Seismic Behavior of Squat Reinforced

Concrete Shear Walls

Pedro A. Hidalgo,a) Christian A. Ledezma,a) and Rodrigo M. Jordana)
The behavior of reinforced concrete walls that exhibit the shear mode of
failure is studied, through the results of an experimental program that included the test of 26 full-scale specimens subjected to cyclic horizontal displacements of increasing amplitude. Test parameters were the aspect ratio of
the walls, the amount of vertical and horizontal distributed reinforcement,
and the compressive strength of concrete. The results include the cracking
shear strength, the maximum shear strength, the drifts associated to these
loads and the drift associated to a collapse limit state for each of the specimens tested. Conclusions are drawn concerning the deformation capacity, the
energy absorption, the dissipation characteristics and the strength deterioration after maximum strength shown by the walls and the influence of vertical
distributed reinforcement on the seismic behavior of walls.
[DOI: 10.1193/1.1490353]
INTRODUCTION
Earthquake-resistant structural systems generally used in reinforced concrete buildings may be one of the following: moment-resisting space frames, shear walls, or a combination of both. The use of shear walls is not predominant in earthquake-prone countries and this fact may explain why moment-resisting space frames have attracted so far
the attention of the majority of researchers. However, shear wall systems have shown
better performance than the space frame systems, as noted many years ago by Fintel
(1974) and evidenced by the behavior of Chilean buildings during the 3 March 1985
earthquake (Wood 1991).
When shear walls are used in the lateral force resisting system, it is highly desirable
they are designed to exhibit a ductile behavior, as it has been proposed by several researchers (Paulay 1980, Paulay et al. 1982). To achieve this behavior, the designer must
provide the shear walls with a shear strength that yields a lateral shear strength higher
than that required to develop flexural yielding in the vertical boundary reinforcement of
the walls. In such a case, the shear walls would develop a flexural, ductile mode of failure in the event of a severe earthquake. Consequently, the seismic design may be carried
out for lateral forces that are significantly smaller than those that would be required if
the seismic behavior would remain elastic under such earthquake event. Nevertheless,
there are cases where the eventual flexural, ductile behavior of shear walls is not possible to attain, due to the large shear wall cross section area as compared to the floor
plan area or the use of spandrel beams or coupling elements between the walls stiff
enough to impose a rather small value of M/Vlw on the wall, where M is the bending
a)

Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

287

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 18, No. 2, pages 287308, May 2002; 2002, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

288

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

moment at the base of the wall, V the shear force, and lw the length of the wall. Then, the
eventual shear mode of failure of the wall may become quite likely, the ability of the
structural system to absorb and dissipate energy is reduced, and the seismic design must
be carried out for lateral forces larger than those required to design a ductile shear wall.
Yet these larger design forces usually do not pose a design limitation since the lateral
strength of these systems is larger than that of ductile shear wall systems.
The lessons learned from the seismic behavior of Chilean buildings show that detailing of reinforced concrete elements to absorb and dissipate energy through the development of ductile flexural behavior is not the only way to achieve a satisfactory seismic behavior during severe earthquake events. When the total cross section of walls is
large enough, that is, 0.02 to 0.04 times the floor plan area in each direction of seismic
resistance for buildings up to 25 stories high, flexural yielding of boundary reinforcement of walls is kept at a moderate level in tall buildings and practically does not develop in low-rise buildings. Additionally, shear stresses in the walls are limited to reasonably small values. These facts yield to a satisfactory control of the structural damage,
and far more important, to a system where collapse is almost unthinkable. From a conceptual point of a view, development of excessive ductility and structural damage are
prevented because of the considerable lateral strength and the stiffness of the shear wall
system. This fact is also important to control damage in nonstructural elements. Finally,
but not less important, all these benefits may be obtained with methods of design and
construction that are much less sophisticated than those required for the development of
ductile inelastic behavior in the structural elements under severe earthquake events.
Nevertheless, the extrapolation of this successful experience to design and construction of buildings in other earthquake-prone countries may not be easy for a number of
reasons. Engineering communities have their particular characteristics concerning architectural layouts, building construction skills and cost of workmanship, soil conditions,
etc. As a matter of fact, the authors do not intend to advocate a change in the seismic
design philosophy used in countries such as New Zealand or the United States. However,
this fact cannot be used to deny significance to the study of the characteristics of seismic
behavior of nonductile shear wall systems that have been successfully used in other
countries. In the present study, the behavior of walls that exhibit the shear mode of failure is investigated, since many Chilean buildings showed this type of behavior during
past severe earthquakes.
The need of this study has been originated by the limited knowledge about the seismic behavior of buildings with the nonductile shear wall structural system. Since the
Chilean seismic design provisions (Instituto Nacional de Normalizacion 1996) do not
require the buildings to have the amount of walls indicated above, construction practice
has shown a tendency to reduce such amount, with consequences that cannot be clearly
foreseen. Therefore, the ultimate objective of this research program is to develop a mathematical model that is able to predict the seismic inelastic behavior of this type of buildings, including both the flexural- and the shear-mode of failure of the structural walls
under a severe earthquake event. As a first step, 26 full-scale squat shear walls were
tested under cyclic lateral deformations as described below.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

289

Most of the limited amount of research published in the past on the seismic behavior
of reinforced concrete shear walls has addressed two topics: the ultimate shear strength
and the criteria to design the walls against shear. The ultimate shear strength has been
studied from two different approaches: the derivation of empirical expressions from test
results (Kokusho and Ogura 1970, Cardenas and Magura 1973, Barda et al. 1977, Vallenas et al. 1979, Aktan and Bertero 1985, Wood 1989, Wood 1990, Tan et al. 1995), and
the development of rational models based on the basic concepts of structural mechanics
(Collins and Mitchell 1986, Aoyama 1991, Perez and Pantazopoulou 1996). Among
these models the strut-and-tie models for shear behavior deserve special attention (Yanez
et al. 1989, Siao 1993). Most of the seismic design provisions found in codes to estimate
the ultimate shear strength of walls follow the first of these approaches. Among them,
the ACI provisions (Cardenas et al. 1973, ACI Committee 318 1999), which have been
in effect since 1971, are perhaps the most widely used in earthquake-prone countries.
The other topic found in the literature is the study of the design criteria for walls
against shear. It is a well-known fact that the energy absorption and dissipation capacities found in the shear mode of failure are considerably less than those in the flexural
mode of failure. In the moment-resisting space frame system it is possible to prevent the
shear mode of failure and to develop the flexural failure in the so-called plastic hinges,
but this is not always feasible in the shear wall system. In 1965, Muto (1965) proposed
to slit the walls vertically in order to transform them into a series of columns. Later,
Paulay et al. (1971, 1980, 1982) made significant contributions to postpone or control
the shear failure in coupling beams and shear walls. The same design philosophy has
been followed by Japanese researchers (Hirosawa et al. 1988). Aktan and Bertero (1985)
emphasized the deficiencies of seismic design codes to correctly estimate the maximum
shear force that can be developed in shear walls during an earthquake. Then they proposed changes in the maximum nominal shear stress that can be used in walls in order to
ensure the development of the flexural mode of failure. A few years ago, Hsu and Mo
(1985), Mau and Hsu (1986), and Mo (1988) developed expressions to predict the seismic behavior of squat shear walls and proposed design procedures to select the desired
mode of failure.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The wall specimens were tested in the test setup shown in Figure 1, which was designed to prevent the rotation of both top and bottom ends of the specimen while the
horizontal cyclic load was applied at mid-height of the walls. Reinforced concrete blocks
were used to attach the test frame to top and bottom to anchor the specimen. A discussion on the amount of rotation allowed by the test setup at the top section of specimens
is included in this paper. Though the test setup has the capability of imposing an axial
compressive force on the specimens, all the tests reported here included zero axial compression on the walls except for the own weight of the wall and of the test setup. In the
structural systems of buildings the gravitational axial force on the shear walls may increase or decrease due to the seismic action. On the other hand, the shear strength of
walls increases with increasing compressive stresses and decreases as the compressive
force is reduced or changes into a tensile force. Consequently, the ACI provisions to es-

290

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Figure 1. Test setup.

timate the shear strength of walls neglect the effect of compressive stresses in increasing
the shear strength, and this is the reason to have designed the tests with no axial force on
the specimens.
The characteristics of wall specimens are shown in the first ten columns of Table 1.
Specimens numbered 17 through 20 were not part of this study since their tests had
other objectives. All of them were squat walls having aspect ratios M/Vlw between 0.35
and 1.00, where M is the bending moment at the base of the wall assuming that rotation
is zero at both ends of the specimen, V the shear force and lw the length of the wall. All
the walls were designed with enough boundary vertical reinforcement Asb to prevent the
flexural failure (Asb is the vertical reinforcement area at each of the vertical sides of the
wall). Other test parameters were the amount of vertical and horizontal distributed
reinforcementthe minimum amount according to ACI 318 (ACI Committee 318 1999),
half of minimum and noneand the compressive strength of concrete. Yield strengths of
reinforcement, f y , and the cylindrical strength of concrete determined on the same day
of the test are also shown in Table 1. Due to the reduced thickness tw of walls, the distributed vertical and horizontal reinforcement were placed in one layer only. Specimens
3 and 5 have not been included because they were tested under axial compression. In
Table 1, hw denotes the height of the specimen and v and h are the distributed vertical
and horizontal reinforcement ratios, respectively.
Instrumentation of specimens included the measurement of the top horizontal displacement of the wall, the rotation of its top section, and the relative rotation between
horizontal sections, as shown in Figure 2. In most of the specimens, strain gauges were
attached to both the vertical and horizontal reinforcement, one strain gauge for each bar,

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

291

Table 1. Characteristics of wall specimens and test results

M
tw
lw
hw
SPECIMEN (cm) (cm) (cm) Vlw
1
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

12
12
12
12
12
12
10
8
10
10
10
8
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
8

100
100
100
130
130
130
130
130
140
140
140
170
170
170
130
130
130
130
140
140
140
140
150
150
150
150

200
200
200
180
180
180
180
180
140
140
140
120
120
120
180
180
180
180
140
140
140
140
105
105
105
105

1.00
1.00
1.00
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35

h
(%)

v
(%)

0.131
0.246
0.381
0.131
0.246
0.246
0.255
0.250
0.127
0255
0.255
0.125
0.250
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.000

0.251
0.251
0.251
0.259
0.125
0.259
0.255
0.250
0.255
0.127
0.255
0.250
0.125
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250

fy
f c
Asb
Vcr cr
Vu
u
(MPa) (MPa) (cm2) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
392
402
402
314
471
471
366
367
362
366
370
366
366
366
431
431
431
431
431
431

19.4
19.6
19.5
17.6
18.1
15.7
17.6
16.4
16.3
17.0
18.1
17.1
19.0
18.8
24.2
17.2
24.2
23.9
23.9
17.7
23.9
23.3
23.2
17.9
23.1
23.3

10.2
10.2
12.7
10.2
10.2
10.2
9.1
7.6
8.0
8.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
11.1
6.0
6.0
6.0
9.1
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
6.0

136
131
150
215
213
222
223
116
153
138
144
230
(*)
183
162
148
232
173
177
126
244
151
227
159
133
130

(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
0.21
0.10
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.08
(*)
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.20
0.09
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.06

198
270
324
309
364
374
258
187
235
304
289
255
368
362
258
222
333
323
352
262
491
258
400
356
391
344

0.66
0.75
0.75
0.44
0.63
0.55
0.54
0.46
0.35
0.50
0.35
0.25
0.42
0.37
0.28
0.27
0.36
0.21
0.60
0.46
0.64
0.31
0.51
0.63
0.35
0.38

(*) No data registered

1 kfg/cm20.102 MPa14.8 psi; 1 kN0.225 kip102 kgf; 1 cm10 mm0.394 in

along the diagonals that joined opposite corners of the walls. The horizontal load was
measured by the load cell located at the end of the horizontal actuator (Figure 1).
The loading sequence of each test consisted of sets of two displacement cycles at a
specified displacement amplitude, as shown in Figure 3. The specified amplitude was
gradually increased and followed a sequence that varied according to the aspect ratio, as
shown in Figure 3. The duration of each cycle was approximately 10 minutes. The test
was displacement controlled and monitored by a computer that also acquired the data; it
could be stopped at any time to record the appearance and propagation of cracks, verify
instrumentation, etc. All tests were finished when lateral strength of the specimen had
dropped to 75% of the maximum value, approximately. The simulated seismic loading
test procedures that have been used in other countries have considered three or more
cycles at each specified displacement amplitude. However, these tests have also shown

292

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Figure 2. Instrumentation of specimens (LVDTs only).

that no significant change is observed between the second and subsequent cycles at the
same amplitude, before maximum shear strength is attained. Consequently, only two
cycles at each amplitude were used in this test program.
TEST RESULTS
The last four columns of Table 1 show the main results obtained from the test. The
cracking load Vcr is defined as the load at which a change in the slope of the envelope of
the load-displacement relationship is observed; the new value of the stiffness of the
specimens is about 60% of the initial stiffness. The cracking load is generally very close
to the load that produced the first diagonal crack from corner to corner of the specimen.
The value of Vcr indicated in Table 1 is the average value of the cracking loads for both

Figure 3. Displacement sequence.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

293

actuator directions. Likewise, the value of Vu corresponds to the average value of the
maximum shear loads attained during the test in both directions, and cr and u are the
drift ratios associated to the average values of the horizontal displacements at the top
section at Vcr and Vu , respectively. In all cases, the values that were averaged were quite
similar and corresponded to the same or consecutive cycles of the test sequence. The
discussion related to the cracking strength Vcr , the maximum strength Vu , the contribution of concrete and of reinforcement to shear strength, and the influence of other parameters of this experimental program on the shear strength of walls will be the subject
of a subsequent paper.
Figures 4a through 4n show the load vs. top displacement hysteresis curves for
specimens 1 through 16, while Figures 5a through 5l show the hysteresis curves and
cracking patterns for specimens 21 through 32. The behavior shown in all cases is
clearly controlled by the shear mode of failure; initial behavior is practically linearelastic but pinching of hysteresis curves appears as soon as diagonal cracking develops,
reflecting the transition between closing of cracks in one direction and opening in the
opposite direction. Although cracking patterns of specimens are not significantly different, the beneficial effects of using horizontal reinforcement to yield a more ductile behavior of the wall are clearly shown. This was particularly true for specimens with aspect ratios equal to or larger than 0.50 (see Figures 5c for specimen 23 and 5g for
specimen 27), but was not the case for the specimen 31 that had an aspect ratio of 0.35
(Figure 5k). Another result that may be drawn from the comparison of Figures 5a, c, and
d (aspect ratio of 0.69), and of 5e, g, and h (aspect ratio of 0.50), is the lack of importance of the distributed vertical reinforcement in the strength and energy absorption
characteristics of shear walls as compared to that of the horizontal reinforcement. This
fact becomes less evident for aspect ratio of 0.35 (see Figures 5i, k, and l). These examples confirm the findings obtained from the test of specimens 1 through 16 and will
be discussed later in this paper. The tests of walls with no distributed reinforcement at all
(Figures 5a, b, e, f, i, and j) show rather poor seismic behavior after the first major diagonal crack is developed. Nevertheless, the positive effect of compressive strength of
concrete in increasing the shear strength was clearly observed in the specimens with aspect ratios of 0.50 and 0.35.
Maximum drift that can be achieved without a significant loss of strength is also
affected by the amount of horizontal distributed reinforcement and by the aspect ratio of
the wall. When there was no such reinforcement or when the aspect ratio was too small
(0.35), the test setup was not able to control the lateral deformation during the step when
the maximum shear strength was attained; this is shown in all of the parts of Figure 5,
with the exception of Figures 5c and g. This fact produced straight lines in the hysteresis
loops; they would have become curved loops if smaller steps had been used in the controlled displacement amplitude.
It is not easy to directly evaluate the behavior of shear walls from the test results
obtained in the present program by comparing them with the relevant existing experimental data described above. The tests reported herein were designed to study the shear
mode of failure. On the other hand, the experimental program carried out by Cardenas
and Magura (1973) had the goal of evaluating the provisions of ACI 318-71 to predict
the shear strength of walls from the point of view of developing the flexural strength of

294

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Figure 4. Hysteresis curves for specimens as follows: (a) specimen 1, (b) specimen 2, (c) specimen 4, and (d) specimen 6. Hysteresis curves for specimens as follows: (e) specimen 7, (f)
specimen 8, (g) specimen 9, and (h) specimen 10. Hysteresis curves for specimens as follows:
(i) specimen 11, (j) specimen 12, (k) specimen 13, and (l) specimen 14. Hysteresis curves for
specimens as follows: (m) specimen 15, and (n) specimen 16.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

295

Figure 4. (Continued)

walls. The tests performed by Barda et al. (1977) considered specimens with boundary
elements, but significant conclusions were drawn concerning the influence of distributed
vertical reinforcement in the shear strength of squat shear walls. The main conclusions
from the tests carried out by Aktan and Bertero (1985) have been stated before. Consequently, the most direct comparison of the results obtained in the present program with
the existing experimental data is through the shear strength of reinforced concrete shear
walls. However, this subject and the evaluation of different models that have been proposed to predict the shear strength of walls will be the subject of a subsequent paper.
Therefore, the following discussion of other characteristics of the behavior associated to
the shear mode of failure only includes the comparison with previous experimental results when they are available.

296

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Figure 5. Hysteresis curves for specimens as follows: (a) specimen 21, (b) specimen 22, (c)
specimen 23, and (d) specimen 24. Hysteresis curves for specimens as follows: (e) specimen
25, (f) specimen 26, (g) specimen 27, and (h) specimen 28. Hysteresis curves for specimens as
follows: (i) specimen 29, (j) specimen 30, (k) specimen 31, and (l) specimen 32.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

297

Figure 5. (Continued)

DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF TEST SPECIMENS

From the load-deformation hysteresis curves, the drift ratio of the shear wall is obtained as the ratio of the lateral deformation and the wall height. Three significant situations have been chosen to characterize the behavior of specimens during each test. They
are, namely, (1) at cracking load Vcr (cr), (2) at the maximum shear strength Vu (u), and
(3) when the strength had dropped to about 80% of the maximum shear strength (ult).
The value of cr may be considered as a serviceability limit of the structural element,
while ult may be associated with the ultimate condition under which the element may
still be considered as an effective part of the resisting mechanism of the structure. The
values of drift ratios cr and u are shown in Table 1, and have been plotted in Figures 6
and 7, respectively, as a function of the aspect ratio and of the amount of the horizontal
and vertical distributed reinforcement. The estimation of ult is not reliable when there is
a sudden failure associated with the development of the maximum shear strength, as
shown in all of the parts of Figure 5 with the exception of Figures 5c and g. In such
cases, the value of ult was estimated using either the positive or the negative branch of
the load-deformation relationship only, whenever this was possible. The values of the
drift ratio ult are obtained from the lateral displacement values ult shown in Table 2 and
the graphical representation is shown in Figure 8.
The experimental values indicated in Figures 6, 7, and 8 show that, in general, deformation capacity of specimens get smaller as the aspect ratio M/Vlw decreases, due to
the increase in their lateral stiffness. As expected, there is practically no influence of the
amount of distributed reinforcement on drift cr , while modest influence on drift u and
a more pronounced influence on drift ult are observed. Values of drift cr are about

298

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Figure 6. Drift at first diagonal cracking.

0.1%, while drift u values vary between 0.2% and 0.8%; values of drift ult vary between 0.3% and 1.3%. This information may be useful to correlate deformation demands
during a severe earthquake event with the degree of damage exhibited by shear walls
having aspect ratios M/Vlw less than unity.
ENERGY DISSIPATION OF SHEAR WALLS
It is interesting to examine the energy absorption and dissipation characteristics of
reinforced concrete walls that exhibit a shear mode of failure. To do this, the normalized dissipated energy (NDE) was defined for a particular hysteresis loop or cycle as
shown in Figure 9. The average value of the normalized dissipated energy was obtained
by summing the energy dissipated in each cycle and dividing the result by the number of
cycles. For specimens 9 through 16, all the cycles between the cracking load Vcr and the
cycle for which the strength had dropped to about 80% of the maximum shear strength
Vu were considered. For the same reasons given above, the evaluation of the average
NDE for specimens 21 through 32 only included the cycles between the cracking load
Vcr and the maximum shear strength Vu . No computation of energy dissipation was
available for specimens 1 through 8. Numerical values are given in Table 3. The graphical representation of the average values of NDE as a function of the aspect ratio and of
the amount of the horizontal and vertical distributed reinforcement are shown in Figures
10a and b. The most significant conclusion that may be drawn from these figures is that

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

299

Figure 7. Drift at maximum strength.

the average value of NDE seems to be independent of the variation of aspect ratio and of
the variation of both horizontal and vertical distributed reinforcement, at a value of
about 23%.
STRENGTH DETERIORATION AFTER MAXIMUM SHEAR STRENGTH
One of the relevant characteristics of the behavior after maximum shear strength has
been attained is the strength deterioration that is apparent from the hysteresis loops. To
quantify this deterioration the definition shown in Figure 11 was used. The straight line
that could best fit the descending portion of the load-deformation curve was used to define the parameter m. The numerical values obtained from this definition are shown in
Table 2. Although the values of u to define the strength deterioration m were the same
as those used to define drift u , the values of ult were somewhat different than those
used to determine ult , as indicated in Note 2 of Table 2. The graphical representation of
the strength deterioration m as a function of the aspect ratio and of the amount of the
horizontal and vertical distributed reinforcement is shown in Figures 12a and b. As it can
be observed, strength deterioration increases with decreasing values of the aspect ratio
and of both horizontal and vertical reinforcement. As the aspect ratio goes from 1.0 to
0.35, and reinforcement ratios decrease from 0.25% to none, typical strength deterioration shows a maximum rate of 20 kN per millimeter of the lateral wall displacement.

300

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Table 2. Ultimate displacement and strength deterioration after maximum shear strength
SPECIMEN

M/(Vlw)

h
(%)

1
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

1.00
1.00
1.00
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35

0.13
0.25
0.38
0.13
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.13
0.26
0.26
0.13
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00

v
(%)

ult
(mm)

ult
(mm)

m
(kN/mm)

m
(kN/mm)

ult
(mm)

m
(kN/mm)

0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.25
0.13
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25

18.5
25.3
25.0(2)
20.0(2)
20.0(2)
20.8(2)
15.0(2)
15.0(2)
10.0
8.2
10.0
4.3
6.3
5.9
(3)
(3)
11.5
(3)
7.1(2)
(3)
10.4(2)
5.0
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

(1)
26.9
23.4
14.20
20.0(2)
20.0(2)
21.2(2)
15.7
10.8(2)
11.3
10.8(3)
4.6
6.5
6.3
(3)
5.0(2)
16.5
4.2(2)
(3)
6.7(2)
12.7
(3)
(3)
6.0
(3)
(3)

1.31
8.60
7.28
3.30
3.64
5.11
5.84
3.23
8.83
16.70
11.68
15.32
55.63
21.18
(3)
(3)
8.77
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
20.80
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

(1)
4.44
6.99
7.83
3.76
6.70
4.88
4.46
6.00
18.71
7.61
15.72
43.80
18.40
(3)
(3)
9.98
(3)
(3)
(3)
23.40
(3)
(3)
21.50
12.00
(3)

18.5
26.1
24.2
17.1
20.0
20.4
18.1
15.4
10.4
9.8
10.4
4.5
6.4
6.1
(3)
5.0
14.0
4.2
7.1
6.7
11.6
5.0
(3)
6.0
(3)
(3)

1.31
6.52
7.14
5.57
3.70
5.91
5.36
3.85
7.42
17.71
9.65
15.52
49.72
19.79
(3)
(3)
9.38
(3)
(3)
(3)
23.40
20.80
(3)
21.50
12.00
(3)

(1) No strength deterioration was observed (very ductile type of failure).

(2) Maximum displacement registered during test, not necessarily associated to the eighty percent of the
maximum strength. These were tests where brittle or ductile type of failure was observed.
(3) No reliable data was available.

ANALYSIS OF ROTATION OF TOP SECTION OF SHEAR WALLS

The most significant parameter of wall specimens tested in this program is their aspect ratio. It can be expressed as the ratio M/Vlw , where V is the shear force, lw is the
length, and M is the bending moment at the base of the wall assuming zero rotation at
both top and bottom cross sections of the specimen. The assumption of zero rotation at
the top section is examined in the following.
As shown in Figure 1, rotation of the top beam of the test setup is prevented through
its linking to the upper steel beam. Therefore, the following relationships hold for the
fixed-end bending moments M and the shear force V:

2MVhw

(1)

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

301

Figure 8. Drift at ultimate.

M/Vlwhw /2lw

(2)

Nevertheless, as the wall develops cracks that are not symmetric with respect to the
mid-height section and the behavior ceases to be linear-elastic, Equations 1 and 2 do not
exactly represent the distribution of internal forces in the specimen. As the top section

Figure 9. Definition of normalized dissipated energy NDE.

302

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Table 3. Average normalized dissipated energy

SPECIMEN

M/(V*lw)

h
(%)

v
(%)

Enorm. Vu
(%)

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

0.69
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.39
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35

0.26
0.25
0.13
0.26
0.26
0.13
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00

0.26
0.25
0.26
1.13
0.26
0.25
0.13
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25

23.8
24.5
23.4
25.5
26.2
28.2
24.7
26.6
20.1
18.2
16.9
19.6
22.6
22.6
17.4
22.7
23.5
24.0
21.9
25.0

rotates (angle of rotation in Figure 13a), the bending moment at the base becomes
larger than the moment at the top section leading to an upward shift e of the inflection
point (Figure 13).
The angle actually developed during the tests was small in most cases. For specimens 1 through 26, the influence of this rotation on the magnitude of top moment, as
well as on the location of the inflection point, was less than 1%. However, for specimens
27 through 32, the influence of this rotation on top moment and location of point of
inflection was as large as 10%.
INFLUENCE OF DISTRIBUTED REINFORCEMENT
It is widely recognized that horizontal distributed reinforcement is essential in the
contribution of reinforcement to the shear strength of the wall and in providing strength
to the wall after diagonal cracks in the concrete have developed. Moreover, it improves
redistribution of cracks and the post-cracking inelastic behavior. All these facts are also
supported by the results obtained in this experimental program.
On the other hand, the results obtained here indicate that vertical distributed reinforcement used in the test specimens has little or no influence on the maximum shear
strength developed by the walls, as can be observed from the values of Vu shown in
Table 1. Likewise, there is a small influence of the vertical reinforcement on the energy

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

303

Figure 10. Average normalized dissipated energy.

absorption and dissipation characteristics of the specimens, until the maximum shear
strength was attained, as shown by Figure 10b and the values of Table 3.
The observations above are not in agreement with other experimental results for
squat walls, such as those obtained by Barda et al. (1977), who recognized the importance of vertical distributed reinforcement to increase the ultimate strength. They neither
agree with the relevance that ACI 318 (1999) attributes to the use of vertical reinforcement when requiring its reinforcement ratio to be not less than the horizontal reinforcement ratio if hw /lw does not exceed 2.0 (provision 21.6.4.3). The lack of influence of
vertical distributed reinforcement mentioned above does neither support the experimen-

304

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Figure 11. Definition of strength deterioration after maximum shear strength.

Figure 12. Strength deterioration after maximum shear strength.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

305

Figure 13. Rotation of top section.

tal observation about the contribution of this reinforcement in controlling the crack
width during the post-cracking behavior. In fact, readings from strain gauges attached to
the vertical reinforcement showed that majority of reinforcing bars did attain their yielding strains in tests 9 through 32. Figure 14 shows the strain gauge locations in the ver-

Figure 14. Strain gauge locations in the vertical distributed reinforcement and ultimate cracking pattern.

306

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

tical reinforcement for specimens with different aspect ratios, and the relation of these
locations with the cracking pattern associated to their shear failure. It is possible that this
yielding observed is localized at the cracks and not a part of a trend in which a long
portion of the bar elongates, and is perhaps due to a dowel action effect on the vertical
bars once the cracks have been developed.
What is the explanation for these discrepancies? The authors believe that influence
of vertical distributed reinforcement did not arise in the present experimental program
due to the type of specimen used. They believe that the strong bases used to anchor the
specimen to the test setup and the strong boundary reinforcement used to prevent the
flexural mode of failure did not allow the rotation of the end sections of the walls. This
does not happen when cantilever specimens are used, because in such a case the top section of the wall specimen is free to rotate and vertical reinforcement contribution to lateral strength may develop. Moreover, a wall specimen in a fixed-fixed test setup does
undergo rotation in the sections close to mid-height, but bending moment and cracking
in this zone of the specimen are smaller than in top and bottom sections. The question
about which type of test setup provides a better representation of the actual behavior of
a shear wall segment may be answered once the rotational restraints at the ends of that
segment, imposed by the rest of the structural system, are known. Another reason that
may explain the lack of importance of vertical distributed reinforcement is its moderate
amount when compared with the vertical reinforcement, Asb , used at the boundaries of
the specimens. The values from Table 1 show that percentage of distributed vertical reinforcement as compared with total vertical reinforcement used in the specimen walls
never exceeded 23%.
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions of this experimental study may be summarized as follows:

Deformation capacity of specimens gets smaller as the aspect ratio M/Vlw de-

creases. Values of drift at cracking are about 0.1%, while drift at maximum
strength varies between 0.2% and 0.8%, and values of drift at ultimate varies
between 0.3% and 1.3%. Only drift at ultimate is somewhat influenced by the
amount of distributed reinforcement in the walls.
The energy absorption and dissipation of the walls seems to be independent of
the variation of aspect ratio and of the variation of both horizontal and vertical
distributed reinforcement. The normalized dissipated energy remains fairly constant at a value of about 23%.
The strength deterioration of wall specimens increased with decreasing values of
the aspect ratio and of both horizontal and vertical reinforcement. As the aspect
ratio goes from 1.0 to 0.35, and reinforcement ratios decrease from 0.25% to
none, typical strength deterioration showed a maximum rate of 20 kN per millimeter.
Vertical distributed reinforcement used in the test specimens has little or no influence on the maximum shear strength developed by the walls. It is suggested
that the test setup has a significant influence on the behavior of the vertically
distributed bars.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SQUAT REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS

307

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this paper was funded by the Chilean Council for Technological Development (FONDECYT) through research project Nos. 813/92, 1930588,
and 1950887. The testing facility was provided by the Japan International Cooperative
Agency (JICA) as part of a joint study project with the Department of Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering of the Universidad Catolica de Chile. The sponsorship of
these institutions is gratefully acknowledged, as well as the valuable contributions of
Professor Carl Luders of the same department, and the work of the former graduate student J. L. Larenas.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 1999. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI.
Aktan, A., and Bertero, V., 1985. RC structural walls: Seismic design for shear, J. Struct. Eng.
111 (8), 17751791.
Aoyama, H., 1991. Design philosophy for shear in earthquake resistance in Japan, International
Workshop on Concrete in Earthquake, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Barda, F., Hanson, J., and Corley, W., 1977. Shear strength of low-rise walls with boundary elements, Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, ACI SP 53-8, pp. 149201.
Cardenas, A., Hanson, J., Corley, G., and Hognestad, E., 1973. Design provisions for shear
walls, ACI J. 70 (23), 221230.
Cardenas, A., and Magura, D., 1973. Strength of high-rise shear walls-Rectangular cross sections, Response of Multistory Concrete Structures to Lateral Forces, ACI SP-36, pp. 119
150.
Collins, M., and Mitchell, D., 1986. A rational approach to shear design: The 1984 Canadian
code provisions, ACI J. 83 (80), 925933.
Fintel, M., 1974. Ductile shear walls in earthquake resistant multistory buildings, ACI J. 71
(19), 296305.
Hirosawa, M., Hiraishi, H., Fujisawa, F., and Yoshimura, M., 1988. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete high-rise frame structure with wall columns-Part 1: Deformation capacity
of critical structural elements such as wall columns, beams and shear walls, 20th Joint Meeting U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, Washington, DC, Proceedings.
Hsu, T., and Mo, Y., 1985. Softening of concrete in low-rise shearwalls, ACI J. 82 (83), 883
889.
Instituto Nacional de Normalizacion, 1996. Seismic Design of Buildings, Chilean Code
NCh433Of.96, Santiago, Chile.
Kokusho, S., and Ogura, K., 1970. Shear strength and load-deflection characteristics of reinforced concrete members, U.S.-Japan Seminar on Earthquake Engineering, Sendai, Japan,
Proceedings, pp. 364381.
Mau, S., and Hsu, T., 1986. Shear design and analysis of low-rise structural walls, ACI J. 83
(33), 306315.
Mo, Y., 1988. Analysis and design of low-rise structural walls under dynamically applied shear
forces, ACI J. 85 (S21), 180189.
Muto, K., 1965. Recent trends in high-rise building design in Japan, Third World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 118147.

308

P. A. HIDALGO, C. A. LEDEZMA, AND R. M. JORDAN

Paulay, T., 1971. Coupling beams of reinforced concrete shear walls, J. Struct. Eng. 97, ST3,
843862.
Paulay, T., 1980. Earthquake-resisting shearwalls-New Zealand design trends, ACI J. 77 (18),
144152.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M. J. N., and Synge, A. J., 1982. Ductility in earthquake squat shearwalls,
ACI J. 79 (26), 257269.

Perez, M., and Pantazopoulou, S., 1996. A study of the mechanical response of reinforced concrete to cyclic shear reversals, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Mexico, Proceedings, Paper No. 185.
Siao, W., 1993. Strut-and-tie model for shear behavior in deep beams and pile caps failing in
diagonal splitting, ACI Struct. J. 90 (S38), 356363.
Tan, K., Kong, F., Teng, S., and Guan, L., 1995. High-strength concrete deep beams with effective span and shear span variations, ACI Struct. J. 92 (S37), 395405.
Vallenas, J., Bertero, V., and Popov, E., 1979. Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls, Report No. UCB/EERC 79/20, University of California, Berkeley.
Wood, S., 1989. Minimum tensile reinforcement requirements in walls, ACI Struct. J. 86 (S56),
582591.
Wood, S., 1990. Shear strength of low-rise reinforced concrete walls, ACI Struct. J. 87 (S12),
99107.
Wood, S., 1991. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 1985 Chile earthquake: Implications for the design of structural walls, Earthquake Spectra 7 (4), 607638.

Yanez, R., Park, R., and Paulay, T., 1989. Strut and tie models for reinforced concrete design
and analysis, Silver Jubilee Conference New Zealand Concrete Society, Wairakei, New
Zealand, Proceedings, pp. 4355.

(Received 6 November 2000; accepted 31 January 2002)