Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls With Varting Aspect Ratios

Journal of Earthquake Engineering
ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced

Concrete Walls with Varying Aspect Ratios
M. Fethi Gullu & Kutay Orakcal
To cite this article: M. Fethi Gullu & Kutay Orakcal (2019): Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of
Reinforced Concrete Walls with Varying Aspect Ratios, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2019.1614498
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1614498
Published online: 20 May 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 143
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1614498
Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete

Walls with Varying Aspect Ratios
M. Fethi Gullu and Kutay Orakcal
Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A relatively simple finite element modeling approach – named the Fixed- Received 12 December 2018
Accepted 30 April 2019
Strut-Angle Finite Element (FSAFE) Model – is presented in this paper for
simulating the hysteretic lateral load behavior of reinforced concrete KEYWORDS
structural walls with varying levels of flexural and shear deformation Reinforced concrete; wall;
contributions on wall response. The behavioral characteristics of the model; finite element;
constitutive panel elements incorporated in the model formulation are flexure; shear
based on a fixed-crack-angle modeling methodology that also incorpo-
rates simple behavioral models for shear–aggregate interlock in concrete
and dowel action on reinforcing bars, constituting the shear stress transfer
mechanisms across the cracks. Model response predictions are compared
with experimentally measured responses of selected wall specimens with
varying geometry and reinforcement characteristics; including relatively
slender (aspect ratio of 3.0) flexure-controlled walls with rectangular and
T-shaped cross-sections, medium-rise walls (aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0)
with coupled shear-flexural responses, and squat walls (shear span-to-
depth ratios of 0.44 and 1.0) with shear-dominant responses. The FSAFE
model demonstrates a reasonable level of accuracy in predicting the
nonlinear hysteretic response of the wall specimens investigated.
Accurate predictions are obtained for the experimentally measured lateral
load vs. displacement response characteristics of the walls, including their
lateral load capacity, sftiffness, and ductility, as well as their hysteretic
response attributes. The model also provides reasonably accurate esti-
mates of the relative contributions of nonlinear flexural and shear defor-
mations to wall lateral displacements, as well as local deformation
characteristics including the spreading of nonlinear flexural and shear
deformations along wall height, the distribution of transverse normal
strains along wall height, and the longitudinal strain profiles across the
wall cross-section. It is identified that consideration of instability related
wall failures, including buckling of reinforcement and out-of-plane
instability of the wall boundary region, is necessary for further improve-
ment of model accuracy.
1. Introduction
Improving the seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) building-type structures
with means to enhance their lateral stiffness and lateral load capacity, promotes the use of
structural walls. Structural walls are designed and detailed to provide adequate stiffness
and strength, as well as sufficient ductility to attain favorable structural performance under
CONTACT Kutay Orakcal kutay.orakcal@boun.edu.tr Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul
34342, Turkey
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 M. F. GULLU AND K. ORAKCAL
both moderate and severe earthquake demands. Codes and recommendations for design
of new buildings enforce slender walls to exhibit ductile flexural behavior, with sufficient
shear capacity to prevent brittle failures. However, obtaining reliable predictions for local
responses (e.g., amplification of compressive strain at wall boundary regions and plane
sections not remaining plane due to shear lag effects created by nonlinear shear deforma-
tions), as well as important shear response characteristics (e.g., influence of axial load on
shear capacity, definition of a realistic value for the effective shear stiffness) are still topics
of interest for even slender structural walls. Robust characterization and analytical repre-
sentation of the behavior of slender walls with different cross-sectional geometries, as well
as medium-rise and squat walls under earthquake actions, is a significant area of research
towards more reliable seismic design and performance assessment of RC buildings.
The aspect (height-to-width) ratio is commonly used to classify structural walls. Shear
behavior governs the response of structural walls with aspect ratios less than 1.0–1.5 (squat
walls), whereas for structural walls with aspect ratios exceeding 2.5–3.0 (slender walls),
flexural actions predominantly control the wall response. For walls with moderate aspect
ratios (between 1.5 and 2.5), both flexural yielding and nonlinear shear deformations
(which are usually coupled) contribute to wall behavior. For such walls, nonlinear shear
deformations can constitute up to 30–50% of lateral wall displacements, as investigated
experimentally by Tran and Wallace [2015]. Reliable behavioral modeling of such struc-
tural walls with predominant shear–flexure interaction (SFI) behavior is of particular
interest, especially because fiber-based modeling methodologies commonly used in prac-
tice for performance-based design of buildings typically consider uncoupled shear and
flexural response components. However, analytical models with uncoupled flexural and
shear responses are shown by previous research to underestimate compressive strains even
in relatively slender RC walls controlled by flexure [Orakcal and Wallace, 2006], and
overestimate the lateral load capacity of RC walls with moderate aspect ratios [Kolozvari,
2013] and low aspect ratios [Massone et al., 2009]. Shear-controlled squat walls (with
aspect ratios typically less than 1.5) are also common in low-rise construction and at lower
levels of tall buildings (e.g., parking-level walls or basement walls), as well as in perimeter
walls with window and door openings, in the form of wall piers and spandrels (wall
segments). For low aspect-ratio walls or wall segments, behavior is often dominated by
nonlinear shear responses, and the modeling parameters selected for shear stiffness and
strength can have a significant impact on the predicted building performance. For
performance-based design and evaluation of RC systems with structural walls, there is
still a need for simple yet robust modeling approaches that capture coupled axial, shear,
and flexural responses of walls with various aspect ratios and response characteristics.
Simulation of the nonlinear seismic response of structural walls can be accomplished by
using finite element (microscopic) or phenomenological (macroscopic) modeling
approaches. Macroscopic models are developed based on the observed behavior of struc-
tural walls (during experiments or after earthquakes), and their formulations are typically
characterized by simplifying assumptions (e.g., plane-sections remain plane, uncoupling of
flexural and shear responses, assumption of uniformly distributed shear strains along the
wall cross-section, etc.). Due to their relatively simple formulations, macro-models are
effective computational tools that are relatively easy to implement in analysis, and many
have been shown to be efficient and reasonably accurate in predicting important hysteretic
response characteristics of RC structural walls [e.g., Massone et al., 2009; Vulcano et al.,
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3
1988; Fischinger et al., 1990; Taucer et al., 1991; Spacone et al., 1996; Petrangeli et al.,
1999; Orakcal et al., 2004; Perform 3D, 2006; Jiang and Kurama, 2010; Panagiotou et al.,
2012; Fischinger et al., 2014; Kolozvari et al., 2015a; Vásquez et al., 2016]. However, the
applicability of these models is typically limited to cases for which the assumptions
implemented in the model formulations are valid. In contrast, microscopic (finite element
models), although are more computationally demanding, provide more general solutions
towards simulating the nonlinear seismic response of walls, since their formulation is
based on a detailed definition of local behavior. To describe local behavior in finite
element modeling approaches, various constitutive model formulations for monotonic
[e.g., Vecchio and Collins, 1986; Pang and Hsu, 1995, 1996; Vecchio, 2000; Hsu and Zhu,
2002] and cyclic [e.g., Ohmori et al., 1989; Stevens et al., 1991; Vecchio, 1999; Palermo
and Vecchio, 2003; Mansour and Hsu, 2005; Gérin and Adebar, 2009] loading have been
proposed for representing the nonlinear behavior of the constitutive RC panel (mem-
brane) elements. As well, numerous research efforts on finite element modeling of
structural walls are available in the literature, of which only the more well-known or
recent studies will be summarized here. Finite element analysis software incorporating
hysteretic formulations of the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) [Vecchio and
Collins, 1986] and the Disturbed Stress Field Model (DSFM) [Vecchio, 2000] is available
online [http://vectoranalysisgroup.com], and the VecTor software is widely used in mod-
eling and analysis of RC walls, although for research purposes mostly. For example,
Palermo and Vecchio [2007] used VecTor2 [Vecchio, 1989], with the MCFT [Vecchio
and Collins, 1986] as the constitutive panel (membrane) model, for analysis of both
slender and squat walls with rectangular or non-rectangular cross-sections, as well as
rectangular walls with openings. However, walls with non-rectangular sections were
modeled in two-dimensions only, therefore neglecting the out-of-plane shear lag effects
(non-uniform longitudinal strain distribution) in the wall flanges perpendicular to the
loading direction. Lu and Henry [2017] used VecTor2 [Vecchio, 1989] to conduct finite
element analysis of lightly reinforced walls using the DSFM [Vecchio, 2000] as the
constitutive model. Experimental validation of the model was conducted using six test
specimens with varying shear-span-to-depth ratios, axial load levels, and anti-buckling tie
details. This study focused on prediction of the global lateral load vs. displacement
response of lightly reinforced walls with rectangular cross-sections only, and their drift
capacity at the initiation of reinforcement buckling. Accuracy of the model in estimating
the distribution of vertical strains at wall boundaries along wall height was also evaluated.
However, although the walls investigated had various shear-span-to-depth ratios, they
were all relatively slender walls with flexure-controlled responses, with shear deformations
contributing to wall lateral displacements by less than 5%. The Cyclic Softened Membrane
Model (CSMM) [Mansour and Hsu, 2005] has been implemented in the open-source
computational platform OpenSees (http://opensees.berkeley.edu [McKenna et al., 2000]);
however, studies on simulating the nonlinear response of structural walls using the CSMM
are limited. Upon implementing the CSMM [Mansour and Hsu, 2005] in OpenSees, Mo
et al. [2008] analyzed nine two-dimensional wall-frame assemblies tested in the laboratory,
incorporating walls with identical aspect ratios but with various reinforcement configura-
tions and subjected to varying axial load levels. Luu et al. [2017] implemented a layered
shell finite element formulation of the CSMM in OpenSees, and validated it against results
of tests conducted on one U-shaped wall specimen and one cylindrical tank specimen.
However, accuracy of the CSSM in predicting local (e.g., strain) response characteristics of
walls was not evaluated in the studies by Mo et al. [2008] or Luu et al. [2017]. Rojas et al.
[2016] proposed the Quadrilateral Layered Membrane Element with Drilling Degrees of
Freedom for finite element modeling of walls using a rotating-crack constitutive modeling
approach for the membrane elements. The model was validated against test results for
a total of 10 wall specimens with various aspect ratios and failure modes, but having
rectangular cross-sections only. This study focused more on prediction of the global lateral
load vs. displacement responses of walls, and only limited local response comparisons
(vertical strain profiles along the base of two wall specimens) were provided to assess the
accuracy of the model in predicting local deformations. Another recent study on finite
element modeling of walls was conducted by Dashti et al. [2017] using the commercial
analysis software Diana [2011]. The modeling approach adopted in this study involved
using curved shell elements, which consider out-of-plane deformations that can develop
even under in-plane loading conditions, and therefore allow capturing of the out-of-plane
instability behavior of walls. The Total Strain Crack Model available in DIANA, with
a rotating-crack formulation, was used as the constitutive model to describe the in-plane
behavior of the model elements. Experimental validation of the model was carried out
using test results on six wall specimens, all with rectangular cross-sections, but having
different shear-span-to-depth ratios, cross-sectional aspect ratios, and failure mechanisms.
Accuracy of the model was evaluated in terms of global lateral load vs. displacement
responses of the walls, as well as out-of-plane instability behavior, crack patterns, and
vertical strain profiles at wall base. However, model accuracy in predicting the flexural and
shear deformation contributions on the wall response was not assessed.
This study aims to contribute to the literature on finite element modeling of structural
walls, with emphasis on two original aspects. First, a novel constitutive model with
a relatively simple formulation – named the Fixed Strut Angle Model (FSAM) [Orakcal
et al., 2012] – is used to describe the nonlinear behavior of the membrane (panel)
elements used in the finite element model assembly. The FSAM was shown to provide
accurate response predictions for individual RC panel specimens with various reinforce-
ment configurations and subjected to various stress states, despite its simple formulation
[Orakcal et al., 2012]. Secondly, as described in the previous paragraphs, analytical studies
available in the literature on finite element modeling of walls with both rectangular and
non-rectangular cross-sections, in which the model is extensively validated against experi-
mental results for walls with various response characteristics (flexure-controlled, shear
controlled, SFI) at both global (load vs. displacement) and local (shear and flexural
deformations, strains, etc.) response levels are extremely limited [e.g., Rojas et al., 2016;
Dashti et al., 2017]. The finite element modeling methodology presented in this study for
walls (named as the Fixed Strut Angle Finite Element – FSAFE –Model) is experimentally
validated using test results obtained from four different experimental programs in the
literature on six selected wall specimens with varying levels of flexural and shear deforma-
tion contributions on wall response. Model response predictions are compared with
experimentally measured responses of walls with various geometry and reinforcement
attributes, including relatively slender (aspect ratio of 3.0) flexure-controlled walls with
rectangular and T-shaped cross-sections, medium-rise walls (aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0)
with coupled shear-flexural responses, and squat walls (shear span-to-depth ratios of 0.44
and 1.0) with shear-predominant responses. Accuracy of the model in simulating the
experimentally observed wall responses is evaluated not only in terms of global lateral load
vs. displacement behavior, but also with regards to relative contributions of nonlinear
flexural and shear deformations to wall lateral displacements, as well as local deformation
characteristics including the magnitudes and distribution of nonlinear deformations and
local strains (both longitudinal and transverse) developing in the walls investigated.
2. FSAFE Model Description

The FSAFE model is an assembly of rectangular four-node membrane elements with only
in-plane translational degrees of freedom defined at the nodes. Each model element
incorporates linear strain interpolation functions and only a single Gauss integration
point (located at the centroid of the model element), meaning that the constitutive
behavior of a single model element is defined by a single average strain field (εx, εy, γxy)
corresponding to a single average stress field (σx, σy, τxy). Although not mandatory, this
approach was preferred in order to facilitate convergence and to reduce analysis time of
the model. The constitutive axial/shear behavior of the model elements under plane-stress
(σx, σy, τxy) loading follows the so-called FSAM formulation [Orakcal et al., 2012].
Mechanical principles of the FSAM and the constitutive material models implemented
in its formulation are summarized in the following sections.
2.1. The Constitutive Fixed-Strut-Angle Model (FSAM) for RC Panels

An improved version of the FSAM [Orakcal et al., 2012] is adopted in this study for
representing the constitutive smeared stress vs. average strain behavior of the RC mem-
brane elements in the FSAFE model assembly. In the formulation of the FSAM, normal
stresses in cracked concrete are calculated along fixed crack (strut) directions. Shear
stresses developing along crack surfaces, which are calculated using a simple friction-
based constitutive relationship, are superimposed with the concrete stresses along the
struts, for obtaining the total stress field in concrete. The behavior of reinforcing steel is
described using a uniaxial stress–strain relationship applied along the orthogonal rebar
directions. As well, in this study, a simple constitutive relationship that considers
a smeared stress approach is implemented in the formulation of the FSAM to represent
the dowel effects (shear stress) on both horizontal and vertical rebars. Superposition of
stresses developing in concrete (normal stresses along strut directions and shear stresses
along crack surfaces) with smeared stresses in reinforcing steel (uniaxial and dowel
stresses developing in rebars) gives the resultant average stresses on the panel element.
The FSAM has been implemented [Kolozvari et al., 2015b, 2018] in the open-source
computational platform OpenSees [McKenna et al., 2000] as a plane-stress constitutive
model representing RC behavior.
2.1.1. Concrete Cracking and Fixed Strut Mechanism

Before cracking, the stress vs. strain behavior of concrete in the FSAM is simulated using
a rotating-principal stress-direction approach [e.g., Vecchio and Collins, 1986; Pang and
Hsu, 1995]. The strain field applied on concrete is transformed into principal strain
directions and a uniaxial stress–strain relationship for concrete is applied along the
principal strain directions, for obtaining the principal stresses in concrete (Fig. 1a). The
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 1. FSAM concrete behavior: (a) uncracked; (b) after formation of first crack; (c) after formation
of second crack.
principal strain directions imposed on the panel element are therefore assumed to coin-
cide the with principal stress directions in concrete. A monotonic stress–strain relation-
ship is adopted for concrete in the uncracked state, since the monotonic and hysteretic
stress–strain behavior of concrete in a panel element subjected hysteretic loading can be
assumed to not differ significantly prior to first cracking.
At the instant when the principal tensile strain in concrete first exceeds the concrete
cracking strain (εt in Fig. 2a), the first crack develops, and the principal strain direction
corresponding to first cracking is assigned as the first “fixed strut” (first crack) direction in
the panel (θcrA in Fig. 1b). After the first crack forms, while principal strain directions
continue to rotate based on the applied strain field, the directions of the principal stresses
in concrete are assumed to be fixed, as parallel and perpendicular to the first fixed strut
direction. This implies that the first crack (or strut) direction coincides with the principal
stress directions in concrete, under the condition that zero shear stress develops along the
crack. The analysis continues following a single fixed-strut mechanism until the second
crack forms, at which stage the second strut is activated in the panel model.
When the normal strain along the first strut first exceeds the concrete cracking strain
upon unloading from the compression envelope (εc0 + εt in Fig. 2a), the second crack
develops. Not considering the shear (aggregate interlock) stress developing on the crack
surface allows the simplification that the second crack will form in perpendicular direction
to the first crack, according to a principal-stress-based cracking criterion. Although
various other cracking criteria may be used for definition of the second crack direction,
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Material constitutive models: (a) Chang and Mander [1994] model for concrete; (b)
Menegotto and Pinto [1973] model for reinforcing steel.
this approach was selected for its simplicity. At the instant of the second crack formation,
the second “fixed strut” will develop in parallel direction to the second crack (in perpen-
dicular direction to the first strut). During further loading, the concrete stress field
comprises two independent struts, working under interchanging compression and tension
(Fig. 1c), based on the applied strain field. While the principal direction of the applied
strain field continues to rotate during subsequent loading, the principal stress directions in
concrete are assumed to be fixed along the two strut directions, again when the shear
stresses are developing along the two crack surfaces are ignored. Since both strut direc-
tions are fixed, the hysteretic stress–strain relationship adopted for concrete can be applied
along the first and second strut directions (θcrA and θcrB in Fig. 1c). It must be mentioned
that although the concrete stress–strain relationship to be used in the FSAM formulation
is fundamentally uniaxial in nature, it should also incorporate parameters to consider
biaxial softening effects under plane stress loading.
2.1.2. Shear Aggregate Interlock on Crack Surfaces

As described above, the baseline formulation of the FSAM considers that when shear
stresses transferred across cracks are neglected (i.e., when the crack surfaces are assumed
frictionless), the concrete principal stress directions and crack directions coincide.
However, the FSAM formulation also allows implementing a constitutive (shear stress
vs. shear strain) relationship for representing shear stress transfer across cracks. In RC
members, sliding along cracks is known to develop shear aggregate interlock action,
resulting in shear stresses developing along crack surfaces. Therefore, on top of the
baseline formulation of the FSAM, a simple friction-based constitutive relationship for
shear aggregate interlock is implemented, which relates the maximum shear stress devel-
oping along a crack surface to the compressive stress in concrete in perpendicular
direction to the crack σc⊥, as well as the smeared “clamping stress” created by the
perpendicular component of the yield strength of the reinforcement spanning the crack (ρ
fy)⊥, using a friction coefficient η (Fig. 3a). In this model, the shear stress capacity along
a crack is bounded by the product of the friction coefficient (η) and the normal stress
perpendicular to the crack (σ⊥). The normal stress perpendicular to the crack is taken as
the sum of the compressive stress in concrete (which changes during loading) and the
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Shear stress transfer mechanisms across cracks: (a) shear aggregate interlock on crack
surfaces; (b) dowel action on reinforcement.
clamping stress capacity of the reinforcement (which is assumed constant), similarly to the
shear friction capacity approach used in ACI 318 [2014]. The contribution of concrete is
reduced to zero when the normal stress in concrete perpendicular to the crack is tensile
(due to tension stiffening) or zero; that is, when the crack is open. In order to describe the
hysteretic characteristics of this friction-based constitutive relationship, peak-oriented
hysteresis rules are implemented in the present model formulation, where the unloading
from the shear (friction) stress vs. shear (sliding) strain envelope follows the initial elastic
stiffness (which can be taken as a large value; a value of 0.4Ec representing the elastic shear
modulus of concrete was adopted), zero stress is maintained until the origin, and reload-
ing to the envelope in the opposite direction is oriented towards the previous peak
(Fig. 3a).
It must be mentioned that in the original formulation of the FSAM [Orakcal et al.,
2012], which was validated against test results on isolated panel specimens subjected to
uniformly distributed strain and stress states, the friction-based constitutive relationship
used to represent shear aggregate interlock behavior along cracks followed elasto-plastic
hysteresis rules (similarly to the stress–strain behavior of reinforcing steel with no strain
hardening), and the contribution of the clamping effect of reinforcing steel bars on the
interlock shear stress capacity was not considered, as suggested by Tassios and Vintzēleou
[1987] for interfaces (cracks) with smooth surfaces. For finite element modeling of
structural walls using the FSAFE model, the contribution of clamping on the interlock
shear stress capacity is considered in this study, as also recommended by Tassios and
Vintzēleou [1987] for modeling of shear aggregate interlock across rough crack surfaces.
As well, the peak-oriented hysteresis rules described above are adopted as a simplification
of more detailed hysteresis models presented in the literature [e.g., Vassilopoulou and
Tassios, 2003; Thermou et al., 2014] for rough crack surfaces. In the present model
formulation, a friction coefficient value of η = 0.50 is adopted, similarly to the value of
η = 0.44 recommended by Tassios and Vintzēleou [1987]. Although more refined
constitutive models for shear aggregate interlock along crack surfaces (which also consider
crack width and the hysteretic degradation of interlock shear stress capacity)
[Vassilopoulou and Tassios, 2003; Thermou et al., 2014] or other various empirical
relationships for representing shear stress transfer across cracks (summarized in [Zhu
et al., 2001]) are available in the literature, the friction-based constitutive model described
above was used in the present FSAM, due to its simplicity and its compatibility with
a smeared stress vs. strain formulation.
2.1.3. Dowel Action on Reinforcement

The original FSAM [Orakcal et al., 2012] formulation assumed that no shear stress is
resisted by the reinforcing steel bars in their transverse direction, implying no dowel
action on the reinforcement. In the FSAM formulation adopted in this study for finite
element modeling of walls, a relatively simple constitutive relationship developed by He
and Kwan [2001] using a smeared stress and strain approach is implemented for
representing the dowel effects on both horizontal and vertical rebars. In the constitutive
model formulation by He and Kwan [2001], shear and tensile strains in a RC panel
element parallel and perpendicular to a crack are first transformed into dowel defor-
mations (Δdow) acting on the horizontal and vertical reinforcing steel bars, using strain
transformation equations and an empirically defined “effective dowel length”. This
effective dowel length was derived by He and Kwan [2001] using a semi-infinite
beam on an elastic foundation analogy for rebars embedded in concrete, and depends
empirically on parameters including the elastic modulus of reinforcing steel, the
compressive strength of concrete, rebar diameter, and the moment of inertia of the
rebar cross-section. The elasto-plastic envelope of the constitutive model (Fig. 3b),
which relates the dowel (shear) force on a single rebar with the dowel deformation,
starts with a linear elastic region, the slope of which is also defined empirically, based
on the aforementioned parameters. The plastic region of the model represents the
dowel (shear force) capacity of a single rebar, which depends on the bar diameter,
the compressive strength of concrete, and the yield strength of reinforcement. Dowel
forces calculated on the horizontal and vertical rebars using this empirical approach are
then converted into smeared dowel stresses (Fig. 3b), considering the reinforcement
ratios in the two orthogonal rebar directions. Lastly, these dowel stresses are back-
transformed, using stress transformation equations, into shear and tensile strains
developing in the panel element, in parallel and perpendicular directions to a crack.
Details of this constitutive model are available in the paper by He and Kwan [2001].
In the present FSAM formulation, the origin-oriented rules shown in Fig. 3b are
adopted to represent the hysteretic characteristics of the dowel force (or stress) vs.
dowel deformation behavior of reinforcing steel bars (upon unloading from and reloading
to the elasto-plastic envelope by He and Kwan [2001]), as a simplification of more detailed
hysteretic models [Vintzēleou and Tassios, 1986] presented in the literature. Although
more refined constitutive models for dowel action have been developed [e.g., Vintzēleou
and Tassios, 1986], their working principles are similar, and the envelope by He and Kwan
[2001] with origin-oriented hysteresis rules was selected as the simplest and the most
suitable approach for implementation into the smeared stress and strain formulation of
the FSAM.
2.2. Material Constitutive Models

2.2.1. Concrete
The state-of-the-art hysteretic uniaxial constitutive model by Chang and Mander
[1994] is implemented in the formulation of the FSAM for representing the uniaxial
stress vs. strain behavior of concrete. The model formulation reflects important beha-
vioral characteristics of concrete, such as the hysteretic transition from compression to
tension and vice versa, the progressive degradation of stiffness of the unloading and
reloading curves for increasing values of strain, gradual crack closure, and tension
stiffening (post-crack tensile behavior). In the Chang and Mander [1994] model, the
envelope curves for compression and tension can be calibrated using test results or
empirical relationships, for the slope of the stress strain behavior at the origin and the
shape of both the pre-peak and post-peak branches of the stress–strain behavior, while
keeping the values of the peak stress and the strain at peak stress constant. In order to
represent the cyclic characteristics of the stress–strain behavior, the model employs
empirical equations for key hysteretic parameters, such as those for secant stiffness and
plastic stiffness upon unloading from the envelope, and stress and strain offsets upon
return to the compression envelope (Fig. 2a). Details of the model can be found in the
report by Chang and Mander [1994]. The model formulation was implemented in the
FSAM also with modifications to reflect the behavioral characteristics of concrete
associated with biaxial softening behavior under plane stress loading conditions, as
well as smeared post-crack behavior in tension, by incorporating compression soft-
ening (Model B by Vecchio and Collins [1993]), hysteretic biaxial damage [Mansour
et al., 2002], and tension stiffening [Belarbi and Hsu, 1994] relationships into its
formulation.
2.2.2. Reinforcing Steel

The uniaxial stress–strain relationship implemented in the FSAM for reinforcing steel bars
is the widely used hysteretic model by Menegotto and Pinto [1973], extended by Filippou
et al. [1983] for representing isotropic strain hardening behavior, and further extended by
Kolozvari et al. [2018] to remedy stress overshooting upon strain reversals with small
magnitude. This model, despite its relatively simple formulation, has been shown to
accurately represent test results on individual rebar specimens. In the Menegotto and
Pinto [1973] model, the hysteretic stress–strain relationship follows curved transitions
(Fig. 2b), each from a straight-line asymptote with slope E0 (modulus of elasticity) to
another straight-line asymptote with slope E1 = bE0 (yield modulus), where the parameter
b is the strain hardening ratio. The curvature of the transition curve between the two
asymptotes is governed by a cyclic curvature parameter (R), which depends on the strain
history and represents the so-called Bauschinger’s effect. In implementation of the
Menegotto and Pinto [1973] model in the FSAM, the tensile yield strength and strain-
hardening parameters of the model were calibrated also considering the empirical rela-
tionships proposed by Belarbi and Hsu [1994], to include the effect of tension stiffening on
the smeared stress–strain behavior of rebars embedded in concrete. However, the present
model formulation does not yet incorporate rebar buckling, low-cycle fatigue, or fracture
behavior.
3. Experimental Validation of the Model

The FSAFE model formulation incorporating the constitutive FSAM and the material
constitutive relationships described above was implemented in MatLab [2012] together
with a displacement-based nonlinear analysis solution strategy [Clarke and Hancock,
1990], in order to correlate model results with results of drift-controlled lateral load
tests on RC wall specimens. In this section, the model is experimentally validated against
test results obtained from the literature for a total of six wall specimens, tested as part of
four different experimental programs. The reason behind the selection of these particular
specimens is that they represent various global response characteristics (flexure-controlled,
shear-controlled, and SFI responses), due to their varying shear-span-to-depth ratios
(ranging from 3.0 to 0.44), and one of the slender wall specimens has a T-shaped cross-
section. As well, all specimens were densely instrumented during testing, allowing detailed
local response comparisons between model response predictions and local deformation
measurements. Information on the characteristics of the wall specimens, calibration of the
model parameters for representing the wall specimens, and comparison of model results
and test data at both global and local response levels are presented in the following
subsections.
3.1. Description of the Test Specimens

Two relatively slender wall specimens (aspect ratio of 3.0) tested by Thomsen and
Wallace [1995, 2004], one having a rectangular cross-section (RW2), and one with
a T-shaped cross-section (TW2), were first used for experimental validation of the
FSAFE model (Fig. 4a–b). Concrete with compressive strength of 43 MPa and rein-
forcement with yield strength ranging from 434 to 448 MPa were used in the
(a) (c)
(b)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 4. Wall cross-sections and reinforcement details for specimens: (a) RW2; (b) TW2; (c) RW-A20-
P10-S38; (d) RW-A15-P10-S51; (e) SW-T5-S1-7; (f) WP-T5-N5-S1.
construction of the specimens. The walls were designed to exhibit ductile flexural
behavior, with a capacity design approach used to provide sufficient shear capacity to
resist the shear force corresponding to the wall probable moment capacity. Thereby,
the nominal shear strength of specimen RW2 reached almost twice its nominal flexural
capacity. Well-detailed boundary elements were provided at the boundary regions of
the walls. A constant axial load of approximately 0.07–0.08Agfcʹ was applied on the
walls throughout the duration of the tests. Failure of specimen RW2 was initiated by
spalling of cover concrete, followed by buckling of longitudinal reinforcement and
crushing of confined concrete in the boundary regions. For specimen TW2, failure was
due to spalling of cover concrete followed by initiation of crushing of confined
concrete and global buckling (over several tie spacings) of longitudinal reinforcement
within the web boundary region of the wall, leading to out-of-plane instability of the
web boundary.
The model was also validated against experimental results for two of the five medium-
rise rectangular wall specimens tested by Tran and Wallace [2015, 2012] (Fig. 4c–d), one
with an aspect ratio of 2.0 (RW-A20-P10-S38), and the other with an aspect ratio of 1.5
(RW-A15-P10-S51). The walls were subjected to an axial load of approximately 0.10Agfcʹ
during testing. For these specimens, the measured compressive strength of concrete
ranged from 47 to 49 MPa, and the yield strength of reinforcement varied from 473 to
516 MPa. The walls incorporated specially detailed boundary regions, and were designed
to yield in flexure at a lateral load of approximately 80–90% of their nominal shear
strength. Both wall specimens exhibited coupled shear and flexural responses (shear–
flexure interaction behavior), with shear deformations contributing significantly to wall
lateral displacements. For both specimens, strength degradation was initiated by crushing
of confined concrete and buckling of longitudinal reinforcement at the wall boundaries,
followed by progressive degradation associated with diagonal tension failure along two
major diagonal cracks.
Experimental validation of the model was further extended to walls with shear-
controlled responses, using test results on squat (low-rise) wall specimens. One of the
11 squat wall specimens tested by Terzioglu [2011, 2018], Specimen SW-T5-S1-7 with an
aspect of 1.0, was selected (Fig. 4e). Concrete compressive strength for this specimen was
35MPa, and reinforcement yield strength ranged from 528 to 584 MPa. The specimen
incorporated concentrated longitudinal reinforcement at the boundaries, but did not
possess confined boundary regions. The nominal flexural capacity of the wall was approxi-
mately 50% higher than its nominal shear strength, and the observed failure mode was
diagonal compression, where the diagonal cracks did not widen since the horizontal web
reinforcement did not yield, and failure was due to concrete crushing at the base of the
wall. In contrast, Specimen WP-T5-N5-S1 tested by Massone [2006, 2009] (Fig. 4f), failed
in diagonal tension, meaning that the horizontal web reinforcement of the wall yielded,
leading to widening of two major diagonal cracks and crushing of concrete along the
cracks. This specimen was a wall pier with an aspect ratio of 0.88 (corresponding to
a shear-span-to-depth ratio of 0.44), and was tested as one of the 14 wall pier and
spandrels with outdated reinforcement details, representative of wall segments in perfo-
rated perimeter walls of existing hospital buildings in California. This wall did also not
incorporate confined boundary regions, and its nominal flexural capacity was approxi-
mately 75% higher than its nominal shear strength. The concrete compressive strength for
this specimen was 32 MPa and reinforcement yield strength was 424 MPa. The specimen
was subjected to an axial load of approximately 0.05Agfcʹ during the test.
Geometric and reinforcement characteristics of the wall specimens are listed in Table 1,
whereas specimen cross-sections at wall base are shown in Fig. 4. The experimentally
observed failure modes of the walls and the average shear stress levels on the walls at their
lateral load capacities are also reported in Table 1. Important material parameters of the
wall specimens, including concrete compressive strength (fcʹ), strain at concrete compres-
sive strength (εcʹ), concrete tensile strength (ft), reinforcing steel yield strength (fy), and
reinforcing steel strain hardening ratio (b) are listed in Table 2. The first five wall speci-
mens were tested as vertical cantilevers. They incorporated a RC pedestal at the bottom for
connection of the specimen to the strong floor, and a RC or steel load transfer beam at the
top for connection to a horizontal actuator. Axial load was applied on the walls using
hydraulic jacks mounted on the load transfer beams. The squat wall specimen tested by
Massone [2006, 2009] had a different test setup. It was tested under a zero-rotation
restraint enforced at the top of the wall (using two coupled vertical actuators), and cyclic
lateral load applied at the mid-height level of the specimen (using an L-shaped steel
loading frame), creating a double-curvature loading condition where the bending moment
is zero at wall mid-height and reaches maximum values (with reverse signs) at the top and
bottom cross-sections of the wall, representing the actual loading condition on wall piers
and spandrels in a building. This loading setup enforced the shear-span-to-depth ratio of
the wall specimen to be equal to half of its aspect ratio.
3.2. Calibration of the FSAFE Model for the Test Specimens

3.2.1. Calibration of Model Geometry
FSAFE model assemblies generated for the wall specimens were geometrically discre-
tized using an appropriate number of constitutive model elements, so that the model
elements had approximately equal width and height, and the locations of local defor-
mation measurements on the specimens were captured. As a standardization, two
model elements (side-by-side) were used to define each boundary region of the speci-
mens incorporating confined boundary zones, with the exception of four model ele-
ments used to define the longer web boundary of specimen TW2. One model element,
with the geometric centroid of the boundary reinforcement coinciding with the cen-
troid of the element, was defined at each boundary of the low-rise wall specimens that
did not incorporate confined boundary regions. As an example, specimen RW-A15-
P10-S51 (with an aspect ratio of 1.5) was divided into 12 model elements in the
horizontal direction and 18 elements in the vertical direction, resulting in a total of
216 approximately square-shaped model elements. Similarly, both the web and the
flange of the T-shaped wall specimen TW2 (with an aspect ratio of 3.0) was divided
into 12 model elements in the horizontal direction and 36 elements in the vertical
direction, resulting in a total of 432 model elements for the web and 432 model
elements for the flange. Fig. 5 shows the nodes and nodal degrees of freedom of an
individual model element, and also illustrates representative model discretizations for
the rectangular wall specimen RW-A15-P10-S51 and the T-shaped wall specimen TW2.
It was observed that using a larger number of model elements did not significantly alter
the model response predictions for the wall specimens investigated in this paper, other
14
M. F. GULLU AND K. ORAKCAL
Table 1. Properties of wall specimens.

Web Reinforcement
(Transverse/Longitudinal) Boundary Reinforcement
hw lw M P Vmax;test Observed
Vlw Ag f 0c
pffiffiffi0
Specimen ID (mm) (mm) Rebar ρweb (%) Rebar ρb (%) Acw fc Failure Modea
Thomsen and Wallace [1995, 2004] RW2 3660 1220 3.00 0.07 Φ6.3@191 mm 0.33 8Φ9.5 2.93 0.19 CB
TW2 Web 3660 1220 3.00 0.08 Φ6.3@140 mm 0.44 8Φ9.5 2.93 0.34 CB/LI
Flange Φ6.3@191 mm 0.33 8Φ9.5 2.93
Tran and Wallace [2015, 2012] RW-A20-P10-S38 2440 1220 2.00 0.10 Φ6@140 mm 0.27 8Φ12.7 3.23 0.36 DT/CB
RW-A15-P10-S51 1830 1220 1.50 0.10 Φ6@114 mm 0.32 8Φ12.7 3.23 0.46 DT/CB
Terzioglu [2011, 2018] SW-T5-S1-7 1500 1500 1.00 0.00 Φ8@125/250 mm 0.68/0.34 4Φ22 9.75 0.67 DC/CB
Massone [2006, 2009] WP-T5-N5-S1 1220 1370 0.44 0.05 Φ13@305/330 mm 0.28/0.23 2Φ13 1.33 0.55 DT/CB
a
CB: concrete crushing/bar buckling; LI: lateral instability of wall boundary; DT: diagonal tension; DC: diagonal compression.
Table 2. Material characteristics of wall specimens.

fcʹ ft a fy,web fy,boundary
Specimen ID (MPa) εcʹ (MPa) (MPa) bweb (MPa) bboundary
RW2 42.8 0.0021 2.03 448 0.020 434 0.020
TW2 42.8 0.0021 2.03 448 0.020 434 0.020
RW-A20-P10-S38 47.1 0.0023 2.13 516 0.020 473 0.010
RW-A15-P10-S51 48.7 0.0022 2.16 516 0.020 473 0.010
SW-T5-S1-7 35.0 0.0021b 1.83 584 0.008 528 0.007
WP-T5-N5-S1 31.9 0.0023 1.75 424 0.008 424 0.008
a
Obtained empirically as per Belarbi and Hsu [1994] for all specimens.
b
Obtained empirically as per Chang and Mander [1994] for SW-T5-S1-7 only.
than the rate of degradation in lateral load after the wall lateral load capacity is
reached, the accurate simulation of which is beyond the scope this study.
It must be emphasized that although the model elements are 4-node membrane
elements with only in-plane translational degrees of freedom, through a simple direct
stiffness assembly, they can be assembled to construct a model for a wall with a non-
rectangular cross-section. For the T-shaped wall specimen TW2 (Fig. 5b), upon lateral
loading along the direction of the wall web, the model elements defined along the wall
flange will contribute to the overall lateral stiffness and nonlinear lateral load behavior of
the wall, due to the in-plane deformations and in-plane restoring forces developing in
these model elements. However, this approach neglects the contribution of the out-of-
plane flexural stiffness of the wall flange to the overall response, since the model elements
defined along the wall flange remain to be membrane elements with no out-of-plane
stiffness.
Figure 5. Assembly of model elements and model mesh discretization for specimens: (a) RW-A15-P10-
S51; (b) TW2.
All wall models were fixed-supported at the bottom wall-pedestal interfaces. Rigid body
constraints were defined at the top-wall-loading–beam interfaces, for uniform distribution
of axial and lateral loads applied at the top of the wall models. For specimen WP-T5-N5-
S1 that was tested under double-curvature loading, a zero-rotation restraint (creating
a bending moment resultant) at the top of the wall was enforced on the model, in order
to replicate the actual loading configuration applied during testing.
3.2.2. Calibration of Material Model Parameters

The constitutive material parameters used in the FSAFE model formulation were assigned
values that match the as-tested properties of the materials employed in the construction of
the specimens (whenever detailed material test results pertaining to the wall specimens
were available), or based on well-established empirical relationships presented in the
literature. The material parameters were not adjusted to fit the model predictions with
experimentally obtained responses of the wall specimens. The monotonic envelope of the
stress–strain model by Chang and Mander [1994] for unconfined concrete in compression
was calibrated to agree with concrete stress–strain curves obtained from cylinder speci-
mens of concrete used in the construction of the wall specimens, wherever reported. In
cases where only the concrete compressive strength was reported, the empirical equations
proposed by Chang and Mander [1994] were used to define the ascending region of the
envelope. For generating the ascending region of the stress–strain envelope for confined
concrete, the confinement model by Mander et al. [1988] was used. The descending (post-
peak) slope of the stress–strain envelopes for both confined and unconfined concrete were
calibrated to match the explicitly defined descending slope of the Saatcioglu and Razvi
[1992] model. Concrete tensile strength was determined from the relationship ft ¼
pffiffiffiffiffi
0:31 f 0 c (MPa), and a value of 0.00008 was selected for the strain εt tensile strength
(Fig. 2a), as suggested by Belarbi and Hsu [1994] for RC panels. The shape of the tensile
stress–strain envelope was also calibrated to match the average post-crack stress–strain
relationship of by Belarbi and Hsu [1994], which considers the effects of tension stiffening
on the smeared stress–strain behavior of concrete. Details on the calibration of the
constitutive model for concrete are provided in the paper by Orakcal and Wallace [2006].
The monotonic parameters of the constitutive stress–strain model by Menegotto and
Pinto [1973], including the yield strength and strain hardening ratio, were assigned values
that represent the stress–strain curve obtained from coupon samples of reinforcing steel
bars used in the construction of the wall specimens. The tensile yield strength and tensile
strain-hardening parameters were modified according to the empirical relationships by
Belarbi and Hsu [1994], to consider the effect of tension stiffening on the behavior of
reinforcing bars embedded in concrete. The parameters describing the cyclic stiffness
degradation characteristics of the constitutive model were calibrated as R0 = 20, a1 = 18.5,
and a2 = 0.15 (Fig. 2b), as proposed originally by Menegotto and Pinto [1973]. An
exception was made for specimens RW2 and TW2, for which a value of a2 = 0.0015
was used in the calibration, based on the results of previous analytical studies [e.g.,
Orakcal and Wallace, 2006] conducted on these specimens. The simple constitutive
models representing shear aggregate interlock along cracks and dowel action on reinfor-
cement were adopted as described in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of this paper.
3.3. Comparison of Model Results with Test Data

3.3.1. Lateral Load vs. Top Displacement Responses
Comparison of the experimentally measured and analytically predicted lateral load vs. top
displacement responses for the six wall specimens is presented in Fig. 6. Overall, the
FSAFE model replicates the experimentally obtained load–displacement responses of all
specimens, with a reasonable level of accuracy. Model response predictions are in agree-
ment with test results in terms of lateral stiffness, lateral load capacity, and drift capacity
(excluding RW-A20-P10-S38) of the walls, as well as other important cyclic response
characteristics including hysteretic stiffness degradation, plastic (residual) displacements
upon unloading to zero load, and pinching behavior. As shown in the embedded plots in
Fig. 6c–d, the model captures the notable contribution of shear deformations to top
displacements of the two medium-rise wall specimens that showed shear-flexure coupling
behavior, although those measured on specimen RW-A20-P10-S38 were slightly under-
estimated by the model at low drift levels. The lateral loads applied on the T-shaped wall
specimen TW2 are under-predicted by the model (by less than 5%) when the wall flange is
in compression, possibly because the model does not consider the out-of-plane flexural
stiffness of the flange (Fig. 6b). In contrast, the model overestimates (by approximately
20%) the lateral loads applied on the wall when the wall flange is in tension (Fig. 6b),
probably because the model cannot simulate the experimentally observed out-of-plane
instability (global buckling) of the web boundary region of the wall, as also discussed in
a subsequent section. For specimen SW-T5-S1-7, which had an aspect (or shear span-to-
depth) ratio of 1.0 and was tested under zero axial load, the model response prediction is
accurate (Fig. 6d). For the other squat wall specimen WP-T5-N5-S1, which had an aspect
ratio of 0.88 (corresponding to a shear span-to-depth ratio of 0.44) and was tested under
an axial load of 5% of its axial load capacity, the model exhibits a reasonable level of
accuracy in predicting the overall response, although the degradation in lateral load is
more gradual in the analysis results. As shown in the embedded plots in Fig. 6e–f, the
model captures the governing contribution of shear deformations to top displacements of
these two low-rise wall specimens. It is significant that the model prediction for the lateral
load capacity of the axially-loaded wall specimen (WP-T5-N5-S1) with shear-dominant
behavior is accurate, since the model is apparently successful in capturing the influence of
the axial load on the response characteristics of shear-controlled walls. Considering that
current seismic design codes and performance assessment guidelines neglect the influence
of axial load in wall shear strength calculations (e.g., the ACI318 [2014] shear strength
equation underestimates the lateral load capacity of this wall by approximately 35%
[Orakcal et al., 2009]), mainly due to lack of experimental data on walls failing in shear,
availability of a modeling approach that considers axial/shear interaction is promising
towards improvement of code provisions on wall shear strength. The inaccuracy of the
model in capturing the rate of degradation in the lateral load applied on specimen WP-
T5-N5-S1 (Fig. 6f, also observed for specimen RW-A15-P10-S51 in Fig. 6d), as well as the
incapability of the model in predicting the initiation of lateral load degradation in the
response of specimen RW-A20-P10-S38 during the last loading cycle (Fig. 6c) is probably
because rebar buckling behavior is not considered in the present model formulation,
whereas for these three specimens, the wall longitudinal reinforcement buckled at failure.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 6. Lateral load vs. top displacement responses for specimens: (a) RW2; (b) TW2; (c) RW-A20-P10-
S38; (d) RW-A15-P10-S51; (e) SW-T5-S1-7; (f) WP-T5-N5-S1.
The major limitation of the present model formulation is that it can only capture wall
failure modes associated with material stress–strain behavior (e.g., concrete crushing,
reinforcement yielding, sliding shear along cracks), and does not consider lateral instabil-
ities (e.g., reinforcement buckling, out-of-plane instability of the wall boundary) in
simulating the response of walls. The model provides reasonably accurate load vs. dis-
placement response predictions for all specimens considered, since the experimentally
observed failure modes of the wall specimens (Table 1) are all associated with or initiated
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Figure 7. Lateral load vs. flexural and shear displacement responses for specimens: (a) RW2 (at quarter
of wall height); (b) TW2 (at quarter of wall height); (c) RW-A20-P10-S38; (d) RW-A15-P10-S51; (e) SW-T5-
S1-7; (f) WP-T5-N5-S1.
by crushing of concrete. However, for improving the model accuracy in estimating the
drift capacity of the walls, as well as the rate of degradation in lateral load after the
capacity is reached, the FSAFE model needs to be extended to also incorporate reinforce-
ment buckling and lateral instability failures in its formulation.
3.3.2. Lateral Load vs. Flexural and Shear Deformation Responses

Model predictions are compared with the lateral load vs. flexural and shear displacement
responses measured at the first story elevation (bottom quarter of wall height) of wall
specimen RW2, as shown in Fig. 7a. Shear deformations in the model results were
calculated by multiplying the average of the shear strain values obtained for all of the
individual model elements that are lined up at the same elevation, with the model element
height. These shear deformations were summed up over the model height for obtaining
the cumulative shear displacement at a particular elevation of the wall. Flexural displace-
ment predictions of the model were calculated by subtracting shear displacements from
total lateral displacement at the same wall elevation. Even for the relatively slender wall
specimen RW2, for which the contribution of shear deformations to top displacement was
measured as approximately 10% [Orakcal and Wallace, 2006], similar to experimental
observations, significant nonlinearity in the lateral load vs. shear displacement behavior is
predicted by the model along the first story height of the wall where nonlinear flexural
deformations are concentrated. The model slightly underestimates the shear displacements
(which is acceptable considering their very small magnitude), but clearly captures the
nonlinear SFI behavior observed experimentally even for this slender wall specimen with
flexure-dominated behavior. The model also captures the coupling of nonlinear shear and
flexural deformations in the response of the T-shaped wall specimen TW2 (Fig. 7b),
although the first-story shear displacement measurements are largely overestimated by
the model when the wall flange is in tension. This discrepancy is believed to be mainly due
to imperfections in these shear displacement measurements, since the measured shear
displacement values (which are of very small magnitude) show inconsistencies throughout
the loading history, such as positive shear displacements measured under negative lateral
load (Fig. 7b). For the medium-rise wall specimens RW-A20-P10-S38 and RW-A15-P10-
S51, which experienced significant SFI responses, the contribution of shear and flexural
deformations to wall lateral displacements were measured along the entire wall height
during testing. As shown in Fig. 7c–d, model predictions for the lateral load vs. top
flexural and top shear displacement responses for these two specimens are accurate. The
model successfully replicates the load vs. flexural displacement and the more-pinched load
vs. shear displacement response characteristics of these walls, as well as the magnitudes of
the flexural and shear components of top displacement. For the squat wall specimens SW-
T5-S1-7 and WP-T5-N5-S1 with shear-predominant responses observed during testing,
the lateral load vs. top flexural and shear displacement responses of the walls are again
well-estimated (Fig. 7e–f), with the flexural response component resembling linear elastic
behavior in both model results and test measurements, although with slight overestima-
tion of the flexural stiffness in the model results. It must be mentioned that shear and
flexural displacement measurements on the walls were obtained using local instrumenta-
tion (LVDTs) mounted diagonally and vertically on the wall specimens, and due to
imperfections in measurement, their sum may not be equal to the externally measured
lateral top displacement of the walls (but is generally within ±10% range), as also reported
in the experimental programs.
3.3.3. Deformation Profiles along Wall Height, Crack Patterns, Wall Vertical Growth
A representative comparison of model results and test measurements for the total lateral
displacement, lateral flexural displacement, and lateral shear displacement profiles along
the height of specimen RW-A15-P10-S51 at increasing drift levels is presented in Fig. 8.
The total lateral displacement profile, which follows an approximately linear distribution
over wall height, is well-estimated by the model (Fig. 8a). It must be noted that during the
analysis, only top displacement values that were identical to the test were applied on the
model. The flexural displacement profiles also match (Fig. 8b), and indicate that nonlinear
flexural deformations are concentrated along the bottom 610 mm of the wall height,
corresponding to a plastic hinge length of half the wall horizontal length (lw/2), and above
that region, the flexural displacement profile is approximately linear. As well, the shapes of
the measured and predicted shear displacement profiles are in agreement (Fig. 8c), with
decreasing shear distortions developing towards the top of the wall. The comparison
presented in Fig. 8 is significant, since it demonstrates that the model can capture the
coupling of nonlinear shear and flexural deformations (amplification of shear
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 8. Displacement profiles along the height of specimen RW-A15-P10-S51: (a) total displacement;
(b) displacement due to flexural deformation; (c) displacement due to shear deformation.
deformations in regions where nonlinear flexural deformations are larger), as well as the
distribution of nonlinear flexural and shear deformations (spread of plasticity) along the
height of a wall. Inaccuracy of the model in predicting the flexural and shear displacement
profiles at the drift level of 3.0% is not typical, and is probably associated with degradation
in lateral load in both model results and test measurements at this drift level (see Fig. 6d).
The experimentally observed crack patterns on specimens RW-A20-P10-S38 and RW-
A15-P10-S51 are compared with model predictions in Fig. 9. Little should be expected of
the model in predicting the actual crack patterns recorded during the tests, since the
(a)
(b)
Figure 9. Crack patterns for specimens: (a) RW-A20-P10-S38 at 1.5% drift; (b) RW-A15-P10-S51 at 3.0%
drift.
(a) (b)
Figure 10. Vertical growth vs. top lateral displacement for specimens: (a) RW-A20-P10-S38; (b) RW-A15-
P10-S51.
cracks in the model are inherently discontinuous and crack directions in each model
element differ, whereas the cracks propagate in a continuous manner during testing.
Nevertheless, Fig. 9 shows that the model provides reasonable estimations of crack
orientations for both wall specimens. In both test results and model predictions, the
cracks are more horizontal at the wall boundaries where flexural (vertical) strains pre-
dominate over shear strains, and become more inclined towards the middle of the wall
web where shear (diagonal tension) strains are more dominant. As well, the horizontal
cracks at wall boundaries at the base of the wall become more inclined as they deviate
from the base of wall, since the bending moment on the wall cross-section decreases
towards the top of the wall while the shear force remains constant.
Fig. 10 compares model results and test measurements for the wall vertical growth
(upward vertical displacement at the geometric centroid of the wall cross-section) vs. the
lateral top displacement applied on wall specimens RW-A20-P10-S38 and RW-A15-P10-
S51. Vertical growth of a wall is associated with the cumulative effect (along wall height) of
the migration of the neutral axis on the wall cross-section (resulting in tensile strains at
the wall centroid), which is associated with cracking of concrete and yielding of long-
itudinal reinforcement, as well as the nonlinear distribution of compressive stresses
developing in concrete. Accuracy of the model in representing the experimentally mea-
sured vertical growth behavior of both wall specimens is adequate. For specimen RW-
A20-P10-S38 (Fig. 10a), model results replicate the vertical growth measured at the peak
(maximum) lateral displacements applied on the wall, as well as the residual (plastic)
vertical growth at zero lateral displacement after unloading from the peak displacements.
The model is less accurate in capturing the vertical growth behavior of specimen RW-
A15-P10-S51 (Fig. 10b), especially during the last loading cycles to a drift level of 3.0% in
the positive loading direction, most probably due to initiation of lateral load degradation
in the model results at this drift level.
3.3.4. Vertical Normal Strain Profiles at Wall Base

In order to evaluate the accuracy of the model in capturing local deformations on the
walls, representative comparisons of model predictions with vertical (longitudinal) strain
profiles measured along the base of selected wall specimens at various peak drift levels, is
presented in Fig. 11. As shown in Fig. 11a for the relatively slender wall specimen RW2
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Figure 11. Vertical normal strain profiles at wall base for specimens: (a) RW2; (b) RW-A15-P10-S51; (c)
along the web of TW2 when the flange is in compression; (d) along the web of TW2 when the flange is
in tension; (e) along the flange of TW2 when the flange is in tension.
with flexure-dominated behavior, the model is accurate in predicting both compressive

and tensile strains measured at the wall base (with an error margin of approximately 25%
in compressive strain predictions), as well as the depth of the neutral axis on the wall
cross-section. This is a significant attribute of the FSAFE model, since previous analytical
studies [e.g., Orakcal and Wallace, 2006] have shown that using a fiber-based flexural
model formulation for simulating the response of this particular wall specimen results in
significant underestimation of compressive strains, with the predicted strains correspond-
ing to approximately one-third of the measured values. Unlike in fiber models, plane
sections do not remain plane in the present finite element modeling approach (due to the
in-plane shear lag effect resulting from nonlinear shear deformations on the wall), which
is more consistent with the experimentally measured strain profiles, and provides
improved predictions of especially compressive strains in concrete, even for such walls
with flexure-governed responses. For the medium-rise wall specimen RW-A15-P10-S51
that exhibited a coupled nonlinear shear-flexural response, model estimations for the
vertical strain profiles at wall base are again, representative of test results (Fig. 11b).
In Fig. 11c–d, model estimations are compared with the experimentally measured
vertical strain profiles at the base of the T-shaped wall specimen along its web, until
a nominal drift level of 1.5% (as measured), in positive (wall flange in compression) and
negative (wall flange in tension) loading directions. It must be noted that the drift levels
presented in the legends of Fig. 11c–d are nominal drift levels, whereas the magnitude of
the actual (net) drift ratios that the specimen was subjected to (e.g., shown in Fig. 6b)
become smaller when the contributions of pedestal sliding and rotation to top displace-
ment are removed [see Orakcal and Wallace, 2006]. For example, the last loading cycles
shown in Fig. 6b correspond to a nominal drift level of 2.5%. As shown in Fig. 11c–d, the
model reasonably captures the magnitudes of the measured compressive and tensile
strains along the web of this wall specimen also, with an error margin of approximately
25% at the web boundaries, which is again an improvement over results of previous
modeling studies [Orakcal and Wallace, 2006] where using a fiber model was shown to
underestimate the compressive strains on this wall by as much as 70%. However, the
model is not successful in predicting the neutral axis location on the wall cross-section at
a nominal drift level of 1.5% in the negative loading direction (Fig. 11d), at which time the
web boundary region of the wall may have started to experience out-of-plane instability.
Comparison of model results and test measurements for the vertical strain profiles at
wall base along the flange of specimen TW2 (perpendicular to the loading direction), at
increasing peak drift levels in the negative loading direction (flange in tension), up to
a nominal drift level of 2.5%, is presented in Fig. 11e. During testing of this wall, it was
possible to measure the strains along the wall flange at also the drift levels of 2.0% and
2.5%, since the flange did not experience significant damage (concrete crushing) through-
out the test. As depicted in the figure, the model captures the shear lag effect along the wall
flange perpendicular to the loading direction, as the vertical strain magnitudes decrease as
one diverges from the web-flange intersection, which is another salient characteristic of
the FSAFE model. Model predictions of vertical strains are accurate at nominal drift levels
up to 1.5%; however, at drift levels of 2.0% and 2.5%, the model underestimates the tensile
strains measured along the flange by as much as 45%. As discussed previously, the
relatively low level of model accuracy in simulating both the global (Fig. 6b) and local
(Fig. 11d–e) response characteristics of specimen TW2 when its flange is in tension, may
be attributed to the experimental observation that the web boundary of this wall experi-
enced out-of-plane instability (buckling over several hoop spacings) during the test. The
out-of-plane instability was obvious to naked eye at the nominal drift level of 2.5%
[Thomsen and Wallace, 2004]; however, it is speculated that the instability may have
initiated at lower drifts, creating a softening effect on the web boundary of the wall in
compression, and thus impairing the correlation between model predictions and test
measurements at smaller drift levels also. This observation also highlights a significant
limitation of the present model formulation. It is obvious that the accuracy of the model is
subject to improvement upon implementation of constitutive models for representing not
only local (rebar) buckling but also global buckling (buckling over multiple tie spacings)
behavior in its formulation [e.g., Massone and Moroder, 2009]. Consideration of
geometric nonlinearity effects in the analysis, possibly using a shell element formulation in
which displacements in the out-of-plane direction of the model elements are also con-
sidered [e.g., Dashti et al., 2017] would be a further improvement; however, this would
significantly complicate the present model formulation.
3.3.5. Average Horizontal Normal Strain Profiles along Wall Height

As a final local response comparison, test measurements and model predictions for the
distribution of average (across wall length) horizontal normal strain values along wall
height, at increasing drift levels, are compared in Fig. 12 for the two squat wall specimens
SW-T5-S1-7 and WP-T5-N5-S1, that showed shear-predominant responses. Although
typically undervalued in modeling studies, horizontal normal strains are significant
response quantities for RC walls–shear-critical walls in particular. These strains are direct
indications of whether the horizontal web reinforcement (shear reinforcement) of the wall
yields or not, which further determines whether the wall will undergo diagonal tension
failure (where the diagonal cracks widen and the softened concrete crushes along diagonal
struts) or diagonal compression failure (where the diagonal cracks do not widen and
crushing of concrete is typically at the base of the wall under combined shear and flexural
effects), respectively [Terzioglu et al., 2018].
The strain distributions that are plotted in Fig. 12 for various drift levels before
significant degradation in lateral load is observed, indicate that in both model results
and test measurements, the average horizontal normal strains tend to increase from near-
zero values at the top and bottom of the walls towards their maximum values at wall mid-
height, due to the lateral constraining effect of the top and bottom pedestals of the walls,
as well as diagonal cracking behavior. As well, the magnitudes of strains predicted by the
model are in reasonable agreement with the experimentally measured values, indicating
that the model is also reliable for predicting yielding of horizontal web reinforcement,
which influences the wall shear capacity and failure mode. The model predicts that the
web reinforcement of specimen SW-T5-S1-7 will not yield when the wall reaches lateral
load capacity, whereas that of specimen WP-T5-N5-S1 will yield. These predictions are
consistent with the measured strains on the walls, as well as their experimentally observed
failure modes, where SW-T5-S1-7 failed in diagonal compression, while WP-T5-N5-S1
suffered diagonal tension failure. Considering that current code provisions [e.g., ACI 318,
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Average horizontal normal strain profiles along wall height for specimens: (a) SW-T5-S1-7;
(b) WP-T5-N5-S1.
2014] for wall shear strength typically do not differentiate between whether the wall shear
reinforcement yields or not, capability of the FSAFE model in predicting the pre-yield or
post-yield horizontal normal strain levels on walls under high shear demands is another
important model attribute that may be used towards improvement of code provisions or
performance assessment guidelines related to the nonlinear shear behavior of walls.
3.4. Sensitivity of Model Results to Mesh Discretization

For geometric discretization of the FSAFE model to simulate the wall specimens
analyzed in this study, the standardized approach described in Section 3.2.1 was
employed. On the wall cross-sections, two elements side-by-side were used to repre-
sent the confined boundary regions of the slender and medium-rise wall specimens,
whereas one element was used to represent the unconfined boundary regions of the
low-rise wall specimens. The entire wall geometry was then discretized, using model
elements with approximately equal width and height. It was observed that using
a finer mesh of model elements did not significantly influence the model response
predictions, other than the rate of degradation in lateral load after the wall lateral
load capacity is reached. For example, Fig. 13 shows the sensitivity of the model
response predictions for specimen RW-A15-P10-S51, to the number of model ele-
ments used in the horizontal direction (m) and the number of model elements used
in the vertical direction (n) of the wall. The coarser mesh (m = 12, n = 18)
corresponds to the standard discretization approach used in this study for all wall
specimens, whereas results of the model with the finer mesh (m = 18, n = 27) are
shown for comparison. Fig. 13a shows that the lateral load vs. top displacement
response prediction of the model is not significantly different when the finer mesh is
used, other than a slightly more pronounced rate of degradation in lateral load.
Similarly, refinement of the mesh does not result in noticeably different vertical
(longitudinal) strain profiles along the base of the wall. Similar results were obtained
for all wall specimens investigated, consolidating the standardized model discretiza-
tion approach used in this study.
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Sensitivity of model results to number of model elements used in horizontal (m) and vertical
(n) directions: (a) lateral load vs. top displacement response; (b) vertical normal strain profiles at wall
base.
4. Summary and Conclusions

A novel finite element model formulation (named as the FSAFE model) was presented in
this paper for simulating the nonlinear response of RC walls under cyclic lateral loads. The
constitutive behavior of the model elements follow a fixed-crack-angle approach, in which
normal stresses in concrete are calculated along the fixed crack directions. Simple beha-
vioral models for shear-aggregate-interlock along crack surfaces and dowel action on
reinforcing bars are also incorporated in the model formulation, for representing shear
stress transfer mechanisms across cracks. The model is validated against test results on six
densely instrumented wall specimens selected from the literature, with various configura-
tions and response characteristics, including slender walls with flexure-dominated
responses, medium-rise walls with coupled shear and flexural responses, and squat walls
with shear-controlled behavior. Based on the comprehensive correlation studies presented
in this paper, the following conclusions on important attributes of the FSAFE model can
be reached:
● Despite its relatively simple formulation, the FSAFE model was shown to be reason-
ably accurate in predicting the experimentally observed response features of the wall
specimens investigated. The model captured the experimentally measured load–
displacement response characteristics of most of the walls, including their lateral
stiffness, lateral load capacity, drift capacity, hysteretic stiffness degradation, and
pinching behavior. Local response characteristics of the walls, including the contri-
bution of shear and flexural deformations to lateral displacement, distribution of
shear and flexural deformations along wall height, crack orientations on the walls,
vertical growth behavior of the walls, the vertical normal strain profiles measured
along the base of the walls, and the horizontal normal strain distributions measured
along the height of the walls, were also generally well-estimated by the model. Model
predictions are not always 100% accurate, as should not be expected from a relatively
simple model formulation, considering the idealizations used in representation of the
mechanical behavior, as well as the high level of variability in material behavior.
● Significant attributes of the FSAFE model pertaining to seismic design and perfor-
mance-assessment of walls include: (i) successful representation of the SFI behavior
observed experimentally in both slender and medium-rise walls designed to fail in
flexure; (ii) capturing of the nonlinear distribution of vertical normal strains across
both rectangular and non-rectangular wall cross-sections in parallel and perpendi-
cular directions to loading (plane sections not remaining plane due to shear lag
effects); (iii) providing improved predictions for the compressive strains in concrete
(as opposed to fiber-based models); as well as (iv) successful simulation of the
nonlinear shear behavior of walls, with consideration of the influence of axial load
and whether or not the horizontal web reinforcement will yield in predicting the
shear response characteristics. These features constitute the obvious strengths of the
FSAFE model over existing approaches used for modeling of walls in current
performance-based seismic design applications.
● The major shortcoming of the present model formulation is lack of consideration of
lateral instabilities in simulating the response of walls. The accuracy of the model in
predicting the lateral load capacity and drift capacity of walls, as well as the rate of
degradation in lateral load after the capacity is reached, are subject to improvement
upon implementation of constitutive models in its formulation for representing both

local and global (over several hoop spacings) buckling behavior of reinforcement,
and/or possible consideration of geometric nonlinearity effects in the analysis, using
model elements that also incorporate out-of-plane displacement degrees of freedom.
Such improvements would also enhance the accuracy of the model in predicting local
responses (e.g., vertical strains) at or close to failure.
Overall, with the features described and the potential improvements identified in this
paper, the FSAFE model is presented as a relatively simple yet accurate modeling approach
for simulating the nonlinear seismic response of RC walls or wall systems. Ongoing
studies focus on improvement of the existing model formulation, as well as further
experimental validation of the model, for consolidating its reliability. Future efforts will
include conducting seismic response simulation studies on building systems using the
FSAFE model for structural walls, aimed towards improvement of performance-based
seismic design procedures.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Prof. John Wallace and Dr. Thien Tran from UCLA, and to Prof.
Kristijan Kolozvari from California State University Fullerton for sharing test data. The contribu-
tion of Bogazici University Ph.D. student Burak Horoz in experimental validation of the FSAFE
model is also greatly appreciated.
References
ACI. [2014] Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-14).
Belarbi, A. and Hsu, T. T. C. [1994] “Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and reinforcing bars
stiffened by concrete,” ACI Structural Journal 91, 465–474.
Chang, G. A. and Mander, J. B. [1994] “Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge
columns: part 1 - Evaluation of seismic capacity,” NCEER Technical Report No. NCEER-94-
0006, Buffalo, USA. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77044-2
Clarke, M. J. and Hancock, G. J. [1990] “A study of incremental-iterative strategies for non-linear
analyses,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 29, 1365–1391.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0207.
Dashti, F., Dhakal, R. P. and Pampanin, S. [2017] “Numerical modeling of rectangular reinforced
concrete structural walls,” Journal of Structural Engineering 143, 04017031. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001729.
Diana, T. [2011] Finite element analysis user’s manual-release 9.4.4.
Filippou, F. C., Bertero, V. V. and Popov, E. P. [1983] “Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic
behavior of reinforced concrete joints,” Report No. UCB/EERC-83/19, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Fischinger, M., Rejec, K. and Isaković, T. [2014] “Inelastic shear response of RC walls: A challenge
in performance based design and assessment,” in Performance-Based Seismic Engineering: Vision
for an Earthquake Resilient Society, ed. M. Fischinger (Springer), pp. 347–363.
Fischinger, M., Vidic, T., Selih, J., Fajfar, P., Zhang, H. Y. and Damjanic, F. B. [1990] “Validation of
a macroscopic model for cyclic response prediction of RC walls,” in Computer Aided Analysis
and Design of Concrete Structures, 2nd (Pineridge Preess, Swansea), pp. 1131–1142.
Gérin, M. and Adebar, P. [2009] “Simple rational model for reinforced concrete subjected to seismic
shear,” Journal of Structural Engineering 135, 753–761. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)
135:7(753).
He, X. G. and Kwan, A. K. H. [2001] “Modeling dowel action of reinforcement bars for finite
element analysis of concrete structures,” Computers and Structures 79, 595–604. doi:10.1016/
S0045-7949(00)00158-9.
Hsu, T. T. C. and Zhu, R. R. H. [2002] “Softened membrane model for reinforced concrete elements
in shear,” ACI Structural Journal 99, 460–469.
Jiang, H. and Kurama, Y. C. [2010] “Analytical modeling of medium-rise reinforced concrete shear
walls,” ACI Structural Journal 107, 400–410.
Kolozvari, K. [2013] “Analytical modeling of cyclic shear - flexure interaction in reinforced concrete
structural walls,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Kolozvari, K., Orakcal, K. and Wallace, J. W. [2015a] “Modeling of cyclic shear-flexure interaction
in reinforced concrete structural walls. I Theory,” Journal of Structural Engineering 141,
04014135. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001059.
Kolozvari, K., Orakcal, K. and Wallace, J. W. [2015b] “Shear-flexure interaction modeling for
reinforced concrete structural walls and columns under reversed cyclic loading,” Report No.
PEER-2015/12, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley.
Kolozvari, K., Orakcal, K. and Wallace, J. W. [2018] “New opensees models for simulating non-
linear flexural and coupled shear-flexural behavior of RC walls and columns,” Computers &
Structures 196, 246–262. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.10.010.
Lu, Y. and Henry, R. S. [2017] “Numerical modelling of reinforced concrete walls with minimum
vertical reinforcement,” Engineering Structures 143, 330–345. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.043.
Luu, C. H., Mo, Y. L. and Hsu, T. T. C. [2017] “Development of CSMM-based shell element for reinforced
concrete structures,” Engineering Structures 132, 778–790. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.064.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N. and Park, R. [1988] “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering 114, 1804–1826.
Mansour, M. and Hsu, T. T. C. [2005] “Behavior of reinforced concrete elements under cyclic shear.
II: theoretical Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering 131, 54–65. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2005)131:1(54).
Mansour, M., Hsu, T. T. C. and Lee, J. Y. [2002] “Pinching effect in hysteretic loops of R/C shear
elements,” ACI Special Publication 205, 293–322.
Massone, L. M. [2006] “Analytical and experimental shear-flexure interaction in RC walls,” Ph.
D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles.
Massone, L. M. and Moroder, D. [2009] “Buckling modeling of reinforcing bars with
imperfections,” Engineering Structures 31, 758–767. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.019.
Massone, L. M., Orakcal, K. and Wallace, J. W. [2009] “Modeling of squat structural walls
controlled by shear,” ACI Structural Journal 106, 646–655.
MatLab, M. [2012] The Language of Technical Computing, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA.
(available online at http://www.mathworks.com)
McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., Scott, M. H. and Jeremic, B. [2000] Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (Opensees), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley.
Menegotto, M. and Pinto, E. [1973] “Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete
plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic behavior of elements under com-
bined normal force and bending,” IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of
Structures Acted on by Well-Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon, Portugal.
Mo, Y. L., Zhong, J. and Hsu, T. T. C. [2008] “Seismic simulation of RC wall-type structures,”
Engineering Structures 30, 3167–3175. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.04.033.
Ohmori, N., Takahashi, T., Inoue, H., Kurihara, K. and Watanabe, S. [1989] “Experimental studies
on nonlinear behaviours of reinforced concrete panels subjected to cyclic inplane shear,” Journal
of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transactions of AIJ) 403, 105–118 [in Japanese].
Orakcal, K., Massone, L. M. and Wallace, J. W. [2009] “Shear strength of lightly reinforced wall
piers and spandrels,” ACI Structural Journal 106, 455–465.
Orakcal, K., Ulugtekin, D. and Massone, L. M. [2012] “Constitutive modeling of reinforced concrete
panel behavior under cyclic loading,” 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN
Orakcal, K. and Wallace, J. W. [2006] “Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete walls-experimental
verification,” ACI Structural Journal 103, 196–206.
Orakcal, K., Wallace, J. W. and Conte, J. P. [2004] “Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete
walls-model attributes,” ACI Structural Journal 101, 688–698.
Palermo, D. and Vecchio, F. J. [2003] “Compression field modeling of reinforced concrete subjected
to reversed loading: formulation,” ACI Structural Journal 100, 616–625.
Palermo, D. and Vecchio, F. J. [2007] “Simulation of cyclically loaded concrete structures based on
the finite-element method,” Journal of Structural Engineering 133, 728–738. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2007)133:5(728).
Panagiotou, M., Restrepo, J. I., Schoettler, M. and Kim, G. [2012] “Nonlinear cyclic truss model for
reinforced concrete walls,” ACI Structural Journal 109, 205.
Pang, X. B. and Hsu, T. T. C. [1995] “Behavior of reinforced concrete membrane elements in shear,”
ACI Structural Journal 92, 665–679.
Pang, X. B. and Hsu, T. T. C. [1996] “Fixed angle softened truss model for reinforced concrete,” ACI
Structural Journal 93, 197–207.
PERFORM CSI. 3D v.4.0. [2006] User Manual, Computers & Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA.
Petrangeli, M., Pinto, P. E. and Ciampi, V. [1999] “Fiber element for cyclic bending and shear of RC
Structures. I Theory,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 125, 994–1001. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9399(1999)125:9(994).
Rojas, F., Anderson, J. C. and Massone, L. M. [2016] “A nonlinear quadrilateral layered membrane
element with drilling degrees of freedom for the modeling of reinforced concrete walls,”
Engineering Structures 124, 521–538. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.024.
Saatcioglu, M. and Razvi, S. R. [1992] “Strength and ductility of confined concrete,” Journal of
Structural Engineering 118, 1590–1607.
Spacone, E., Filippou, F. C. and Taucer, F. F. [1996] “Fibre beam–column model for non-linear
analysis of R/C frames: part I. Formulation,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 25,
711–725. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199607)25:7<711::AID-EQE576>3.0.CO;2-9.
Stevens, N. J., Uzumeri, S. M. and Collins, M. P. [1991] “Reinforced concrete subjected to reversed
cyclic shear-Experiments and constitutive model,” ACI Structural Journal 88, 135–146.
Tassios, T. P. and Vintzēleou, E. N. [1987] “Concrete-to-concrete friction,” Journal of Structural
Engineering 113, 832–849. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1987)113:4(832).
Taucer, F., Spacone, E. and Filippou, F. C. [1991] “A fiber beam-column element for seismic
response analysis of reinforced concrete structures,” Report No. UCB/EERC-91/17, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Terzioglu, T. [2011] “Experimental evaluation of the lateral load behavior of squat structural walls,”
M.S. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Terzioglu, T., Orakcal, K. and Massone, L. M. [2018] “Cyclic lateral load behavior of squat reinforced
concrete walls,” Engineering Structures 160, 147–160. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.01.024.
Thermou, G. E., Papanikolaou, V. K. and Kappos, A. J. [2014] “Flexural behaviour of reinforced
concrete jacketed columns under reversed cyclic loading,” Engineering Structures 76, 270–282.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.013.
Thomsen, J. H. and Wallace, J. W. [1995] “Displacement based design of reinforced concrete
structural walls: an experimental investigation of walls with rectangular and T-shaped cross-
sections,” Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Department of Civil Engineering, Clarkson University,
Potsdam, New York.
Thomsen, J. H. and Wallace, J. W. [2004] “Displacement-based design of slender reinforced
concrete structural walls—experimental verification,” Journal of Structural Engineering 130,
618–630. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:4(618).
Tran, T. A. [2012] “Experimental and analytical studies of moderate aspect ratio reinforced concrete
structural walls,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Los
Angeles. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN
Tran, T. A. and Wallace, J. W. [2015] “Cyclic testing of moderate-aspect-ratio reinforced concrete

structural walls,” ACI Structural Journal 112, 653–666. doi:10.14359/51687907.
Vásquez, J. A., de la Llera, J. C. and Hube, M. A. [2016] “A regularized fiber element model for
reinforced concrete shear walls,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45, 2063–2083.
doi:10.1002/eqe.2731.
Vassilopoulou, I. and Tassios, T. P. [2003] “Shear transfer capacity along a RC crack, under cyclic
sliding,” Proceedings of fib Symposium “Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions”(electronic source),
Athens, Greece.
Vecchio, F. J. [1989] “Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete membranes,” ACI
Structural Journal 86, 26–35.
Vecchio, F. J. [1999] “Towards cyclic load modeling of reinforced concrete,” ACI Structural Journal
96, 193–202.
Vecchio, F. J. [2000] “Disturbed stress field model for reinforced concrete,” Formulation,” Journal of
Structural Engineering 126, 1070–1077. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:9(1070).
Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. [1986] “The modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear,” ACI Structural Journal 83, 219–231.
Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. [1993] “Compression response of cracked reinforced concrete,”
Journal of Structural Engineering 119, 3590–3610. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)
119:12(3590).
Vintzēleou, E. N. and Tassios, T. P. [1986] “Mathematical models for dowel action under mono-
tonic and cyclic conditions,” Magazine of Concrete Research, 38, 13–22.
Vulcano, A., Bertero, V. V. and Colotti, V. [1988] “Analytical modeling of RC structural walls,”
Proceedings, 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol. 6, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, pp.
41–46.
Zhu, R. R. H., Hsu, T. T. C. and Lee, J. Y. [2001] “Rational shear modulus for smeared-crack
analysis of reinforced concrete,” ACI Structural Journal 98, 443–450.

Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls With Varting Aspect Ratios

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls With Varting Aspect Ratios

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Walls With Varting Aspect Ratios

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced

M. Fethi Gullu & Kutay Orakcal

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1614498

Published online: 20 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 143

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

2. FSAFE Model Description

2.1. The Constitutive Fixed-Strut-Angle Model (FSAM) for RC Panels

2.1.1. Concrete Cracking and Fixed Strut Mechanism

2.1.2. Shear Aggregate Interlock on Crack Surfaces

2.1.3. Dowel Action on Reinforcement

2.2. Material Constitutive Models

2.2.2. Reinforcing Steel

3. Experimental Validation of the Model

3.1. Description of the Test Specimens

3.2. Calibration of the FSAFE Model for the Test Specimens

Table 1. Properties of wall specimens.

Table 2. Material characteristics of wall specimens.

3.2.2. Calibration of Material Model Parameters

3.3. Comparison of Model Results with Test Data

3.3.2. Lateral Load vs. Flexural and Shear Deformation Responses

(a) (b) (c)

3.3.4. Vertical Normal Strain Proﬁles at Wall Base

with ﬂexure-dominated behavior, the model is accurate in predicting both compressive

3.3.5. Average Horizontal Normal Strain Proﬁles along Wall Height

3.4. Sensitivity of Model Results to Mesh Discretization

4. Summary and Conclusions

upon implementation of constitutive models in its formulation for representing both

Tran, T. A. and Wallace, J. W. [2015] “Cyclic testing of moderate-aspect-ratio reinforced concrete

You might also like