Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
314
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.
400
500
500
500
4T20
T10H&V
150
1700
150
800
R12@150
800
Section A - A
150
1700
150
800
120
120
2R10
100 150
Section B - B
4R10
300
R6@75
300
10T20
Section A - A
4R10
2R10
7T10@250
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
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
317
f y (MPa)
f ul (Mpa)
T10
T20
R6
R10
427
519
261
308
497
613
324
385
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
= 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
50
8
10 12
Cycle Number
14
16
18
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
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.4
1.2
1.40
800
400
200
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
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
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
0.4
0.92
400
Vi = 375kN
200
200
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
1.2
500
0.0
300
400
800
27
31.5
400
200
600
21.0
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
600
LW1
18
0.47
400
Vi = 321kN
400
500
27
0.93
500
45
MW3
30
15
0
15
Displacement (mm)
30
45
0.47
0.93
1.40
0.46
0.92
1.38
400
600
300
400
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
45
322
80
Flexure
Shear
Sliding
LW1
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 (%)
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
100
MW1
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
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 (%)
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 (%)
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
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
1.2
324
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.
T7
250 500
T6
T8
T5
1700
150
150
T8
1700
150
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
Gauge
Gauge
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
T7
T6
250 500
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
T16
T13 T14 T15
Gauge
T16
326
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
Gauge
T16
T13
T14 T15
T16
Gauge
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
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
TABLE 4 Main properties of struts of strut-and-tie models of LW1, LW2, and MW1
379.5
1850
328
400
300
Gauge #T14
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
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
400
566.0
1850
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
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
.4
142.9
60
34
G
430.0
307.0
2.4
17
461.6
294.0
250
1850
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
330
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.
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.