See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304989648

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS FOR A

PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN

Conference Paper · August 2014

CITATIONS READS

3 140

6 authors, including:

Susumu Kono Rafik Taleb

Tokyo Institute of Technology Saad Dahlab University
85 PUBLICATIONS   158 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Règles Parasismiques Algériennes View project

Seismic Performance of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Walls View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rafik Taleb on 07 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS
FOR A PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN
Susumu KONO1, Msanori TANI2, Tomohisa MUKAI2, Hiroshi FUKUYAMA2,
Rafik TALEB3 and Masanobu SAKASHITA4

ABSTRACT

A nationwide research project has been carried out since 2008 to revise the Japanese Building
Standard. Until 2014 more than fifty topics were studied covering various research areas such as
clarification of seismic behaviors of structural components, definition of design load from tsunami,
development of materials to enhance fire protection and energy saving, and etc. Among these topics,
ten topics covered structural behaviors of reinforced concrete members. Behavior of structural walls
under seismic loading is one of the main issues investigated in the field of reinforced concrete
structures. The authors carried out a series of quasi-static cyclic tests on reinforced concrete walls in
2011 and 2012 in order to study the ultimate drift capacity and progress of damage. Test variables
involved wall section geometry, reinforcement details of section end, and axial force level.
Based on the experiments and accompanying numerical studies, following conclusions were found.
The ultimate drift capacity generally increased as axial load level decreased, the size of confined end
region increased, the amount of confining reinforcement increased, and shear span ratio increased. The
ultimate drift capacities were simulated by combining a flexural fiber model and a tri-linear shear
model. When the plastic hinge length was properly optimized so that the simulated ultimate drift
capacity was sufficiently accurate for design, the determined plastic hinge length was larger than the
values computed by Priestley et al.’s formula but smaller than half the wall length reported by Wallace
and Moehle.

INTRODUCTION

The ministry of land, infrastructure, transport and tourism (MLIT) in Japan is equivalent to the
ministry of construction in other countries. It has been promoting multiple nationwide research
projects to improve the Japanese building standard [1] since 2008 including several projects on
reinforced concrete structural walls. The authors carried out a two-year project for developing
displacement based design criteria of reinforced concrete structural walls with a collaboration with
other universities. Some of the topics include:
1. Evaluation of the ultimate displacement capacity so that the ductility factor of the building
can be propertly determined. The effects of section configuration (such as T-shape or L-
shape), boundary columns on the ultimate drift capacity are clarified.
2. Evaluation of damage at the serviceability and repairability limit states by quantifiying
cracking and crushing of concrete, and yielding of reinforcement.

1
Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama, Japan. kono@serc.titech.ac.jp
2
Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan. mtani@kenken.go.jp, t_mukai@ , fukuyama@
3
Ph.D. candidate, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama, Japan. taleb_rafik@yahoo.fr
4
Assistant Professor, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. sakashita@archi.kyoto-u.ac.jp

1
 3. Evaluation of effects of number of cycles on the damage and hysteresis of load-
displacement relations so that the numerical model is developed for long-period
earthquakes.
4. Evaluation of the effect of out-of-plane displacement on the in-plane performance.

Among these topics, this paper discusses the first topic on the ultimate deformation.
The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) published the revised version of reinforced concrete
building standard (AIJ RC Standard) [4] in 2010. The 2010 AIJ RC standard relaxed requirements on
boundary columns which had been mandatory in the 1999 AIJ RC standard [5]. The 2010 standard
allows the design of rectangular section walls with good confinement at section end regions. The end
region, which is supposed to act equivalently as a boundary column, should be well confined so that
structural walls with a rectangular section have similar seismic performance to those with boundary
columns.
In the two-year project, nine structural wall specimens were tested by varying geometry of
boundary columns, reinforcement details of end regions, and axial force level. The paper describes the
experimental setups and results, and accompanying numerical simulations. Then the characteristic
points of backbone curves were simulated using existing procedures by paying special attention to the
ultimate displacement capacity.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Specimens and loading setups
The experiment investigated the behavior of symmetric structural walls. Nine specimens were
prepared as shown in Table 1. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show dimensions and reinforcement arrangement.
“12D10”, for example, stands for twelve deformed bars with 10 mm diameter. The first seven
specimens had shear strength to flexural strength ratio more than 1.25 so that they reach the flexural
yielding point first and then fail in shear or flexure. The last two specimens (BC and NC) had similar
capacities with respect to shear and flexure but was set to have lower sliding shear capacity by Refs.
[2] and [3].
Four specimens in 2011 (BC40, BC80, NC40 and NC80) had two test variables; section
configuration (barbell shape or rectagular shape) and amount of confining reinforcement at end
regions. BC40 and BC80 had a barbell shape section with boundary columns. NC40 and NC80 had a
rectangular section with no boundary columns although end regions had confining reinforcement. Four
specimens had identical wall length, total section area, and confined area with similar flexural
strengths. Based on the ultimate limit compressive strain defined by Mander et al. [6], the predicted
ultimate drift angle for BC40 and NC40 exceeded 1.5% and that for BC80 and NC80 was smaller than
1.5%.
Three specimens in 2012 (MC, SC and HN) were made to study buckling of vertical
reinforcement at the ultimate conditions. They had different amount of confined section area and shear
reinforcement and axial force levels without boundary columns. MC was set as a standard specimen
among three specimens. SC had the same amount of confining shear reinforcement volume ratio, ρwv,
but confined section area was halved. HN had two times larger confined section area with similar
predicted ultimate drift ratio compared to MC. The axial load for HN was 1200kN and was two times
larger than that for MC and SC.
The last two specimens in 2012 (BC and NC) were prepared to study the sliding shear failure
at the wall base. Hence, the axial load ratio (axial load divided by the product of the wall section area
and concrete strength) was set as low as 0.033.
Loading setup is shown in Figure 3(a). Damage process was recorded in the experiment. Since
cracking is one of the main types of damage which requires large amount of repair cost, the crack
width for peak load and unloaded conditions were systematically recorded. Data on cracks included
the location, width, type (shear, flexure, bond) and length at the peak and unloaded stages. Many data
are in an analog format and it takes time to transform them to meaningful data. This damage data will
be discussed elsewhere.

2
 S. Kono, M. Tani and others 3

D6@80(Shear) D6@40(Shear)
NC80 12D10 NC40

25

25
D6@200 100 60 12D10 12D10 D6@200 100 60 12D10
128

128
78

78
25

25
D6@200 98 98 98 98 98 25 D6@200 98 98 98 98 98 25
1750 1750

BC80
12D10 25 25 12D10
BC4012D10 25 25 12D10

100 100 25

100 100 25
D6@200 100
80 D6@200 100
250

250
D6@80(Shear) D6@200 D6@40(Shear)
D6@200

25

25
25 100 100 25 25 100 100 25
250 1250 250 250 1250 250
1750 1750

50 D4@80(Shear) 50 D4@40(Shear)
MC SC

25
D4@50 D4@50
120

120
25 70
150 24x50 50 50 50 50 50 25 118 28x50 50 50 50 25
1750 1750

D4@40(Shear)
HN

25
10D10 D4@50 10D10
120

25 70
150 16x50 50 100 100 100 100 25
1750

BC NC

Figure 1. Plan view of specimens (Unit: mm).

275 1750 275

B 800
400
1700
400

B 800
B- B
275 1750 275

(a) NC40(left) and NC80(right) (b) MC (c) NC

Figure 2. Elevation of selected specimens (Unit: mm).

Out-of-plane movement Out-of-plane

was restrained by two movement was
hydraulic jacks behind restrained with
the specimen. this device.a

Displacement
gages
Displacement
gages

(a) Test in 2011 (b) Test in 2012

Figure 3. Loading setups (Unit: mm).
 Table 1. Major properties and variables of wall specimens.
Elevation Confined end region Wall panel Axial
D×h Vertical force
Dimension Long. Shear
Year Specimen （Shear Thickness and （Axial
(mm) rebar rebar
span） (mm) Horizontal force
b×D (pgc) (pwc)
(mm) rebars (pw) level）
3-D6@40
BC40 D6@100
8-D10 (0.95%)
1750 216×216 80 Staggered
(0.91%) 2-D6@80
BC80 (0.40%)
×2800 1500kN
2011

(0.32%)
（3000) 4-D6@40
D6@100 (0.11)
NC40
12-D10 (2.47%)
94×506 128 Staggered
(1.29%) 4-D6@80
NC80 (0.25%)
(1.24%)
10-D10 4-D4@80
MC 84×214
(2.56%) (1.36%) 600kN
1750
6-D10 2-D4@40 2-D4@50 (0.10)
SC ×1700 84×114 120
(2.70%) (1.46%) (0.47%)
（2400)
2012

10-D10 4-D4@40 1200kN

HN 84×414
(1.38%) (2.61%) (0.20)
1500 8-D10 D4@40 2-D4@80 300kN
BC 200x200 91
x1700 (1.43%) (0.53%) (0.39%) (0.030)
8-D10 D4@40 2-D4@80 300kN
NC (2400) 120x200 120
(2.38%) (0.59%) (0.29%) (0.033)
1) Axial force level was defined as the ratio of axial load to the nominal axial force capacity. The nominal axial force capacity was computed
using the total section area of columns and a wall panel.
2) Shear span was the distance from the contraflexure point to the top of the lower stub.
3) D4 and D10 stand for deformed bars with diameter of 4 mm and 10 mm, respectively.

Table 2. Mechanical properties of concrete and reinforcement.

Concrete Steel
Comp. Young’s Splitting Type of Yield Young’s Tensile
Specimen
strength modulus strength Reinforcing strength modulus strength
(MPa) (GPa) (MPa) bars (MPa) (GPa) (MPa)
BC80, BC40 59.5 30.9 5.10 D6 387 189 496
NC80, NC40 52.5 30.1 3.66 D10 377 194 533
MC 29.6 33.0 2.60
D4 395 190 524
SC 27.5 29.5 2.24
D10 385 196 524
HN 27.8 31.0 2.52
BC 35.2 28.2 2.68 D4 384 180 523
NC 35.5 28.7 2.80 D10 348 182 467

Test results
Damage conditions near the peak load are shown in Figure 4. Until the peak load, flexure and flexure-
shear type cracks spread over the wall panel. Spalling of concrete at the compressive fiber was
observed at drift ratio (R) in the range of 0.5% to 1.0%. Buckling of vertical bars was seen at the end
of the loading test and considered to have happened just before or at the peak load from strain gage
readings. However, the impact of buckling on the degradation of load carrying capacity did not seem
profound. Global wall buckling was seen at the very end of large drift ratio. In general, crushing of
concrete at the compression zone mainly caused degradation of lateral load carrying capacity resulting
in flexure compression failure for all specimens. Specimens with rectangular sections showed quick
degradation of lateral load carrying capacity compared to those with barbell shape sections as can be
seen in Figure 5.
Drift at the loading point was decomposed into flexural and shear components using the
displacement gages as shown in Fig. 3. The flexural component ranged from 70% to 90% although
figures are not shown in this paper. The drift due to pullout of longitudinal bars from the lower stub
was also measured by using vertical displacement gages set at wall base with measurement length of
50mm. Contribution of pullout to the drift ranged from 5% to 10%. The drift component from pullout
was included in the flexural contribution in this paper.

4
 S. Kono, M. Tani and others 5

(a) BC40 (R=2%) (b) BC80 (R=2%) (c) NC40 (R=2%) (d) NC80 (R=1.5%) (e) MC (R=0.75%)

(f) SC (R=1.5%) (g) HN (R=0.75%) (h) BC (R=2%) (i) NC (R=2%)

Figure 4. Damage states at the end of loading test.
800 800
600 600
400 400
Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 B…
BC80 -600 NC80
NC80
B…
BC40 NC40
NC40
-800 -800
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Drift ratio(%) Drift ratio (%)
(a) BC40 and BC80 (b) NC40 and NC80
800 800 800

600 600 600

400 400 400

Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)

200 200 200

0 0 0

-200 -200 -200

-400 -400 -400

-600 -600 -600

MC M… SC S… HN H…
-800 -800 -800
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)

(c) MC (d) SC (e) HN

300 300
200 200
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

100 100
0 0
-100 -100
-200 -200
-300 BC -300 NC
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
R (x10-2rad) R (x10-2rad)
(f) BC (g) NC
Figure 5. Load-drift ratio relations.
 Defining the ultimate condition as the twenty percent loss of load carrying capacity, all
specimens failed in a flexural compression mode and buckling did not seem profound. When drift was
increased beyond the ultimate point, the bucking of vertical reinforcement and/or global buckling of
wall panel were observed. In other words, numerical modeling can be made without modeling the
buckling in nine specimens. Based on this observation, the numerical model was constructed as
described in the next section.

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF TEST RESULTS

Modeling of backbone curves
The backbone curve was simulated up to the ultimate drift by adding flexural drift from a section
analysis and shear drift of a tri-linear backbone model. A flexure model in a section analysis consists
of multiple fibers which represent plain concrete, confined concrete, and longitudinal reinforcement.
The stress-strain relation of concrete is shown in Figure 6(a). Plain concrete of a wall panel and cover
concrete was modeled with Popovics model [7] (ascending branch) and a straight line (falling branch).
Confined concrete was modeled by combining Sun-Sakino model [8] and Popovics model [7]. The
ultimate strain of confined concrete was computed with Mander’s model [1] as marked by diamond
shape in Figure 6(a). As shown in Figure 6(c), the distribution of curvature was divided into elastic
and plastic parts assuming the equivalent plastic hinge length was lp. Flexural component of drift, Rf,
was obtained by integrating curvature twice. Shear component of drift, Rs, was computed based on the
AIJ design guidelines [9] as stated in Appendix. Then, Rs was added to Rf to obtain the total drift, R, as
Eq. (1). Interaction between flexure and shear was not considered to compute Rs and Rf.

(1)

Numerical results and discussions

Figure 7 compares the computed and experimental backbone curves for two representative cases. The
results were obtained by optimizing an effecitve plastic hinge length, lp, so that the simulated ultimate
drift did not exceed the test results. The ultimate flexural drift angle, , was computed based on Fig.
6(b) using Eq. (2).

∆ ∆ ∆

(2)

∆
3
∆ 1 ∆ 0.5

where ∆ is the ultimate drift, is the shear span, ∆ is the yield displacement, ∆ is the plastic
displacement, is the yield curvature, and are the yield and ultimate moment capacities, is
the effective plastic hinge length and is the plastic curvature. ∆ was computed assuming that
equals to in this paper.
The effective plastic hinge length, lp, was 350mm (0.2 times wall length, 4.4 times wall
thickness for BC40&BC80, 2.7 times for NC40&NC80) and 600mm (0.34 times wall length, 5.0 times
wall thickness). Priestley’s et al. [10] reported that the effective plastic hinge length can be
approximately estimated as Eq. (3) based on experimental results on columns and beams.

0.08 0.022 (MPa) (3)

where is the shear span, and are the diameter and yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement,
respectively. The values for based on Eq. (3) are 319 mm (BC40, BC80, NC40 and NC80), 273 mm

6
 S. Kono, M. Tani and others 7

(MC, SC and HN) and 265 mm (BC and NC). If these values were used, the ultimate drift capacity
would have been underestimated. The optimized values are smaller than half the wall length, which
Wallace and Moehle [11] reported conservative as a plastinc hinge length.
Computed results for seven specimens are compared with test results in Table 3. Index “”
stands for the ratio of experiment to analytical results. Index “” was computed on load for cracking,
yielding and peak conditions, and was computed on drift for the ultimate condition. The simulated
load values were conservative for cracking but had good accuracy for yielding and peak load. The
simulated ultimate flexural drift, Ruf , agreed well since was optimized (uf ranged from 0.90 to
1.42.). The ultimate drift underestimated the test results (u ranged from 1.38 to1.67.).

A note on instability
Based on the damage at the 2010 Off Maule Earthquake or the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake [12],
there is still a concern that the instability may trigger a load drop. Under the loading conditions for
nine specimen, instability did not have to be considered to simulate the behavior up to the ultimate
condition. However, wall panels may buckle under even larger axial load level, or the vertical
reinforcement may buckle when it experiences large tensile strain history before compression force is
applied. Since nine specimens do not cover a spectra of various seismic loading conditions, it is still
necessary to study more cases for expected seismic loadings and boundary conditions in real buildings.
It is also necessary to study conditions which cause the instability in global and local sense. The
mechanism of reinforcement buckling after experiencing large tensile strain is studied by Dodd and
Restrepo [13] but no quantifying formula has been established to simulate the premature failure.
∆ ∆ 
80
BC40 BC80
Qu 
NC40 NC80
Plain
60
Stress (MPa)

H
40

20

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain (m/m)

(a) Stress-strain relations for concrete (b) Inelastic deformation (c) Curvature distribution
at the ultimate condition at the ultimate condition
Figure 6. Assumptions for a section analysis.
800 800
expRu expRmax
expRy calRy
600 calRmax calRu 600
Q(kN)

Q(kN)

400 400 expRu

expRmax
expRy
200 200 calRy
calRmax
calRu
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
R(%) R(%)

(a) MC (b) HN
Figure 7. Simulated backbone curves and test results for two representative specimens.
 Table 3. Comparison of computed and experimental test results for selected specimens.
Cracking Yielding of reinforcement Peak load Ultimate drift
expQc expRc calQc c expQy expRy calQy y expQmax expRmax calQmax max expRu calRu u expRuf calRuf uf
Specimens
(kN) (%) (kN) ― (kN) (%) (kN) ― (kN) (%) (kN) ― (%) (%) ― (%) (%) ―
(1) (2) (3) (1)/(3) (4) (5) (6) (4)/(6) (7) (8) (9) (7)/(9) (10) (11) (10)/(11) (12) (13) (12)/(13)
BC40 443 +0.12 288 1.54 562 +0.29 479 1.17 634 +1.41 568 1.12 +4.00 2.40 1.67 +2.99 3.21 0.93
BC80 418 +0.08 290 1.44 487 +0.26 482 1.01 633 +1.17 563 1.12 +2.00 1.29 1.55 +1.43 1.59 0.90
NC40 328 +0.07 200 1.64 478 +0.19 431 1.11 606 +1.91 567 1.07 +2.38 1.72 1.38 +1.75 1.53 1.14
NC80 334 +0.09 201 1.66 467 +0.30 434 1.08 598 +1.16 558 1.07 +1.50 1.00 1.50 +1.21 1.06 1.14
MC 284 +0.11 148 1.91 444 +0.30 397 1.12 490 +0.73 438 1.12 +1.53 1.33 1.15 +1.25 1.26 0.99
SC 126 +0.05 151 0.84 420 +0.46 348 1.21 461 +1.40 393 1.17 +1.81 1.15 1.57 +1.58 1.14 1.39
HN 407 +0.10 222 1.84 586 +0.36 593 0.99 611 +0.69 646 0.95 +1.50 1.23 1.22 +1.29 0.94 1.37
1. Values in the positive direction are shown. 2. Values for BC and NC are not shown in this table. 3. The ultimate drift ratio
of experiment, capRu, was taken when the shear capacity dropped by 20% from the peak. If the loading was terminated before
20% drop occurred, the maximum recorded drift ratio was written.

CONCLUSIONS

The experiment was conducted on nine reinforced concrete structural walls to study the effect of
influencing factors on the ultimate drift capacity and other characteristic points of backbone curves.
Considered influencing factors were reinforcement details, configuration of end regions, and axial
force level. All specimens failed by crushing of concrete at the foot of walls after yielding of tensile
longitudinal reinforcement.

1) The ultimate drift capacity increased when a boundary column was present, the axial force level
was low, the confined region size and amount of confinement increased, and shear span ratio
increased.
2) The ultimate drift was simulated conservatively by adding flexural component based on a section
analysis and shear component based on the 1999 AIJ guidelines. In this simulation, the plastic
hinge length was assumed to be a function of wall thickness or length. Using Priestley et al.’s
formula for the effective plastic hinge length, the ultimate drift ratio was underestimated. With
half the wall length as the plastic hinge length reported by Wallace and Moehle, the ultimate drift
ratio was overestimated. Further study is needed to determine the plastic hinge length of walls.
3) It is necessary to study the premature failure of walls with a rectangular section under flexure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research was funded by the promotion of building standard provisions by the Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure, Transportation and Tourism in 2011 and 2012. Graduate students (Mr. Kouhei
Sakamoto and Mr. Kodai Toya) who contributed this project are highly appreciated for their efforts.

REFERENCES

1. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation and Tourism. The Building Standard Law of
Japan, 1950.
2. European Committee for Standardization (2004), Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance
- Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
3. Paulay, T., Priestley, M. J. N., and Synge, A. J. (1982), “Ductility in Earthquake Resisting Squat Shearwalls,”
ACI Journal, Vol. 79, No. 4, 257-269.
4. Architectural Inst. of Japan (2010). AIJ Standards for Structural Calculation of RC Structures,
2010.
5. Architectural Inst. of Japan (1999). AIJ Standards for Structural Calculation of RC Structures,
1999．
6. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined

8
 S. Kono, M. Tani and others 9

Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.114, No.8, August 1988, pp. 1827-1849.
7. Popovics, S.: A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete, Cement
Concrete Research, No. 3, pp. 583-599, 1973.
8. Sakino, K. and Sun, Y., (1994). Stress-strain curve of concrete confined by rectilinear hoop, J.
Structural and Construction Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 461, pp. 95-104. (In
Japanese)
9. Architectural Institute of Japan (1999), Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete
Buildings Based on Inelastic Deformation , Sec. 3.2.8 Hysteresis characteristics for structural
walls, AIJ, pp. 326-327. (In Japanese)
10. Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Calvi, G. M., Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, Wiley-
Interscience, 1996.
11. John W. Wallace and Jack P. Moehle, ”Ductility and Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall
Buildings.” J. Struct. Eng., 118(6), pp. 1625–1644, 1992.
12. Architectural Institute of Japan, Reconnaissance Report on The 2010 Chile Off Maule Earthquake
and Reconnaissance Report on The 2011 New Zealand Christchurch Earthquake, p. 313, 2012.9.
13. Dodd, L. L. and Restrepo, J. I., Model for Predicting Cyclic Behavior of Reinforcing Steel,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(3), 433-445, 1995.

APPENDIX

The relation between shear force, Q , and shear strain,  , employed the backbone curve listed in AIJ
design guidelines9. It is expressed as a tri-linear curve in Figure 8. Two characteristic points
correspond to shear cracking and shear yielding.

Shear force Q

 3GAW
W Qy

 2 GAW
W QSC

 y GAW
GAW Shear strain 
C y
Figure 8. Tri-linear backbone curve model for shear force – shear strain relation for walls9

Shear cracking point

 SC  tl
W QSC is the shear cracking force and expressed as W QSC   .
kW
 SC is the shear cracking strength of concrete and expressed as  SC  C  t C  t   0  .
  t is the tensile strength of concrete and expressed as C  t  0.369 B . ( C  t and
0.73
C

 B are in kgf/cm2)  0 is the compressive stress due to axial force. (kgf/cm2)

t is the wall thickness, l is the center-to-center distance of boundary columns.
31  u 1  u 2 1  v 
kW is the shape factor and is expressed as kW 
41  u 3 1  v 
for rectangle section.

u is the ratio of internal length to the total length of shear wall and expressed as
l' l ' DC
u  . l ' is the internal length of wall width.  DC : Sum of depths of
l '  DC l ' DC
t
two boundary columns. v 
bC
 is a reduction factor to compute the reliable shear crack strength. It ranges from 0.77 to 1.0
and 0.77 was used in this analysis.
QSC
 C is the shear cracking strain and expressed as  C  W
.
GAW
G is the elastic shear modulus and AW is the section area of the wall.

Shear yielding point

W Q y is shear force for the shear cracking and is expressed as

 0.053 pte 0.23 Fc  180  
Q    2 . 7 p    0 . 1 be j . ( Fc is in kgf/cm2)
W y  M Qd   0.12 Wh Wh 0 
 
Fc is the compressive strength of concrete (kgf/cm ). be is the width of the equivalent
2

rectangular section which has a same length of the wall with a barbell shape section. j is the
external length of the wall. pte is the steel ratio of equivalent tensile vertical reinforcement in
a
percent and expressed as pte  100 t . d is the effective width of the wall. pWh is the steel
be d
ratio of horizontal wall panel shear reinforcement assuming be is the effective width of the wall.
a
It is expressed as pWh  Wh .
ae s
aWh is the area of horizontal wall panel shear reinforcement. a e is the effective width of the wall.
s is the spacing for shear reinforcement.
M Q is the shear span.
 y is the shear yield strain and assumed as 0.004.

Property of the third branch

The slope of the third branch is assumed as  3 GAW .  3  0.001 .

10

View publication stats