780 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999

ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, September-October 1999.

Received February 23, 1998, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright 1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion will be published in the July-August 2000 ACI Structural Journal if
received by March 1, 2000.

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
The maximum tensile strain that may be imposed on a ductile
reinforced concrete wall is examined in terms of the response of a
reinforced concrete column under axial reversed cyclic tension and
compression. Based on a kinematic relation between the axial
strain and the out-of-plane displacement, and the axial force
versus the axial strain response, a model was developed for the
prediction of the maximum tensile strain. Experimental results
indicated that the model is conservative with respect to the prediction
of the maximum tensile strain, and can be incorporated into an
existing design procedure for limiting the wall thickness of ductile
planar walls.
Keywords: concretes; ductility; tensile strain.
INTRODUCTION
A common approach for seismic design of multistory
buildings uses reinforced concrete structural walls as the
primary lateral force resisting system. When properly
designed and detailed, these walls can provide an efficient
system for lateral drift control under service loads as well as
an excellent lateral strength and ductility under ultimate
loads. Well-designed and detailed structural walls have been
shown to exhibit a ductile response with displacement
ductility capacity in excess of four.
1
Under the design level
earthquakes, however, large tensile strains must be antici-
pated in the extreme tension/compression regions of these
walls. Depending on the aspect ratio of the wall and the
imposed level of ductility, tensile strains as high as 3 percent
may be expected in the end regions of the walls. This large
tensile strain presents a cause for concern since the lateral
stability of the wall is dependent on the magnitude of the
tensile strain. Wide cracks developed as a result of a large
yield excursion must close before the in-plane lateral strength
can be a fully developed in the reversed direction. A critical
condition affecting the lateral stability of the wall exists prior
to closing of the cracks where an excessive out-of-plane
displacement may occur, causing the wall to become unstable.
The potential for lateral instability in the end regions of
reinforced concrete walls is generally recognized and fairly
conservative approaches have been adopted for design. A
common approach in the U.S. uses the boundary elements in
situations where the calculated extreme fiber stresses in the
wall exceed 20 percent of the uniaxial unconfined compres-
sive strength of the concrete.
2
The boundary elements must
be proportioned with an axial compressive strength capable
of resisting the entire compressive force resulted from the
combined gravity and earthquake loadings without contribu-
tions to strength from the web portion of the wall. Such
requirements often result in boundary elements that are
heavily reinforced and frequently enlarged to insure
compactness of these elements. Although the use of
boundary elements will lead to a satisfactory performance of
the wall under seismic conditions, the enlarged boundary
elements are generally more costly to construct and
frequently architecturally intrusive. Planar walls with
uniform wall thickness can be designed with adequate
ductility.
3
Furthermore, reinforced concrete buildings incor-
porated with a large number of planar walls, but without
special detailing for the transverse reinforcement, have been
reported to perform very well during major earthquakes.
4
Although very limited studies have been conducted on the
lateral stability of reinforced concrete walls, a study by Paulay
and Priestley
5
indicated that the tensile strains imposed on the
end-regions of the wall have a critical influence on the out-of-
plane stability of these walls. Design recommendations for
minimum wall thickness have been formulated on such a basis.
In this paper, the lateral stability of the reinforced concrete
structural wall is re-examined in light of a more recent
experiment conducted on the axial reversed cyclic response of
well-confined reinforced concrete columns. A phenomenolog-
ical model based on the observed test behavior is proposed for
estimating the maximum tensile strain.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The much-needed experimental data for assessing the
lateral stability of reinforced concrete walls under reversed
cyclic lateral load are presented. The experimental data were
based on tests of axial columns under large strain amplitudes
expected in the plastic hinge region of a ductile reinforced
concrete wall. An equation for predicting the maximum
tensile strain is proposed, and the equation can be incorporated
into an existing design procedure for the determination of the
minimum wall thickness.
LATERAL STABILITY OF COLUMNS
Stability under axial reversed cyclic tension and
compression
The lateral stability of a ductile reinforced concrete wall is
studied by idealizing the end-region of the wall as an axially
loaded reinforced concrete column, as shown in Fig. 1. The
column is assumed to be pin-ended at both ends with length
equal to the distance between the points of contraflexure in
the buckled wall. Although the approach does not account
for the strain gradient expected across the section, the ideal-
ization is useful in providing an understanding of the basic
mechanism involved during lateral buckling of the wall
under large-amplitude tension and compression cycles.
Title no. 96-S86
Lateral Stability of Reinforced Concrete Columns under
Axial Reversed Cyclic Tension and Compression
by Y. H. Chai and D. T. Elayer
781 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
The basic behavior of a reinforced concrete column under
an axial tension and compression cycle may be described by a
plot of the nominal axial strain versus the out-of-plane
displacement, and a plot of the nominal axial strain versus the
axial force, as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b). The nominal axial
strain is taken as the strain in the column averaged over several
cracks, while the normalized out-of-plane displacement is
taken as the transverse displacement measured at midheight of
the column divided by the thickness of the column. For cross-
comparison between Fig. 2(a) and (b), the nominal axial strain
is plotted on the y-axis of both figures. Pertinent points on the
cyclic response of the column are identified with letters from
a to f in Fig. 2(a) and (b). For the subsequent discussion of the
column response, the column is assumed to be reinforced with
two layers of longitudinal reinforcement.
The loading cycle for the idealized column is assumed to
consist of a large tensile strain loading [i.e., along Path o-a in
Fig. 2(a) and (b)], followed by an unloading along Path a-b, and
reloading of the column in compression along Path b-c-d-e or
b-c-d-f. The initial tensile strain is assumed to be of sufficient
magnitude to cause wide cracks along the length of the column
as well as significant yielding of the reinforcement, with
possible strain-hardening of the reinforcement. Upon
unloading from the initial tension half-cycle [i.e., from Point a
to b in Fig. 2(a) and (b)], an elastic strain recovery occurs that
would involve a contraction of the concrete and reinforcing
steel. The contraction of the concrete, however, would be
small compared with that of the reinforcing steel, and the total
elastic strain recovery is expected to be of the same order of
magnitude as the yield strain of the steel. Upon reloading in
compression on the cracked concrete column, the axial
response of the column is accompanied by an out-of-plane
displacement, as indicated by Path b-c in Fig. 2(a) and (b).
For a small axial compression during the initial reloading
along Path b-c, the compressive force in the column would
be resisted entirely by the reinforcement alone since closure
of the cracks has not occurred. At this stage of loading, the
stresses in the reinforcement would be below the yield
strength of the steel, and a small out-of-plane displacement
would occur due to the inherent eccentricity of the axial force.
An increase in axial compression on the column, however,
would lead to yielding of the reinforcement closer to the
applied axial force. The yielding of the reinforcement would
result in a reduced transverse stiffness of the column and an
increased out-of-plane displacement. A further increase in
the axial compression would lead to compression yielding in
the second layer of the reinforcement, and a rapid increase in
the out-of-plane displacement, as indicated by the near hori-
zontal Path c-d in Fig. 2(a), would occur. Depending on the
magnitude of the initial tensile strain and the associated crack
opening, two paths are possible after the yielding of the two
layers of reinforcement. Path c-d-f in Fig. 2(a) represents the
condition of an excessive crack opening where subsequent
compression would not result in the closure of the cracks but
a continued increase in the out-of-plane displacement and
eventual buckling of the column. On the other hand, Path c-d-
e in Fig. 2(a) represents a condition where the initial tensile
strain has not been excessive and closure of cracks at Point d
is possible. In this case, the out-of-plane displacement of the
column would first decrease as cracks close but then would
increase after significant compressive strain is developed in
the compressed concrete. Point e in Fig. 2(a) and (b) corre-
sponds to an ultimate limit state where crushing of the
concrete under the combined axial force and the P- moment.
The increase in the compressive force after crack closure is
rapid, as indicated by Path c-e in Fig. 2(b).
Estimation of maximum tensile strain
From the previous discussion, the tensile strain imposed
on a reinforced concrete wall should be recognized as a crit-
ical parameter governing the lateral stability of the wall. A
design criterion for lateral stability can then be formulated
by limiting the magnitude of the maximum tensile strain to
be imposed on the wall. The magnitude of the tensile strain
must be such that crack closure, and the subsequent crushing
limit state, as indicated by Point e in Fig. 2(a) and (b), can be
reached. The crushing limit state can be assessed using the
stability criterion as derived by Paulay and Priestley,
5
where
the ACI equivalent rectangular stress block has been used for
the compressed concrete while assuming yield in both layers
of reinforcement. The stability criterion requires that the out-
Y. H. Chai is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of California, Davis, Calif. He received his PhD from
the University of California, San Diego, in 1991. His research interests include large-
scale experimental testing, assessment of structural damage under earthquake
loading, characterization of soil/pile interaction, and seismic design and retrofit of
concrete structures.
D. T. Elayer is a structural engineer at Buehler and Buehler Associates, Sacramento,
Calif. He received his MS in 1997 from the University of California, Davis.
Fig. 1Idealization of reinforced concrete wall in end-
regions: (a) opening of cracks under tension cycle; and (b)
closing of cracks under compression cycle.
782 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
of-plane displacement at midheight of the column, as
normalized by the wall thickness ( = /b), must satisfy the
inequality
5
(1)
where the parameter m = f
y
/f
c
is the mechanical reinforce-
ment ratio, and = local reinforcement ratio in the end
region of the wall where lateral buckling might occur.
The maximum tensile strain can be estimated using the ideal-
ized response shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), which have been
replotted in Fig. 3(a) and (b) for definition of various parame-
ters. The maximum tensile strain
sm
can be considered to
consist of three strain components as shown in Fig. 3(a),
namely: 1) an elastic strain recovery
e
for the unloading from
a tensile excursion; 2) a reloading strain
r
associated with
compression yielding of the reinforcement; and 3) an axial
strain at first closure of cracks

a
, i.e.
(2)
Although the elastic strain recovered from a tensile excursion
e
depends on the elastic properties of the concrete as well as
the bond transfer between the concrete and reinforcement,
the strain recovery is mainly provided by the contraction of
the reinforcement. It is therefore assumed that
e
in Eq. (2)
can be written as a proportion of the yield strain of the rein-
forcement, i.e.,
e
=
1

y
where
1
1. The reloading strain

r
in Eq. (2) corresponds to the axial strain needed to cause

c
0.5 1 2.35m 5.53m
2
4.70m + + ( ) =

sm

e

r

a
*
+ + =
Fig. 3Estimation of maximum tensile strain in reinforced concrete column: (a) nominal axial strain versus normalized
out-of-plane displacement; and (b) nominal axial strain versus axial force.
Fig. 2Axial reversed cyclic response of reinforced concrete column: (a) nominal axial strain versus out-of-plane dis-
placement; and (b) nominal axial strain versus axial force.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999 783
compression yielding in both layers of the reinforcement and
closure of cracks, i.e., starting from the unloaded position
Point b to Point d in Fig. 2(a), and the reloading strain
r
would depend on the cyclic characteristic of the reinforcing
steel since a reduced stiffness in the steel is expected due to
the Bauchingers effect. Since the reloading strain is associated
with compression yielding of the reinforcement, it is further
assumed that the reloading strain
r
in Eq. (2) can be written
as a proportion of the yield strain of the reinforcement, i.e.,
r
=

y
where
2
1. Thus, Eq. (2) can be written as
(3)
It should be noted that, for an elasto-plastic response in the
reinforcement and rigid concrete blocks between cracks, the
parameter
1
would be equal to unity. However, experi-
mental results to be presented later will show that
1
is close
to 1.5, while
2
has typical values in the range of 3 to 5. For
design purposes, these parameters may be conservatively
assumed to be
1
= 1.0 and
2
= 2.0.
The term
a
*
in Eq. (3) corresponds to the nominal axial
strain at first crack closure and may be related to the curva-
ture of the column at midheight using the equation
(4)
where
max
is the transverse curvature at midheight of the
column, and b is the thickness of the column. The midheight
out-of-plane displacement at first crack closure
m
can be
written in terms of the midheight curvature by
(5)
where L
o
is the length of the column, and the coefficient c
depends on the transverse curvature distribution of the
column. By combining Eq. (4) and (5), a kinematic relation
between the nominal axial strain
a
*
at first crack closure and
the normalized out-of plane displacement
m
at midheight
may be obtained
(6)
For a constant curvature distribution, the coefficient c can be
shown to be equal to 1/8, whereas for a linear curvature
distribution with a maximum curvature at midheight of the
column and zero curvature at both ends, the coefficient c is
equal to 1/12. For a sinusoidal distribution with a maximum
curvature at midheight of the column and zero curvature at
the two ends, the coefficient c can be shown to be equal to 1/
2
.
For the estimation of the maximum tensile strain, the
normalized out-of-plane displacement at midheight of the
column at first crack closure
m
must be determined. It will be
assumed that the normalized out-of-plane displacement at first
crack closure
m
can be replaced by the normalized out-of-
plane displacement
c
from Eq. (1), even though the two out-
of-plane displacements correspond to two different states in
the cyclic response of the column. The term
m
corresponds to
the out-of-plane displacement at first crack closure, whereas
the term
c
corresponds to the out-of-plane displacement at the

sm

1

y

2

y

a
*
+ + =

a
*
0.5
max
b =

m
cL
2
o
max
=

a
*
1
2c
------


b
L
o
-----


2

m
=
concrete crushing limit state. However, as noted earlier, the
out-of-plane displacement of the column after crack closure
would be characterized by first a reduction in the out-of-plane
displacement, followed by an increase in the out-of-plane
displacement, as the crushing limit state of the concrete is
approached. The out-of-plane displacement for the crushing
limit state [i.e., Point e in Fig. 2(a)] is assumed to be fairly
close to the out-of-plane displacement at first crack closure
i.e., Point d in Fig. 2(a). By assuming
m
=
c
, the nominal
axial strain at first crack closure can be written as
(7)
Eq. (7) indicates that the nominal axial strain of the column
at first crack closure decreases parabolically with the aspect
ratio of the column L
o
/b and depends on the transverse curva-
ture distribution of the column.
By assuming that the parameters
1
= 1.0,
2
= 2.0, and a
sinusoidal curvature distribution, i.e., coefficient c = 1/
2
,
the maximum tensile strain that may be imposed on the
column can be written as
(8)
Eq. (8) suggests a limiting condition for the maximum
tensile strain that may be imposed on a reinforced concrete
column while insuring the lateral stability of the column. It
is worth noting that the maximum tensile strain given by Eq.
(8) is different from that proposed by Paulay and Priestley,
5
which is
(9)

a
*
1
2c
------
b
L
o
-----


2

c
=

sm

2
2
-----
b
L
o
-----


2

c
3
y
+ =

sm
8
b
L
o
-----


2

c
=
Fig. 4Experimental test setup.
784 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
where the critical normalized out-of-plane displacement
c
is
given by Eq. (1) and a constant curvature distribution with coef-
ficient c = 1/8 has been assumed. The maximum tensile strain
given by Eq. (8) can be used to determine the maximum design
height-to-thickness ratio for ductile planar walls, as outlined by
Paulay and Priestley,
5
and will not be repeated herein.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
Test setup
Fourteen reinforced concrete column specimens were tested
under an axial reversed cyclic tension and compression. The
objective of the tests was to provide a set of experimental data
where the prediction of the maximum tensile strain by Eq. (8)
and (9) can be compared. The column specimens were
mounted vertically in a steel reaction frame where a quasi-
static axial force was applied to the specimen using a double-
acting actuator. Fig. 4 shows a photograph of the test setup for
the specimen. With the exception of two specimens, the
loading cycle consisted of an initial half-cycle of axial tensile
strain followed by a compression half cycle with a nominal
target compressive strain 1/7 of the axial tensile strain unless
the compression cycle was limited by the capacity of the
actuator that was approximately 185 kips (823 kN). In the
other two specimens, the target compressive strain was
increased to 1/5 of the axial tensile strain. A load cycle is
considered to be stable if the target compressive strain or the
compression capacity of the actuator can be reached in three
successive cycles without developing an excessive out-of-
plane displacement in the specimen.
Fig. 5 shows the reinforcement details for the test speci-
mens. The test specimens were 4 x 8 in. rectangular in cross
section (102 x 203 mm), with height-to-thickness ratios L
o
/b
= 11.75, 14.75, and 17.75. The length of the specimen L
o
included the 5.5-in. (140-mm) steel brackets used for
connection to the actuator. Two longitudinal reinforcement
area ratios, namely, 2.1 and 3.8 percent, were investigated and
provided by six No. 3 or six No. 4 deformed bars. A cover of
0.5 in. (12.7 mm) was used for the longitudinal reinforce-
ment. Transverse ties fabricated from 1/4-in.-(6.4-mm)-
diameter cold-drawn smoothed bars were provided at a
spacing of six times the longitudinal bar diameter, i.e., 2.25 in.
(57 mm) for No. 3 bars, and 3 in. (76 mm) for No. 4 bars. The
close spacing of the transverse ties was intended to simulate
the well-confined condition in the end regions of ductile
walls and to prevent the local buckling of the longitudinal
bars. To insure a proper transfer of the actuator force to the
specimen, six 3/8-in.-(9.5-mm)-diameter all-thread rods
with a 10-in. (254-mm) anchorage length were added to the
two ends of the specimen to increase the tensile capacity at
the connection. In addition to the all-thread rods, two sets
of steel plates, 2.5-in. (64-mm) wide by 1-in. (25-mm)
thick, were used to externally confine the concrete in the
end regions [Fig. 5 and 6(a)] to insure that the transfer of the
longitudinal bar forces to the concrete would not result in a
local bond failure for the longitudinal reinforcement.
A normal weight concrete with an unconfined compressive
strength of f
c
= 4.95 ksi (34.1 MPa) was used for all speci-
mens. The yield strengths of the longitudinal reinforcement
were f
y
= 51.8 and 66.0 ksi (375 and 455 MPa) for No. 3 and
No. 4 bars, respectively, and the yield strength of the transverse
ties was f
y
= 99.0 ksi (683 MPa). Table 1 summaries the
matrix for the test program.
RESULTS
Fig. 6(a) through (d) show four photographs of the speci-
mens at various stages of loading. The initial condition of the
Fig. 5Reinforcement details for test specimens (1 in. = 25.4 mm).
Table 1Test matrix
Height-to-
thickness ratio
L
o
/b
Longitudinal
reinforcement
ratio, percent
Transverse steel
spacing, in. (mm)
No. of
specimens tested
11.75 2.1 2.25 (57) 1
11.75 3.8 3.0 (76) 1
14.75 2.1 2.25 (57) 3
14.75 3.8 3.0 (76) 3
17.75 2.1 2.25 (57) 3
17.75 3.8 3.0 (76) 3
785 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
specimen before testing is shown in Fig. 6(a). The figure also
shows the linear potentiometers used for the axial deforma-
tion measurement and the external steel plates used to
confine the concrete at the ends of the specimen. In contrast,
Fig. 6(b) shows the end of a test where local crushing of
concrete occurred at midheight of the specimen. Although
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were exposed
after crushing of the cover concrete, the concrete core was
well confined by the transverse reinforcement, as can be seen
in Fig. 6(b). Fig. 6(c) and (d) show the final buckled shape of
the specimen with L
o
/b = 14.75 and 17.75, respectively. A
vertical string was used to highlight the transverse curvature
of the buckled specimen in these photographs. The hori-
zontal cracks were fairly uniform in the center portion of the
specimen outside the end-regions. Minimum cracking was
noted in the end-regions as external steel plates were used to
confine the concrete in that region. It should also be noted
that the horizontal crack spacing corresponded to the
(c) (a)
(b) (d)
Fig. 6Damage and failure of test specimens: (a) at start of test; (b) crushing of concrete at midheight of column; (c) buckled
shape for column with L
o
/b = 14.75; and (d) buckled shape for column with L
o
/b = 17.75.
786 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
spacing of the transverse reinforcement, indicating that
these cracks were initiated by the transverse reinforcement.
Fig. 7(a) and (b) show a plot of the nominal axial strain
versus the normalized out-of-plane displacement, and the
companion plot of the nominal axial strain versus the axial
force for a test specimen with L
o
/b = 14.75. The longitudinal
reinforcement ratio of the specimen was = 2.1 percent.
Experimentally, the nominal axial strain was determined by
averaging the displacements over a 15-in. (381-mm) length
in the center portion of the specimen, and the out-of-plane
displacement was determined by the average of two
displacements measured at the midheight of the specimen.
A stable response was obtained for the specimen at low
levels of axial tensile strain, as can be seen in Fig. 7(a). The
normalized out-of-plane displacements were relatively
small, typically less than 0.05, for the peak axial tensile
strains of
a
p
= 0.0078, 0.0108, and 0.0133. For the final
cycle to the peak tensile strain of
a
p
= 0.0161; however, a
rapid increase in the out-of-plane displacement occurred
especially after reloading to an axial strain of
a
= 0.005.
The rapid increase in the out-of-plane displacement was due
to yielding in both layers of reinforcement, as can be seen by
cross-referencing to Fig. 7(b) where the corresponding axial
force at
a
= 0.005 was very close to the compression yield
force of the reinforcement, i.e., A
s
f
y
= 34.2 kips (152 kN).
The large increase in the out-of-plane displacement led to
eventual closure of the cracks followed by crushing and spal-
ling of the cover concrete. The maximum axial force at
concrete crushing was 82 kips (365 kN), well below the
maximum axial compressive force of 138 kips (614 kN) in the
previous cycle. Substituting m = 0.22 into Eq. (1), the
limiting out-of-plane displacement is
c
= 0.19, and this
value has been plotted as a vertical line in Fig. 7(a). The
nominal axial strain at first crack closure calculated from
Eq. (7), assuming c = 1/
2
is
a
*
= -0.0043. The intersection
of
c
= 0.19 and
a
*
= -0.0043 was about 30 percent larger
than the path tracked by the response of the specimen. Note
that in the final load cycle, the specimen showed a momen-
tary halt in the increase of the out-of-plane displacement
with remained at about 0.22 while the nominal axial
strain increased from
a
= -0.0025 to -0.001. The station-
arity in the out-of-plane displacement was associated with
the closure of the cracks, as can be seen by the rapid increase
in the axial force in the companion plot in Fig. 7(b). Fig. 7(a)
Fig. 7Response of test specimens with L
o
/b = 14.75 (1 kip = 4.448 kN).
787 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
Fig. 8Response of test specimens with L
o
/b = 17.75 (1 kip = 4.448 kN).
also shows that the elastic strain recovery after the final
tensile cycle to
a
p
= -0.0161 was
e
= 1.43
y
and the
reloading strain for compression yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement was
r
= 5.74
y
.
Fig. 7(c) and (d) show the response of a specimen with the
same height-to-thickness ratio L
o
/b = 14.75 but with a larger
longitudinal reinforcement ratio = 3.8 percent. With an
increased longitudinal reinforcement ratio, a smaller peak
tensile strain of
a
p
= 0.0143 was required to cause a large
out-of-plane displacement and failure of the specimen. For
the final load cycle, compression yielding in both layers of
reinforcement occurred at
a
= 0.0033, after which a rapid
increase in the out-of-plane displacement was similarly
observed. The increased amount of the longitudinal rein-
forcement also resulted in a smaller theoretical limit for the
normalized out-of-plane displacement of
c
= 0.122, and a
smaller nominal axial strain at first crack closure of
a
*
= -
0.0028. In this specimen, the intersection of
c
= 0.122 and

a
*
= -0.0028 was very close to the path tracked by the
response of the specimen, as can be seen in Fig. 7(c). The
elastic strain recovered from unloading in the final load
cycle was
e
= 1.53
y
, while the reloading strain to cause
compression yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement was

r
= 3.81
y
.
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show the response of a specimen with an
increased height-to-thickness ratio of L
o
/b = 17.75 and a
longitudinal reinforcement ratio of = 2.1 percent. With an
increased slenderness in the specimen, a smaller peak tensile
strain was needed to cause buckling of the specimen. The
peak tensile strain in the final cycle was
a
p
= -0.0139
compared with the peak tensile strain of
a
p
= -0.0161 for the
previous specimen with the same reinforcement ratio but at
a smaller height-to-thickness ratio L
o
/b = 14.75 [Fig. 7(a)].
The response of the specimen was relatively stable at low
levels of axial tensile strains (
a
p
= -0.0055, -0.0081, and -
0.0121) as can be seen by the relatively small out-of-plane
displacements in Fig. 8(a). For the final tensile cycle to
a
p
=
-0.0139, compression yielding of the reinforcement was
noted at a nominal axial strain of
a
= -0.0044. The increase
in the out-of-plane displacement was again rapid after
compression yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. The
theoretical nominal axial strain at first crack closure was
a
*
=
-0.0029, and its intersection with the limiting
c
= 0.19 was
also fairly close to the path tracked by the response of the
788 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
specimen. The elastic strain recovered from unloading in the
final cycle was
e
= 1.51
y
, while the reloading strain for
compression yielding was
r
= 5.05
y
.
Fig. 8(c) and (d) show the response of a specimen with L
o
/b
= 17.75 but with a larger longitudinal reinforcement ratio
= 3.8 percent. With an increase in the longitudinal reinforce-
ment, the peak tensile strain to cause failure of the specimen
decreased to
a
p
= -0.0117. The reduction in the peak tensile
strain was consistent with the trend previously noted for the
less slender specimen. The theoretical nominal axial strain at
first crack closure was
a
*
= -0.0019 and was again very close
to path tracked by the response of the specimen. The elastic
strain recovered upon unloading in the final load cycle was

e
= 1.46
y
while the reloading strain to cause compression
yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement was
r
= 3.05
y
.
Fig. 9(a) and (b) show the plots of the maximum tensile
strains, as predicted by Eq. (8) and (9), versus the height-to-
thickness ratio, and the experimentally measured peak
tensile strains for the specimens with the longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio = 2.1 and 3.8 percent, respectively. The
prediction of the maximum tensile strains by Eq. (8) and (9)
were close to each other for stocky columns, i.e., L
o
/b < 7.
For columns with L
o
/b > 7, the peak tensile strains predicted
by Eq. (8) is significantly larger than that predicted by Eq.
(9). The conservative nature of Eq. (8) and (9) with respect
to the experimental data is evident in Fig. 9(a) and (b). The
circle symbol in Fig. 9(a) and (b) corresponds to the
measured peak tensile strain in the final cycle where buck-
ling failure occurred, whereas the triangle symbol corre-
sponds to the measured peak tensile strain in the previous
load cycle where the specimen was still stable. The
measured peak tensile strains in the final load cycle were all
larger than the maximum tensile strain predicted by Eq. (8)
and (9) for both longitudinal reinforcement ratios, indicating
that both predictions were conservative. The peak tensile
strains for the previous load cycle before failure were gener-
ally larger than the peak tensile strain predicted by Eq. (8),
except for three specimens where the data points lied very
close to the prediction by Eq. (8). On the other hand, Eq. (9)
showed a greater conservatism with respect to the measured
tensile strains in the second to last cycle.
Fig. 10(a) through (d) show the curvature distribution for
four specimens with L
o
/b = 14.75 and 17.75, and longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratios = 2.1 and 3.8 percent. The
curvatures were plotted for the center portion of the spec-
imen, i.e., 40 in. (1016 mm) for specimens with L
o
/b = 14.75,
and 50 in. (1270 mm) for specimens with L
o
/b = 17.75. The
maximum compressive force P for each load cycle and the
peak tensile strain
a
p
were also indicated in each figure. The
curvatures were assumed to be zero at both ends of the spec-
imen. It can be seen from Fig. 10(a) through (d) that relatively
small curvatures and high axial compressive forces were devel-
oped in the specimens for cycles to low levels of nominal axial
tensile strain. For example, for the specimen shown in Fig.
10(a), the maximum curvature was 0.00060 rad/in. (2.36
10
5
rad/mm) after a peak tensile strain of
a
p
= -0.0133, and
the corresponding axial compressive force was 138 kips
(614 kN). In the final load cycle, however, the maximum
curvature increased significantly to 0.00444 rad/in. (1.75
10
4
rad/mm) after a peak tensile strain of
a
p
= -0.0161, while
the maximum axial compressive force decreased to 82 kips
(365 kN). Fig. 10(a) and (b) also show that for specimens
with L
o
/b = 14.75, there was a noticeable reduction in the
curvature in the end-regions of the specimen due to the steel
plates used to externally confine the concrete. The stiffening
effects of the steel plates were, however, less obvious for
specimens with the larger height-to-thickness ratio L
o
/b =
17.75, as can be seen by comparing the curvature distributions
in Fig. 10(c) and (d) with the curvature distributions in
Fig. 10(a) and (b).
CONCLUSIONS
An experimental study was conducted to examine the out-
of-plane stability of reinforced concrete columns under large
amplitude reversed cyclic tension and compression. The
columns were designed to represent the end-regions of a
ductile planar reinforced concrete wall. The study confirmed
the critical influence of the maximum tensile strain on the
lateral stability of these members. Wide cracks developed as
a result of a large yield excursion that must close before the
compressive capacity of the column can be fully developed. A
critical condition exists prior to closing of the cracks where an
excessive out-of-plane displacement may occur, causing the
column to become unstable. A kinematic relation between the
nominal axial strain and the out-of-plane displacement of the
column, as well as the axial force versus the nominal axial
strain response, were presented in this paper, and an equation
based on this behavior was developed for estimating the
maximum tensile strain. When compared with a previous
equation, the equation showed a similar prediction of the
maximum tensile strain for columns with a height-to-thick-
ness ratio of less than 7 but deviates significantly for
Fig. 9Comparison between predicted and experimental maximum tensile strains: (a)
reinforcement ratio = 2.1 percent; and (b) reinforcement ratio = 3.8 percent.
789 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1999
columns with larger height-to-thickness ratio. Experimental
data, however, indicated that both equations are conservative
with respect to the prediction of the maximum tensile strain.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research presented in this paper has been partially supported by the
National Science Foundation under a Research Initiation Grant to the first
author (No. CMS-94-09268). Their support is gratefully acknowledged.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in the paper are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the sponsor.
REFERENCES
1. Paulay, T., The Design of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Structural
Walls for Earthquake Resistance, Earthquake Spectra, V. 2, No. 4, 1986,
pp. 783-824.
2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
3. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley Interscience Publication,
1992, 744 pp.
4. Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., Ductility and Detailing Require-
ments of Bearing Wall Buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 116, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1625-1644.
5. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Stability of Ductile Structural
Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 4, 1993, pp. 385-392.
Fig. 10Measured transverse curvature distributions in test columns (1 in. = 25.4 mm):
(a) L
o
/b = 14.75; = 2.1 percent; (b) L
o
/ b = 14.75; = 3.8 percent; (c) L
o
/b = 17.75;
= 2.1 percent; and (d) L
o
/b = 17.75; = 3.8 percent.