Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental investigation of existing non-conforming RC shear walls

Konstantinos I. Christidis ⇑, Konstantinos G. Trezos
Reinforced Concrete Laboratory, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), 5, Iroon Polytechniou St., Zografou, 157 73 Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work forms part of a research program to assess and strengthen existing non-conforming reinforced
Received 20 April 2016 concrete walls, namely walls designed according to older seismic codes that do not meet the modern seis-
Revised 29 January 2017 mic provisions. For this purpose, a series of four shear walls, representing typical medium-rise walls, was
Accepted 24 February 2017
designed and tested as cantilevers under static cyclic loading. The wall specimens are characterized by
Available online 8 March 2017
various reinforcement arrangements, focusing mainly on different amounts of shear reinforcement and
on the buckling of compressive longitudinal rebars. The experimental results are compared with the
Keywords:
assessment provisions included in Eurocode 8 – Part 3 for estimating the strength and deformation
RC shear walls
Eurocode 8 – Part 3
capacity of existing reinforced concrete members.
Ductility Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shear strength
Reinforcement rebar buckling
Energy dissipation
Flexural and shear deformations

1. Introduction provisions rather than assessment procedures for existing shear

Modern seismic design is based on the ductile response of the
structure. With this premise modern seismic codes give great
attention to the seismic detailing of reinforced concrete (RC) mem-
bers, trying to secure the flexural behaviour of the member and to
reach adequate ductility levels. Especially in RC shear walls, the
above provisions are summarized in two main design require-
ments. The first one is the configuration of confined boundary ele-
ments and the second one is a capacity design procedure which
leads to high ratios of shear reinforcement, in order to prevent a
brittle shear failure. However, in a lot of countries with high seis-
mic exposure there is a significant number of existing structures,
designed according to older seismic regulations, which include
shear walls non-compliant to modern seismic design and detailing
provisions. These non-conforming shear walls do not include con-
fined boundary elements and they are characterized by low ratios
of shear reinforcement.
The extensive experimental investigation of the behaviour of
RC shear walls started taking place in the early 70s and con-
tinued in the next decades e.g. [1–8]. However, in most cases,
the studies were conducted towards the revision of the appli-
cable regulations at that time, so the conclusions and models
arising from this research referred to improved design
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: christidis@central.ntua.gr, kwstas_chr@hotmail.com
(K.I. Christidis), ctrezos@central.ntua.gr (K.G. Trezos).
walls. Thus, the experimental and literature database concern-
ing existing RC shear walls not designed according to modern
seismic provisions is really poor and only occasional references
can be found related to walls without confining configuration
e.g. [9,10] and/or less shear reinforcement than modern codes
suggest e.g. [11–15].
In the last decades, the study of the behaviour of RC mem-
bers began to focus not only on the design of new structures
but also on the assessment and redesign of existing ones.
Several models have been developed trying to predict the
deformation capacity and the degradation of the shear strength
with inelastic cyclic displacements of existing RC members
[16–24]. Some of these models have been adopted, with some
modifications, in modern seismic regulations, such as Eurocode
8 – Part 3 (EC8-3) [25,26]. However, it should be noted that
most of these models are based on empirical or semi-
empirical expressions calibrated on a large experimental
database which, as explained before, consists mainly of walls
designed according to modern detailing provisions rather than
non-conforming shear walls.
The present work forms part of a general program whose scope
is the experimental assessment and strengthening of existing non-
conforming shear walls. The main object of the present paper is to
examine the behaviour of concrete shear walls that do not comply
with modern seismic codes and compare their experimental per-
formance with the provisions for assessment of RC members
included in EC8-3.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.02.063
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38 27

2. Eurocode 8 – Part 3 provisions where the plastic hinge length, Lpl, depends on the constitutive
model for confined concrete.
Based on the results of an experimental database, Panagiotakos For the confinement model based on the Newman and Newman
and Fardis [16] and Biskinis et al. [17] proposed a set of empirical/ model [28] proposed in EC8-3 (Annex A, &A.3.2.2(8)) the plastic
semi-empirical equations trying to predict the deformation capac- hinge length can be estimated by Eq. (4).
ity and the degradation of the shear strength with inelastic cyclic
LV db f y
displacements. Based on an extended database, which includes Lpl ¼ þ 0:20h þ 0:11 pffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
over 600 cyclic test for walls (278 for rectangular cross-section),
30 fc
the model gradually evolved to its final form (so far) in Gram- The above deformation capacity can be attained provided that
matikou et al. [22]. The above model, with some modifications, is the structural member has not previously reached its shear
adopted from EC8-3. strength capacity which is assumed to be degraded with the inelas-
The deformation capacity of reinforced concrete members is tic cyclic displacements. EC8-3 suggests that the shear strength as
commonly defined in terms of the chord rotation (or drift ratio), controlled by the stirrups, VR, should be decreased with the plastic
h, i.e. the angle between the tangent to the axis at the yielding part of ductility demand, lpl D = lD  1. This ductility can be
(assumed fixed) end and the chord connecting that end with the calculated as the ratio of the plastic part of the chord rotation,
end of the shear span. EC8-3 defines three different limit states, hpl
um = hum  hy, normalized to the chord rotation at yielding, hy.
indicating the state of damage of the concrete member – Damage The shear strength as controlled by the stirrups, VR, can be derived
Limitation (DL), Significant Damage (SD) and Near Collapse (NC). by Eq. (5) (with units: MN and meters).
The value of the chord rotation, hy, in the DL limit state for rect- 
1 hx  
angular walls is given in Eq. (1) and it corresponds to the yielding VR ¼ minðN; 0:55Ac f c Þ þ 1  0:05minð5; lpl
DÞ
moment capacity, My. cel 2LV
   qffiffiffiffi 
LV
LV þ aV z db f y  0:16maxð0:5; 100qtot Þ 1  0:16min 5; f c Ac þ V w
hy ¼ uy þ 0:0013 þ uy pffiffiffiffi ð1Þ h
3 8 fc
ð5Þ
where aVz is the tension shift of the bending moment diagram due
to shear; z is the length of the internal flexural lever arm, taken where cel is equal to 1.15 for primary seismic elements and 1.00 for
equal to 0.8h in walls with rectangular section (h is the cross- secondary seismic elements; x is the compression zone depth; N is
section depth); aV = 1 if shear cracking is expected to precede flex- the compressive axial force (positive, taken as being zero for ten-
ural yielding at the end section (i.e. if My > LVVR,c) otherwise aV = 0, sion); Ac is the cross-section area, equal to bwd for a cross-section
where VR,c is the shear resistance of the member considered without with a rectangular web of width (thickness) bw and structural depth
shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2 – Part 1-1 (EC2-1-1) d; qtot is the total longitudinal reinforcement ratio; Vw = qwbwzfyw is
[27]; db is the diameter of the longitudinal rebar; fy is the yield the contribution of transverse reinforcement to shear resistance
stress of the longitudinal tension reinforcement and fc is the con- (qw = Asw/bws is the transverse reinforcement ratio and Asw is the
crete compressive strength. transverse reinforcement area).
The value of the ultimate (total) chord rotation, hu, in the NC In addition the shear strength, VR, may not be taken greater than
limit state is given in Eq. (2) and it corresponds to the ultimate the value corresponding to failure by web crushing, VR,max, which
moment capacity, Mu. can be derived by Eq. (6) (with units: MN and meters).
 0:225   
1 maxð0:01; x0 Þ 0:85 1  0:06min 5; lpl   
hu ¼ 0:016ð0:3 Þ m
fc D N
cel maxð0:01; xÞ V R;max ¼ 1 þ 1:8 min 0:15;
cel Ac f c
  0:35  f yw 
LV aqsx f  ð1 þ 0:25 maxð1:75; 100qtot ÞÞ
 min 9; 25 c
ð1:25100qd Þ ð2Þ   qffiffiffiffi
h LV
 1  0:2 min 2; f c bw z ð6Þ
where cel is equal to 1.50 for primary seismic elements and to h
1.00 for secondary seismic elements; m = N/bhfc (b is the width where all variables are as previously defined.
of compression zone, N is the axial force positive for compres-
sion); x, x’ are the mechanical reinforcement ratios of the
tension (including the web reinforcement) and compression, 3. Experimental study
respectively, longitudinal reinforcement; qsx = Asx/bsh is the ratio
of transverse steel parallel to the direction x of loading (Asx is In order to evaluate the behaviour of existing non-conforming
the stirrup reinforcement area and sh is the stirrup spacing); fyw RC shear walls a series of four specimens – W7, W9, W11 and W13
is the stirrup yield strength (MPa); a is the confinement – was tested. A first short discussion of the basic test results can
effectiveness factor and qd is the steel ratio of diagonal reinforce- also be found in [29] and [30]; herein, a full detailed presentation
ment (if any), in each diagonal direction. of all the test results is provided, including issues such as failure
Note that for shear walls the above value must be multiplied by and cracking modes, ductility level, energy dissipation and local
0.58, while, specifically for members without seismic detailing, it behaviour (flexural and shear deformations).
must be also divided by 1.2. The intermediate value of the chord
rotation, hSD, in the SD limit state may be taken as the 0.75hu. 3.1. Specimens characteristics
Alternatively, EC8-3 proposes an analytical expression for
calculating the ultimate chord rotation (Eq. (3)). Note that the The geometrical characteristics (Fig. 1) of all specimens are con-
specific expression is applicable only for the assessment of existing stant, representing typical medium-rise walls, with shear ratio
members with seismic detailing; no proposal for members with equal to Lv/h = 2.0. The specimens are in scale approximately 1:2,
poor seismic detailing is made. so the conclusions derived from the experimental results are con-
     ducted for specimens with real (natural) dimensions not far from a
1 0:5Lpl full scale specimen (probably other scales such as 1:5 would have a
hu ¼ hy þ uu  uy Lpl 1  ð3Þ
cel LV more significant influence in the results).
28 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38
Fig. 1. Geometrical characteristics of specimens (in m).
Walls W7 and W13 represent a typical modern RC shear wall
designed according to Eurocode provisions and a typical existing
non-conforming RC shear wall, respectively. Specimens W9 and
W11 also represent non-conforming walls but, in addition, a config-
uration of open stirrups was added in order to prevent the local
buckling of compressive reinforcement; in this way the influence
of shear reinforcement can be evaluated independently. Note that
walls W9 and W11 differ only in shear reinforcement (U8/400 and
U6/400 respectively). The reinforcement configuration of all spec-
imens is shown in Fig. 2, while the material characteristics and the
reinforcement ratios are summarized in Table 1.
3.2. Strength and deformation capacity according to EC8-3
EC8-3 provisions were applied in order to estimate the
strength and deformation capacity for all four specimens. In
order to apply EC8-3 provisions, cross-section analyses were pre-
ceded in OpenSees platform [31]. During the analyses three dif-
ferent models for concrete were applied; the first one concerns
the cover concrete, the second one the unconfined core concrete
and the third one the confined concrete. For the confined con-
crete EC8-3 Annex A &A.3.2.2(8) model was applied. For the
unconfined core concrete EC8-3 Annex A &A.3.2.2(8) model
was also applied with the confining parameter a taken equal
to zero. It should be noted that the ultimate (‘‘failure”) deforma-
tion, ecu (or eccu), can be conventionally defined as the strain at
the point on the softening branch of the concrete stress-strain
diagram where the stress has dropped to 0.85fc (or fcc) (i.e.
[21]). For the curvature analysis of the present paper the
above-mentioned curve was extrapolated to stress 0.2fc. (or
0.2fcc). Finally, the Kent and Park model [32] was used to
describe the unconfined cover concrete constitutive law, leading
to more conservative values compared to the previous model for
unconfined core concrete, something which is compliant to the
cover concrete behaviour. The stress-strain curves of concrete
are summarized in Fig. 3. Chang and Mander model [33] was
used to describe the reinforcing steel constitutive law (adjusted
to the experimental test data in uniaxial tension – see Table 1)
including the buckling of compressive bars according to Dhakal
and Maekawa model [34]. The buckling of compressive steel
depends mainly on the ratio L/D, where L is the unsupported
bar length and D is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcing
bar. Thus, based on the reinforcement configuration three differ-
ent cases occur – L/D = 5.0 for W7, L/D = 8.33 for walls W9 and
W11 and, finally, L/D = 33.33 for W13 (Fig. 4).
In order to apply the analytical/empirical equations of EC8-3 a
conventional yielding point was used, obtained from the bilin-
earization of the Moment-Curvature diagram, M-u, assuming an
equivalent bilinear curve (elastic-perfectly plastic), where the ini-
tial elastic stiffness is defined from the first yielding steel bar
(My,1st, uy,1st). The conventional yielding point (My, uy) was
derived by equating the area (energy) of the two curves. Note
that the ultimate curvature, uu, is taken as the one corresponding
to a percentage of 20% loss of the bearing capacity of the cross-
section or the one corresponding to the steel failure strain in ten-
sion. The Moment-curvature diagrams, M-u, derived from the
cross-section analysis in OpenSees and their equivalent bilinear
counterparts are summarized in Fig. 5; the Load-displacement,
P-d, curves derived from the application of the analytical/empiri-
cal expressions above, using the Moment-Curvature diagrams, M-
u, are presented later in Section 4, together with the experimen-
tal results. Both theoretical flexural and shear strength and defor-
mation values are summarized in Table 2. To this point, it should
be noted that the empirical Eq. (2) of EC8-3 covers both cases
with (marked with index a in Table 2) and without (marked with
index c in Table 2) seismic detailing, as described in Section 2.
Thus, in the case of walls W7 and W13 Eq. (2) was applied
depending on the specimen. On the other hand, in the case of
walls W9 and W11, where it is unclear to which category the spec-
imens belong (with or without seismic detailing), the Eq. (2) was
applied for both cases. Finally, Eq. (3) was applied only in wall W7
with seismic detailing (marked with index b in Table 2). To this
point it should be noted that the values of Table 2 are free of
safety material and importance factors, which are usually adopted
from modern codes in order to be to the safe side. The experi-
mental results are compared straight to the model without the
influence of any factor.
3.3. Experimental procedure
The specimens were tested as cantilevers under static cyclic
loading applied only in their plain (uni-directional tests). The
experimental setup is shown in Fig. 6. During the testing proce-
dure, the displacement control method was adopted, starting with
an initial displacement of ±10 mm, at the top of the specimens,
increasing with steps of 10 mm until failure. The imposed loading
pattern is shown in Fig. 7. Three cycles of each displacement group
were applied, except of wall W7 where cycles 2 and 3 of displace-
ment of ±40 mm were omitted. Note that axial force was not
applied to specimens. In shear walls the normalized axial load val-
ues, m, are in most cases relatively low (e.g. m = 0.1) and the exis-
tence or not of axial load is not significant for the wall
behaviour. As concluded by experimental tests in walls where
buckling phenomena occurred, conducted by the authors and dis-
cussed elsewhere (see Refs. [15] and [29]), the existence of axial
load (m  0.1) leads to slightly worse behaviour attributed mainly
to the buckling of the longitudinal rebars, while the web cracking
pattern remains practically unaffected.
The experimental data were gathered using generally 19 dis-
placement transducers in each specimen. For the experimental
results presented within this paper eight transducers were used
(see Fig. 7). The experimental Load-Displacement hysteretic
curve is derived from the transducer (t1) measuring at the mid-
dle of the top beam, corrected by the displacement attributed to
the rigid body movement (t2 and t3) and the sliding of the wall
base (t4).
 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38 29

Fig. 2. Reinforcement configuration of specimens (in mm) (a) Wall W7 (b) Wall W9 (c) Wall W11 (d) Wall W13.
30 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38

Table 1
Reinforcement ratios and material properties of the specimens considered.

Concrete Longitudinal reinforcement Stirrups Confinement Longitudinal Transverse (shear)

compression strength Yield/Failure stress effectiveness reinforcement ratio reinforcement ratio
Yield/Failure stress Hardening/Failure strain
fc (MPa)1 fy/fu (MPa) factor a2 qtot (‰)3 qw (‰)4
fy/fu (MPa) esh/esu (‰)
W7 31.12 D10:604/705 D10:26.2/100.2 588/681 0.233 14.33 6.69
D8:588/681 D8:28.1/88.2
W9 31.12 580/670 26.3/107.9 588/681 0.124 12.06 2.01
W11 31.12 580/670 26.3/107.9 568/654 0.124 12.06 1.13
W13 25.37 580/670 26.3/107.9 568/654 – 12.06 1.13
1
Maximum aggregate size 16 mm.
2
a = confinement effectiveness factor according to EC8-3.
3
qtot = Area sum of longitudinal reinforcement/cross section area = RAs,L/(bw * h).
4
qw = Area sum of stirrup/(wall width*stirrups distance) = RAs,w/(bw * s).

Fig. 3. Concrete stress-strain curves (Opensees: Concrete_01-Zero Tensile Strength) (a) Wall W7,W9, W11 (fc = 31.12 MPa) (b) Wall W13 (fc = 25.37 MPa).

Fig. 4. Steel stress-strain curves (Opensees: Reinforcing Steel Material) (a) Wall W7 (b) Walls W9, W11, W13.

Fig. 5. Moment curvature diagrams (M-u) (a) Wall W7 (b) Walls W9, W11 (c) Wall W13.
 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38 31

Table 2
Theoretical strength and deformation capacity according to EC8-3.

Flexure Shear
Conventional moment My = Mu (kNm) Displacement (mm) Shear strength VR (kN) Shear strength VR,max (kN)
Yielding dy Ultimate du lD,pl = 0 lD,pl = ultimate lD,pl = 0 lD,pl = ultimate
W7 244.28 12.82 37.21a/87.82b 377.15 341.28a/282.86b 306.73 271.73a/214.71b
W9 197.69 11.85 24.92c/29.90a 157.28 148.61c/145.30a 306.73 286.43c/278.69a
W11 197.69 11.85 24.92c/29.90a 116.72 110.28c/107.83a 306.73 286.43c/278.69a
W13 184.21 11.55 22.39 c 110.05 104.89c 276.95 261.35c

Fig. 6. Experimental set-up.

Fig. 7. Imposed displacement pattern of specimens.

4. Experimental results displacement at the top of each specimen and the y-axis to the cor-
responding lateral load. The cracking pattern at the end of each
4.1. Failure and cracking modes experimental procedure is shown in Fig. 9.
As shown in Fig. 8a and d walls W7 and W13 exhibited a totally
The experimental Load-displacement diagram for each speci- different behaviour. Although they both reached their flexural
men is presented in Fig. 8, where the x-axis refers to the imposed strength, wall W7 exhibited a ductile behaviour, while W13 was
32 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38
Fig. 8. Load-displacement, P-d, curves of specimens – Experimental and EC8-3 theoretical results (a) Wall W7 (b) Wall W9 (c) Wall W11 (d) Wall W13.
characterized by an intense descending post-peak branch. This dif-
ference in walls behaviour could be attributed to the low ratio of
shear reinforcement which, as EC8-3 predicts, leads to low values
of shear strength. However, the aforementioned conclusion is not
verified by the experimental results of walls W9 and W11. Both
walls include such a shear reinforcement ratio that intentionally
leads to a reduced value of shear capacity, typical of existing walls,
so that the flexural behaviour of the wall cannot be attained. How-
ever, the expected brittle-shear behaviour of the specimens was
not verified by the test results, since all the specimens exhibited
their flexural capacity and significant higher values of correspond-
ing lateral displacement, not affected by the different reinforce-
ment ratios. Thus, the sudden drop in bearing capacity of wall
W13, with the same longitudinal and transverse reinforcement as
W11 but with significantly higher buckling ratio, is attributed to
the buckling of the outer layer of reinforcing rebars which leaded
to a premature deterioration of the compressive zone, as observed
during the wall testing (Fig. 10a).
Contrariwise, low ratios of shear reinforcement seem to deter-
mine the cracking mode of walls, as in cases of walls with low
ratios of shear reinforcement, especially in Walls W11 and W13,
the formation of significant inclined X cracks was observed. Note
that these cracks in case of Wall W11 were followed by the rupture
of one of the stirrups approximately at the middle height of the
web, as shown in Fig. 10b.
In Fig. 8, together with the experimental results, theoretical
estimations according to EC8-3 are presented for both flexural
deformation capacity (EC8-3 – Flexure) and shear degradation
(EC8-3 – Shear). For specimens W9 and W11 only the case ‘without’
seismic detailing is plotted in Fig. 8b and c, respectively. In addi-
tion, for wall W7 (Fig. 8a) the shear strength values are omitted
due to scale issues (see also Table 2), while the values according
to both Eq. (2) (EC8-3 – Empirical) and Eq. (3) (EC8-3 – Analytical)
are included. As shown in Fig. 8 (see also Table 2) the empirical
equation of EC8-3 (Eq. (2)) for estimating the ultimate displace-
ment value, which has application to all types of walls, seems to
lead to conservative values compared to the experimental results.
On the other hand, the analytical expression (Eq. (30) which, how-
ever, has application only in wall W7 designed according to mod-
ern provisions, seems to lead to more realistic values. As far as
the shear strength, EC8-3 tries to incorporate the influence of the
shear strength degradation by decreasing the shear strength value,
VR, with the inelastic cyclic displacements (Eq. (5)). However, the
above equation seems to underestimate the shear strength capac-
ity of the existing non-conforming shear walls, indicating a prior
brittle failure and, therefore, poor deformation capacity. The above
estimations were not confirmed by the experimental results, since
all four walls exhibited an experimental load higher than the pre-
dicted shear strength.
4.2. Ductility, effective stiffness and energy dissipation
The differences in walls behaviour can be quantified through
the calculation of characteristic values such as ductility, stiffness
and energy dissipation. The experimental ductility is derived from
the bilinearization of the experimental envelope of each specimen,
assuming an equivalent bilinear curve (elastic-perfectly plastic).
The ultimate displacement corresponds to a loss of 20% of the max-
imum measured load Pmax,exp, where, conventionally, it is assumed
that failure occurs. The equivalent yielding point is calculated
through an iterative process, by equating the area (energy) of the
two curves, where the initial slope of the bilinear curve is defined
so that it intersects the real curve at the point corresponding to
75% of the calculated yielding point, as proposed in Paulay and Pri-
estley [35]. As shown in Table 3 walls W7, W9 and W11 exhibited
high values of ductility. Neither the absence of confined boundary
elements nor the sparse shear reinforcement seemed to signifi-
cantly affect the ductility capacity of walls W9 and W11. On the
other hand W13, as expected, exhibited significantly lower values
of ductility. Table 3 also includes the calculated effective stiffness
(initial slope of the equivalent curve), Keff, which takes slightly
higher value in wall W7. To this point it should be noted that the
exact values of both the ductility and the effective stiffness are
strongly depended on the assumptions of the method of bilineari-
sation. The use of another bilinearisation assumption would have
led to different values, without, however, altering significantly
the above values of ductility and stiffness.
The energy dissipation is calculated as the area included in each
hysteretic loop. As shown in Table 4 walls W9, W11 and W13 exhib-
ited lower values of energy dissipation compared to wall W7 in all
 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38 33

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 9. Cracks at the end of the experiment (at displacement 0.00 mm) (a) Wall W7 (b) Wall W9 (c) Wall W11 (d) Wall W13.

large displacement cycles after yielding (i.e.±30 mm, ±40 mm and
±50 mm) where strength degradation and pinching effects affected
the wall behaviour.
The above conclusion is better shown in Fig. 11a which includes
the cumulative energy dissipation of all walls derived from the 1st
cycle of each displacement group. In addition, in Fig. 11b the nor-
malized cumulative energy dissipation curves are plotted, derived
as the absolute energy value divided by the quantity Pmax,i * dmax,i,
where i refers in each displacement cycle.
4.3. Flexural and shear deformations within the plastic zone
The total horizontal displacement, dtot, at the top of a panel with
height, hsh, and length, Lsh, is assumed to be the sum of two
separate terms – the flexural, dfl, and the shear, dsh, displacement,
respectively (see Fig. 12). The total displacement, dtot, is also
assumed equal to the average value of the two horizontal displace-
ments u1 and u2 (Eq. (12)).
1
dtot ¼ dsh þ dfl ¼ ðu1 þ u2 Þ ð12Þ
2
In the present study a configuration of four displacement trans-
ducers (two diagonal and two vertical) were placed in order to
experimentally define the flexural and shear displacements within
a panel at a level 0.30 m (wall W7) and 0.20 m (walls W9, W11, W13)
from the wall base.
The shear deformations are traditionally defined using a pair of
diagonal displacement transducers (X configuration) which are
34 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Failure modes in walls W13 and W11 (a) Buckling of longitudinal rebar at wall W13 base (b) Stirrup rupture at Wall W11 web.

Table 3
Experimental load, ductility and effective stiffness.

Maximum load Pmax,exp (kN) Ductility ld,exp Effective stiffness Keff (kN/m)
+  +  + 
W7 203.03 143.84 4.47 4.16 16815 10520
W9 177.02 137.44 3.13 4.40 11689 10258
W11 173.30 130.11 4.23 4.59 15697 10897
W13 157.58 135.26 2.31 2.44 14082 10949

Table 4
Energy dissipation of specimens (kNmm).

±10 mm ±20 mm ±30 mm ±40 mm ±50 mm

Cycles Cycles Cycles Cycles Cycles
1st 2st 3st 1st 2st 3st 1st 2st 3st 1st 2st 3st 1st 2st 3st
W7 1186 654 486 4026 2851 2575 6672 5672 5071 8876 – – 10579 – –
W9 988 554 368 2963 2130 1789 5018 4453 3702 6766 6052 5136 7175 – –
W11 1126 415 311 3134 2056 1700 4805 4199 3141 5854 5257 3894 5888 – –
W13 1041 435 339 2924 2052 1743 4788 – – – – – – – –

Fig. 11. Energy dissipation in the 1st cycle of each displacement group (a) Absolute values (b) Normalized values.

Fig. 12. Displacement components within a panel (a) Total displacement (b) Shear displacement (c) Flexural displacement.
 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38 35

 
able to measure the changes, d1 and d2, of the initial length, d, of dðd1  d2 Þ hsh
dsh;cor ¼  dfl þ ðv 1  v 2 Þ ð14Þ
the two diagonals (transducers t5, t6 – see Fig. 7); the shear dis- 2Lsh 2Lsh
placement, dsh, is calculated as:
The rotation of the cross section at the top of the shear panel, h,
dðd1  d2 Þ can be calculated by Eq. (15) using the measurements of the two
dsh ¼ ð13Þ vertical displacement transducers v1 and v2 (transducers t7, t8 –
2Lsh
see Fig. 7). The experimental cross section rotation measurements
However, Eq. (13) is correct only in cases where the curvature is are shown in Fig. 13.
constant over the height for which the shear deformation is mea-
v2  v1
sured and, therefore, any difference in the lengths of the diagonals h¼ ð15Þ
Lsh
is associated with shear deformations only. On the other hand, in
the case of cantilever shear walls the curvature is not constant, The flexural deformation, dfl, can be estimated as:
so the difference in the lengths of the diagonals is attributed to Z hsh
flexural deformations too [36]. Hiraishi [37] proved that the cor- dfl ¼ hdy ¼ ahhsh ð16Þ
rected shear displacement should be calculated as: 0

Fig. 13. Experimental rotation, h, values at the top of the examined panel (a) Wall W7 (b) Wall W9 (c) Wall W11 (d) Wall W13.

Fig. 14. Flexure, dfl, and shear, dsh,cor, displacement values at the top of the examined panel (a) Wall W7 (b) Wall W9 (c) Wall W11 (d) Wall W13.
36 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38

where a is a measure for the variation of the curvature over the The average shear deformation, c = (c1 + c2)/2, within the area
height of the panel. The value of a varies between 0.5 and 1. For a hsh can be calculated as:
constant curvature (pure bending), a equals to 0.5, if the curvature
distribution is triangular, a equals to 0.67 and finally, if the defor- dsh;cor
c¼ ð18Þ
mations are concentrated near the base of the shear panel, a tends hsh
toward unity. By substituting Eqs. (15) and (16) into Eq. (14) the
corrected shear displacement is estimated as [37]: Both corrected shear (Eq. (17)) and flexural (Eq. (16)) displace-
ment values at the top of the panel are plotted in Fig. 14. For the
dðd1  d2 Þ
dsh;cor ¼  ða  0:5Þhhsh ð17Þ application of the above equations a value of a = 0.67 was used
2Lsh assuming a triangular curvature distribution (approximately in

Fig. 15. Average shear deformation, c, in the examined panel (a) Wall W7 (b) Wall W9 (c) Wall W11 (d) Wall W13.

Table 5
Deformation and displacement values of the shear panel at the 1st positive cycle.

W7
Cycles Load (kN) h c dfl (mm) dsh,cor (mm) dtot (mm) dsh,cor/dfl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 167.42 0.00395 0.00191 0.795 0.573 1.367 0.72
20 193.35 0.01046 0.00437 2.102 1.310 3.412 0.62
30 203.03 0.01599 0.01078 3.213 3.234 6.447 1.01
40 – – – – – – –
W9
Cycles Load (kN) h c dfl (mm) dsh,cor (mm) dtot (mm) dsh,cor/dfl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 127.06 0.00158 0.00177 0.212 0.353 0.565 1.67
20 164.37 0.00423 0.00470 0.567 0.940 1.507 1.66
30 174.65 0.00813 0.01497 1.090 2.995 4.085 2.75
40 177.02 0.01150 0.02869 1.541 5.737 7.278 3.72
W11
Cycles Load (kN) h c dfl (mm) dsh,cor (mm) dtot (mm) dsh,cor/dfl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 138.52 0.00139 0.00136 0.186 0.271 0.457 1.46
20 171.18 0.00566 0.00137 0.758 0.275 1.033 0.36
30 173.31 0.00723 0.01502 0.969 3.004 3.974 3.10
40 164.38 0.00945 0.04174 1.266 8.348 9.614 6.60
W13
Cycles Load (kN) h c dfl (mm) dsh,cor (mm) dtot (mm) dsh,cor/dfl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 131.69 0.00174 0.00245 0.234 0.490 0.723 2.10
20 157.58 0.00309 0.00543 0.415 1.087 1.501 2.62
30 – – – – – – –
40 – – – – – – –
 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38
the case of a cantilever within the plastic zone), as also proposed in
Massone and Wallace [38]. Note that the curvature parameter, a,
determines the variation dsh,cor/dfl but not the total displacement
dtot = dsh,cor + dfl which remains constant for all values of a. Using
Eq. (18), the average shear deformation values, assumed to repre-
sent the whole plastic zone, are derived as shown in Fig. 15.
Both flexural and shear deformation and displacement values of
the shear panel at the 1st positive cycle of each displacement
group are summarized in Table 5. As shown in Figs. 14 and 15
shear walls W9 and W11 with less shear reinforcement (the exper-
imental data for W13 are available only for displacements ±10 mm
and ± 20 mm) have the tendency to exhibit higher levels of shear
deformations, therefore shear displacements, compared to W7.
EC8-3 (Eq. (1)) assumes the shear deformation to have a constant
value equal to 0.0013 at yielding which approaches with quite
accuracy the experimental measurements at the displacement of
10 mm (approximately at yielding). After yielding, according to
the experimental results, the shear deformations/displacements
tend to get significantly higher values as the crack width gets lar-
ger. The above conclusion is also clearly demonstrated by the
shear-to-flexural displacement ratio, dsh,cor/dfl, included in Table 5.
It should be noted that the displacement ratio of Table 5 refers to
the top of the examined panel and not to the top of the wall. The
examined panel is, in all cases, near the wall base so the shear dis-
placements values are relatively high compared to the flexural
ones in that region. The dsh,cor/dfl displacement ratio should be sig-
nificantly lower if referred to the displacement values at the top of
the wall (dsh,cor/dfl < 1), without, however, changing the conclusion
that in walls with less shear reinforcement the shear deformations
contribute an increasing proportion of the total displacement as
the top displacement increases and the crack width gets larger.
5. Conclusions
Four reinforced concrete shear walls were tested as cantilevers
under static cyclic loading. As concluded from the experimental
results, low ratios of shear reinforcement do not seem to affect
either the bearing or the top deformation capacity of the examined
walls significantly. All four specimens reached a maximum mea-
sured load close to their flexural capacity (higher than the calcu-
lated shear strength), while, in most cases they exhibited a
flexural post-peak behaviour, followed by significant values of
ductility.
On the other hand, low ratios of shear reinforcement seem to
influence the cracking pattern of the walls, characterized by the
formation of significant inclined cracks which, however, did not
lead to a direct loss of the bearing capacity. Thus, although low
ratios of shear reinforcement in existing non-conforming shear
walls seem not to be determinant for the wall behaviour, the sev-
ere cracking mode and generally the interaction between flexure
and shear accelerates the wall failure (strength degradation, pinch-
ing effects) and leads to lower ductility and energy dissipation val-
ues compared to the wall designed according to modern seismic
standards. Moreover, although shear reinforcement does not seem
to determine directly the ultimate values of global (top) displace-
ment, it influences the deformations components; less shear rein-
forcement seems to lead to higher values of shear deformation.
In all cases the sudden loss of the bearing capacity was related
with the deterioration of the compressive zone and mainly with
the buckling of the compressive longitudinal reinforcement. This
was clearly demonstrated through the comparison between two
walls with the same shear reinforcement but with different ratios
of stirrup spacing (L) to longitudinal bar diameter (D) (L/D = 8.33
and L/D = 33.33 respectively).
The experimental results were compared with the provisions
given in EC8-3. The empirical equation of EC8-3 (Eq. (2)) for esti-
37
mating the ultimate displacement value, which has application to
all type of walls, seems to lead to conservative values compared
to the experimental results, being clearly on the safe side. On the
other hand, the analytical expression (Eq. (3)) leads to values closer
to the experimental results. However, the above comparison can be
made only for the specimen designed according to modern regula-
tions, as in EC8-3 there is no proposal of an analytical expression
for members with poor seismic detailing. EC8-3 tries to incorporate
the influence of the shear strength degradation by decreasing the
shear strength value with the inelastic cyclic displacements (Eq.
(5)). However, the above expression seems to underestimate the
shear strength capacity, VR, of the existing non-conforming shear
walls indicating a prior brittle failure and, therefore, poor deforma-
tion capacity, not verified by the experimental results. Note that, as
explained in Section 3.2, EC8-3 strength and deformation values
calculated in the present paper are free of safety and importance
factors. Especially in shear equations, the use of these factors
would have made stronger the conclusion that EC8-3 underesti-
mates the shear strength capacity of the existing non-conforming
shear walls.
References
[1] Barda F, Hanson JM, Corley WG. Shear strength of low-rise walls with
boundary elements. ACI Spec Publ 1977;53:149–202.
[2] Cardenas AE, Magura DD. Strength of high-rise shear walls – rectangular cross
section. ACI Spec Publ 1972;36:119–50.
[3] Cardenas AE, Russell HG, Corley WG. Strength of low-rise structural walls. ACI
Spec Publ 1980;63:221–41.
[4] Oesterle RG, Fiorato AE, Aristizabal-Ochoa JD, Corley WG. Hysteretic response
of reinforced concrete structural walls. ACI Spec Publ 1980;63:243–73.
[5] Oesterle RG, Aristizabal-Ochoa JD, Shiu KN, Corley WG. Web crushing of
reinforced concrete structural walls. ACI J 1984;81(3):231–41.
[6] Paulay T, Priestley MJN, Synge AJ. Ductility in earthquake resisting squat shear
walls. ACI J 1982;79(4):257–69.
[7] Salonikios TN, Kappos AJ, Tegos IA, Penelis GG. Cyclic load behavior of low-
slenderness reinforced concrete walls: design basis and test results. ACI Struct
J 1999;96(4):649–60.
[8] Salonikios TN, Kappos AJ, Tegos IA, Penelis GG. Cyclic load behavior of low-
slenderness reinforced concrete walls: failure modes, strength and
deformation analysis, and design implications. ACI Struct J 2000;97(1):132–42.
[9] Greifenhagen C, Lestuzzi P. Static cyclic tests on lightly reinforced concrete
shear walls. Eng Struct 2005;27(11):1703–12.
[10] Kuang JS, Ho YB. Seismic behavior and ductility of squat reinforced concrete
shear walls with nonseismic detailing. ACI Struct J 2008;105(2):225–31.
[11] Lefas ID, Kotsovos MD. Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced
concrete walls under load reversals. ACI Struct J 1990;87(6):716–26.
[12] Lefas ID, Kotsovos MD, Ambraseys NN. Behavior of reinforced concrete
structural walls: strength, deformation characteristics, and failure
mechanism. ACI Struct J 1990;87(1):23–31.
[13] Pilakoutas K, Elnashai A. Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete cantilever
walls, Part I: experimental results. ACI Struct J 1995;92(3):271–81.
[14] Pilakoutas K, Elnashai AS. Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete cantilever
walls, Part II: discussions and theoretical comparisons. ACI Struct J 1995;92
(4):425–33.
[15] Christidis K, Vougioukas E, Trezos KG. Seismic assessment of existing RC shear
walls non-compliant with current code provisions. Mag Concr Res 2013;65
(17):1059–72.
[16] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at
yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J 2001;98(2):135–48.
[17] Biskinis DE, Roupakias GK, Fardis MN. Degradation of shear strength of
reinforced concrete members with inelastic cyclic displacements. ACI Struct J
2004;101(6):773–83.
[18] Biskinis D. Strength and deformation capacity of reinforced concrete members
with or without strengthening [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of Patras; 2007
(in Greek).
[19] Biskinis D, Fardis MN. Deformations at flexural yielding of members with
continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 2010;11:127–38.
[20] Biskinis D, Fardis MN. Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members
with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 2010;11:93–108.
[21] Fardis MN. Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings
based on EN-Eurocode8. Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer; 2009.
[22] Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN. Strength, deformation capacity and
failure mode of RC walls in cyclic loading. In: 4th International fib Congress
and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, February 10–13; 2014.
[23] Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN. Improved analytical model for shear strength of
circular reinforced concrete columns in seismic regions. ACI Struct J 2000;97
(3):388–96.
38 K.I. Christidis, K.G. Trezos / Engineering Structures 140 (2017) 26–38
[24] Krolicki J, Maffei J, Calvi GM. Shear strength of reinforced concrete walls
subjected to cyclic loading. J Earthquake Eng 2011;15(S1):30–71.
[25] Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessment and
retrofitting of buildings (EN 1998-3:2005). Brussels: European Committee
for Standardization; 2005.
[26] Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 3:
Assessment and retrofitting of buildings (EN 1998-3: 2005/
AC). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2010.
[27] Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules for buildings
EN (1992-1-1:2004). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization;
2004.
[28] Newman K, Newman JB. Failure theories and design criteria for plain concrete.
Solid Mech. and Engrg. Des.. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1971.
[29] Christidis K, Vougioukas E, Trezos KG. Deformation capacity of older RC shear
walls: Experimental assessment and comparison with Eurocode 8 – Part 3
provisions. In: Ansal MA, Nurlu M, editors. 2ECEES – 2nd European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Istanbul, Turkey.
[30] Christidis KI, Anagnostopoulou VV, Trezos KG, Zeris CA. Deformation capacity
of non-conforming RC shear walls: analytical and numerical estimation – test
verification. In: Papadrakakis M, Papadopoulos V, Plevris V, editors. COMPDYN
2015-5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in
structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. Crete Island, Greece.
[31] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Jeremic B, Scott MH. OpenSees command language
manual, 2007.
[32] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div ASCE
1971;97(7):1969–90.
[33] Chang GA, Mander JB. Seismic energy basic fatigue damage analysis of bridge
columns: Part I – Evaluation of seismic capacity. Technical report NCEER-94-
0006. Buffalo: University of New York; 1994.
[34] Dhakal RP, Maekawa K. Path-dependent cyclic stress–strain relationship of
reinforcing bar including buckling. Eng Struct 2002;24(11):1383–96.
[35] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
[36] Beyer K, Dazio A, Priestley MJN. Shear deformations of slender
reinforced concrete walls under seismic loading. ACI Struct J 2011;108
(2):167–77.
[37] Hiraishi H. Evaluation of shear and flexural deformations of flexural type shear
walls. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthquake Eng 1984;17(2):135–44.
[38] Massone LM, Wallace JW. Load-deformation responses of slender reinforced
concrete walls. ACI Struct J 2004;101(1):103–13.