Point of View: 30 Years of Observations on the Performance of Buildings with Shearwalls in Earthquakes Shearwalls — An Answer for Seismic Resistance? aE a Haut fhe evolution of the modern Japproach to earthquake en- gineering of buildings started in the 1950s, at a time of intense construction activity following the conclusion of the see- ond world war. Early attempts to provide earthquake resistance in buildings were based on rather crude assumptions about structural behavior and were handicapped by a lack of proper analytical tools as well as earthquake records. Observations of the behavior of structures subjected to actual earth quakes, analytical studies, labora- tory testing of structural elements and subassemblies, and accumula- tion of earthquake records over the last four decades all have con uted to putting the subject of carth- quake-resistant structural design on a rational basis. Initially, the ductile moment-re- sistant frame evolved in the 1950s ut of the moment-resistant frame which, at that time, was the only system for multistory buildings of both steel and concrete. Adding POINT OF VIEW This article was selected for reader interest by the editors; however, the opinions. expressed by the author are not necassatily those of the American Conorete Institute. The editors invite comments from our readers ‘about the personal views given in this article. iii oe ductility to the then available sys tem created a convenient solution to the problem of earthquake resis tance. This concept of the ductile moment-resistant frame remained frozen until the late 1970s. But in the meantime, better and more efficient structural systems for multistory structures, of both steel and concrete, were developed for wind resistance, incorporating shearwalls or trusses for conerete or steel structures, respectively. Pure frames for high-rise buildings have almost disappeared, since they are technically less efficient and not ec- ‘onomically viable. During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, a large amount of very sis nificant analytical and experimental research was carried out through- out the world, resulting in a wealth of sophisticated information on the earthquake response of structural systems, including those containing shearwalls. Also, beginning in the mid-1950s, a substantial body of in- formation was accumulated on per- formance of buildings in actual earthquakes. Most of the analytical research in the 1950s and 1960s on the response of structures to earthquakes has emphasized the importance of a ductile moment-resistant frame to reduce the seismic forces. Presup- posing higher seismic forces in more rigid structures, and assuming brit- tle response of shearwalls to in- plane lateral forces, it has been ess concluded that severe damage could be expected in shearwall buildings, Based on this thinking, shear- walls were considered undesirable for earthquake resistance and buildings were built primarily with moment-resistant frames. While in some countries a degree of ductility was built into those frames, as re- quired by codes, in the majority of countries, and particularly in those less advanced economically, the frames were brittle and incapable of withstanding severe earthquake shaking without severe damage. Consequently, many people in seis- mic regions of the world live in death traps, as has been seen in many of the earthquakes of the last four decades. ‘The author has observed the be- havior of buildings containing shearwalls in the earthquakes of the last thirty years. What follows are some highlights of those observa- tions. Chile — May 1960 Among the first reported observa- tions concerning shearwalls were those from the Chilean earthquake of 1960, as contained in Advanced Engineering Bulletin No. 6, issued by the Portland Cement Associa~ tion. The report states: “. . . the Chilean experience confirms the ef- ficiency of concrete shearwalls in controlling structural and nonstru tural damage in severe earthquakes. There were instances of cracking of 43 Concrete InternationalFig. 1 — Caracas, Venezuela. Plaza One building behind the remains of @ collapsed 10-story building shearwalls, but this did not affect the overall performance of the buildings. In all cases observed, the reinforcement held the walls to- gether in good alignment, even though the amounts of steel ex- posed after spalling were, as a rule, less than specified by code. In es sence, the walls continued to func- tion after damage had occurred Skopje, Yugoslavia — July 1963 In the earthquake of Skopje, Yugo- slavia of July 1963, a number of buildings containing unreinforced ‘concrete walls across the building or in the core exhibited no damage due to inhibited interstory distortions, except for some separation at the underside of the spandrel beams. This was despite the documented severe shaking undergone by these buildings. Some frame buildings collapsed and many were severely damaged in this quake. Caracas, Venezuela — July 1967 ‘A noteworthy case of exemplary shearwall building behavior was provided by the I7-story Plaza One Building in Caracas (Fig. 1). It was the only shearwall-type structure in Caracas that had a load-carrying system consisting of walls in both directions (Fig. 2). Of the sur- rounding buildings, several col- lapsed and all others suffered se- vere, sometimes irreparable, dam- age. The Plaza One Building went through the earthquake without any damage whatsoever The typical multistory building in Caracas, as well as in most of South and Central America, contained a relatively flexible reinforced con- crete frame (Fig. 3), with brittle clay tile infill walls. A number of these multistory buildings collapsed in Caracas, and the hollow clay tile in- fill walls suffered very severe dam- age in most of the other multistory frame buildings. San Fernando, California — February 1971 ‘The 6-story Indian Hill Medical Center, with a shearwall-frame in- teractive system, survived the earth- quake, needing only moderate re- pairs (Fig. 4), while the neighboring 8-story Holy Cross Hospital (Fig. 3), with a frame structure, was se- verely damaged and subsequently demolished. There was extensive damage to ‘many buildings and bridges, the Ol ive View hospital being the most widely described in the engineering literature. Managua, Nicaragua — December 1972 ‘The severe earthquake of Managua provided a particularly telling ex- ample of the difference in earth- quake resistance between buildings Fig. 2 — Structural layout of Plaza One building, Fig. 8 — Typical flexible concrete frame. that contained shearwalls and those that did not. ‘The National Theatre of Mana- gua (Fig. 6 and 7) suffered no dam- age, thanks to the concrete wall en- closing the auditorium. The 18-story Banco de America and the 16-story Banco Central stood across the corner from each other (Fig. 8). While the Banco Central, a reinforced concrete frame structure (Fig. 9), was severely damaged and had to be demol- ished, the Banco de America, a shearwall-frame interactive system wwith,substantial core walls (Fig. 10), suffered little damage. ee July 1981 49Another pair for comparison from Managua, although separated by a distance (Fig. 11), was the 5- story conerete frame Insurance Building, which suffered severe damage, and the 5-story Enaluf Building, containing a relatively large core in addition to the frame. The Enaluf went through the earth- quake exceptionally well. Bucharest, Romania — March 1977 In Bucarest, where 35 multistory buildings collapsed, hundreds of high-rise apartment buildings con- taining concrete walls, some along the corridors, others across the buildings, remained intact and mostly without damage. Mexico City — October 1985 ‘The extreme extent of destruction in Mexico City provided further evi- dence of the consequences of not including shearwalls to stiffen con- crete frames of multistory build- ings. About 280 multistory frame buildings (6 to 15 stories) collapsed in this earthquake (Fig. 12); none of those contained shearwalls. As in most South and Central American countries, reinforced concrete frames without stiffening walls were the predominant structural system for multistory buildings. Chile — 1985 The 1985 Chilean earthquake re- ceived relatively little attention in the profession, despite the fact that ‘its magnitude was similar to that of the Mexican earthquake of the same year. The carthquake went almost unnoticed by the profession be- cause there were no dramatic eol- lapses, notwithstanding the severity of the event, ‘The primary reason for the mi mal damage was the widely used engineering practice in Chile of it corporating concrete walls into their buildings to control drift. It should bbe noted that the detailing practice for shearwalls in Chile generally does not follow the ductile detailing requirements of seismic regions in the U.S., but rather follows con- ventional detailing as required in previous ACI Building Codes. The exceptionally good perform- ance of Chilean buildings during the earthquakes of 1960 and particu- larly of 1985 bears testimony that drift control provided by shearwalls can protect relatively nonductile framing elements. Armenia — December 1988 Further evidence of the benefit of incorporating concrete walls into multistory structures, or, con- versely, the negative consequence of omitting shearwalls, was reaffirmed in the 1988 Armenian earthquake. In that earthquake, a total of 72 frame-type buildings collapsed, and 149 were severely damaged in the four affected cities of Leninakan, Spitak, Kirovakan, and Stepana- van. At the same time, all of the 21 large panel-type buildings in those jes went through the earthquake damage-free (Fig. 13). 5 — San Femando, Calif. Holy Cross Hosolt In the city of Spitak, which was almost totally destroyed, the only structure remaining standing and undamaged was a 5-story building constructed as a large-panel struc- ture, with concrete wall panels in both directions (Fig. 14). Discussion In previous decades, significant at- tention was devoted to ductility de- tails of structural systems, some of which proved inappropriate for seismic resistance of concrete struc- tures. Ductlity details incorporated into the wrong structural system are wasted, while creating a false sense of security. During the early days of earth- quake engineering, many profes- sionals confused ductility with flex- ibility. As a result, a large number of flexible buildings were built in many seismic areas of the world. Although some of these may have a reasonable degree of built-in ductil- ity, their responses in future earth- quakes have the potential to cause large economic losses due to large interstory distortions. When building today, the cost of the structure itself may be as low as 20 percent of the total, while the re- ‘maining 80 percent is for the ar tectural, mechanical, and electrical components, Thus, it is of primary importance to select a structural system that will provide the best protection for both life and prop- erty in future earthquakes. For con- crete structures, shearwalls have demonstrated the ability to fulfill 50 ‘Concrete InternationalFig. 12 — Mexico City. Collapsed 14-story trame building these requirements at the least cost. Considering the suitability of structural systems as related to the functional requirements of build- ings, we can divide the universe of multistory buildings into residential and commercial occupancies. There is no question that for residential buildings shearwalls can be used as the primary, or even the only, ver- tical load-carrying elements, thus serving the double function of car- rying the loads and dividing the space. In commercial buildings, where large unobstructed space is a functional requirement, a central core provides a shearwall-frame in- teractive system with both rigidity and space flexibility. Ductility details for shearwalls, which were developed as a result of recent laboratory tests and analyti- Fig. 13 — Leninakan, Armenia, USSR. Surviving 10-story large-panel structures amid collapsed neighbors. cal investigations and incorporated into some codes, have not yet been tested in actual earthquakes. In- cluding ductility details in shear- walls will unquestionably improve the ductile properties of the walls. However, to the extent to which shearwall ductility is actually util- ized during earthquakes, and how such ductility affects the perform anee of the connected frames, re- mains to be determined, either us- ing sophisticated dynamic response studies or in actual earthquakes, To design a shearwall to behave in a ductile manner requires that its strength be governed by flexure rather than by shear. Its shear ca- pacity must be known and be larger than the shear corresponding to its moment capacity. We need to know not only the ultimate shear capac- ity, but also what happens between the onset of shear cracking and shear failure. Whether and to what extent the rinding within shear cracks, caused by reversible cycles of lateral move- ment, can serve as an energy dissi- pation mechanism needs to be de- termined and has not yet been suf- ficiently investigated. If-we look at the task ahead of us, I believe that the research com munity can provide a great service by further developing experimental and analytical information on shearwalls so that their design and proportioning can be brought to the same level of confidence as pres- enily available for scismic beams and columns, The following is needed: 1, Experimentally developed force-deformation characteristics of various configurations of shear- walls throughout their elastic and inelastic ranges of scismic response. Knowledge of moment and shear capacities will enable us to propor- tion and reinforce the sections to assure ductility. 2. Analytically derived inelastic dynamic responses providing both strength and ductility demands on shearwalls contained in shearwall structures as well a5 in shearwall- frame interactive systems. These two types of information will give us a realistic picture of both sides of the demand-capacity ‘inequality: the demands for strength and deformability, and the availa- ble capacities. Only then are we go- ing to be able to create better con- crete structures by using ductility details judiciously instead of wast- ing them on structural elements that Y > Fig. 14 — Spitak, Armenia, USSR, Undamaged 5-story large-panel structure in the totally devastated city 52 ‘Concrete Internationaldo not enter the inelastic range dur- ing earthquake response, Concluding remarks During the earthquakes of the last three decades, buildings containing shearwalls exhibited extremely good earthquake performance. In most cases, the shearwalls were rein- forced in the traditional manner for gravity and overturning, without consideration to special details for ductility, as required in recent U.S. codes. The author, who has investigated and reported on the behavior of modern structures in a dozen earth- ‘quakes throughout the world since 1963, is not aware of a single con- crete building containing shearwalls that has collapsed. While there were cases of cracking of various degrees of severity, no lives were lost in these buildings. Of the hundreds of concrete structures that did col- lapse, most suffered excessive in- terstory distortions that, in turn, caused shear failures of columns. Even where collapse of frame struc- tures did not occur and no lives were lost, the large interstory dis- tortions of frames caused signifi ‘cant property losses. This should not be taken to ply that frame structures built by present advanced codes would also collapse in severe earthquakes; however, it has been demonstrated that buildings containing shear- walls, even if only conventionally reinforced, do withstand severe earthquakes, mostly without dam- age ‘After observing the devastations and the resulting staggering loss of life in many earthquakes, particu- larly those in Managua in 1972, Mexico City, in 1985 and Armenia in 1988, the author believes it to be the responsibility of the engineering profession to make sure that resi dential buildings in particular be constructed with shearwalls. Whether such walls are made of plain concrete, traditionally rein- forced, or reinforced for ductility will depend upon the economic ca- pacity of a given society and on en- gineering judgment; however, they all protect life and in most cases also provide good protection of property. We cannot afford to build con- crete buildings meant to resist se- vere earthquakes without shear- walls. Selected for reader interest by the editor. ‘ACI member Mark Fintel is a consult- ing engineer in Boca Raton, Flor- ida’ Until recently, he was Director of Advanced Engi- neering Services of the Portland Ce- ment Association, serving as a recog nized authority on tall concrete struc- tures and seismic design. He has chaired a number of ACI and ASCE technical committees having to do with high-rise building design for wind ang earthquake resistance and vol- ume changes. As head of PCA's Earthquake Investigation Team, he in- vestigated and reported on the behav. ior of contemporary structures in the earthquakes of the last 25 years, in- cluding the recent ones in Mexico City and Armenia. He also has participated in the U.S. delegations of intergovern: mental technical cooperation with Ja- pan, the U.S.S.R., and Bulgaria