Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The present study addresses the problem of cyclic shear in squat where h and v are the ratios of horizontal and vertical web
reinforced concrete walls and attempts to assess the validity of reinforcement, respectively, fyd is the design strength of this
current design provisions, both in Europe (Eurocode 8) and in the reinforcement, bw is the thickness of the web, and z 0.8lw is
U.S. (ACI 318). The paper describes a comprehensive experimental the effective internal lever arm (distance between the resultants
program involving 11 wall specimens, six with shear span ratios of of tensile and compressive stresses at the section considered).
1.5 and five with 1.0, detailed to the provisions of EC8; problems in Eq. (1) implies that for as = 1.3, only horizontal reinforcement
applying these provisions are pointed out and comparisons with the is contributing to shear strength, whereas for as 0.3, only the
corresponding ACI 318 provisions are also made. The wall speci- vertical reinforcement is resisting shear; both types of web
mens are reinforced against shear, either conventionally (orthogonal reinforcement are considered effective for 0.3 < as <1.3. The
grids of web reinforcement), or with cross-inclined bars; the effects ACI Code simply requires that for aspect ratios hw/ lw < 2.0,
of web and edge reinforcement ratio, of axial load level, and of the
the vertical reinforcement ratio should not be less than the
quality of construction joints are also investigated. The reported test
horizontal one. It is worth pointing out that it is more rational
results clearly show that properly designed and reinforced walls can
reach their flexural capacities, even when their aspect ratio is as low
to base the distinction between slender and squat walls on the
as 1.0, that sliding shear in this category of walls is not a major shear ratio, rather than on the aspect ratio;4 the two ratios are
problem, and that cross-inclined (bidiagonal) web reinforcement the same only in the case of cantilever walls loaded at the tip,
can effectively and economically control sliding and the subsequent whereas in most cases of practical interest as is less than the
pinching of the hysteresis loops, particularly when these bars inter- aspect ratio.
sect close to the critical section. Another important difference between the American and
European practice concerns the possibility of sliding shear
Keywords: cyclic loads; earthquake-resistant structures; reinforced con- failure of squat walls, which is explicitly recognized in the
cretes; shear properties; span; walls. Eurocode 8 (and a corresponding design procedure is
suggested, as discussed in the next section), but is not explic-
The investigation reported herein addresses the behavior itly accounted for in the ACI Code, which controls it indirectly
of reinforced concrete (RC) walls with low slenderness by specifying an upper bound of 0.65 f c MPa (8 f c psi) at
under reversed cyclic loading. RC walls with low slenderness the nominal shear stress.
are common in low-rise construction, characterized by Previous experimental work regarding the strength and
deformability of low slenderness walls subjected to reversed
normalized moment M to shear V ratios as = M/(V lw) 1.5,
cyclic loading has been reviewed in Reference 5 and 6. Tests
where lw is the wall length, as is commonly referred to as
involving realistic specimens (scale of at least 1/3, two
shear-span ratio or shear ratio. Whereas the behavior of prop- curtains of web reinforcement) with shear ratios between 1.0
erly designed walls with as 2 is dominated by flexure and and 1.5, subjected to displacement-controlled reversed
that of walls with as < 1 is dominated by shear, moment-to- cyclic loading are relatively few; of particular relevance to
shear ratios around 1.5 typically result in the least predict- the present study are those reported in Reference 7 to 10 that
able behavior, as either flexure or shear, or in fact, a mixed involve walls with rectangular sections, and without trans-
mode of failure may result under seismic loading.1 verse flanges.
Probably as a result of the foregoing uncertainties, code A review of the literature showed that previous studies do
procedures2,3 for shear design of low slenderness walls not provide conclusive information with respect to the cyclic
present some notable differences. The ACI Code2 recognizes shear behavior of squat (low slenderness) walls, particularly
the increased shear strength of walls with low hw/ lw (hw is the in the case where a sliding shear mode dominates. More
height of the wall) by specifying a concrete contribution of specifically, only in the work by Paulay et al.7 has the effect
0.25 f c MPa (3 f c psi) for hw/ lw 1.5, reducing to of bidiagonal reinforcement on delaying sliding shear failure
0.17 f c MPa (2 f c psi) for hw/ lw 2.0. In contrast to this, been investigated; this type of reinforcement is required by
the new European prestandard (Eurocode 8)3 does not the Eurocode 8 for walls with hw /lw 2. Moreover, most of
provide for increased concrete contribution in low slender- the aforementioned studies focused on a single aspect ratio,
hence the effect of this crucial parameter on the failure mode
ness walls. However, Eurocode 8 differentiates the design
equation for shear carried by web reinforcement on the basis
of the shear ratio as; the corresponding equation that applies
for as 1.3 is ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-August 1999.
Received January 14, 1998, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right 1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies
unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
V wd = [ h ( a s 0.3 ) + v ( 1.3 a s ) ] f yd b w z (1) authors closure, if any, will be published in the May-June 2000 ACI Structural Journal if
the discussion is received by January 1, 2000.
Ioannis A. Tegos is a professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle V cd = 0.06 f c ( 1.2 + 40 1 )b w z (2)
University of Thessaloniki. His research interests include the behavior of reinforced
concrete members in flexure and shear under seismic conditions, fiber reinforced
concrete in torsion, and concrete technology.
where 1 is the ratio of tension reinforcement. Eq. (2) applies
Georgios G. Penelis is a professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, where he is Head of the Laboratory of Concrete Struc-
only when analysis does not indicate the presence of tensile
tures. His research interests include several aspects of the behavior of reinforced axial loading in the wall (although not clearly stated in the
concrete and masonry structures, particularly those related to seismic loading. code, Vcd = 0 should also be taken for zero axial load). As
typical values of 1 range from 0.01 to 0.02, it is clear that Eq.
(2) is significantly more conservative than the ACI value calcu-
could only be estimated by comparing results for similar lated from
walls tested in different programs.
The main purpose of the present study was to assess the V n = A c ( c f c + h f y ) (3)
validity of current design provisions for cyclic shear in squat
RC walls, focusing on those of EC8 and ACI 318. This paper
reports on a comprehensive experimental program involving which results in a concrete contribution ranging from 0.17 to
walls with aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5, detailed to the provi- 0.25 f c MPa (2 to 3 f c psi), depending on the aspect ratio,
sions of EC8; problems in applying these provisions are and also involves Ac =bw lw instead of bw z. Outside the poten-
pointed out. The wall specimens are reinforced against shear, tial plastic hinge, an additional concrete contribution propor-
either conventionally (orthogonal grids of web reinforce- tional to a stress equal to 15 percent of the stress due to
ment), or with additional cross-inclined bidiagonal bars. Test compressive axial loading can be added to Eq. (2); no such
parameters also include the web reinforcement ratio, the increase is provided for in the ACI procedure.
flexural reinforcement ratio, the level of axial loading, and Unlike ACI 318 and other codes, Eurocode 8 requires an
the quality of detailing at the construction joint. explicit calculation of the resistance of walls against sliding
shear failure; this resistance is assumed to be made up from
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE the dowel resistance of vertical bars, the shear resistance of
Currently available experimental data concerning the cross-inclined bars, and the frictional resistance. For squat
behavior of squat RC walls subjected to high cyclic shear are walls (hw/lw < 2.0), it is suggested in Eurocode 8 that at least
rather inconclusive, especially with respect to the sliding half the design shear at the base should be carried by bidiag-
shear failure mode and the role of inclined bars in preventing onal bars (at higher levels, the contribution of these bars may
it. The experimental program presented herein aims at clarifying be reduced to one-fourth the total shear). Cross-inclined bars
these points and shedding new light on the understanding of must be properly anchored beyond the sliding plane and
cyclic shear behavior of RC walls with an aspect ratio should cross all sections of the wall within a distance of 0.5lw
between 1.0 and 1.5. Unlike most previous studies, the or 0.5hw (whichever is smaller) above the critical section.
present study focuses equally on both aspect ratios, thus The experimental program was designed in such a way as
making meaningful comparisons possible. to insure that either a diagonal tension (combined with flex-
The reported test results clearly show that properly ural cracking and spalling) or a sliding shear mode were
designed and reinforced walls can reach their flexural capacities expected. Two shear ratios were selected, namely, as = 1.0
(even when their aspect ratio is as low as 1.0) that sliding and as = 1.5. These ratios are below and above the limit of
shear in this category of walls is not a major problem, and that 1.3 specified by Eurocode 8 for the applicability of the truss
cross-inclined (bidiagonal) web reinforcement can effectively model for shear design [Eq. (1)]. The program includes a
control sliding and the subsequent pinching of the hysteresis total of 11 specimens, five specimens with as = 1.0, and six
loops, particularly when these bars intersect close to the specimens with as = 1.5 since an additional parameter
critical section. (quality of construction joint) is considered in the latter
case. All specimens are of the cantilever type (Fig. 1), hence
DESIGN OF WALL SPECIMENS the aspect ratios coincide with the shear ratio as = M/(Vlw).
Code provisions for shear design of walls
The walls tested were designed according to Eurocode 8,3 Design of wall specimens
which is probably the first document of a regulatory character Since the number of parameters involved is larger than the
that makes a clear distinction between the different modes of available number of equations, an appropriate design
shear failure in RC walls subjected to seismic loading, strategy had to be devised to insure a realistic design,
providing a different design equation for each of the respecting the EC8 minimum reinforcement requirements.
following modes: The dimensions of the specimens were selected taking into
diagonal tension; account the capacity of the reaction frame (Fig. 2); this
diagonal compression (such as web crushing); resulted in a 100 x 1200 mm (3.9 x 47.2 in.2) wall section,
sliding shear. corresponding to a scale of about 1:2.5. To achieve the
Resistance against diagonal tension failure is calculated by required aspect ratios, specimen heights of 1200 and 1800
superimposing a concrete contribution to a web reinforcement mm were selected, for as equal to 1.0 and 1.5, respectively.
contribution, which, for squat walls, is given by Eq. (1). In The longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the boundary
Fig. 1Reinforcement layout in wall specimens with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 1.0 (1 mm = 0.039 in.).
elements was kept close to the minimum required (1 percent) against each possible shear failure mode, i.e., diagonal
by the code in most specimens. tension (truss mechanism), diagonal compression (crushing
The EC8 provisions for shear (see previous section) have of concrete struts), and sliding. The values of shear resistance
been applied to the wall specimens of the present study. calculated by introducing measured material strengths in the
Unlike other codes, EC8 adopts different equations for design EC8 equations are given in Table 1. It is worth pointing out
difference between Specimen LSW2 and LSW3 is that the the 45-deg inclined bars is at the base of the wall (rather than
latter is subjected to a (constant) axial load N = 0.07 Ac fc . lw/2 above it), hence no increase in flexural capacity is
Specimen LSW1 is similar to LSW2, but the web reinforce- expected in the critical region. Using the Eurocode proce-
ment is increased by adding an extra grid of 8 mm bars at dure,3 it is found that the bidiagonal reinforcement can carry
170-mm (6.7 in.) spaces, as shown in Fig. 1 and in the last 58 and 56 percent of the shear developed at flexural strength
sketch below Table 2. This results in doubling the web for Specimen LSW4 and LSW5, respectively; the different
reinforcement ratio. Moreover, the longitudinal reinforcement percentage results from the fact that bidiagonal bars in
ratio in the boundary elements is increased to 1.7 percent by LSW5 also increase the flexural strength slightly.
adding two more 8-mm bars. Hence, LSW1 is representative Specimen MSW1 to MSW5 of the as = 1.5 series are rein-
of a wall subjected to higher seismic forces than the previous forced in a similar way as Specimen LSW1 to LSW5, as shown
two specimens. in Table 2 and Fig. 1. Note that, in the case of Specimen MSW4
Specimen LSW4 and LSW5 both include bidiagonal and MSW5, bidiagonal reinforcement can carry 86 and 82
reinforcement. Specimen LSW5 is similar to Specimen percent of the shear developed at flexural strength; these
LSW2 in every respect, except that a total of three 8-mm bars percentages are higher than in the corresponding specimens
inclined by 45 deg is added in each direction, as shown in with as = 1.0. An extra specimen, MSW6, is included in this
Fig. 1. The selection of the bidiagonal reinforcement was series, which is identical to MSW1 in every respect except for
made in such a way as to achieve an effective reinforcement the casting procedure. In Specimen MSW6, the foundation
ratio for bars crossing the potential (horizontal) sliding plane beam was cast first, with starter bars in place, at the position of
almost identical to that of vertical web reinforcement in the vertical bars in the wall; starter bars extended a total of 560
Specimen LSW1 (0.58 percent compared to 0.56 percent in mm (70 bar diameters) above the base. The rest of the spec-
LSW1). This selection was expected to yield a meaningful imen was cast after 4 days, without taking any specific
comparison of the relative effectiveness of the two types of measures regarding curing at the construction joint and without
shear reinforcement. It is also noted that since the bidiagonal any increase of reinforcement at the joint area. Hence, this
bars pass through the boundary elements (and are anchored specimen was representative of poor construction practices in
into the foundation beam, as shown in Fig. 1), the effective an actual RC building site (with the exception, of course, of
ratio of longitudinal (flexural) reinforcement is the same in possible adverse environmental conditions).
both LSW5 and LSW1. Average values of measured yield strengths of the Grade 500
Specimen LSW4 has the same amount of bidiagonal [specified strength fyk = 500 MPa (72 ksi)] were equal to 585
reinforcement as Specimen LSW5, but the intersection of MPa (84.8 ksi) for the 8-mm bars, and 610 MPa (88.5 ksi) for
(d) (e)
Fig. 5Cracking patterns in walls with as = 1.0 at end of tests: (a) Specimen LSW1; (b) Specimen LSW2; (c) Specimen LSW3;
(d) Specimen LSW4; and (e) Specimen LSW5.
To investigate the effect of applying the horizontal loading at the same amplitude with increments of 2 mm (total drift of
at the edge or in the middle of the specimen, and of 0.1 percent for as = 1.5) up to a displacement of 16 mm (if
prestressing the plates at the top of the specimen, a finite the specimen had not failed earlier), and of 4 mm thereafter,
element study of the specimen under various loading condi- up to the failure point, defined as that corresponding to 75
tions at the top was carried out. Two-dimensional shell percent of the maximum strength. A typical sequence of
elements were used for constructing the model; both static displacement cycles is shown in Fig. 4, where both internally
and dynamic (modal) analyses (using a spectrum, which imposed and externally recorded values are shown for
gave the same base shear as in static analysis) were carried comparison.
out. The analysis of the two specimen types for various The axial loading (whenever present) was kept constant
loading conditions has shown that, although the stress distri- during the entire test by applying load control to the vertical
bution is quite different at the top of the specimen actuator (Fig. 2). Hinged connections at the tips of both the
(depending on the position of the loading point), the stress vertical and the horizontal actuator prevent any substantial
pattern at the base is very similar in all cases, for both restraint to the rotation of the top of the wall, thus insuring
dynamic and static loading; as expected, dynamic stresses cantilever behavior.
are slightly lower than the equivalent static ones. It was thus
concluded that as long as the critical region (plastic hinge) is DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Walls with aspect ratio of 1.0
the one close to the base, the load may be applied either at
The cracking pattern at the end of the test of each specimen
the edge or at the middle of the specimen head; for reasons with as = 1.0 is shown in Fig. 5. Cracking in these specimens
of practicality, the former solution was preferred. More initiated with hairline flexural cracks in the lower part of the
details of the FE study may be found in Salonikios et al.14 walls that appeared at a base shear of approximately 120 kN,
As the effect of loading history was not selected as a test was almost horizontal within the length of the boundary
variable, the typical procedure of applying three loading elements and slightly inclined (downwards) in the web. The
cycles at each ductility level until failure was used in the first shear cracks appeared later for a base shear of approxi-
present study. Displacement control was used throughout the mately 190 kN, corresponding to a nominal shear stress of
test, with the exception of the first cycle in the elastic range. 0.3 f c MPa (3.6 f c psi). Note that the shear stress is calcu-
The typical displacement history consisted in three initial lated using measured, rather than specified, concrete
single cycles at 2, 4, and 6 mm, followed by three cycles strengths; hence, the previous value is substantially higher
than the ACI value for the concrete contribution in squat walls shear cracks originating from the opposite edge, resulting in
(3 f c psi), and approximately four times the corresponding a characteristic criss-cross pattern, as shown in Fig. 5. With
value of the Eurocode (0.08 f c MPa from Eq. (2), for a spec- cycling to increased deformations, the rhomboidal pieces of
ified concrete strength f c = 20 MPa). As shown in Fig. 5, concrete between the intersecting cracks gradually deterio-
shear cracks extended up to the top of the specimens, and their rated and spalling of cover concrete occurred; as expected,
inclination was quite higher than that of cracks at the bottom the spalling zone extended further upwards in the case of
part, although the inclination reduced towards the vertical Specimen LSW3 that was subjected to axial compression
boundaries. Apparently due to the presence of the properly [Fig. 5(c)]. At about the same displacement amplitude, a
reinforced and heavily confined boundary elements, the width major horizontal crack running through the entire base of the
of the shear cracks tended to decrease towards the edges of the wall formed. This crack is clearly visible in the case of Spec-
specimens; the shear crack width did not exceed 0.2 mm in all imen LSW2, which was lightly reinforced (Fig. 1) and had no
specimens. axial loading, but also formed in the other specimens.
In the lower part of the wall, flexural cracks originating However, in the case of the specimen with bidiagonal rein-
from one edge were intersected by inclined shear or flexure- forcement intersecting in the middle of the base section
Fig. 8Cracking patterns in walls with as = 1.5 at end of tests: (a) Specimen MSW1; (b) Specimen MSW2; (c) Specimen
MSW3; (d) Specimen MSW4; (e) Specimen MSW5; and (f) Specimen MSW6.
development of the full flexural capacities of the specimens. Walls with aspect ratio of 1.5
It is worth pointing out that for both LSW2 and LSW3, the The cracking pattern at the end of the test of each specimen
theoretical resistances against sliding shear failure were with as = 1.5 is shown in Fig. 8. Cracking in these specimens
substantially lower than the flexural strengths. This is a clear initiated with hairline flexural cracks in the lower part of the
indication that the Eurocode equations are underestimating walls, extending up to a height of approximately lw. These
the capacity of walls with respect to sliding shear failure. cracks were initially horizontal and confined within the
Note that the maximum nominal shear stresses (V/blw) were length of the boundary elements, but as the loading
0.46 f c (fc as measured in cylinder tests) in Specimen increased, they became slightly inclined downwards and
LSW1 and LSW3, and 0.34 f c in LSW2. extended into the web. As shown in Fig. 8, the cracking
pattern in all specimens of the MSW series was of a
The ACI-based values shown in Table 1 always predict that primarily flexural type. Some shear cracking appeared
the shear strength of the walls is safely higher than the corre- (subsequent to flexural cracking) in the upper third of the
sponding flexural strength. This is generally confirmed by the wall height in most specimens, but shear crack propagation
test results with the exception of Specimen LSW1, where it is was minimal in most specimens. The only exception was
clear that the full flexural strength was not developed; for this Specimen MSW3 [Fig. 8(c)], where, due to the combination
specimen, the Eurocode appears to better predict the (final) of higher shear force (due to the compressive axial loading)
failure mode. These important aspects are discussed in more and lower shear reinforcement, the shear crack width was
detail in a forthcoming companion paper.16 larger than in the other specimens.
(b) (e)
(c) (f)
Fig. 9Load versus top displacement curves for walls with as = 1.5 (see Fig. 8): (a) Wall MSW1; (b) Wall MSW2; (c) Wall
MSW3; (d) Wall MSW4; (e) Wall MSW5; and (f) Wall MSW6. (1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 kN = 224.8 lbf.)
pronounced in the specimen with the construction joint percent higher than in the other one), which should be attrib-
(MSW6). The latter can maintain at least 75 percent of its uted to the different behavior of the spliced bars in tension
strength for at least three cycles up to a displacement of 20 and in compression. Nevertheless, as shown in Fig. 8(f), the
mm (1.1 percent its height), whereas significant strength failure mode of MSW6 is at least initially flexural, and the
degradation in MSW1 starts at displacements larger than 25 high sliding deformations (up to 40 percent the total displace-
mm. Specimen MSW6 is also characterized by an unsym- ment) are recorded along the critical crack (formed exactly at
metric behavior (maximum strength in one direction is 17 the level of splicing) only at a later stage.