Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 August 2013
Revised 18 February 2014
Accepted 22 April 2014
Keywords:
Reinforced concrete
Axial load
Wall
Experiment
Reinforcement buckling
Seismic behavior
Chile
Failure
a b s t r a c t
About 2% of Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings taller than nine stories suffered serious damage in
structural walls during the 2010 Chile earthquake. The observed damage involved mostly crushing of
concrete, buckling of vertical reinforcement, and opening of the horizontal reinforcement. This damage
is attributed to poor concrete connement in the web and boundaries, inadequate horizontal reinforcement detailing, and high axial loads. This research aims to reproduce the observed damage and evaluate
the inuence of axial loads in the seismic behavior of RC walls with unconned boundaries. To achieve
these objectives, three identical wall specimens were tested. The wall specimens were designed with
characteristic wall detailing obtained from data of ve damaged buildings. These wall specimens were
tested under equal lateral displacement cycles and subjected to different axial load ratios. The
exural-compressive failure mode exhibited by damaged walls during the earthquake was reproduced
in these tests. Experimental results indicate that high axial load has a signicant effect on the seismic
performance and failure mode of RC walls. Indeed, it triggers a dangerous brittle concrete crushing failure
which occurs immediately after spalling of the concrete cover.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
On February 27th, 2010, the central south region of Chile was
struck by an Mw = 8.8 earthquake [1], one of the strongest ever
measured. More than 80,000 residences were destroyed and more
than 100,000 suffered substantial damage caused by the
earthquake and tsunami. The general performance of tall
Reinforced Concrete (RC) wall buildings with 9 or more stories
was acceptable; only about 2% of the newer building inventory
presented severe damage [2,3] and just one of these buildings
collapsed. This damage was most likely attributed to poor concrete
connement, inadequate horizontal reinforcement detailing, high
axial loads, and low wall thickness [2,4,5]. Closed inspection to
wall boundaries revealed lack of special boundary reinforcement,
relatively large spacing of the horizontal web reinforcement, as
well as 90 hooks in the horizontal reinforcement, which are
inadequate for seismic detailing of RC walls [4].
Most of Chilean residential buildings rely on a structural system
with a large number of RC walls to resist gravity and lateral loads.
The ratio of wall cross sectional area to oor plan area in these
Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 2354 4207; fax: +56 2 2354 4243.
E-mail address: mhube@ing.puc.cl (M.A. Hube).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.047
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
14
prototype wall for conducting the experimental campaign presented herein. General characteristics of ve seriously damaged
RC buildings and relevant properties of their walls were considered. Mostly, rectangular walls were included in this survey
because their behavior is much simpler to interpret and hence
experiments were limited to such sections as a rst approximation
to this complex problem; rectangular walls represent 32% of the
total walls of the selected buildings.
Five damaged buildings, whose number of stories ranged from
13 to 20, were considered in this survey. Four of them were located
in the city of Concepcin (CM, AH, PR and AA); whose characteristics were obtained from the survey performed by Westenenk et al.
[12], and one in Santiago (EM). The specied concrete strength is
fc0 = 20 MPa for PR and EM buildings, and fc0 = 25 MPa for CM, AH,
and AA buildings. The wall characteristics considered in the survey
were: wall thickness, M/Vlw ratio (where M is the moment at the
base of the wall, V the shear load and lw the wall length), ALR,
and reinforcement ratios. For this purpose, 27, 20, 14, 22 and 4 critical walls of the rst two stories and basementwhere damage was
usually concentratedwere considered for CM, AH, PR, AA and EM
buildings, respectively.
The wall thicknesses of the four buildings located in Concepcin
range between 150 and 200 mm, and between 170 and 250 mm for
the EM building. The vertical loads and the M/Vlw ratios were
obtained from nite element models of the buildings using ETABS
[13]. The moment (M) and the shear (V) of walls corresponds to the
seismic demand obtained from a modal response spectrum analysis according to the Chilean Code [14]. The M/Vlw ratio is an important property for the wall behavior, and if this ratio is small, the
wall is considered squat and probably will exhibit a shear mode
of failure [7]. The average of the mean M/Vlw ratios of the critical
walls in the damaged buildings is 2.02, which means that these
walls cannot be considered squat, and hence exural behavior is
relevant. However, some of the selected walls in the buildings considered were squat with M/Vlw ratios less than 0.5.
The ALRs of the surveyed walls of the ve damaged buildings
for gravitational load, including dead load and 25% of live load
(D + 0.25L) are shown in Fig. 2(a) where the mean and standard
deviation of the average ALRs for the ve buildings is 0.18, and
0.10, respectively. The axial load in walls induced by an earthquake
is estimated using modal response spectrum analysis according to
NCh433 [14]. Fig. 2(b) shows the ALRs of walls of damaged buildings under gravitational plus earthquake loads (D + 0.25L + E),
where the earthquake loads have been divided by the strength
reduction factor. The mean and standard deviation of the average
ALRs for the ve buildings is 0.27 and 0.09, respectively. The mean
average ALR for these loads is 50% larger than the value for gravitational loads. Also shown in Fig. 2(b) is the fact that about 10% of
the walls are subjected to ALRs higher than 0.35, which is the limit
imposed after the 2010 Chile Earthquake [15] for ultimate axial
loads. Also, only 20% of the walls exhibit ALRs lower than 0.15
and the rest 70% of the walls exhibit ALRs between 0.15 and
0.35. This latter range of ALRs is considered for the experimental
program of this research. However, if the load combination
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E is considered in this analysis according to
NCh3171 [16], the mean of the average ALR of the ve buildings
increases to 0.38 and the percentage of walls with ALR higher than
0.35 increases to 37%.
The actual axial load demand in RC walls during the 2010 earthquake may have exceeded the one estimated from the design code.
A comparison between the elastic response spectra, from the two
ground motions recorded closest to the four buildings located in
Concepcin, and the elastic design spectra is shown in Fig. 3. The
ordinates of elastic design spectra (Sae) and response spectra at
the fundamental period of the buildings are summarized in Table 1.
The fundamental period of the buildings and the soil type, were
15
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
ALR (D+0.25L+E)
ALR (D+0.25L)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
CM
AH
PR
AA
EM
CM
AH
(a)
PR
AA
EM
(b)
Fig. 2. ALR in RC walls for (a) D + 0.25L and (b) D + 0.25L + E . ALR increase in average 50% when earthquake loads are added to the gravity loads.
25
Concepcin EW
Concepcin NS
San Pedro EW
San Pedro NS
Sae soil type II
Sae soil type III
20
15
10
0.5
1.5
2.5
Period (s)
3. Experimental program
Fig. 3. Comparison between elastic design spectra and response spectra of two
stations recorded near Concepcion.
Table 1
Comparison between inelastic design spectrum and response spectrum for buildings located in Concepcin.
Building
Soil type
Sae (m/s2)
CM
AH
PR
AA
0.80
0.78
0.50
0.71
II
III
III
II
4.05
10.49
12.11
4.79
7.74
12.56
7.06
9.51
8.8
6.3
5.2
8.5
0.65
2.31
3.29
0.79
Table 2
Average reinforcement ratios of walls of damaged buildings considered for the wall
specimen design.
Building
Number of walls
q (%)
ql (%)
qt (%)
CM
AH
PR
AA
EM
27
20
14
22
4
0.57
0.22
0.45
0.40
0.51
0.61
2.49
0.50
0.48
1.34
0.32
0.68
0.50
0.32
0.45
Average
17.4
0.43
1.08
0.45
16
17
1
3
Parameter
/5 mm
/8 mm
/10 mm
Steel
Yield strength (MPa)
Ultimate strength (MPa)
Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
Yield Strain
Hardening strain
Ultimate strain
Strain hardening modulus (MPa)
AT560-500H
608.9
667.7
0.057
A630-420H
445.6
598.9
225.8
0.0020
0.0139
0.151
4134
A630-420H
469.2
675.7
224.7
0.0021
0.0138
0.166
5431
Load Cell
Displacement transducer
Transversal displacement
5
6
WEST
HT
EAST
H1W
H1E
SECTION A-A
EAST
WEST
H2W
10
13
11
14
7
12
15
H2E
V1T
150
150
200
V1M H1W
V7T
H1E V7M
V6
V2
V1 V3 V4 V5 V7
150
16
9
(a)
200
(b)
Table 4
Applied axial loads for wall specimens result in ALRs of 0.15, 0.25 and 0.35 which are
within the range obtained from 70% of the surveyed walls. The limit imposed in the
2011 Chilean design code [15] corresponds to the maximum ALR of 0.35 for wall W3.
Wall
ALR (N=fc0 Ag )
W1
W2
W3
0.15
0.25
0.35
287.4
479.0
671.6
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
4. Test results
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Time (min)
Fig. 8. Horizontal actuator command displacement with two cycles at each peak
amplitude of 3.3, 6.6, 9.9, 13.2, 19.8, 26.4, 33, 39.6 and 52.8 mm.
EAST
WEST
700 kN
Actuator
IN Beam
500 kN Actuator
Steel I beam
Load cell
Rolling Support
Steel plate
with rollers
Plate
1750
mm
Plate
Steel bar
Wall
specimen
LATERAL VIEW
18
initiation of cover
concrete spalling
horizontal and
diagonal cracks
(b) W3
vertical crack
(a) W3
(d) W1
(c) W3
(e) W2
Fig. 9. Observed behavior of wall specimens: cracking process and failure. Horizontal and diagonal cracks were followed by vertical cracks at the initiation of cover concrete
spalling. The walls experimented a exural-compressive concrete crushing failure with vertical reinforcement buckling, horizontal reinforcement opening, and out-of-plane
wall buckling.
19
first
crack
26.3
failure
vertical
crack
1.5
yielding
26.3
1.5
3
8000
52.5
0
complete spalling of concrete cover that exposed the reinforcement occurred at the wall boundaries generally at about
26 mm wall displacement (1.5% drift) for the three walls. After
reaching this drift level, wall W3 with ALR of 0.35 failed immediately after spalling of the cover concrete at 26.5 mm of wall lateral displacement (1.5% drift). Wall W2 with ALR of 0.25 survived
longer and failed at the last reversal cycle of that same amplitude
at 31.3 mm peak lateral wall displacement (1.8% drift). On the
other hand, wall W1 with ALR of 0.15 could attain much more
deformation after concrete spalling as its failure occurred at
48 mm displacement (2.8% drift). For the three wall specimens,
the test ended when the walls were not able to carry the applied
axial load. A brittle compressive failure along the entire length of
the walls together with a sideway out-of-plane buckling was
observed in the three walls (Fig. 9(c) and (d)). Not only the bars
closest to the wall edges exhibited buckling; but also the second
bars (Fig. 9(e)). Additionally, the horizontal reinforcement opened
due to the poor detailing with the 90 hooks. Therefore, the low
concrete connement provided by the horizontal reinforcement
became completely ineffective.
The observed failure mode of the three wall specimens
(Fig. 12) was similar to that observed in some walls damaged
during the 2010 Chile earthquake (Fig. 1). The horizontal and
vertical reinforcement bars in the three wall specimens did not
fracture during the tests. The fracture of vertical reinforcement
in actual buildings may be attributed to additional cycles in damaged walls caused by the long duration of the earthquake or a
dynamic effect not considered in these tests. Since a constant
vertical load was applied to the walls, they were not able to
transfer this load to adjacent structural elements and the walls
crushed in compression.
It is apparent from Fig. 10 that as the axial load increases, the
distance between spalling of the concrete cover and brittle failure of the wall reduces drastically. This observation enables us to
state that the observed failure in many walls during 2010 Chile
earthquake was brittle and occurred just a few cycles after spalling
of the concrete cover. This is certainly inconsistent with the
assumption of large strength reduction factors (R) in the design
building codes.
The tests also suggests that spalling of walls occurs at a drift
of 1.5%, which contradicts the estimated drift demand of 1% for
buildings during 2010 Chile earthquake [4]. So additional
research needs to be conducted, such as T-wall sections, or
building irregularities, to understand what occurred in damaged
buildings.
spalling
Drift (%)
(a) W1 horizontal
displacement (mm)
52.5
2000
4000
6000
Time (sec)
3
first
crack
26.3
vertical
crack
spalling
1.5
yielding
26.3
Drift (%)
(b) W2 horizontal
displacement (mm)
52.5
1.5
failure
3
8000
52.5
0
2000
4000
6000
Time (sec)
3
first
crack
26.3
vertical
crack
spalling
failure
1.5
yielding
26.3
Drift (%)
(b) W3 horizontal
displacement (mm)
52.5
1.5
52.5
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Time (sec)
Fig. 10. Behavior of the wall specimens through time showing that high axial load
triggered an early reinforcement yielding in compression for walls W2 and W3 and
reduced the lateral deformation capacity from 48 mm in wall W1 to 31.3 mm
(34.8% reduction) and 26.5 mm (44.8% reduction) in walls W2 and W3, respectively.
than that from wall W1, which is attributed to the higher ALR in
walls W2 and W3.
After yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, the horizontal
exural cracks located near the base of the wall propagated
toward the center of the wall specimens. Also, additional exurally induced diagonal cracks were visible along the height of
the walls. However, in wall W3 these diagonal cracks were less
and had lower thickness than those of W1. Vertical cracks at
the wall base in the position of bars V1 and V7 were also visible
after yielding, generally at a wall displacement of 17.7 mm (1.0%
drift), which seems to indicate that vertical reinforcement started
to experiment bar buckling due to their large s/db = 9 ratio
and started to push against the concrete cover (Fig. 9(b)). The
x 10
0
2
4
6
8
x 10
2
0
2
4
6
W1
W2
W3
10
200
400
600
800
1000
Time (sec)
1200
1400
10
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Time (sec)
Fig. 11. Strain versus time for strain gauges V1M and V7M for specimens W1, W2 and W3 (rst four displacement amplitudes) show that yielding occurred rst in
compression.
20
(a) W1
(b) W2
(c) W3
Fig. 12. Failure mode in the walls specimens consisted on crushing of concrete, buckling of vertical reinforcement, and opening of horizontal reinforcement, which was
similar to the observed damage in 2010 Chile earthquake shown in Fig. 1.
21
Drift (%)
3
200
100
Table 6
Comparison between nominal and experimental lateral strength.
Wall
Vn (kN)
Vi (kN)
V exp
max
V n =V exp
max
V i =V max exp
W1
W2
W3
248
248
248
111
126
133
144.3
166.0
185.6
1.72
1.49
1.34
0.77
0.76
0.72
(a) W1
100
Strain profile
200
52.5
35
17.5
17.5
35
52.5
Displacement (mm)
Unconfined concrete strain
Drift (%)
3
200
Steel strain
100
700 mm
100
200
52.5
(b) W2
35
17.5
17.5
35
52.5
Displacement (mm)
Drift (%)
3
200
100
200
52.5
Fig. 14. Fiber model. The height of the bers shown in this diagram is larger than
the 1 mm ber height used in the analysis.
(c) W3
100
35
17.5
17.5
35
52.5
Displacement (mm)
Reinforcement yielding
Cover concrete spalling
Concrete crushing failure
Fig. 13. Loaddisplacement relationships show that the lateral strength of the walls
(peak loads from the tests) is strongly inuenced by the ALR. The 144.3 kN strength
from wall W1 increases to 166 kN (15% increase) and 185.6 kN (28.6% increase) in
walls W2 and W3, respectively.
slip component (Dslip, hslip) is estimated using the equation proposed by Sezen and Setzler [21]. The slip of the bars in the tensile
side generates a rigid body rotation of the walls that induces lateral
displacement. Finally, the contribution due to rigid body rotation
of the concrete base was measured in the test (Drot, hrot). The resulting displacements and rotations are on average, 73% and 84% of the
experimental displacements and rotations, respectively. It is concluded that a nonlinear shear deformation needs to be considered
in the four component model to provide a better estimation of the
ultimate displacement.
Table 5
Summary of test results.
Result
W1
W2
W3
96.6
144.3
81.3
0.6
1.8
2.7
73.4
166.0
153.5
0.3
1.8
1.8
83.6
185.6
146.5
0.3
1.2
1.5
Fig. 15. Ultimate lateral displacement and rotation estimation using the plastic
hinge approach.
22
(a) W1
(c) W3
(b) W2
Fig. 16. Damage was concentrated at the concrete base of the wall specimens; the average plastic hinge lengths measured along the wall length for W1, W2 and W3 were
220, 240, and 270 mm, respectively.
Table 7
Comparison between the analytical estimation and experimental values of the ultimate lateral displacement.
Wall
Dex (mm)
Dshear (mm)
Dslip (mm)
Drot (mm)
Dfc (mm)
Dexp
(mm)
u
Dflex =Dexp
u
Dfc =Dexp
u
W1
W2
W3
25.7
20.1
17.0
0.3
0.4
0.4
3.1
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.6
30.8
23.7
21.0
48.0
31.3
26.5
0.54
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.76
0.79
Table 8
Comparison between the analytical estimation and experimental values of the ultimate rotation.
Wall
hex (rad)
hslip (rad)
hrot (rad)
hfc (rad)
hexp
(rad)
u
hflex =hexp
u
hfc =hexp
u
W1
W2
W3
0.0172
0.0138
0.0121
0.0018
0.0009
0.0011
0.0010
0.0009
0.0009
0.0200
0.0156
0.0166
0.0276
0.0179
0.0141
0.62
0.77
0.78
0.72
0.87
0.91
5. Conclusions
The earthquake that struck southern and central Chile in 2010
provides valuable information about building performance.
Despite of the global assessment of acceptable performance of RC
buildings, the observed brittle damage induced by the earthquake
motivates conducting research with the purpose of improving the
seismic design provisions of RC buildings. Wall characteristics
obtained from a survey performed on real buildings led us to
observe an average M/Vlw ratio of 2.02, low wall thicknesses, and
lack of boundary connement. These factors suggest that RC walls
experienced brittle damage controlled by exural-compressive
interaction. The mean ALR of critical walls in ve damaged buildings was 0.18 for service gravity forces. This ALR increases signicantly if seismic forces are included.
The exural-compressive failure mode observed in RC walls
during 2010 Chile earthquake was reproduced experimentally in
the performed tests. Concrete crushing, vertical reinforcement
buckling, horizontal reinforcement opening at wall boundaries,
and out-of-plane wall buckling observed in the tests was similar
to the damage observed in walls after the earthquake. The failure
mode of wall W3, with ALR of 0.35, was brittle and extremely sudden; experimental concrete crushing in compression occurred at
1.5% drift, immediately after spalling of the concrete cover. Wall
W2, with ALR of 0.25, showed the same type of failure mode but
less brittle; failure occurred at 1.8% drift, three cycles after concrete
spalling. For wall W1, with ALR of 0.15, the behavior was more
ductile than that for the other two walls and failure occurred at
2.7% drift. It is concluded that the displacement capacity of the wall
was reduced almost by half when the ALR was increased from 0.15
to 0.35. It is concluded that the ALR limit of 0.35 adopted in current
Chilean code is not adequate for slender walls with non-seismic
boundary detailing.
The average measured plastic hinge length for the three walls
was 243 mm which agrees well with the result obtained by Takahashi et al. [20]. The plastic hinge approach with a plastic hinge
length of Lp = 2.5tw estimates on average only 61% of the lateral displacement. A plastic hinge length of Lp = 5.9, 4.9, and 5.2tw has to
be considered to estimate the ultimate displacement adequately
for walls W1, W2, and W3, respectively.
Some of the buildings which did not exhibit damage in 2010
may be susceptible to brittle behavior in a future earthquake.
These structures should be analyzed to determine if retrot is
required to sustain several inelastic deformation cycles in future
events. The use of energy dissipation devices in such buildings
may be a good alternative for retrotting since they could control
the seismic axial loads of walls and could limit the exural-compressive failure modes exhibited by the tested walls and the walls
in actual buildings. Additionally, for future research it is recommended to test thicker RC walls to validate the minimum thickness
of 300 mm required for walls with boundary connement in the
current Chilean Code.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to many people and institutions which
made this work possible. This research has been funded by the
Chilean Fondo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologa, FONDECYT through
Grant #1110377 and FONDAP through Grant #15110017. The
authors would also like to thank the professors Carl Lders and
Bozidar Stojadinovic for their support during the tests, and the
students R. Jnemann, A. Marihun, R. Manieu, F. Quitral, J. Remesar, J. Rendic, M. Ochagava, F. Riquelme, M. Saavedra, C. Barrueto
and A. Gutirrez for their contribution in the project. The authors
are also thankful to the engineers and technicians from DICTUC
S.A and the Laboratory of the Structural and Geotechnical
Engineering Department of Ponticia Universidad Catlica de
Chile.
References
[1] EERI. The Mw 8.8 Chile Earthquake of February 27, 2010. EERI Earthquake
Special Report 2010.
[2] Jnemann R, Hube M, de la Llera JC, Kausel E. Characteristics of reinforced
concrete shear wall buildings damaged during 2010 Chile Earthquake.
Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, 2012, Paper N2265.
[3] Massone L, Bonelli P, Lagos R, Lders C, Moehle J, Wallace J. Seismic design and
construction practices for RC structural wall buildings. Earthquake Spectra
2012;28(S1):S24556.
[4] Wallace J, Massone L, Bonelli P, Dragovich J, Lagos R, Lders C, Moehle J.
Damage and implications for seismic design of RC structural wall buildings.
Earthquake Spectra 2010;28(S1):S28199.
23
[5] Westenenk B, de la Llera JC, Jnemann R, Hube M, Besa JJ, Lders C, et al.
Analysis and interpretation of the seismic response of RC buildings in
Concepcin during the February 27, 2010, Chile Earthquake. Bull Earthquake
Eng 2012;11(1):6991.
[6] Wood SL. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 1985 Chile
Earthquake: implications for the design of structural walls. Earthquake Spectra
1991;7(4):60738.
[7] Hidalgo PA, Ledezma CA, Jordn RM. Seismic behavior of squat reinforced
concrete shear walls. Earthquake Spectra 2002;18(2):187208.
[8] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 31811); 2011.
[9] Zhang Y, Wang Z. Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete shear walls
subjected to high axial loading. ACI Struct J 2000;97(5):73950.
[10] Su R, Wong S. Seismic behavior of slender reinforced concrete shear walls
under high axial load ratio. Eng Struct 2007;29:195765.
[11] Alarcon C. Inuence of axial load in the sesmic behavior of reinforced concrete
walls with nonseismic detailing. Master of Science Thesis. Ponticia Universad
Catlica de Chile; 2013.
[12] Westenenk B, de la Llera J, Besa J, Jnemann R, Moehle J, Lders C, et al.
Response of reinforced concrete buildings in Concepcin during the Maule
Earthquake. Earthquake Sprectra 2012;28(S1):S25780.
[13] Computers & Structures, Inc. ETABS v.9.7.1 2011. Berkeley, California, USA.
[14] Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin (INN). Earthquake resistant design of
buildings, NCh433 Of.1996 Mod 2009. Santiago, Chile; 2009 [in Spanish].
[15] DS 60 MINVU (DS 60). Reinforced concrete design code, replacing D.S N 118,
2010. Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urbanism, Diario Ocial; 13 December
2011 [in Spanish].
[16] Instituto Nacional de Normalizacin (INN). Structural design general
dispositions and combinations of loads, NCh3171 Of.2010. Santiago, Chile;
2010 [in Spanish].
[17] MathWorks Inc. MATLAB version R2011b.
[18] Karthik M, Mander J. Stress-block parameters for unconned and conned
concrete based on a unied stress-strain model. J Struct Eng 2011;137(2):
2703.
[19] Mander J, Priestley M, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain model for conned
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):180426.
[20] Takahashi S, Yoshida K, Ichinose T, Sanada Y, Matsumoto K, Fukuyama H, et al.
Flexural drift capacity of reinforced concrete wall with limited connement.
ACI Struct J 2013;110(1):95104.
[21] Sezen H, Setzler E. Reinforcement slip in reinforced concrete columns. ACI
Struct J 2008;105(3):2809.