You are on page 1of 21

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]

On: 25 August 2015, At: 15:38


Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Earthquake Engineering


Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Experimental Evaluation of Seismic


Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls
with Limited Ductility Reinforcing Details
a

Bing Li , Zuanfeng Pan & Weizheng Xiang

School of Civil and Environment Engineering, Nanyang


Technological University, Singapore
b

College of Civil Engineering at Tongji University, Shanghai, China

DNV consultants, Singapore


Published online: 13 Jan 2015.

Click for updates


To cite this article: Bing Li, Zuanfeng Pan & Weizheng Xiang (2015) Experimental Evaluation of
Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls with Limited Ductility Reinforcing Details, Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 19:2, 313-331, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2014.962669
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.962669

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 19:313331, 2015


Copyright A. S. Elnashai
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2014.962669

Experimental Evaluation of Seismic Performance


of Squat RC Structural Walls with Limited Ductility
Reinforcing Details
BING LI 1 , ZUANFENG PAN 2 , and WEIZHENG XIANG 3
1

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

School of Civil and Environment Engineering, Nanyang Technological


University, Singapore
2
College of Civil Engineering at Tongji University, Shanghai, China
3
DNV consultants, Singapore
This article describes an experimental study carried out on of reinforced concrete (RC) walls of less
confining reinforcement than that recommended by ACI 318. A total of eight RC walls with boundary
elements comprising of five walls with aspect ratio of 1.125 and three walls with aspect ratio of
1.625 were tested by subjecting them to low levels of axial compression loading and simulated seismic
loading, to examine the structural performance of the walls with limited transverse reinforcement.
Conclusions are reached concerning the failure mode, drift capacity, strength capacity, components
of top deformation, and energy dissipation characteristics of walls on the seismic behavior with
limited transverse reinforcement. The influences of axial loading, transverse reinforcement in the wall
boundary elements, and the presence of construction joints at the wall base on the seismic behavior
of walls are also studied in this paper. Lastly, reasonable strut-and-tie models are developed to help
in understanding the force transfer mechanism in the walls tested.
Keywords Structural Walls; Limited Transverse Reinforcement; Construction Joint; Seismic
Performance; Deformation Capacity; Strength Capacity; Strut-and-Tie Model

1. Introduction
Reinforced Concrete (RC) structural walls used in buildings are designed primarily to
resist lateral loads imposed by wind and earthquakes. In recent years, extensive research
[Wallace, 1985; Wallace and Thomsen, 1985; Maier and Thurlimann, 1985; Wood, 1990;
Lefas et al., 1990; Salonikios et al., 1999, 2000; Massone et al., 2009; Preti and Giuriani,
2011] was conducted to assess the validity of the current design provisions [ACI, 2008;
NZS, 1995] for cyclic shear in squat RC walls. These walls are usually detailed according
to the current provisions and are aimed at achieving full ductile behavior of structural walls.
Presently, various countries have recommendations for confining reinforcement to ensure
that the required ductility demands can be met. These consider many factors including the
amount of confining reinforcement, the limitation of stirrup spacing, and the length of confined potential plastic hinge regions. However, in low seismicity regions such as Singapore,
Hong Kong. and the east coast of the United States of America, the ductility demands may
not be the same as that of higher seismicity zones. In such situations, a lower ductility
demand can be expected and therefore the required quantities of reinforcements, especially
Received 4 November 2013; accepted 17 August 2014.
Address correspondence to Bing Li, School of Civil and Envivonmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore 639798 China. E-mail: cbli@ntu.edu.sg
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.

313

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

314

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang

the transverse reinforcement in the web and boundary elements, can be ostensibly reduced.
In this study, the seismic performance of eight squat RC walls with boundary barbells,
which contains less confining reinforcement than that recommended by ACI [2008], are
examined. Moreover, many wall structures possess a considerable amount of inherent lateral strength before the capacity design procedures are introduced, which is in excess of
that predicted for fully ductile systems. In practice, these types of walls should not be considered dangerous during earthquakes as long as their shear strength remains greater than
that needed for a fully ductile structure and energy dissipation is considered to be acceptable. As such, the potential strength of structural walls is in excess of that required when
considering a fully ductile response to the design for earthquakes. Thus, it is important to
identify the strength capacity, drift capacity, and energy dissipation capacity of this type of
walls when its elastic limit is displaced. Currently, although several experimental investigations [Mestyanek, 1986; Oh et al., 2002] have been conducted into the behavior of squat
RC walls with limited transverse reinforcement under simulated seismic loading, there is
still insufficient information regarding the available drift capacities of walls with axial compression. Moreover, currently available experimental data related to the behavior of squat
RC walls with weak interface like construction joints is rather inconclusive. This study
is hence motivated by the need to better understand the seismic behavior of such walls.
Conclusions are reached concerning the failure mode, the displacement capacity, strength
capacity, components of top deformation, and the energy dissipation characteristics shown
by the seismic behavior of walls with limited transverse reinforcement. The influences of
axial compression, transverse reinforcements in the wall boundary elements, and the presence of construction joints at the wall base on the seismic behavior of walls are also studied.
Finally, reasonable strut-and-tie models are developed to help in understanding the force
transfer mechanism in the walls tested.

2. Experimental Program
2.1 Wall Details
A total of eight specimens, referred to as Specimens LW1LW5 (low aspect ratio walls)
and Specimens MW1MW3 (medium aspect ratio walls), were tested as isolated cantilever walls in the program. The low aspect ratio walls (h/lw = 1.125) were 2000 mm
wide 2500 mm high 120 mm thickness, while the medium aspect ratio walls (h/lw =
1.625) were 2000 mm wide 3500 mm high 120 mm thickness. h is the vertical distance between the lateral loading point and the wall base, and lw is the horizontal length
of the wall. The overall dimensions and reinforcement details of the controlled Specimens
LW1 and MW1 are shown in Fig. 1. All specimens had the same web reinforcements, consisting of two curtains (orthogonal grids) of 10mm diameter high yield steel bars spaced
at 250 mm This gives a reinforcement ratio of 0.50%. The 150 mm 300 mm boundary
elements were reinforced with eight mild steel bars of 10mm diameter, giving a reinforcing
ratio of 1.40%. In Specimens LW1, LW2, LW4, LW5, MW1, and MW3, confinement in
the boundary elements was provided by 6mm diameter closed stirrups spaced at 75 mm,
while the vertical spacing of the hoops in the boundary elements of Specimens LW3 and
MW2 was 200 mm. The corresponding volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement bt
of each specimen was listed in Table 1. Take Specimen LW5 for example, the transverse confining reinforcement for boundary elements of special structural walls required
by ACI [2008] is 2.46%, while bt of Specimen LW5 is 0.97% corresponding to 40% of
the transverse confining reinforcement required by the ACI code.

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls


400

400

500

500

500

4T20

T10H&V

150

1700

150

800

390 120 390

R12@150

800

Section A - A

150

1700

150

800

120

120

2R10

100 150

Section B - B

(a) Specimen LW1

4R10

300

R6@75

300

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

10T20

Section A - A

4R10
2R10

7T10@250

390 120 390


390
900

2R10

150 100

3000

10T20

900

R6@75

10T20

250

500

250

10T20
R12@150

800

11T10@250

4T20

T10H&V

2000

7T10@250

500

4T20

4T20

500

315

2R10

150 100

7T10@250

100 150

Section B - B

(b) Specimen MW1

FIGURE 1 Geometry and reinforcement details.


2.2. Model Manufacture and Material Properties
Specimens LW1, LW2, LW3, MW1, and MW2 were cast monolithically in the vertical
direction, while Specimens LW4, LW5, and MW3 were cast with construction joints at
the base. They were kept to stand for three days after the concrete for the base beam had
been poured, vibrated, and leveled off. Just before the upper part of concrete was poured,
the hardened concrete and the reinforcing bars in the construction joint area were brushed
to remove any loose particles. Then the base beam concrete surface was moistened and
the fresh concrete was poured into the upper part of the molds. After seven days, the molds
were removed and the specimens were allowed to be exposed to the laboratory environment
until just before testing. Ready mixed concrete with 13 mm maximum aggregate specified
by a characteristic strength of 35 MPa was used to cast the specimens. The average cylinder
compressive strength of concrete f c for different specimens observed after 28 days was
varied between 34.8 MPa and 41.6 Mpa, as shown in Table 1. The measured yield strength
and ultimate strength of the steel bars used in the specimens are shown in Table 2.
2.3. Experimental Procedure, Loading Sequence, and Instrumentation
The test rig used in this study is shown in Fig. 2. It consisted of two main independent
systems: an in-plane loading system and an in-plane base beam reaction system. The inplane loading system was comprised of one horizontal hydraulic actuator which was fixed
to the reaction wall and two vertical actuators connected to the strong floor. The test units
were subjected to in-plane reversed cyclic loading from the horizontal double-acting actuator applied at the level of the top steel transfer beam. This hydraulic actuator possessed
a capacity of 1000 kN in compression and tension. The axial loading was applied through
two vertical actuators, each with a compression capacity of 1000 kN, attached to the top
beam system. Figure 2 also depicts two steel transfer beams, transfer beam 1 and 2, which
were conservatively designed and built to transfer the lateral loading to the test specimen.

316

40.2
41.6
34.8
39.8
35.6
41.2
39.6
40.3

1.125
1.125
1.125
1.125
1.125
1.625
1.625
1.625

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40

0.97
0.97
0.37
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.37
0.97

0
0.05
0.05
0
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

60.6 (58.4)
84.7 (75.7)
73.5 (83.3)
58.4 (53.5)
76.9 (83.3)
41.2 (39.5)
41.7 (41.2)
37.5 (38.3)

210.0
275.0
270.4
203.5
310.4
301.0
294.1
291.2

268.8
481.5
387.6
268.8
376.3
310.5
291.6
295.3

301.0
400.0
402.3
300.6
387.0
375.0
340.0
322.0

361.0
579.9
523.8
365.1
520.0
424.6
410.2
410.3

0.237
0.375
0.370
0.241
0.363
0.276
0.272
0.269

1.0
1.35
0.67
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3

DF
(%)

4.3
4.9
2.4
4.0
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.2

max

724.3
866.3
866.3
724.3
866.3
703
703
703

V ACI
(kN)

321
500
500
321
500
375
375
375

Vi
(kN)

379.5
566.0
566.0
379.5
566.0
430.0
430.0
430.0

V st
(kN)

0.95
1.02
0.93
0.96
0.92
0.99
0.95
0.95

Vu
Vst

Note: t = horizontal web reinforcement ratio; v = vertical web reinforcement ratio; bf = flexural reinforcement ratio in boundary element; bt = volumetric ratio of
transverse reinforcement in boundary element; P = applied axial loading; Ag = gross area of section; K i = initial stiffness; V 1 = horizontal loading level at initiation of flexural
cracking; V 2 = horizontal loading level at initiation of inclined cracking; V 3 = horizontal loading level at first-yield of tension; V u = ultimate strength; = ultimate shear
stress; DF = drift ratio; max = maximum displacement ductility level; V ACI = shear strength calculated using the method in ACI 318-08; Vi = the maximum ideal flexural
strength; V st = the ultimate shear force calculated by the proposed strut-and-tie model.

LW1
LW2
LW3
LW4
LW5
MW1
MW2
MW3

TABLE 1 Experimental parameters and principal results of walls tested


K i (kN/mm) Horizontal loading level (kN) 
Reinforcement ratio (%)
Load direction
f c
fc 
h
P
+
(-)
V
Specimen (MPa)
t
v
bf bt
V
V
V
(MPa)
1
2
3
u
lw
fc  Ag

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls

317

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

TABLE 2 Properties of steel bars


Type

f y (MPa)

f ul (Mpa)

T10
T20
R6
R10

427
519
261
308

497
613
324
385

FIGURE 2 Elevation of test-rig assembly.


Two levels of constant axial load were adopted in the testing program. They corresponded
to 0 and 0.05f c Ag which were considered representative of the amount of axial load at the
base of the wall of a single-story and a low-rise building, respectively. After the total constant vertical axial force was applied, the horizontal loading would be introduced through
the top steel beam of the specimens. The base beam of the specimens was anchored to the
laboratory floor with 12 high strength rods that prevent uplifting of the specimens and horizontal sliding of the units along the floor during the application of the horizontal loading.
Every high strength rod was pre-stressed to efficiently restrain the rotation and sliding of
the specimen during the test. During the experimental, laser point machines were employed
to ensure that the center lines of the three actuators and the specimen tested are in the same
vertical plane. This is to avoid out-of-plane buckling of walls during testing. The loading
procedure consisting of displacement-controlled steps is illustrated in Fig. 3. The specimen was subjected to two cycles at each displacement level except that only one cycle was
applied to the specimen at a drift ratio of 1/2000. The test specimens had been extensively
instrumented with measuring devices internally and externally. Shear and flexural deformation was recorded based on the reading of a number of LVDT sets located throughout
the height of the specimens [Xiang, 2007]. Strain gauges were mounted to capture strains
on both longitudinal and transverse reinforcements at critical locations.

3. Experimental Results
3.1. Crack Patterns and Failure Modes
Table 1 illustrates the main results of the tests, including the load levels corresponding to
the initiation of flexural cracking, initiation of inclined cracking, first yield of the tensile

318

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang


50

= 1/75

40

= 1/100

Displacement (mm)

30

= 1/150

20

= 1/1000

10

= 1/300

= 1/600

10
= 1/2000
0

= 1/400

20

= 1/200

30
For LW Series of Specimens
For MW Series of Specimens

40

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

50

8
10 12
Cycle Number

14

16

18

FIGURE 3 Applied loading history.

(a) LW2 (DF = 1.35%)

(b) LW3 (DF = 0.67%)

(e) MW1 (DF = 1.0%)

(c) LW4 (DF = 1.0%)

(d) LW5 (DF = 1.0%)

(f) MW3 (DF = 1.3%)

FIGURE 4 Tested walls at the end of loading.


reinforcement, and ultimate strength. The test photos of specimens can be seen in Fig. 4.
It was observed that for low aspect ratio walls, the initial flexural cracks located at the lower
part of the specimens occurred at a drift ratio ranging from 0.10.17% within the length of
the boundary elements, while they occurred at 0.170.25% drift ratio for medium aspect
ratio walls. Increasing the wall top displacements further resulted in the low aspect ratio
walls experiencing the yielding of flexural reinforcements at the boundaries at a drift ratio
of approximately 0.2%, while MW1, MW2, and MW3 experienced yielding of flexural
reinforcements at the boundaries at a drift ratio varying between 0.25% and 0.33%. With

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls

319

increasing lateral displacements up to the point of reaching the maximum shear force, the
flexural-shear cracks of all specimens (LW1LW5 and MW1MW3) were extended up
to the wall top and a number of diagonal struts were formed to transfer the lateral loading
efficiently from the wall top to the bottom. Further cycling the walls to maximum lateral
displacements produced no more emergences of new cracks but existing cracks especially
those located at the lower part of the walls were found to be widely opened and meanwhile,
spalling of the concrete cover at the wall base occurred.
In general, all specimens behaved in a flexural manner, characterized by concrete crushing and reinforcement buckling at the wall boundaries as shown in Fig. 4e.
Meanwhile, moderate diagonal cracking of the web and shear sliding at the base for almost
all specimens were also observed. For LW3 as shown in Fig. 4b, when the drift ratio was
further increased to 0.67%, severe deterioration of the concrete within the left wall flange
at a wall height of approximately 5001000 mm was observed and the buckling of flexural
reinforcements in this area followed. For LW4 as shown in Fig. 4c, after reaching the maximum shear force, the flexural cracks at the bottom of the wall interconnected roughly and
the sliding shear failure occurred when the lateral displacements of the wall reached a drift
ratio of 1.0%.
3.2. Backbone Envelopes of Load-Displacement Curves
Figure 5 shows the load-displacement curves of all specimens tested in the program. The
maximum flexural strength, V i , was obtained from rational section analysis using program
RESPONSE-2000 [Bentz, 2000]. Response-2000 is a sectional analysis program that will
calculate the strength and ductility of a reinforced concrete cross-section subjected to shear,
moment, and axial load. It can be seen that all the specimens were capable of developing their flexural strength prior to failure, which is a prerequisite of adequate seismic
performance.
The backbone envelopes of load-displacement curves have long been recognized to
be a critical feature in modeling the inelastic behavior of RC walls. It was generated with
the curve determined from a monotonic test and herein was constructed by connecting
the peaks of recorded lateral load versus top displacement hysteretic loops for the first
cycle at each deformation level of the tested specimens. Figure 6 shows the backbone
envelopes of load-displacement curves of all the tested specimens. It can be seen that almost
linear elastic behavior prior to flexural yielding was observed for all specimens and thereafter the response curve changed rapidly except for the specimens without axial loadings
(LW1 and LW4). It was also clearly observed that the presence of axial loadings significantly increased the strength and stiffness of the tested walls. For tested walls with or
without axial loadings, similar top drift was achieved for tested walls with only one exception, Specimen LW3. For this specimen, the smallest drift capacity was observed due to the
fact that inadequate transverse reinforcements were provided to prevent the longitudinal
reinforcements in the boundaries from buckling.
Moreover, in the case of LW4, LW5, and MW3 with construction joints, similar maximum flexural strength was developed by comparing with that of corresponding LW1, LW2,
and MW1 without construction joints, respectively, as shown in Table 1. This observation does clearly indicate that for the specimens tested, sliding shear will not inhibit the
development of flexural capacity.
As shown in Table 1, the displacement ductility factors of the seven specimens (all
specimens, except Specimen LW3) were more than 3.0 and can generally experience average story drift of at least 1.0% without significant strength degradation. As such, it is
evident that the requirements for wall boundary element confinement as recommended

320

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang


Drift Ratio (%)
1.2
500

0.8

0.4

0.0

0.4

Drift Ratio (%)


0.8

1.2

1.40
800

400
200

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

600

Vi = 321kN

300
100
0
100
200
300

9
0
9
Displacement (mm)

0.67

0.33

0.33

18

27

0.67

1.0

Vi = 500kN

Vi = 500kN
LW2
21.0

10.5
0.0
10.5
Displacement (mm)

0.8

0.4

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

200

Vi = 500kN
15.0

7.5
0.0
7.5
Displacement (mm)

0.8

0.4

100
0
100
200

15.0

22.5

0.8

1.2

500
27

0.0

0.4

Vi = 321kN
LW4
18

Lateral Load (kN)

Lateral Load (kN)

0
200
400

0.8

0.4

0.0

27

0.4

0.8

1.2

Vi = 375kN

9
0
9
Displacement (mm)

0.8

0.4

100
0
100
200
Vi = 375kN

400

LW5
18

200

300

Vi = 500kN

18

27

0.8

1.2

500
39

MW1
26

Drift Ratio (%)


0.0

0.4

0.92

400

Vi = 375kN

200

200

Lateral Load (kN)

300

100
0
100
200

26

39

26

39

0.46

0.92

1.38

100
0
100
200
Vi = 375kN

400

MW2

0.46

Vi = 375kN

300

Vi = 375kN

13
0
13
Displacement (mm)

13
0
13
Displacement (mm)
Drift Ratio (%)

1.38
500

300

26

18

300

200

500
39

9
0
9
Displacement (mm)
Drift Ratio (%)

1.2
500

400

400

1.2

Vi = 321kN

400

300

0.8

400

LW3

Vi = 500kN

400

0.4

200

Drift Ratio (%)

1.2
500

0.0

300

400

Lateral Load (kN)

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

800
27

31.5

400

200

600

21.0

Drift Ratio (%)

300

600

1.40

200

1.2
500

Vi = 500kN

1.2
800

0.93

200

800
31.5

400

600
22.5

0.47

400

Drift Ratio (%)


1.0
600

600

LW1
18

0.47

400

Vi = 321kN

400
500
27

0.93

500
45

MW3
30

15
0
15
Displacement (mm)

30

FIGURE 5 Lateral load-top displacement relationship of all specimens.

45

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls


Drift Ratio (%)

Drift Ratio (%)


1.40 0.93 0.47
800

0.47

0.93

1.38 0.92 0.46


500

1.40

0.46

0.92

1.38

400

600

300

400

Shear Force (kN)

Shear Force (kN)

321

200
0
LW1
LW2
LW3
LW4
LW5

200
400
600
800
31.5 21.0 10.5

0.0

10.5

21.0

200
100
0
100
200

MW1
MW2
MW3

300
400
31.5

500
45

30

15

15

30

Lateral Displacement (mm)

Lateral Displacement (mm)

(a) Low aspect ratio walls

(b) Medium aspect ratio walls

45

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

FIGURE 6 Backbone envelopes of load-displacement curves for all specimens.


by ACI 318 can be relaxed for structural walls to some extent. In contrast, the displacement ductility of Specimen LW3 with an aspect ratio of 1.125 and which contained 15% of
the ACI 318 specified quantity of transverse reinforcement, was 2.4. Its worth noting that
although bt of Specimen MW2 is the same as that of LW3, the ductility level of Specimen
MW2 is 3.6 due to the higher aspect ratio, compared with Specimen LW3.
3.3. Components of Top Deformation
The top deformation of walls in this test was mainly caused by flexural displacement, panel
shear displacement, and sliding displacement. The calculation method of the flexural displacement, panel shear displacement, and sliding displacement with the readings of LVDT
can be found in Wu [2002]. Note that the flexural component of the total deformation
also included the contribution from bond slip in longitudinal bars at the base of the wall.
Figure 7 illustrates the ratios of three displacement components to the total deformation
with respect to wall drift ratios, the relative contribution of three displacement components
varied in terms of the wall drift ratios with the observed behavior that with increasing lateral displacements up to wall failure, the contribution of flexural deformations decreased
while the ratios of the other two components tended to rise slightly. In general, the flexural
deformations dominated the response because they accounted for more than 60% of the
total displacement up to the final loading stage for all specimens.
For the reference wall LW1, the sliding shear components initially accounted for
around 5% of the total displacement in both loading directions, but accounted for 15%
close to failure. This varied trend was more pronounced for LW4 with construction joints
at the base and without axial loading due to the fact that the sliding components made
up approximately 23% at the final stage and meanwhile, exceeded the contributions from
shear displacements which were generally observed to be higher than the sliding contributions in other specimens. However, in the case of the walls subjected to axial loading
including LW5 with construction joints at the base, the contribution of sliding shear did
not exceed 13%. This indicated that the axial loading played a favorable role in controlling
the wall sliding deformations as expected. Under axial compression, the presence of the
construction joints at the wall base had a minor effect with respect to sliding, as only up to
approximately 13% of the total displacement of LW5 was due to this mode compared with
10% of that contribution in the comparable LW2 and LW3.

322

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang


100

80

Flexure
Shear
Sliding

LW1
Fraction of Contributions (%)

Fraction of Contributions (%)

100

60

40

20

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drift Ratio (%)

40

20

LW3

LW4
Fraction of Contributions (%)

Fraction of Contributions (%)

60

100
Flexure
Shear
Sliding

60

40

20

80

60

40

Flexure
Shear
Sliding

20

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Drift Ratio (%)

Drift Ratio (%)


100

100

MW1
Fraction of Contributions (%)

Fraction of Contributions (%)

LW5
80

60

40

Flexure
Shear
Sliding

20

80

60

40

Flexure
Shear
Sliding

20

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Drift Ratio (%)

Drift Ratio (%)

100

100
MW2

80

60

40

Flexure
Shear
Sliding

20

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drift Ratio (%)

MW3
Fraction of Contributions (%)

Fraction of Contributions (%)

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

LW2

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drift Ratio (%)

100

80

80

Flexure
Shear
Sliding

80

60

40

Flexure
Shear
Sliding

20

0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Drift Ratio (%)

FIGURE 7 Contribution of various deformation modes to total displacement of walls.


(Note: The flexural component of the total deformation included the contribution from
bond slip in longitudinal bars at the base of the wall.)

323

As shown in Fig. 7, in contrast with the contributions of various deformation modes for
LW3, the flexural displacement contribution of Specimen LW2 tends to be a little greater
(73% compared with 62% in the positive loading direction, and 66% compared with 62%
in the negative loading direction) at a drift ratio of 0.67% while the shear components of
total displacements became less at that stage (12% compared with 21% in the positive loading direction, and 22% compared with 23% in the negative loading direction). The flexural
displacement contribution of Specimen MW1 tends to be a little greater (72% compared
with 62% in the positive loading direction, and 68% compared with 62% in the negative
loading direction) at ultimate stage of testing than that of Specimen MW2 while the shear
components of total displacements for Specimen MW1 becomes slightly less at that stage
(26% compared with 30% in the positive loading direction, and 26% compared with 30%
in the negative loading direction). This suggested that for LW2 and MW1 with more content of the transverse reinforcements in wall boundaries, the flexural contribution of the
total deformation became a little greater while the sliding component of both walls was
observed to be almost the same. Hence, it can be considered that the content of transverse
reinforcement in the boundary barbells could have an important effect in achieving a more
ductile hysteretic response.
3.4. Stiffness Characteristics
Previous research [Pilakoutas and Elnashai, 1995; Salonikios et al., 2000] indicates that
the true stiffness of wall elements is significantly lower than that corresponding to gross
section properties, even at the serviceability limit state. It is, therefore, essential to evaluate
realistic stiffness properties of wall elements which can lead to more accurate modeling and
analysis of RC buildings with structural walls. Table 1 lists the values of initial stiffness for
each specimen in both loading directions, which is defined as the base shear force divided
by the top horizontal displacement at the first yielding of longitudinal reinforcements at
the wall boundaries. Figure 8 demonstrates the detailed stiffness properties of the walls
which were evaluated using secant stiffness at the peak of the first cycle at each deformation amplitude. As expected, all specimens experienced considerable reduction in stiffness
with increasing wall deformations. For low aspect ratio walls, the secant stiffness of each
specimen rapidly dropped to about 55% of its uncracked stiffness by a drift ratio of approximately 0.2% corresponding to the yielding state of the wall. With the increase of the wall
top drift, the stiffness of each specimen further decreased and at the final stage of testing,
100

200
LW1
LW2
LW3
LW4
LW5

160
120

Secant Sitffness (kN/mm)

Secant Sitffness (kN/mm)

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls

80
40
0
1.2

0.8

0.4
0.0
0.4
Drift Ratio (%)
(a) Low aspect ratio walls

0.8

1.2

MW1
MW2
MW3

80
60
40
20
0
1.2

0.8

0.4
0.0
0.4
Drift Ratio (%)

0.8

(b) Medium aspect ratio walls

FIGURE 8 Secant stiffness of tested walls with respect to drift ratios.

1.2

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

324

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang

it only accounted for 15% of its uncracked stiffness. By comparing LW2 and LW5 which
were subjected to axial loadings, more severe degradation of stiffness for LW3 with inadequate transverse reinforcements provided at the wall boundaries was observed at a drift
ratio of 0.67%. For medium aspect ratio walls, at the early stage of testing, the stiffness of
each specimen rapidly dropped to about 25% of its uncracked stiffness by a drift ratio of
approximately 0.15%; with the increase in the wall top drift, the stiffness of each specimen further decreased and at the final stage of testing, it remained at rather low levels with
approximately 30% of its initial stiffness.
The degradation ratio of secant stiffness, which was evaluated by dividing the values
of secant stiffness at the initial loading stages by those corresponding to the final loading
stages, was achieved to be about 85% for all specimens with or without axial loadings. This
suggested that such low levels of axial loadings had a minor effect on the degradation rate
of secant stiffness despite the fact that the presence of axial compression in specimens can
lead to higher secant stiffness in contrast with those not subjected to axial loadings at the
same drift ratios. In addition, Fig. 8 suggests that the content of transverse reinforcements
in the wall boundary element and the presence of construction joints at the wall base have
negligible effects on the stiffness characteristics of the tested walls under such levels of
axial compression.

4. Causes of Wall Resistance and Failure Mechanism


Strut-and-tie models have been used intuitively for many years in design of concrete structures, whereby complex stress fields inside a structural member arising from applied loads
are simplified into discrete compressive and tensile force paths. With the aid of the strutand-tie model, a better visualization and understanding of the distribution of internal force
and the mechanism of force transfer can be achieved. The shear force transfer mechanism of squat RC walls has been investigated by many researchers [Park and Paulay, 1975;
Paulay et al., 1982] and was comprehensively outlined by Park and Paulay [1975] in which
the shear force is transferred to the wall base by a middle strut and a truss in the triangular region beside the strut. This mechanism of shear force transfer in the tested squat
walls can be verified by the observations from the strain histories of gauges in the web
horizontal reinforcements of tested specimens. Taking LW1, LW2, and MW1 for example,
Figs. 1012 depict the typical strain distribution with the variation of the wall drift ratios
for two different horizontal web bars [Xiang, 2007], respectively. The two horizontal bars
were located at the wall heights of 250 mm and 750 mm from the base (shown in Fig. 9)
and in each horizontal bar, the strain values obtained from four strain gauges were plotted
under both positive and negative loading directions. From Figs. 11 and 12, in the positive
loadings, larger strain values are observed to occur along the diagonal struts (T7, T8, T14,
T15) and this is likewise obvious under the negative loadings (T5, T6, and T13, T14). For
LW1, it can be observed from Fig. 10 that the tensile strain of the horizontal bars in gauges
along the diagonal strut was normally larger than that of gauges away from the strut.
The following assumption were made in the development of the strut-and-tie models
of Specimens: (1) All reinforcements were lumped into one tie, and its position was located
in the centroidal axis of the reinforcement lumped into it; (2) the strut position was determined by keeping the concrete compressive stress in it lower than the strength limitations
suggested by Schlaich et al. [1987], which is 0.68f c  for a concrete strut with cracks parallel to it or 0.51 f c  for a concrete strut with skew cracks; (3) the struts were idealized into
prismatic shape instead of bottle-shaped stress field; and (4) the node was not a problem
for tensile and compressive failure, which occurs at the mid-strut length rather than at the
node.

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls

T7

250 500

T6

T8

T5

1700

150

150

(a) Low aspect ratio walls

T8

1700

150

(b) Medium aspect ratio walls

FIGURE 9 Gauge arrangements in specimens (in mm, 1 mm = 0.0394 in).


0.0020

0.0020
Drift Ratio
1.0%
0.50%
0.33%
0.25%
0.10%

0.0016
0.0014
Strain

0.0012
0.0010

0.0016
0.0014
0.0012

0.0008

0.0010
0.0008

0.0006

0.0006

0.0004

0.0004

0.0002

0.0002

0.0000

0.0000

0.0002

0.0002

T5

T6 T7

T8

Drift Ratio
1.0%
0.50%
0.33%
0.25%
0.10%

0.0018

Strain

0.0018

T5

T6 T7

T8

T13 T14 T15 T16

T13 T14 T15 T16

Gauge

Gauge

FIGURE 10 Strain distribution in the horizontal web bar of Specimen LW1.


0.0016

0.0020
Drift Ratio
1.0%
0.67%
0.50%
0.33%
0.25%
0.17%
0.10%

0.0012
0.0010
0.0008
0.0006

Drift Ratio
1.0%
0.67%
0.50%
0.33%
0.25%
0.17%
0.10%

0.0018
0.0016
0.0014
0.0012
Strain

0.0014

Strain

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

T7

225 500 250 500 225

225 500 250 500 225


150

T6

250 500

T13 T14 T15 T16

T13 T14 T15 T16


T5

325

0.0010
0.0008
0.0006

0.0004

0.0004

0.0002

0.0002

0.0000

0.0000

0.0002

0.0002

T5

T6 T7

T8

T5

Gauge

T6 T7

T8

T13 T14 T15

T16
T13 T14 T15
Gauge

T16

FIGURE 11 Strain distribution in the horizontal web bar of Specimen LW2.


The primary properties of the ties and struts were listed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The strut-and-tie model shown in Fig. 13 has been proposed to simulate the behavior of the
reference specimen LW1. In the model, the compression struts were shown as dotted lines,

326

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang


0.0020

0.0016

Drift Ratio
1.0%
0.67%
0.50%
0.33%
0.25%
0.17%
0.10%

0.0012
0.0010
Strain

0.0008
0.0006

Drift Ratio
1.0%
0.67%
0.50%
0.33%
0.25%
0.17%
0.10%

0.0018
0.0016
0.0014
0.0012
Strain

0.0014

0.0010
0.0008
0.0006

0.0004

0.0004

0.0002

0.0002

0.0000

0.0000

0.0002

0.0002

T5

T6 T7

T8

T5

T6 T7

T8

T13 T14 T15

Gauge

T16

T13

T14 T15

T16

Gauge

FIGURE 12 Strain distribution in the horizontal web bar of Specimen MW1.

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

TABLE 3 Main properties of ties of strut-and-tie models of LW1, LW2, and MW1
Specimens

Ties

Lumped
reinforcement

Capacity
(kN)

Loading factor
(f u /f y ) at failure

LW1

AD
DF
CD

8T10+8R10
8T10+8R10
6T10

461.6
461.6
201.1

0.86
1.00
0.59

LW2

AD
DF
CD

6T10+8R10
6T10+8R10
8T10

394.5
394.5
268.2

0.78
1.00
0.54

MW1

AD
DF
FH
CD
EF

8T10+8R10
8T10+8R10
8T10+8R10
8T10
8T10

461.6
461.6
461.6
268.2
268.2

0.67
0.83
1.00
0.53
0.53

whereas the tensile steel ties were shown as solid lines. The load path of the strut-and-tie
model of each specimen was determined based on the crack pattern observed from the tests
and the principal stress flows obtained from the numerical analysis [Xiang, 2007]. The concrete contribution was provided by a direct strut (dashed line in Fig. 13) from the loading
point to the base of the wall and was kept constant after the onset of diagonal cracking.
The inclination of the struts varied from 28.4 to 50.6 which was close to the expected
inclination of shear-flexural cracks. The cross-sectional area of the strut AE near the top
of the wall can be estimated [ACI, 2008] as 120(500cos50.6 +150sin50.6 ) mm2 ,
in which 120 is the web thickness, 500 is the height of end plate of loading, 150 is the
flange width. The area of the other two struts [Li and Tran, 2008], AC and DE, can be taken
as 1202250/4cos34 mm2 , and 1202250/4cos28.4 mm2 , respectively, in which
2250 is the vertical distance between the lateral loading point and the wall base. The eight
longitudinal bars in the web plus eight longitudinal bars in the flange were clustered in the
vertical member AF in the center of the flange, and this consideration can be validated from
the measured strains of the longitudinal steel bars [Xiang, 2007]. The transverse reinforcement within a distance of 1000 mm, including six web horizontal bars, was concentrated
in horizontal member CD. From the observations of the experiment, the failure load of

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls

327

Angle ( )

Width (mm)

Loading factor (f cu /f c  )
at failure

AC
AE
CE
DE

34.0
50.6
90.0
28.4

466.4
433.4
268.0
494.9

0.06
0.20
0.03
0.06

LW2

AC
AE
BC
CE
DE

31.3
50.6
90.0
90.0
31.3

480.7
433.4
265.0
265.0
480.7

0.07
0.31
0.12
0.16
0.07

MW1

AC
AG
BC
CE
DE
EG
FG

34.0
60.4
90.0
90.0
28.4
90.0
28.4

466.4
377.6
266.0
266.0
439.9
266.0
439.9

0.08
0.31
0.12
0.16
0.08
0.19
0.08

80.0

.7

118.5
28.4

1000

461.6

59

6
50.

7.6

397.5

250
260.9

50.

134

V() = 379.5 kN

1000

118.5

118.5

317.6

3.0

41

0.0

14

0.0

461.6

64.1

LW1

1.0

Struts

80.0

Specimens

34

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

TABLE 4 Main properties of struts of strut-and-tie models of LW1, LW2, and MW1

379.5

1850

FIGURE 13 Strut-and-tie model of Specimen LW1.


the strut-and-tie model was assumed when the longitudinal reinforcement was observed to
be yielded during the tests. The greater details of the strut-and-tie model are described in
Xiang [2007]. By applying this model to LW1, it can be observed that the average tensile strain predicted by the assumed strut-and-tie model agreed well with the tensile strain
history of web horizontal bars in tested walls, as shown in Fig. 14.
For LW2 subjected to axial loads, the proposed strut-and-tie model was appropriately
modified, as shown in Fig. 15. The six longitudinal bars in the web plus eight longitudinal bars in the flange were clustered in the vertical member AF in the center of the

328

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang


Strut-and-Tie

400
300

Gauge #T14

Shear force (kN)

200
100
0
0.00005

Specimen LW1
0.00025

0.00055

0.00085

0.00115

0.00145

100

0.00175
Strain

200
300
Strut-and-Tie

FIGURE 14 Strain history of Gauge T14 in horizontal bars of Specimen LW1.

294 kN

381.3

66

143.5

6
50.

31.3

8.0

16

31.0

.9

982.5

33
11

31.3

1125

5.2

8.0

16

V() = 566.0 kN

394.5

294.0

1125

307.1

294 kN

60

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

400

566.0

1850

FIGURE 15 Strut-and-tie model of Specimen LW2.

flange, and this consideration can be validated from the measured strains of the longitudinal steel bars [Xiang, 2007]. The contribution of web horizontal reinforcements was
considered to be within a distance of 1125 mm which included eight horizontal bars in
the wall web. The area of the concrete strut AE near the top of the wall can be estimated
as 120(500cos50.6 +150sin50.6 ) mm2 , and the area of the two paralleled concrete
struts can be taken as 1202250/4cos31.3 mm2 . Similarly, a strut-and-tie model as
shown in Fig. 16 is proposed to simulate the behavior of MW1. The angle of struts DE and
FG was 28.4 which was close to the average angles of diagonal cracks in the lower part of
the wall. The transverse reinforcement within a distance of 1000 mm including 8 web horizontal bars in the lower part of the wall was concentrated in horizontal members CD and
EF. The eight longitudinal bars in the web plus eight longitudinal bars in the flange were
clustered in the vertical member AH in the center of the flange. Thus, the proposed model

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls


294 kN

329

294 kN

V() = 430.0 kN

580
.4

384.2

390.5

2.4

16

1000
1000

29

467.8

28.4

67
.8

1049.6

29

28.4

142.9

1000

2.4

16

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

.4

142.9

60

34

G
430.0

307.0

2.4

17

461.6

294.0

250

1850

FIGURE 16 Strut-and-tie model of Specimen MW1.


may provide insights into the force transfer mechanism and contribution of web reinforcements of medium aspect ratio walls under low axial loadings. This can be further verified
by employing this model to MW2 and MW3. The maximum shear forces for all specimens
calculated by the proposed strut-and-tie model are listed in Table 1. It can be seen that the
analytical maximum loads show good correlation with the tested maximum loads. Thus,
the proposed model may provide insights into the force transfer mechanism of squat RC
walls with or without axial loadings.

5. Conclusions
Eight cantilever squat RC walls have been tested under simulated seismic loading to failure. On the basis of the experimental results presented above, it was found that all eight
specimens behaved in a flexural manner and were capable of developing their flexural
strength prior to failure, which is a prerequisite of adequate seismic performance. All specimens, except Specimen LW3, exhibited more ductile behavior than expected, even if they
had limited confinement reinforcement corresponding to approximately 13%-40% of the
ACI 318 specified quantity of confining reinforcement. As shown in Table 1, the displacement ductility factors of the 7 specimens were more than 3.0 and can generally experience
average story drift of at least 1.0% without significant strength degradation. As such, it is
evident that the requirements for wall boundary element confinement as recommended by
ACI 318 can be relaxed for structural walls to some extent. In contrast, the displacement
ductility of Specimen LW3 with an aspect ratio of 1.125 and which contained 15% of the
ACI 318 specified quantity of confining reinforcement was observed to be less than 3.0.
Specimen LW3 showed critical seismic performance with respect to the strength and deformation capacities achieved. Its worth noting that although bt of Specimen MW2 is the

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

330

B. Li, Z. Pan, and W. Xiang

same as that of LW3, the ductility level of Specimen MW2 is 3.6 due to the higher aspect
ratio, compared with Specimen LW3.
It was also found in the testing that the level of axial compression had a minor effect
on the degradation rate of secant stiffness despite the fact that the presence of axial compression in specimens can lead to higher secant stiffness as opposed to those without axial
loadings. For the specimens subjected to axial compression, the amount of energy dissipated was larger than that corresponding to specimens without axial compression due to
the favorable effect of the axial compression with regard to controlling the pinching of
hysteresis loops.
For the specimens with more transverse reinforcements in the wall boundary elements,
the flexural contribution of the total deformation became greater. This clearly indicates
that seismic performance such as drift and energy dissipation capacity can be enhanced
by increasing the amount of transverse reinforcement in the boundary elements of a wall.
However, the amount of transverse reinforcement in the wall boundary elements and the
presence of construction joints at the wall base have negligible effects on the overall
stiffness characteristics of the tested walls under such levels of axial compressions.
Strut-and-tie models for RC squat structural walls with and without axial loading,
accounting for different contributions of horizontal and longitudinal web reinforcements,
were developed to accurately reflect the force transfer mechanisms of squat structural walls
under the lateral loading. The tensile strains in the horizontal web bars of squat RC walls
could be predicted by the use of the assumed strut-and-tie model which agreed well with
the tested data. This provides evidence that the assumed strut-and-tie models are reasonable
models for the flow of forces and contribution of web reinforcements in the walls tested.

References
American Concrete Institute (ACI) [2008] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
Bentz, E. C. [2000] Sectional analysis of RC members, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto,
Canada.
Lefas, L. D., Kotsovos, M. D., and Ambraseys, N. N. [1990] Behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls: strength, deformation characteristic, and failure mechanism, ACI Structural Journal
87(1), 2331.
Li, B. and Tran, C. T. N. [2008] Reinforced concrete beam analysis supplementing concrete
contribution in truss models, Engineering Structures 30(11), 32853294.
Maier, J. and Thurlimann, B. [1985] Shear Wall Tests, The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Zurich, Switzerland.
Massone, L. M., Orakcal, K., and Wallace, J. W. [2009] Modeling of squat structural walls controlled
by shear, ACI Structural Journal 106(5), 646655.
Mestyanek, J. M. [1986] The earthquake of resistance of reinforced concrete structural walls of
limited ductility, Master Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
New Zealand Standard (NZS) [1995] New Zealand Standard Code of Practice for the Design of
Concrete Structures, NZS 3101: Part 1, 185pp; Commentary NZS 3101: Part 2, 247pp, Standard
Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Oh, Y. H., Han, S. W., and Lee, L. H. [2002] Effect of boundary element details on the seismic deformation capacity of structural walls, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31(8),
15831602.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. [1975] Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M. J. N., and Synge, A. J. [1982] Ductility in earthquake resisting squat
shearwalls, ACI Journal Proceeding 79(4), 257269.

Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 15:38 25 August 2015

Seismic Performance of Squat RC Structural Walls

331

Pilakoutas, K. and Elnashai, A. S. [1995] Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete cantilever walls,
Part I: experimental results, ACI Material Journal 92(3), 425434.
Preti, M. and Giuriani, E. [2011] Ductility of a structural wall with spread rebars tested in full scale,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15(8), 12381259.
Salonikios, T. N., Kappos, A. J., Tegos, I. A., and Penelis, G. G. [1999] Cyclic load behavior of
low-slenderness reinforced concrete walls: design basis and test results, ACI Structural Journal
96(4), 649660.
Salonikios, T. N., Kappos, A. J., Tegos, I. A., and Penelis, G. G. [2000] Cyclic load behavior of
bow-slenderness reinforced concrete walls: failure modes, strength and deformation analysis, and
design implications, ACI Structural Journal 97(1), 132142.
Schlaich, J., Schfer, K., and Jennewein, M. [1987] Toward a consistent design of structural
concrete. PCI Journal 32(3), 74150.
Wallace, J. W. [1995] Seismic design of RC structural walls. Part I: new code format, Journal of
Structural Engineering 121(1), 7587.
Wallace, J. W. and Thomsen, J. H. [1995] Seismic design of RC structural walls. Part II:
applications, Journal of Structural Engineering 121(1), 88101.
Wood, S. L. [1990] Shear strength of low-rise reinforced concrete walls, ACI Structural Journal
87(1), 99107.
Wu, Y. [2002] Experimental and analytical study of reinforced concrete interior beam-wide column joints for seismic performance, Ph.D. Dissertation, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
Xiang, W. [2007] Seismic performance of structural walls with limited transverse reinforcement,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

You might also like