastic rotational demand
The inelastic rotational demand on a concrete wall can be
determined from
∆ id
[29] θid =
(hw − 0.5lw)
where plastic hinge length lp is assumed equal to the full
wall length lw. While a shorter plastic hinge length of 0.5lw
gives safer results when estimating rotational capacity from
eq. [27], a longer plastic hinge length of 1.0lw gives safer re-
sults when estimating rotational demand.
As discussed previously, walls of different length that are
tied together at numerous floor levels experience similar
plastic rotations. Thus, one value of (hw – 0.5lw) should be
used for an entire system of walls acting together, and to be
safe, the lw used in eq. [29] should be from the longest wall
in the system.
The remaining unknown in eq. [29] is inelastic displace-
ment demand ∆ id . One way to estimate this is to assume the
difference between total displacement and inelastic displace-
ment (the elastic portion) is equal to the first mode yield dis-
placement given by eq. [9]. Such an approach assumes that
elastic displacement is a function of wall height and length
as in the ductility approach. As discussed earlier, the prob-
© 2005 NRC Canada
1132 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005

lem with this approach is that yield displacement of a sys- Fig. 10. Equal displacement assumption in terms of (a) 1995
tem of different length walls is not related to the dimensions NBCC and 1994 CSA A23.3 nomenclature and (b) 2005 NBCC
of any individual wall, and the approach cannot be applied and 2004 CSA A23.3 nomenclature.
to coupled walls. Another problem is that eq. [9] predicts a
yield displacement that increases exponentially with wall
height; however, the displacement demand of very tall walls
will be limited by maximum ground displacement. Equation
[9] over-predicts the elastic portion of total displacement of
very tall walls (White and Adebar 2004).
A better approach is to determine inelastic displacement
demand from total displacement demand of the seismic
force resisting system. One way of doing this is to assume
that inelastic drift, which is equal to inelastic rotation, is ap-
proximately equal to maximum global drift
∆ id ∆
[30] θid = ≈ d
(hw − 0.5lw) hw

This assumption was used to develop the wall ductility pro-

visions in the 1999 ACI 318 building code (Wallace and
Orakcal 2002). White and Adebar (2004) compared the in-
elastic rotations determined by using eq. [30] with the re-
sults of numerous nonlinear dynamic analyses on high-rise
buildings, and they found that this approach gives reasonable
results for coupled walls but over predicts inelastic rotations
in slender cantilever walls. The reason is that elastic dis-
placement (∆ d − ∆ id ) is often a larger portion of total dis-
placement ∆ d than half the wall length (0.5lw) is of total
wall height hw for slender walls.
An alternate approach to determine the inelastic displace-
ment demand from the total displacement demand is to re-
late elastic portion of total displacement to relative strength
of the wall. Unlike eq. [30], such an approach would cor-
rectly predict that a wall with adequate strength is not sub-
jected to any inelastic displacement demand, and as the wall
strength is reduced, there is an increasing amount of inelas-
tic displacement demand. A simple rational expression for
inelastic portion of total displacement demand is given by
⎛ γ ⎞
[31] ∆ id = ∆ d ⎜1 − w ⎟
⎝ R⎠

This simple expression is consistent with the well-known

equal displacement principle shown in Fig. 10a. Figure 11a
compares the prediction from eq. [31] with the results from
nonlinear dynamic analyses of a variety of high-rise build-
ings with cantilever walls, subjected to a wide variety of
ground motions (White and Adebar 2004); the prediction
and the results are in good agreement with each other.
Figure 11b presents the results from nonlinear dynamic
analyses of high-rise buildings with coupled walls, and there
is clearly more scatter in these results. A simple empirical
expression that gives reasonable results for both R/γ w = 1
and large R/γ w values is
⎛ γ2 ⎞
[32] ∆ id = ∆ d ⎜1 − w2 ⎟
⎝ R ⎠
The prediction given by this expression is shown in Fig. 11b.
Note data points that lie below the prediction line are safe.
Most data points that are above the line in Fig. 11b are from
buildings where coupling beam strengths were assumed to
be uniform over the height.
The 2005 NBCC has two force reduction factors: Rd is
ductility force modification factor, and Ro is overstrength
force modification factor. Table 1 summarizes these factors
for the different concrete wall systems in the 2005. The duc-
tility force modification factors are similar to force reduction
factors in the 1995 NBCC (NBCC 1995). According to
Mitchell et al. (2003b), the overstrength force modification
factors are made up of three parts: (i) a factor of 1.3 for all
wall systems to account for the difference between actual
and factored strength. Of this factor, 1.18 accounts for the
difference between specified and factored strength of rein-
forcement (1/φs), and the remaining 1.3/1.18 = 1.1 accounts
for the difference between actual and specified strength of
reinforcement. (ii) A factor of 1.05 to account for the in-
creased force to develop a plastic mechanism in ductile cou-
pled and partially coupled walls. (iii) A variable factor to

© 2005 NRC Canada

Adebar et al. 1133

Fig. 11. Influence of wall strength on inelastic portion of total
displacement demand for (a) cantilever walls and (b) coupled
walls (adapted from White and Adebar 2004).
ment will result in a relatively small increase in strength of
these walls.
The equal displacement concept is shown in terms of
2005 NBCC nomenclature in Fig. 10b. The factored shear
force applied to the wall system is given as Ve/(RdRo), and
the corresponding factored displacement determined from a
linear analysis is ∆ f . Wall overstrength γ w is equal to the ra-
tio of nominal strength of wall (φc = φs = 1.0) to factored de-
mand on wall. To be consistent with the derivation of Ro
factors in the 2005 NBCC, wall overstrength γ w should not
be taken less than 1.30. In terms of factored displacement
∆ f , the total displacement demand ∆ d is equal to ∆ f RdRo and
the equivalent to R in Fig. 10a, eqs. [31], and [32] is RdRo.
Substituting these into eq. [31] and then into eq. [29] results
in the following expression for inelastic rotational demand
on cantilever walls:
∆ f (Rd Ro − γ w)
[33] θid =
hw − 0.5lw

Similarly, substituting the expressions for ∆ d and R into

eqs. [32] and combining with eq. [29] results in the follow-
ing expression for inelastic rotational demand on coupled
walls:
∆ f (Rd Ro − γ 2w / Rd Ro)
[34] θid =
hw − 0.5lw

Substituting the expression for ∆ d into eq. [30] results in the

following simplified expression for coupled walls:
∆ f Rd Ro
[35] θid =
hw

Figure 12 provides an explanation of eqs. [33], [34], and

[35]. A significant portion of total displacement at the top of
cantilever walls is due to elastic curvatures, and this is esti-
mated as ∆ f γ w in eq. [33]. Due to pull-back from coupling
beams, elastic curvatures result in much less elastic top wall
displacement of coupled walls, which is estimated as
Table 1. Ductility and overstrength force modification factors ac- ∆f γ w
2
/RdRo in eq. [34]. Assuming that global drift is equal to
cording to 2005 NBCC. inelastic drift, as given by eq. [35], is a reasonable simplifi-
cation for coupled walls.
Concrete wall system Rd Ro Rd × Ro
Ductile coupled wall 4.0 1.7 6.8
Ductile partially coupled wall 3.5 1.7 6.0 Discussion of 2004 seismic design
Ductile shear wall 3.5 1.6 5.6 provisions
Moderately ductile shear wall 2.0 1.4 2.8
Similar to the 1984 and 1994 seismic design provisions,
the provisions in the 2004 CSA A23.3 standard can be sum-
marized in terms of maximum flexural compression zone
account for the increased force required to strain harden re- length as a ratio of the wall length. When the inelastic rota-
inforcement (1.1 for moderately ductile walls and 1.25 for tional capacity of unconfined walls, given by eq. [28] with
ductile walls). Note the last two factors increase the ultimate ⑀cm = 0.004, is set to be greater than or equal to inelastic ro-
strength but not the yield strength. tational demand on cantilever walls, given by eq. [33], and
One issue that needs further consideration is whether an rearranged, the following equation is obtained:
overstrength force modification factor of 1.6 is appropriate
for all ductile shear walls. Tall walls in high-rise buildings c ⎛ ∆ R R ⎞ ⎛ 1 − γ w / Rd Ro ⎞
[36] ≤ 1 1 + 500 ⎜ f d o ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
often require only minimum vertical reinforcement as most lw ⎝ hw ⎠ ⎝ 1 − 0.5lw / hw ⎠
of the required bending resistance is provided by eccentric
axial compression. The higher than specified strength and The minimum rotational capacity of 0.004 for ductile shear
strain hardening of this small amount of vertical reinforce- walls requires that c/lw ≤ 0.33, and the minimum rotational

© 2005 NRC Canada

1134
Fig. 12. Physical explanation of eqs. [33], [34], and [35] for es-
timating inelastic rotational demands in cantilever and coupled
walls from total displacement demand.
capacity of 0.003 for moderately ductile shear walls requires
that c/lw ≤ 0.40.
If the same substitution is repeated for coupled walls with
rotational demand given by eq. [34], the resulting expression
is as follows:
c ⎛ ∆ R R ⎞ ⎛ 1 − γ 2w / Rd2Ro2 ⎞
[37] ≤ 1 1 + 500 ⎜ f d o ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ≤ 0.33
lw ⎝ hw ⎠ ⎝ 1 − 0.5lw / hw ⎠
and for rotational demand given by the simplified expression
of eq. [35], it is given as
c ⎛∆ R R ⎞
[38] ≤ 1 1 + 500 ⎜ f d o ⎟ ≤ 0.33
lw ⎝ hw ⎠
In the above three expressions, maximum flexural compres-
sion zone length as a ratio of wall length depends primarily
on global drift ∆ f RdRo/hw. In eqs. [36] and [37], global drift
is multiplied by a correction factor (within square brackets)
that converts global drift into inelastic drift (rotation). The
numerator within the correction factor converts total dis-
placement into inelastic portion of displacement, and the de-
nominator within the correction factor converts overall wall
height to height above plastic hinge.
The 1999 ACI 318 Building Code (ACI 1999) has the fol-
lowing expression for maximum flexural compression zone
length:
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005
c* ⎛∆ ⎞
[39] ≤ 1 600 ⎜ d ⎟ ≤ 0.238
lw ⎝ hw ⎠
where c* indicates that flexural compression zone length is
calculated without the reduction in compression stress be-
cause of the material resistance factor for concrete of 0.65 in
the 2004 CSA A23.3 standard. When it is assumed that the
compression zone has a uniform width, an equivalent Cana-
dian expression results from dividing all terms in eq. [39] by
0.65 and replacing ∆ d by ∆ f RdRo as follows:
c ⎛∆ R R ⎞
[40] ≤ 1 1 + 390 ⎜ f d o ⎟ ≤ 0.366
lw ⎝ hw ⎠
Figure 13 compares the limits on c/lw given by eqs. [36],
[37], [39], and [40]. The limit for moderately ductile shear
walls (MDSW) is given by eq. [36] with RdRo = 2.8, while
the limit for ductile shear walls (DSW) is given by eq. [36]
with RdRo = 5.6. The limit for ductile coupled walls (DCW)
is given by eq. [37] with RdRo = 6.8. In applying eqs. [36]
and [37], wall overstrength γ w was assumed to be the mini-
mum value of 1.3 and wall height-to-length ratio hw/lw was
assumed to be 5. It is interesting to note that the 1999 ACI
318 limit, with and without accounting for the concrete ma-
terial resistance factor, bounds the 2004 Canadian CSA
A23.3 limits.
Figure 14 examines the influence of wall height-to-length
ratio hw/lw over the range of 2 to 12 when global drift
∆ f RdRo/hw is equal to 1% and wall overstrength γ w is equal
to 1.3. The wall height-to-length ratio has only a small influ-
ence except when hw /lw is very small; but the assumed flex-
ural hinge mechanism is not really applicable to such short
walls. Horizontal lines are drawn at the c/lw limit corre-
sponding to hw/lw = 5,as these values are used below to de-
velop simplified expressions for c/lw. Note the limit on c/lw
increases as height-to-length ratio hw/lw increases, which is
opposite to the trend predicted by eq. [19] and shown in
Figs. 3 and 6. The reason is that in eqs. [36] and [37], the in-
fluence of wall slenderness on wall displacement is ac-
counted for in the displacement demand term.
Figure 15 summarizes the influence of wall overstrength
γ w on maximum flexural compression zone length for three
global drift levels. The wall overstrength has a significant in-
fluence on moderately ductile shear walls (Fig. 15a), except
when global drift is low and the maximum flexural compres-
sion zone length ratio of 0.4 is reached. The influence of
wall overstrength is less significant for ductile shear walls
(Fig. 15b), and has very little influence on the maximum
flexural compression zone length for ductile coupled walls
(Fig. 15c). For this reason, the simplified expression of
eq. [35] that does not account for the influence of wall
overstrength was adopted in the 2004 CSA A23.3 standard
for estimating inelastic rotational demand of coupled walls.
Simplified expressions
Given that height-to-length ratio of the wall has a small
influence on the maximum flexural compression length
(Fig. 14), it is possible to develop simplified expressions by
substituting hw/lw = 5 into eq. [36]. The remaining correction
factor (within square brackets) can be rearranged so that the
© 2005 NRC Canada
Adebar et al. 1135

Fig. 13. Comparison of the 1999 ACI 318 provisions and 2004 Fig. 15. Comparison of 1994 CSA 23.3 provisions and 2004
CSA A23.3 provisions for the three different wall types: moder- CSA 23.3 provisions for the three different wall types: moder-
ately ductile shear walls (MDSW), ductile shear walls (DSW), ately ductile shear walls (MDSW), ductile shear walls (DSW),
and ductile coupled walls (DCW). and ductile coupled walls (DCW).

Fig. 14. Influence of wall slenderness on 2004 A23.3 provisions

for the three different wall types: moderately ductile shear walls
(MDSW), ductile shear walls (DSW), and ductile coupled walls
(DCW).

term can be ignored when overstrength factor γ w is not

greater than the minimum value of 1.3.

Moderately ductile shear walls

c ⎛ ∆ R R ⎞ ⎛ 2.8 − γ w ⎞
[41] ≤ 1 1 + 300 ⎜ f d o ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ≤ 0.40
lw ⎝ hw ⎠ ⎝ 1.5 ⎠

© 2005 NRC Canada

1136
Ductile shear walls
c ⎛ ∆ R R ⎞ ⎛ 5.6 − γ w ⎞
[42] ≤ 1 1 + 430 ⎜ f d o ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ≤ 0.33
lw ⎝ hw ⎠ ⎝ 4.3 ⎠
As wall overstrength has very little influence on the maxi-
mum flexural compression depth for coupled walls, a simpli-
fied expression can be developed by substituting the
minimum value of γ w = 1.3 as well as hw/lw = 5 and RdRo = 6
into the correction factor (within square brackets) in eq. [37].
The resulting simplified expression is very similar to eq. [38]
Coupled walls
c ⎛∆ R R ⎞
[43] ≤ 1 1 + 500 ⎜ f d o ⎟ ≤ 0.33
lw ⎝ hw ⎠
where lw shall be taken as the length of individual wall seg-
ments for ductile partially coupled walls and may be taken
as the length of the overall wall system for ductile coupled
walls.
Summary and concluding remarks
The seismic design provisions in the 1984 and 1994 CSA
A23.3 standards (CSA 1984, 1994) that specify when con-
finement reinforcement is needed in walls to achieve the re-
quired flexural displacement capacity (ductility) were
developed in the early 1980s. At that time, the provisions
were state-of-the-art. Today, some 20 years later, these pro-
visions need to be updated.
The 1984 and 1994 wall ductility provisions are based on
the work of Paulay and Uzumeri (1975), who assumed a
plastic hinge length equal to a portion of the wall length plus
a portion of the wall height. For slender walls, the resulting
plastic hinge length was about equal to the wall length. It is
a common practice today to use a plastic hinge length equal
to 50% of the wall length when making a safe estimate of
inelastic displacement capacity. If the 1994 ductility provi-
sions are modified accordingly, the maximum flexural com-
pression strain depth in a wall without confinement would
need to be reduced by as much as 50% for slender walls.
The cornerstone of the 1984 and 1994 ductility provisions
is that an accurate estimate of yield curvature can easily be
made. The curvature demand on concrete walls was esti-
mated as the yield curvature times the curvature ductility de-
mand, where the latter is a number such as 10 for ductile
walls. Thus, any errors in the estimation of yield curvature
are increased by an order of magnitude in the estimate of
curvature demand.
The 1984 and 1994 provisions were based on the assump-
tion that yield curvature of a wall is equal to the curvature at
first yield of reinforcement, and it was assumed that this
could be estimated assuming a small compression strain
depth. It is now known that the yield curvature that should
be used to estimate curvature demand on a wall may deviate
considerably from the assumed value.
In the seismic design provisions of the 2004 CSA A23.3
standard for wall ductility (CSA 2004), total curvature de-
mand is estimated directly from total displacement demand,
and an estimate of yield curvature is used only to determine
the small elastic portion of total curvature capacity. These
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 32, 2005
provisions require an estimate of the displacement demand
at the top of the wall due to the design earthquake. While
this adds complexity to the ductility provisions, it is neces-
sary to ensure adequate performance of all concrete walls
and at the same time not being unnecessarily restrictive for
concrete walls in buildings with good drift control.
Figure 15 provides a comparison of the maximum flexural
compression zone lengths for unconfined concrete walls ac-
cording to the 1994 and 2004 seismic design provisions. For
ductile walls (Figs. 15b and 15c), the maximum flexural
compression zone lengths according to the two different pro-
visions vary over a similar range; however, the factor that
determines the maximum compression zone length for a par-
ticular wall is different. According to the 1994 provisions,
wall overstrength is the only factor, while according to the
2004 provisions, the global drift demand on the walls is the
primary factor. Comparing the limits from the 2004 provi-
sions with the 1994 provisions shows that walls with small
overstrength are now permitted to have considerably larger
compression zone lengths, if the drift demand is small
(∆ f RoRd/hw = 0.5%), and walls with significant overstrength
are now required to have much smaller compression zone
lengths, if the drift demand is large (1.5%). For walls with
large drift demands, the new provisions limit the flexural
compression zone length to about the minimum value of
0.14lw in the 1994 provisions.
For moderately ductile walls (Fig. 15a), the two provi-
sions suggest a similar influence of wall overstrength (the
sloped portions of the curves are similar); however, the per-
mitted flexural compression zone lengths are generally much
smaller according to the 2004 provisions. Only walls with
small drift demands (∆ f RoRd/hw = 0.5%) or large over-
strength are permitted to have a flexural compression zone
length similar to the 1994 minimum value of 0.33lw. The up-
per limit on maximum flexural compression zone length has
been reduced from 55% of the wall length in the 1994 provi-
sions to 40% of the wall length in the 2004 provisions.
References
ACI Committee 318. 1999. Building code requirements for struc-
tural concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99).
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
Adebar, P., and Ibrahim, A.M.M. 2002. Simple non-linear flexural
stiffness model for concrete shear walls. Earthquake Spectra,
18(3): 407–426.
Adebar, P., Ibrahim, A.M.M., and Bryson, M. 2004. Experimental
study of a high-rise concrete wall with emphasis on effective
stiffness. ACI Structural Journal. In press.
CSA. 1984. Design of concrete structures for buildings. Standard
CAN3-A23.3-M84, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale,
Ont.
CSA. 1994. Design of concrete structures. Standard CSA-A23.3-
94, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont.
CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. Standard CSA-A23.3-
04, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Ont.
Ibrahim, A.M.M., and Adebar, P. 2004. Effective flexural stiffness
for linear seismic analysis of concrete walls. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, 31: 597–607.
ICBO (International Conference of Building Officials). 1997. Uni-
form building code. International Conference of Building Offi-
cials (ICBO), Whittier, Calif.
© 2005 NRC Canada
Adebar et al.
Mitchell, D., Mutrie, J.G., Adebar, P., and Paultre, P. 2003a. Pro-
posed seismic design provisions of A23.3 design of concrete
structures. Proceedings of CSCE Conference, Moncton, New
Brunswick. CD ROM. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
(CSCE), Montréal, Que. Paper GCF-533.
Mitchell, D., Tremblay, R., Karacabeyli, E., Paultre, P., Saatcioglu,
M., and Anderson, D.L. 2003b. Seismic force modification fac-
tors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building
Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30:
308–327.
NBCC. 1995. National Building Code of Canada. Institute for Re-
search in Construction, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
NBCC. 2005. National Building Code of Canada. Institute for Re-
search in Construction, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Paulay, T. 1986. The design of ductile reinforced concrete struc-
tural walls for earthquake resistance. Earthquake Spectra, 2(4):
783–823.
1137
Paulay, T. 2001. Seismic response of structural walls: recent devel-
opments. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28: 922–937.
Paulay, T., and Uzumeri, S.M. 1975. A critical review of the seis-
mic design provisions for ductile shear walls of the Canadian
code and commentary. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
2: 592–601.
SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 1996.
Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. 6th
ed. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of
California, San Francisco, Calif.
Wallace, J., and Orakcal, K. 2002. ACI 318-99 provisions for seis-
mic design of structural walls. ACI Structural Journal, 99(4):
499–508.
White, T., and Adebar, P. 2004. Estimating rotational demands in
high-rise concrete wall buildings. Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Au-
gust 2004.
© 2005 NRC Canada