2011 562049

This article was downloaded by: [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet]
On: 31 May 2015, At: 00:19

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete

Walls Subjected to Cyclic Loading
a
J. Krolicki , J. Maffei & G. M. Calvi
Arup , San Francisco, California, USA
Rutherford & Chekene , San Francisco, California, USA
Institute for Advanced Study IUSS , Pavia, Italy

Published online: 01 Apr 2011.
To cite this article: J. Krolicki , J. Maffei & G. M. Calvi (2011) Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Walls Subjected to Cyclic Loading, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15:S1, 30-71, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2011.562049
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.562049
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(S1):3071, 2011

Copyright A. S. Elnashai & N. N. Ambraseys
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2011.562049
Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Subjected to Cyclic Loading
J. KROLICKI1 , J. MAFFEI2 , and G. M. CALVI3
1
Arup, San Francisco, California, USA

Rutherford & Chekene, San Francisco, California, USA
3
Institute for Advanced Study IUSS, Pavia, Italy
Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015
This research proposes a new shear strength model, based on modifications to the UCSD shear
model by Kowalsky and Priestley [2000], to calculate the shear capacity and predict the displacement
ductility of reinforced concrete walls in diagonal tension. An experimental database is created from a
literature review of experimental tests of reinforced concrete walls that exhibit strength degradation
and shear failure during cyclic loading. This experimental database is used in the formulation of
the proposed shear model and to test the accuracy of the model. The proposed model improves the
accuracy of calculating pre-emptive shear and flexure-shear strength, correctly identifies the failure
mode for all collected specimens, and provides the closest prediction of the ultimate displacement
ductility. Based on this research, the proposed shear model is recommended for the calculation of
the shear strength of reinforced concrete walls for either the assessment of existing buildings or the
design of new structures.
Keywords Reinforced Concrete; Walls; Shear Failure; Diagonal Tension; Shear Strength; Seismic
Design; Cyclic Loading; Ductility
1. Introduction
Significant advances have been made over the past several decades in understanding the
behavior of reinforced concrete structures during earthquakes. Research has shown that,
rather than improving strength, improving the displacement capacity of a structure will
improve the durability of the structure to resist earthquakes.
For a reinforced concrete wall to have a ductile response the more dependable flexural
yielding of the designated plastic hinge regions should control the strength, inelastic deformation, and energy dissipation of the structural system. All shear failure modes and other
potential failure modes should be designed to exceed the flexural strength capacity through
all levels of ductility. Structural walls where shear failure limits the ultimate displacement
have restricted ductility capacity and are vulnerable to brittle shear failure.
In order to design a plastic hinge that meets the crucial requirement of being ductile
rather than brittle, its shear capacity must exceed its flexural capacity. Thus, our ability to
calculate both the shear and flexural capacity is critical. The latter is now increasingly well
understood. Research has given us tools, such as moment-curvature analysis, to model and
calculate the flexural behavior of concrete elements. Shear capacity, however, is subject to
more factors and is related to a wider range of outcomes. For these reasons, current design
relies on conservative benchmarks rather than precise models.
Address correspondence to J. Krolicki, Arup, 560 Mission, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA;
E-mail: jason.krolicki@arup.com
30
31
The goal of this work is to propose an improved shear strength model to help engineers
develop a more reliable seismic design and better understand the ultimate behavior of reinforced concrete wall structures. It is envisioned that this improved shear model would offer
engineers a methodology to calculate the shear strength, determine the ductility capacity,
and identify the failure mode of structural walls with limited ductility. By meeting these
objectives the proposed shear model could become an essential tool for displacement or
performance-based assessment and design of structural walls.
2. Experimental Database
An experimental database is created from a literature review of published results of reinforced concrete wall tests that exhibit shear strength degradation and failure during cyclic
loading. A preliminary screening of the published test results eliminates wall tests that are
documented as web-crushing, sliding shear failure or a flexural response and tests with
poor quality hysteretic data. The preliminary screening yielded three sources for reinforced
concrete wall specimens failing in shear in diagonal tension under cyclic loading.
The first of these is a test program of reinforced concrete walls conducted by Hidalgo
et al. [1998] at the Universidad Catolica de Chile in Santiago, Chile. The testing program
focused on the behavior of reinforced concrete walls that exhibit shear failure through the
test of 26 specimens subjected to cyclic loading in double curvature. The varying specimen
parameters include the wall aspect ratio, the horizontal and vertical reinforcement ratio,
and the compressive strength of concrete.
The second source is from the Imperial College in London where Pilakoutas and
Elnashai [1995a] tested six walls in single curvature and varying horizontal and vertical
reinforcement, and boundary tie reinforcement. One wall is observed to fail in pre-emptive
shear and another in flexure-shear. Each of the six walls is reviewed in the detailed
screening.
Finally, Priestley et al. [1993] tested full-size bridge piers at the University of
California, San Diego. The testing program includes two rectangular piers tested in double
curvature and fail in diagonal tension.
This preliminary literature review resulted in 34 accepted experimental test specimens. These specimens are further evaluated by a detailed screening process to identify
the specimen failure mode.
2.1. Flexure vs. Shear Failure
The first step to verify a flexure or shear failure mode is to plot the experimental forcedisplacement envelope of the hysteretic response vs. the calculated force-displacement
response. To capture the experimental force-displacement envelope the full hysteretic
response curve for each specimen is plotted. Both the positive and negative experimental hysteretic load-displacement response curves are traced to create an envelope of the
experimental response.
An average bilinear force-displacement curve, approximated as elastic-perfectlyplastic, is calculated from the two experimental response envelopes using the following
procedure. First, the average experimental ultimate strength of the two response envelopes
is calculated and plotted (VU ). Second, the intersection of the bilinear curve or estimate of
first yield is calculated as 0.75 times the average experimental ultimate strength. A line
is plotted from the origin to intersect this point and terminate at the average experimental ultimate strength. The intersection of the two lines identifies the experimental yield
32
J. Krolicki, J. Maffei, and G. M. Calvi

Envelope of experimental response
Bilinear response curve
VU
0.8V U
Lateral Force
0.75V U
y , Yield disp.
u , Ultimate
Lateral Displacement
FIGURE 1 Definition of experimental yield displacement and ultimate displacement.

displacement. Last, the ultimate experimental displacement is calculated when the experimental response has degraded to 0.8 times the average experimental ultimate strength.
Figure 1 graphically demonstrates this relationship.
The calculated force-deformation response curve is calculated using the procedure outlined by Priestley et al. [2007]. This procedure is based on a combination of the flexural
response calculated from moment-curvature analysis and the shear displacement response.
This procedure is documented in detail later in this report.
The experimental force-displacement envelope and the calculated force-displacement
response are plotted together to confirm that the specimen failed in shear. A shear failure
is evident if the experimental envelope drops off in rapid degradation prior to reaching
the ultimate displacements predicted in the calculated force-displacement response or if
the maximum measured experimental force does not reach the calculated ultimate flexural
capacity. If a shear failure mode cannot clearly be determined, the specimen is discarded.
2.2. Determining the Mode of Shear Failure
The next step is to determine mode of shear failure of the specimen. There are several
possible modes of failure for reinforced concrete walls: anchorage failure, sliding shear,
diagonal compression or web-crushing, and diagonal tension.
a. Anchorage failure. To assure that an anchorage failure is not expected, the minimum required anchorage is calculated based on the equation given by Priestley
et al. [1996]. In order to preclude anchorage rotations from occurring, the vertical
reinforcement should be embedded at minimum distance, ldc , given as:
ldc =
0.3db fy
.
fc
(1)
b. Sliding Shear or Shear Friction. The equation by Mattock et al. [1972], given in
the ACI 318-05 Commentary R11.7.3, is used to calculate the sliding shear strength
or the shear friction capacity of the wall specimen. This alternate equation includes
both the effects of dowel action from reinforcement crossing the shear plane and
from aggregate interlock along the crack faces. The equation gives a closer prediction of shear-transfer strength than the conservative codified equation. The nominal
33
shear friction strength, where shear friction reinforcement is perpendicular to the

shear plane, is given as:
Vn = 0.8Avf fy + Ac K1 ,
(2)
where K1 = 400psi for normal weight concrete.

c. Diagonal compression/Web crushing. The web-crushing capacity of the specimen is calculated using two distinct methods to confirm that web-crushing failure
of the specimen did not occur. The first method proposed by Oesterle et al. [1983]
indicates that web crushing behavior is more likely at large lateral deformations and
for walls with higher axial loads.
The web-crushing strength of a wall is calculated as:
Vwc,max =
1.8fc
bw (0.8lw ),
1 + 600 2000 ANguf
(3)
where is the story drift ratio to which the wall is subjected. For walls with high
axial loads, when Nu /Ag fc 0.09, the web crushing strength may not exceed:
Vwc,max =
1.8fc
bw (0.8lw ).
1 + (420)
(4)
The other method used to verify the web-crushing capacity is proposed by Paulay
and Priestley [1992]. In the plastic hinge regions, walls may have significant diagonal cracking in both directions. The diagonal compression strength of the concrete
strut of the truss mechanism may be considerably reduced. It is recommended by
Paulay and Priestley [1992] that the total shear stress in this region be limited to
80% of that in elastic regions.
vwc,max 0.16fc 870 psi (6MPa).
(5)
Paulay and Priestley [1992] reported that web crushing may occur in the plastic
hinge zone at lower shear stresses than the maximum limitation given in Eq. (5)
after a few cycles of reverse loading involving displacement ductility ratios of four
or more. To account for the dynamic effects and expected ductility of the wall, the
plastic hinge region shall have the addition limitation on shear stress, given as:

vwc,max

0.22o,w
+ 0.03 fc .
(6)
The variable o,w is the wall flexural over strength factor, calculated as the flexural
over strength divided by the moment resulting from code forces. A typical value
assumed in the calculation is 1.4.
The maximum web crushing shear strength is calculated as:
Vwc,max = (0.8lw bw )vwc,max .
(7)
34

Specimen and
Experimental Data
Experimental F- hysteretic
curves
Flexural
REJECTED
Plot F-
Curves
Failure Mode
Check
Calculated F- Response
curve
Shear
ACCEPT
Determine Mode of Shear

Failure
Shear Friction
Check by Calculation
Sufficient
ACCEPT
Shear
Friction
Insufficient
REJECTED
Diagonal Compression
Check by Calculation
Insufficient
REJECTED
Diagonal
Compression
Sufficient
ACCEPT
Determine Flexure-shear or
Pre-emptive Shear Failure
Pre-emptive Shear
Failure
Assemble
Pre-emptive Shear
Database
Check First
Yield
Flexure-Shear
Failure
Assemble
Flexure-Shear
Database
FIGURE 2 Shear failure screening processes for wall experimental database.
If the web-crushing capacity calculated by either equation at the measured displacement ductility is less than the applied maximum experimental shear force, a
potential web-crushing failure is assumed and the wall specimen is discarded.
The remaining specimens are categorized as flexure-shear or pre-emptive shear
failures by plotting the experimental hysteretic envelope with the calculated flexural
response and comparing the experimental peak strength to the calculated first yield.
The following flow chart, Fig. 2, identifies the key steps in the detailed shear
failure screening process for the experimental database.
2.3. Pre-emptive Shear Database

Pre-emptive shear failure is defined as a member loss of strength from a shear failure in
diagonal tension prior to reaching flexural yield. Indications of pre-emptive shear failure
are when the maximum experimental strength of the specimen does not reach the flexural
35
Idealized F- response curve

Fy
Calculated F- response curve
Fexp
Lateral Force
Calculated First Yield

Experimental response
envelope of pre-emptive
shear failure
y Calculated yield displacement

Displacement
FIGURE 3 Definition of pre-emptive shear failure.

TABLE 1 Range of data for wall specimens exhibiting pre-emptive shear failure
Variable
Concrete strength
Transverse Reinf.
Ratio
Longitudinal Reinf.
Ratio
Shear-Span Ratio
(M/VLw )
Axial Stress Ratio
(P/f c Ag )
Specimens with
horizontal
reinforcement data
range
Specimens without
horizontal
reinforcement data
range
All specimens
data range
24805000 (psi)
17.134.5 (MPa)
0.001230.0031
24953510 (psi)
17.224.2 (MPa)
0.0
24805000 (psi)
17.134.5 (MPa)
0.00.0031
0.00540.0302
0.00430.0068
0.00430.0302
0.352.0
0.350.69
0.352.0
0.00160.0645
0.00360.0057
0.00160.0645
first yield, followed by rapid strength degradation after the maximum strength is reached.
An example plot of a pre-emptive shear failure is provided in Fig. 3.
The assembled database of wall specimens failing in pre-emptive shear from cyclic
loading is comprised of 18 walls. The database is further subdivided into nine wall specimens with horizontal reinforcement and nine wall specimens without. Table 1 presents
the range of significant variables for the collected specimens of the pre-emptive shear
database.
2.4. Flexure-Shear Database

Flexure-shear failure is identified by a rapid degradation of the shear resisting concrete
mechanism due to cyclic loading after flexural yielding has occurred. This rapid loss of
shear resistance can be seen in the hysteretic response by strength degradation on subsequent loading cycles beyond the peak strength. Therefore, members failing in flexure-shear
36

Idealized F- response curve
Calculated F- response curve
Fexp
Fy
Lateral Force
Experimental response
envelope of flexure-shear
failure
Calculated First Yield
y Calculated yield displacement

Displacement
FIGURE 4 Definition of flexure-shear failure.

TABLE 2 Range of data for wall specimens exhibiting flexure-shear failure
Variable
Concrete strength
Transverse Reinforcement Ratio
Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio
Shear-Span Ratio (M/VLw )
Axial Stress Ratio (P/f c Ag )
Displacement Ductility
Data range
23805600 (psi)
16.438.6 (MPa)
0.00130.0031
0.00630.0157
0.5 2.0
0.0010.007
2.45.8
have very limited displacement ductility. Figure 4 demonstrates the conditions used to
classify flexure-shear failures.
The screened database of tests that exhibit flexure-shear failure results in eight walls
identified as exhibiting a flexure-shear failure. The collected database contains specimens
with the following range of significant variables shown in Table 2.
3. Development of the Proposed Shear Strength Model

3.1. Mechanism of Shear Resistance
Since the air force warehouse shear failure in 1955, investigated by Elstner and Hognestad
[1957], there had been intensive research to understand and predict shear strength and
failure modes of reinforced concrete under static loads. Much of the current ACI code
provisions are based on the reports from ACI-ASCE Committee 326 in 1962 and ACIASCE Joint Committee 426 in 1973. Elsewhere, similar research efforts to define shear
resistance were underway around the same time, with significant advances in Europe and
New Zealand. In the last few decades, concrete shear failure due to earthquakes has focused
research on the shear capacity of members subjected to cyclic loading and produced several
research based shear models.
37
FIGURE 5 Internal forces of cracked beam with stirrups [MacGregor and Wight, 2005].
The ACI-ASCE research on shear resistance of reinforced concrete identified four
of the major components of shear resistance. A section of a cracked reinforced concrete
beam is represented by MacGregor and Wight [2005] in Fig. 5. The internal shear resisting
mechanisms are shown between the cracked sections in equilibrium.
The internal forces resisting shear include the concrete in the compression zone Vcz ,
aggregate interlock along the crack face Vay , dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement Vd , and transverse steel truss mechanism Vs . The distribution of shear between each
internal mechanism is diagrammatically shown in Fig. 6 from the ACI-ASCE Committee
426 [1973].
Early shear strength models reduced this complex behavior down to two main shear
resisting mechanisms: a concrete contribution and a steel truss contribution. The concrete
mechanisms lump the shear contribution from the concrete in the compression zone Vcz ,
shear along the crack face trough aggregate interlock Vay , and shear resistance of dowel
action of the longitudinal reinforcement Vd into one term. The shear carried by this simplified concrete term is given as an average shear stress across the section calculated as a
proportion of the concrete tensile strength.
The transverse steel truss analogy for the design of shear reinforcement was proposed
independently by Ritter [1899] and Morsch [1902]. A detailed description of the conceptual truss analogy is provided by Park and Paulay [1975]. This early model remains
the preferred method of calculating the internal force equilibrium of reinforced concrete
sections. Considering a beam, the web of the analogous truss is formulated by diagonal
concrete compression struts parallel to the inclined cracks and vertical tension members of
the transverse reinforcement. The concrete compression zone and the longitudinal flexural
reinforcement create the chords of the analogous truss. The slope of the compression diagonals has been traditionally assumed to be 45 to the longitudinal axis for calculation of
shear strength. More recently, shear models have incorporated the observed phenomenon
of variation in the angle of diagonal cracking and allow it to vary from as much as 2565
depending on the loading and the location from the support.
From this same truss analogy, the struts closer to the face of the fixed support of a beam
are known to be steeper and are an indication of arch action. According to Park and Paulay
[1975], this arch action has a tendency to boost the capacity of the other shear carrying
38
FIGURE 6 Distribution of internal shears in beam with web reinforcement [ASCE-ACI,

1973].
mechanisms. This increase in shear capacity has led to shear models that require alternate
methods for calculating the shear resistance of members with low shear span ratios.
Several improvements to the early shear models have been proposed through ongoing
research. Research developed shear models have introduced a factor to account for the
increase in effectiveness of the concrete contribution with longitudinal web reinforcement.
Research developed shear models have also worked to separate the individual contribution
of key variables that have been lumped within the concrete shear resisting mechanism, such
as the benefit of axial load.
The contribution to shear resistance from axial load is only effective where cracks
are closed and, therefore, only applicable to the compression zone. However, most shear
strength models do not account for the increase in shear from axial load unless posttensioning reinforcement is used. To properly account for the axial load contribution to
shear resistance, the shear contribution of the compression zone must be separated from
the shear contribution from aggregate interlock of the remaining section.
Perhaps the most significant development in the calculation of shear capacity for the
resistance of seismic loading is identifying the loss of shear strength with repeated load
reversals. Early experimental programs with cyclic loading recorded the degradation of
shear strength with increasing displacement ductility. The Applied Technology Council, in
the Seismic Guidelines for Highway Bridges [ATC-6, 1981], proposed a conceptual model
of a shear strength envelope that degrades with increasing displacement ductility. This
conceptual model is the foundation for several research based ductility dependent shear
capacity models including the UCSD shear model by Kowalsky and Priestley [2000].
The proposed shear strength model is based on the UCSD shear model by Kowalsky
and Priestley [2000] with proposed changes for walls and members with low shear span
ratios. The UCSD model is selected for the development of the proposed shear model for
several reasons.
39
The UCSD shear model included the most significant parameters known to relate to
shear strength.
Each of the identified components of shear resistance is intended to relate to physical
phenomenon, not just empirical equations best fit to data.
The research conducted by Kowalsky and Priestley [2000] showed the model to have
good agreement in predicting column shear strength.
The model identifies factors that can be used for both assessment and design.
Kowalsky and Priestley [2000] suggested the model may be applicable for elements
with aspect ratio less than 1.5 but additional research is required.
The UCSD shear model was, however, developed for calculating the shear resistance of
columns based on cyclic loaded column tests. The shear resistance of columns and walls,
and how it is calculated, is somewhat different and worthy of comparison.
3.2. Comparison of the Shear Resistance of Columns and Walls

The calculation of the shear span ratio is one of the fundamental differences between
columns and walls. The shear span ratio is defined as the moment to shear ratio divided
by the member depth (i.e., length of wall) parallel to the shear, given as (M/VLw ). The
shear span ratio of columns is typically related to one of two conditions: columns loaded
in double curvature, and columns loaded in single curvature (i.e., cantilevered). Although
there is some variation of the shear span ratios of columns in double curvature based on the
stiffness of the end restraint condition, the shear span ratio for most columns can be calculated from the geometric relationships. For double curvature, the moment is proportional
to the shear times the height divided by two. For cantilevers or single curvature columns,
the moment is proportional to the shear times the height. Given this relationship, the shear
span ratio can be calculated based on the column height and width, similar to the aspect
ratio. These relationships are demonstrated in Fig. 7.
Compared to columns the shear span ratio of walls is more variable depending on the
height of the wall, number of floors, and coupling between walls. Structural walls supporting multiple floors have distributed inertial shear forces due to earthquakes over the
height of the wall. These inertial forces are dependent on the mass participation of fundamental modes of vibration and the distribution of ductility. For coupled walls, the wall
pier moments are redistributed over the height of the wall, depending on the strength of the
coupling beams. Given this complexity, the shear span ratio for walls should be estimated
based on the earthquake demand (shear and moment) under equilibrium of the wall system.
A few examples are given in Fig. 8.
M/V
d
M/V
M
Shear Span Ratio = M/Vd = h /2d

Column Double Curvature
M
Shear Span Ratio = M/Vd = h/d
Column Single Curvature
FIGURE 7 Columnshear span ratio, double and single curvature.
40

Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
M/V
Vi
Vi
Lw
M/V
Lw
Shear Span Ratio = M/VL w

Coupled Wall
Multi-Story Wall
FIGURE 8 Wallshear span ratio.

y
avg = V/Ag
max = (3/2)V/Ag
Ag
FIGURE 9 Shear stresses in a rectangular cross section.

Another comparison of the shear resistance of columns and walls is the calculation of
the effective shear area. Based on shear flow, the shear stress varies over the depth of a section. For homogeneous elastic rectangular sections the shear stress distribution is parabolic.
This relationship is presented in detail in Ugural [1991] and shown in Fig. 9. Traditionally,
in calculations the shear stress has been simplified to an average shear stress across the
gross area of the section. This shear stress distribution is typical of uncracked rectangular
column sections. In the case of cracked sections, where there is no concrete tensile capacity
in the tension zone the distribution of shear stress is quite different.
Structural walls are often made up of flanged sections, creating for example L-shaped,
T-shaped, C-shaped, or I-shaped cross sections. The shear stress distribution of uncracked
flanged sections is slightly different, as shown in Fig. 10. For a thin flange, the stress is very
small as compared to the shear stress in the web. The average shear stress is calculated as
acting on the effective area of the web, Aweb . In ACI 318, the effective shear area for walls,
Acv , is calculated as the gross area of concrete section bounded by web thickness and length
of section in the directions of shear force considered.
Other differences that effect the calculation of shear resistance of walls and columns
include the following.
Walls are more likely to be squat than columns. Some of the most common applications of structural walls are in low-rise buildings, where the height to width ratio of
the walls is typically low.
Walls have proportionally better development of reinforcement. Due to the proportion of the length of the wall to the diameter of the horizontal reinforcement (lw /db ),

y
41
avg = V/Aweb
(xy)max
Aweb
(xy)min
FIGURE 10 Shear stresses in flanged section.
the reinforcement can fully develop in wall sections. In addition, cyclic loading is
less likely to degrade the bond of the reinforcement over the full section.
Walls may have distributed flexural reinforcement.
Walls are typically designed for uniaxial bending, where columns are subjected to
biaxial demands. Columns under biaxial cyclic loading have increased degradation
of the concrete and shear resistance. Unlike columns, the out of plane bending of
walls is relatively flexible, has low strain demands, and is not considered to have a
significant contribution to lateral resistance.
There has been more testing of columns than walls. Past research and funding has
focused on the shear resistance of columns under cyclic loading, resulting in a substantial experimental database and research proposed shear models. These shear
models have often been extrapolated to be applied to the calculation of shear strength
of walls.
These key differences between columns and walls are evaluated and considered in the
proposed modifications to the UCSD shear model.
3.3. The Proposed Shear Strength Model
The form of the proposed shear strength equation is unchanged from the modified UCSD
shear model by Kowalsky and Priestley [2000], given as:
Vcap = VC + VS + VP .
(8)
The shear strength equation calculates the capacity as the sum of three components:
VC = Concrete shear-resisting mechanism
VS = Horizontal reinforcement truss shear-resisting mechanism
VP = Axial load component.
The proposed changes to each component of shear resistance are discussed in detail in the
following sections.
3.4. Proposed Horizontal Reinforcement Truss Shear-Resisting Mechanism (VS )
The wall section illustrated in Fig. 11 demonstrates the shear strength developed by the
horizontal reinforcement truss mechanism, as suggested by Kowalsky and Priestley [2000].
42
FIGURE 11 Average crack angle, .

The critical inclined flexure-shear crack is shown crossing the section at an average angle,
, to the vertical axis. The horizontal reinforcement crossing the crack act to transfer shear
forces. The maximum shear force that can be resisted by the horizontal reinforcement
equals the area of steel crossing the crack times the yield strength and the angle at which
the load is applied.
The average cracking angle = 30 is recommended by Priestley et al. [1996] for
assessment of existing structures. For design, a more conservative value of = 35 is
recommended.
In the collected experimental database, Hidalgo et al. [2002] reported an experimental
value for the measured horizontal reinforcement contribution to shear resistance, VS.exp , for
each wall specimen tested. Hidalgo et al. [2002] calculated the experimental shear contribution of horizontal reinforcement from measured strains in the reinforcement from straingages located close to diagonal cracks. The corresponding stresses are calculated from the
measured stress-strain curves for the reinforcement. For walls where cracking occurred
away from the strain-gages, the shear resisted by the reinforcement is calculated assuming
yielding had been attained in each horizontal bar crossing the main diagonal crack.
The UCSD model calculated shear contribution from horizontal reinforcement is compared to the measured experimental steel contribution. Figure 12 provides the ratio of the
measured experimental horizontal reinforcement shear, Vs.exp , from Hidalgo et al. [2002],
to the UCSD calculated steel contribution to shear resistance, Vs.pred . Values of the ratio
Vs.exp /Vs.pred of less than 1.0, suggest the UCSD model is over-predicting the steel truss

2.0
Vs.exp / Vs.pred
Vs.exp / Vs.pred
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
(b) Aspect Ratio
(a) Test Number
43
FIGURE 12 Horizontal reinforcement shear strength: Vs experimental data vs. Vs

UCSD model.
contribution to shear resistance. The statistical mean is equal to 0.67 for the set of data and
the coefficient of variation is 10.2%. When the ratio, Vs.exp /Vs.pred , is plotted based on specimen shear span ratio, as shown in Fig.12b, a trend is apparent. As the specimen shear span
ratio reduces, the over-prediction of the calculated contribution horizontal reinforcement
increases.
This over-prediction may result from overestimation of the cracking angle. It was
observed by Priestley et al. [1996] that diagonal compression struts and cracking usually
form at 45 degree angles and then tend to flatten towards 30 as the yielding of the member
progresses. This change in inclination of the struts from 45 to 30 is due to the interaction
between flexure and shear. The crack angle formed may also be influenced by the ratio of
longitudinal to horizontal reinforcement. The specimens collected for this research have
low shear span ratios and limited ductility. This limited ductility after yield is thought to
prevent full flexure-shear cracking from developing and result in limited cracking angles.
The reduction in the angle of the compressive struts and shear cracking with lower
shear span ratio can be conceptually represented by an equivalent plastic-truss model.
Walls with shear span ratios of 2.0 and 0.7 are represented in Fig. 13. The tension and
compression influence lines demonstrate a conceptual internal force path for the element.
It is apparent that walls with the lower shear span ratios result in shallower compression
struts and a larger angle of concrete cracking, .
3.4.1. Proposed Average Cracking Angle, cr . To account for this change in walls with low
shear span ratios, it is proposed that the average critical cracking angle varies as a factor of
shear span ratio (M/Vlw ). For shear span ratio greater than or equal to two (M/Vlw 2), the
average cracking angle will develop at cr = 30 degrees. For a shear span less than two, the
cracking angle varies linearly to 45 . This relationship is shown in Fig. 14 and is given as:

cr =
30 45
2

M
V lw
+ 45 30 .
(9)
3.4.2. Vertical Height of Inclined Crack, hcr . Diagonal tension failure of walls with low
shear span ratios may occur across tension cracks developed from corner to corner of the
wall or along a steeper angle of cracking, as described by Paulay and Priestley [1992].
The ultimate behavior is largely dependent on the amount of transverse reinforcement and
the horizontal axial strength of the floor structure or tie beam at the top of the wall to
44
Tension Ties
Compression Influence Lines
Compression
Influence Lines
a) Wall Shear Span Ratio - 2.0
b) Wall Shear Span Ratio - 0.7
FIGURE 13 Plastic truss model for tall and squat cantilever walls.
FIGURE 14 Average crack angle, cr .

redistribute shear along the wall. However, the maximum vertical height of the inclined
crack that can develop regardless of the cracking angle is limited to the height of the wall.
The projected vertical height of the critical flexure-shear inclined crack, hcr , is
dependent on the average diagonal crack angle, cr , to the vertical axis, given as:
hcr =
l
hw ,
tan cr
(10)
where l is the horizontal projection of the crack length.

In the compression zone the diagonal shear cracks are closed and therefore do not
engage the transverse reinforcement. The horizontal projection of the crack length is
reduced by, c, the depth of the compression zone and, c0 , the cover to the main bars as
shown in Fig. 11. The horizontal projection of the crack length is calculated as:
l = lw c co .
(11)
a) Wall shear span ratio 2.0
b) Wall shear span ratio 1.0
45
c) Wall shear span ratio 0.5
FIGURE 15 Height of vertical cracking for walls of varying shear span ratio loaded in
single curvature.
The compression zone, c, can be calculated through moment curvature analysis or
reasonably assumed for walls as 0.2lw .
Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate the relationship of the average cracking angle cr , the
vertical crack height hcr , and varying shear span ratios for walls loaded in double and single
curvature.
3.4.3. Proposed Horizontal Reinforcement Truss Shear-Resisting Mechanism. Given the
proposed changes to the average cracking angle and the limit on crack height, the proposed
shear contribution of the effective horizontal reinforcement crossing the inclined crack is
calculated as:
VS = t tw hcr fy =
Av fy hcr
.
S
(12)
3.4.4. Comparison to Data. Using the proposed Eq. (12), the ratio of the calculated
shear contribution from horizontal reinforcement Vs.pred and experimental shear Vs.exp from
Hidalgo et al. [2002] is plotted in Fig. 17. The statistical mean is equal to 1.04 for the same
dataset and the coefficient of variation is 4.9%.
The proposed revisions to the shear contribution of the horizontal reinforcement result
in improved accuracy in predicting the measured experimental values in the collected
dataset. The variation in the calculated results of the proposed model with respect to wall
shear span ratio, shown in Fig. 17b, also shows significant improvement.
3.5. Proposed Concrete Shear-Resisting Mechanism (VC )
The proposed concrete shear-resisting mechanism maintains the same variables as given
in the UCSD shear model. The contribution of the concrete to the shear resistance is
calculated as:

VC,proposed = P P fc (0.8Acv ).
(13)
a) Wall shear span ratio 2.0
b) Wall shear span ratio 1.0
c) Wall shear span ratio 0.5
FIGURE 16 Height of vertical cracking for walls of varying shear span ratio loaded in
double curvature.
2.0
2.0
Vs.exp / Vs.pred
Vs.exp / Vs.pred
46
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a) Test Number
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
b) Shear Span Ratio
FIGURE 17 Horizontal reinforcement shear strength: Vs experimental data vs. Vs

proposed model.
47
= 0.5 + 20g
(14)
1.0,
(15)
where g is the ratio of total longitudinal reinforcement over the gross cross-sectional area
of the member. This relationship is shown in Fig. 18.
3.5.1. Proposed Shear Degradation Coefficient, P . The shear resistance of concrete is
known to degrade during cyclic loading with increasing ductility demands. As displacements increase, the cracks widen, reducing the effectiveness of the aggregate interlock
shear resistance along the crack surface. Upon reversal of the displacement, the induced
moments in the element reverse and the yielded reinforcement must first be overcome for
the crack to close. As the crack closes there is a lack of fit along the concrete surface and
protrusions are crushed or ground away. The roughness along the crack begins to wear, thus
reducing the effectiveness of this surface to resist shear upon the next displacement cycle.
If vertical reinforcement in the centre of the wall or horizontal reinforcement yields, cracks
may not fully close. The coefficient P attempts to model this complex phenomenon.
In the original formulation of the UCSD model [Priestley et al., 1994] the displacement ductility factor, k, is given as a bilinear degradation curve with increasing ductility
demands. The FEMA 306 [ATC, 1999a] model adjusted the UCSD model for the application to reinforced concrete walls by changing bilinear degradation to linear degradation
and by reducing the high ductility limit of 8.0 down to a displacement ductility limit of 5.0.
The modified UCSD model by Kowalsky and Priestley [2000] simplifies the displacement
ductility factor to a linear degradation. The modified UCSD model suggests for uniaxial
columns loading, the coefficient should be taken as 0.29 MPa (3.5 psi) for low ductility
( 2.0) and vary linearly to 0.05 MPa (0.6 psi) for high ductility ( 8.0).
1.5
1.3
1.0
- factor
The effective shear area is the gross area of the wall web, less the compression zone.
Assuming the compression zone is approximately 0.2 lw , the area is estimated as 0.8 Acv .
The coefficient P accounts for the degradation of the shear resistance of concrete as a
function of displacement ductility. The coefficient P accounts for the effects of shear span
ratio. The coefficient accounts for the increase in shear resistance proportional to increasing volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcement and is unchanged from the USCD shear
model.
The coefficient is calculated as:
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio
0.06
FIGURE 18 Longitudinal reinforcement ratio coefficient, .
48
Considering that the degradation of the concrete contribution is affected by the crack
width, the factor maybe better expressed in terms of curvature ductility. However, for this
research, comparison of results was made with experimental force-displacement hysteretic
data where curvature was not recorded. Therefore, displacement ductility was considered
to provide a more straight forward comparison to the data.
As the shear span ratio of a section is reduced, the influence of shear displacement
and the effects of shear cracking become increasingly prominent in the force-displacement
response. Therefore, it is less likely that a section with a low shear span ratio would reach
high displacement ductility before the shear failure occurs. For this reason the proposed
model limits the displacement ductility factor P to 6.0 for walls with aspect ratios less
than 2.0. The proposed displacement ductility factor, P , shown in Fig. 19, accounts for
the degradation of the shear resistance of concrete as a function of displacement ductility,
given as:
P = 0.29MPa (3.5 psi) for low ductility 2.0
P = 0.05 MPa (0.6 psi) for high ductility 6.0
P is calculated by linear interpolation for values of displacement ductility between the
above limits.
For members protected against plastic hinging by capacity design and sections away
from the plastic hinge region, the displacement ductility is taken as 1.0, P = 0.29 MPa
(3.5 psi).
For walls with shear span ratios greater that 2.0, the displacement ductility factor is
expected to match the UCSD model recommendations of a high displacement ductility
limit of 8.0. However, the maximum shear span ratio of the experimental database for
this study is limited to 2.0 and therefore could not be studied. In addition, the limits on
displacement ductility may vary based on shear span ratio but there is insufficient evidence
to support this.
3.5.2. Proposed Member Shear Span Ratio Coefficient, P . The coefficient P accounts
for the well documented strengthening effects of elements with lower shear span ratios.
Kowalsky and Priestley [2000] suggested that it is probable that the value of in the UCSD
model continues to increase with M/Vlw less than 1.5, but data is not available to confirm.
FIGURE 19 Proposed displacement ductility factor, P.
49
Therefore, particular attention is focused on understanding the relationship of the parameter

P , shear span ratio, and concrete contribution to shear strength.
The experimental value of concrete contribution to shear resistance, VC,exp , is estimated
by subtracting the calculated contribution from the proposed transverse reinforcement
mechanism, VS , and the contribution from axial loads,
VP , from the measured experimental
shear capacity VU,exp , VC,exp = VU,exp (VS + VP ) . To solve the experimental data values of P the experimental concrete contribution Vc,exp is divided by the remaining factors
of Eq. (13). Figure 20 represents the experimental database normalized to P plotted vs.
specimen shear span ratio.
For members with a shear span ratio of less than about 2.0 the behavior transitions
from beam action to arch action as loads are redistributed to compression struts and tension
ties. The data trend in Fig. 20 represents this increasing concrete contribution with smaller
shear span ratios attributed to arch action.
The experimental database is assembled for wall tests that are reported to fail in shear.
However, this includes specimens that fail in both pre-emptive shear and shear after flexural
yielding has occurred. As previously discussed, the coefficient P reduces for displacement
ductility greater than 2.0. Therefore, to calibrate the model for the coefficient P , independent from ductility, the experimental database should be filtered for specimens that fail with
a displacement ductility less than 2.0 or in pre-emptive shear.
Another source of variation in the dataset is from the cyclic tests of specimens with no
transverse reinforcement. These tests are observed to have a broad dispersion of results.
Since the focus of the proposed shear model is intended to be a tool for the assessment of existing wall structures and the design of new structures that require horizontal
reinforcement, it seems unlikely to encounter a wall with no horizontal reinforcement.
The specimens with no horizontal reinforcement might unnecessarily cloud the results.
Therefore, specimens that failed in pre-emptive shear with no horizontal reinforcement
where also removed.
The remaining experimental data that fails in pre-emptive shear with horizontal
reinforcement normalized to P is plotted in Fig. 21. Several variations of empirical
curves were statistically matched to the data. Because of the limited remaining data,
the calculated results did not prove to be significantly more accurate than a linear
increase in with reducing shear span ratio following the same slope as proposed by
Kowalsky and Priestley [2000] for aspect ratios less than 1.5. This linear extrapolation produced sufficiently accurate results without introducing unnecessary complications to the
calculation.
The proposed model calculates p as linearly increasing for wall shear span ratios less
than 2.0. The proposed coefficient is calculated as:
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Shear Span Ratio
FIGURE 20 Experimental database normalized to vs. shear span ratio.
50
FIGURE 21 Proposed shear span ratio coefficient, P.
P = 3
M
1.0.
Vlw
(16)
3.6. Axial Load Component (Vp )

The axial load component accounts for the enhancement of shear strength with increased
axial compression. The axial load component Vp is used directly in the proposed model as
originally formulated in UCSD shear model. The axial load component is a based on a simplified assumption of a linear compression strut [Priestley et al., 1996]. The actual behavior
is a combination of applied axial compression force and flexural compression force. As
shown in Fig. 22 for a member in double curvature, the end regions of the curved compression strut have higher magnitudes, but acting at a lower angle to the member than the
middle section. Priestley et al. [1996] suggested that the difference of magnitude and inclination have a similar effect on shear resistance over the member height and that the simple
linear assumption of this complex behavior appears to provide a reasonable fit to test data.
The axial load contribution to shear resistance from the simplified linear compression
strut is shown in Fig. 23, from Priestley et al. [2007], for walls loaded in single curvature
FIGURE 22 Linear representation of curved compression strut [Priestley et al., 1996].
51
FIGURE 23 Axial load contribution Vp for walls loaded in double and single curvature.
and double curvature. The applied shear force is resisted by the horizontal component of
the compression strut.
The axial load contribution to shear resistance is calculated as [Priestley et al., 2007]:
Vp = P tan .
(17)
For cantilever wall tests that are loaded in single curvature, the equation can be
rewritten as:
Vp =
lw c
lw c
P=
P.
2M/V
2hw
(18)
For wall tests loaded in double curvature, the equation becomes:

Vp =
lw c
lw c
P=
P.
2M/V
hw
(19)
3.7. Recommended Procedure for the Proposed Shear Model

Outlined below is the recommended calculation procedure for the proposed shear model.
The proposed equations are repeated here for clarity. As previously stated, the shear
strength capacity of the section is calculated as sum of the concrete shear-resisting mechanism, the transverse reinforcement truss shear-resisting mechanism, and the axial load
component, given as:
Vcap = (VC + VS + VP ).
(20)
3.8. Concrete Shear-Resisting Mechanism (VC )

The contribution of the concrete to the shear resistance is calculated as:

VC,proposed = P P fc (0.8Acv ).
(21)
52
Proposed member shear span ratio coefficient, P :

P = 3
M
1.0.
Vlw
(22)
The coefficient is calculated as:

= 0.5 + 20g
(23)
1.0.
(24)
The proposed coefficient P is a function of displacement ductility, given as:

p = 0.29 MPa (3.5 psi) for low ductility 2.0
p = 0.05 MPa (0.6 psi) for high ductility 6.0
p is calculated by linear interpolation for values of displacement ductility between the
above limits.
3.9. Proposed Transverse Reinforcement Truss Shear-Resisting Mechanism (Vs )
VS = t tw hcr fy =
Av fy hcr
.
s
(25)
Vertical height of inclined crack, hcr :

hcr =
l
hw .
tan cr
(26)
Proposed average cracking angle, cr :

cr =
30 45
2

M
V lw
+ 45 30 .
(27)
The horizontal length of the crack is calculated as:

l = lw c co .
(28)
Vp = P tan ,
(29)
3.10. Axial Load Component (Vp )
where the angle is the simplified linear compression strut measured from the vertical
axis of the member.
53
3.11. Conservatism for Design vs. Assessment

Priestley et al. [2007] distinguishes between shear resistance calculated for the assessment
of existing structures and design of new members. The assessment model is formulated
to calculate expected or mean shear strength, which is valuable in evaluating existing
structures, test data, or earthquake damage, as discussed in FEMA 306 [ATC, 1999a].
In the design of new structures providing an extra margin of shear strength typically
costs little and improves the reliability of performance, thus some conservative factors can
be applied. The recommended design strength is calculated as:
Vdes = s Vcap ,
(30)
where the shear strength reduction factor s = 0.85 is recommended for design. This
strength reduction factor is taken in addition to the conservatism applied in each of the
shear resisting components for design listed below.
For the horizontal reinforcement shear resisting component, the calculation of average
crack angle is increased by five degrees to produce more conservative results for design
rather than assessment. The proposed average crack angle, cr , for design of walls is taken
as 35 for walls with a shear span ratio greater or equal to 2.0 and varies linearly up to 50
for walls with lower shear span ratios. The equation for design is given as:
cr,design = 50 7.5
M
V lw
35 .
(31)
To provide a consistent level of conservatism for design of walls where the projected vertical height of the crack exceed the height of the wall, the projected crack height to the height
of the wall should be reduced proportionally to the five degree increase of the average crack
angle. The vertical height of the crack for design is given as:
hcr,design = hcr
tan (cr )
0.83 hcr .
tan (cr + 5 )
(32)
For design, the concrete contribution to shear resistance should also be reduced to assure
the shear strength of a wall is not over-predicted. The UCSD model recommends reducing
the displacement ductility factor by (0.85P ) as a conservative value for design.
The axial load contribution to shear resistance is similarly reduced for design of new
structures by 0.85Vp .
4. Flexural Response
To determine the shear strength of a reinforced concrete wall using the proposed shear
model, the calculation of the shear capacity envelop and the force-displacement response
is required. In addition, the shear strength calculated by ductility dependent shear models
rely on calculation of the displacement ductility factor, . The level of refinement in the
flexural model used for predicting the yield displacement can affect the accuracy of the
shear capacity calculation, especially the estimate of ultimate displacements.
The force-displacement response maybe calculated using the results from a momentcurvature program. However, for walls with low shear-span ratios, the effect of shear
deformations and loss of stiffness resulting from shear cracking can contribute significantly
54
to the ultimate displacements of the element. It is therefore recommended to include the

additional displacements from shear deformations in the total force-displacement response.
Detailed finite element analysis models such as the modified compression field theory
proposed by Vecchio and Collins [1986] include shear deformations. However, if detailed
member analysis is not available, the member shear deformations can be estimated by the
procedure outlined by Priestley et al. [2007] or that by Miranda et al. [2005]. The total
force-deformation response curve is a combination of an idealized flexure response curve
and an idealized shear response curve corresponding to the member limit states.
The procedure of Priestley et al. [2007] is used in this study to estimate forcedeformation response and the specimen failure mode. The procedure includes the following
steps to calculate the combined force-displacement response.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Calculate the moment-curvature flexure response.

Translate moment-curvature to force displacement.
Calculate shear displacement response.
Superimpose the flexural and shear response to calculate the total forcedisplacement response.
4.1. Moment-Curvature Analysis Model

The moment-curvature assumptions and calculations as proposed by Priestley et al. [1996]
are used to generate the moment-curvature curve for the specimen. The moment-curvature
analysis assumes:
Plane sections remain plane

Steel and concrete strains are proportional to the distance from neutral axis
Concrete tension is ignored
Axial force is applied the section centroid
Concrete and reinforcement nonlinear stress-strain relationships are as defined in
the following
Unconfined concrete stress-strain relationship used outside of the centerline of the
boundary ties
4.2. Concrete Properties for Moment-Curvature Analysis

The stress strain relationship by Mander et al. [1988] is used for both confined and unconfined concrete in the moment-curvature analysis. The effective lateral confining stress for
rectangular walls sections uses the recommendations from Priestley et al. [2007], whereas
the ultimate confined concrete compression strain assumed uses the Priestley et al. [1996]
recommendations.
4.3. Steel Properties for Moment-Curvature Analysis
The stress-strain characteristics for reinforcement under monotonic loading are given by
Priestley et al. [2007]. For grade 60 reinforcement ASTM 706, Priestley et al. [2007] provided typical values for strain hardening starting around sh = 0.088, ultimate strain is about
su = 0.10 to 0.12, and the ratio of ultimate yield stress is typically fu /fy = 1.35 to 1.50.
Reinforcement stress-strain test data provided in the research reports is used in lieu of typical values when available. To account for the effects due to cyclic loading, the moment
curvature analysis is based on an ultimate strain limit of s = 0.6su , as recommended by
Priestley et al. [2007].
55
4.4. Identification of Member Limit States

The moment-curvature analysis calculates the member limit states proposed by Priestly
et al. [1996] outlined in Table 3. Figure 24 graphically represents each limit state and the
bilinear idealization of the moment-curvature response.
TABLE 3 Member limit states

cr = Mcr (Ec Ic )
cr = cr lw (fct Ec )
Where xt is the distance to the extreme

tension fibre
Curvature at flexural cracking of concrete
Strain at flexural cracking of concrete
First yield My , y is defined as the first occurrence of either:

s = y = fy Es
Strain at yielding of reinforcement
Strain at peak stress of unconfined concrete
c = 0.002
Nominal capacity Mn is defined as the first occurrence of either:
Reinforcement strain after yielding (onset of
s = 0.015
1mm crack widths)
Ultimate strain of unconfined concrete
c = 0.004
(onset of spalling)
Yield curvature
y is defined as a linear extrapolation from first yield to nominal capacity:
y = y Mn My
Yield curvature
Ultimate Capacity Mu , u is defined as the first occurrence of either:
s = 0.6su
Ultimate strain of reinforcement, su = 0.10
to 0.12
Ultimate strain of confined concrete
c = cu
Mu
Mn
Moment
Flexural cracking Mcr , cr

Mcr = Ig xt fct + P Ag
My
Bilinear Idealization
Moment-Curvature Response
Mcr
cr
y y
u
Curvature
FIGURE 24 Bilinear idealization of moment curvature.
56
4.5. Force-Displacement Response from Moment-Curvature

The member force-displacement response can be estimated using the simplified approach
based on the concept of a plastic hinge. The plastic hinge is a fictitious zone of length
Lp , typically located at the base of a wall, over which strain and curvature are assumed
to be equal to the maximum value at the base of the wall (see, e.g., Priestley et al., 2007).
The plastic hinge method also accounts for strain penetration and assumes that outside
the plastic hinge curvatures are distributed linearly over the shear span according to the
bilinear approximation of the moment-curvature response. The length of the plastic hinge
is calculated as:
LP = k (LSS ) + 0.1lw + LSP 2LSP

k = 0.2

fu
1 0.08.
fy
(33)
(34)
The strain penetration length recommended by Priestley et al. [2007] is given as:
LSP = 0.15fye dbl ,
(35)
where fye is the yield strength (ksi) and dbl is the diameter of longitudinal reinforcement.
The member shear span LSS is the distance for the point of maximum moment to the
point of contra-flexure. Shear span can be calculated as the moment to shear ratio at the
critical section:
LSS =
hw
M
=
.
V
kT
(36)
For cantilever members in single curvature, the coefficient kT = 1 and the shear span equals
the wall height. For members in double curvature, kT = 2 and the shear span is equal to one
half the wall height.
The force-displacement curve is calculated by converting moments into lateral force
and curvature into displacement using the equations provided in Table 4. A sample forcedisplacement curve is plotted in Fig. 25.
4.6. Shear Flexibility of Concrete Members
For members with a low shear span ratio, shear deformations become a significant portion of the member displacements. To provide more accurate prediction of ultimate
displacements the effects of shear deformation and loss of stiffness, after shear cracking,
should be included in the force-displacement response.
The original procedure to calculate shear deformations was presented by Park and
Paulay [1975]. Miranda et al. [2005] provided further development and study on reinforced
concrete columns and most recently the procedure was updated by Priestley et al. [2007].
The procedure used in this research for calculation of shear deformations follows
the recommendations from Priestley et al. [2007] with a few modifications. One such
modification is to calculate the shear response prior to flexural cracking to estimate the
shear deformations of an uncracked section. The shear stiffness of an uncracked section is
calculated using the recommendations from Park and Paulay [1975]. The modified
procedure used to calculate shear deformations is summarized in Table 5.
57
TABLE 4 Calculation of the force-displacement response

Displacement
Force
2
cr LSS
3
(LSS +LSP )2
kT y 3
(L +L )2
kT y SS3 SP

Flexural cracking
cr = kT
Fcr =
First yield
y
Fy =
Yield Displacement
Plastic Displacement
Ultimate Displacement
y =

p = kT u y LP LSS L2P LSP
u = y + p
Fn =
Mcr
Lss
My
Lss
Mn
Lss
Fu =
Mu
Lss
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
The full force-displacement response curve can be solved for all values of momentcurvature response greater than first yield by the relationship:

F- Response Curve
i = y kT i y LP LSS L2P LSP Fi = LMssi
(42)
Fu
Fn
Fy
Bilinear Idealization
Force
Member limit state
Force-Displacement
Response
Fcr
cr
y n
u
Displacement
FIGURE 25 Bilinear idealization of force-displacement response [Priestley et al., 1996].

Another modification is that the calculation of shear cracking in this study is performed
using the proposed shear model. Shear cracking is calculated as the sum of the concrete
and axial load contribution to shear resistance. The contribution from the horizontal truss
reinforcement mechanism is not included, since at this level of shear force the concrete has
not cracked. In addition, the shear degradation coefficient, p , is set to 3.5. The axial load
contribution, Vp , is unchanged.
The proposed shear model equation for shear cracking is given as:
Vcr,proposed = p 3.5

fc (0.8Ag ) + P tan .
(50)
4.7. Construction of the Combined Force-Displacement Response Curve

The total force-displacement response curve is calculated as the sum of deformations from
the flexural and shear response, based on the procedure outlined by Miranda et al. [2005].
Table 6 provides a summary of the calculation of the total force-displacement response
curve. Figure 26 graphs the relationship between the flexural and shear response curves.
58
TABLE 5 Calculation of shear deformation

Phase 1: Shear response prior to flexural cracking
Shear stiffness of an uncracked beam, as given by Park
and Paulay [1975]:
Shear displacement at flexural cracking:
kse =
GAv
hw
(43)
se =
Fcr
kse
(44)
Phase 2: Shear response after flexural cracking

Shear stiffness prior to shear cracking is approximately
proportional to the reduction in flexural stiffness,
taken as:
Shear displacement after flexural cracking to onset of
shear cracking:
ksf =
GAv
hw
EIeff
EIg
(45)
sf =
Vcr Fcr
ksf
(46)
Shear stiffness after shear cracking, where n = 10:
ks,sc =
t (0.25)
Eb d
0.25+nt s w
(47)
Shear displacement from shear cracking to flexural first

yield is given as:
s,sc =
Phase 3: Shear response after shear cracking
Fy Vc,sc
ks,sc
(48)
s,d = f s,sc
f ,y
(49)
Phase 4: Shear response after flexural first yield

After flexural first yield the shear deformation be
increased proportional to the flexural deformation,
given as:
TABLE 6 Summary of force-displacement components for the calculation of the

total response curve
Response
phase
Phase 1: Elastic response
Phase 2: Flexural cracked response
Phase 3: Shear cracked response
Phase 4: Response after first yield
Displacement
Flexure + Shear =
Total
Force
f,e + s,e =
f,f + s,f =
f,f + s,sc =
f,y + s,d =
T,fcr
T,sc
T,fy
T,fu
Fcr
Vcr
Fy
Fu
Figure 27 graphs the combined force-displacement response curve and the proposed
shear capacity envelope. The proposed shear capacity envelop is scaled such that displacement ductility of 1.0 equals the adjusted nominal yield displacement based on the combined
force-displacement response, shown in the figure as y Total . Shear failure is identified as
the intersection of the force-displacement curve and the shear capacity curve. The point of
intersection of the two curves corresponds to the predicted ultimate displacement and shear
capacity of the section.
Measuring the accuracy of the calculated total flexure-shear response was not a
focus of this research. However, the calculated total response was observed to produce
59
F
V
Ultimate
Flexural
Strength
Ultimate
Flexural
Strength
Phase IV
Phase IV
First
Flexural
Yield
Shear
Cracking
Flexural
Cracking
Phase III
First
Flexural
Yield
Phase III
Phase II
Shear
Cracking
Phase II
Phase I
Flexural
Cracking
Phase I
f,cr f,sc f,fy
s,e s,f
f,fu
Flexural Response
s,sc
s,d
Shear Response
FIGURE 26 Flexural force-displacement response and shear displacement response

curves.
Shear Capacity Envelope
y Total
F
Ultimate Flexural
Strength
Shear Capacity
Phase IV
First Flexural
Yield
Phase III
Shear Cracking
Adjusted Bilinear
Response
Phase II
Flexural Cracking
Phase I
T,fcr T,sc
T,fy
T,fu
Combined Total (Flexure-Shear) Response
FIGURE 27 Combined force-displacement response and shear capacity envelope.
a reasonable match of the measured experimental envelop which was sufficiently accurate for calculation of the nominal yield displacement used in scaling the displacement
ductility.
Deviation from the procedure used to calculate the nominal yield displacement can
impact the scaling of the shear capacity curve and ultimately lead to differing results.
A calculated force-displacement response based on flexure only would shift the shear
capacity envelope. Although this approach loses accuracy and correlation with the actual
total displacements, it would result in a conservative prediction of the shear strength and
ductility capacity.
60
4.8. Calculation Flow Chart

The process for calculating the shear strength, ultimate displacement, and failure mode is
summarized in the flow chart shown in Fig. 28. The flow chart provides an outline of the recommended procedure for calculating the shear capacity envelope and force-displacement
response curve.
5. Results
5.1. Calculation of Pre-Emptive Shear Failure

The calculation of pre-emptive shear failure for ductility dependent shear modes is not
dependent on the flexural response and therefore can be used to measure the accuracy of
the shear models calculation of the ultimate shear capacity. The calculated shear capacity
from the proposed and UCSD shear model is compared to the recorded strength of the
test specimen in the pre-emptive shear database. Although a more thorough examination
of the formulation of the proposed shear model would be to use independent test data from
that which was used in the formulation of the model, it was not possible do to the limited
sources of test data available.
Table 7 gives the mean value and coefficient of variation of the measured experimental strength divided by the predicted strength for each shear model. The table also
includes results from the building codes ACI 318-05, CSA A23.3-04, and Eurocode 8 [CEN
2003] for comparison. A mean value greater than 1.0 represents an average value that is
under-predicting shear strength. The coefficient of variation measures the dispersion of the
results.
Figure 29 represents the ratio of experimental shear strength to predicted shear strength
from the UCSD model (on the left) and the proposed model (on the right) for the specimens of the pre-emptive shear database. The ratios of experimental shear strength to
predicted shear strength are plotted by test number, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, and shear span ratio. By presenting the calculated ratios for these
significant variables, trends of the shear model related to the variables can be identified.
For members with transverse reinforcement the UCSD model results in a reasonable
prediction of shear strength considering the model was developed based on columns. The
proposed shear model results in a closer mean ratio of experimental to predicted shear
strength and improves the dispersion of the results from the UCSD model in calculating
the shear capacity of specimens with very low shear span ratios. The proposed shear model
produced nearly equivalent accuracy in predicting the shear strength of the walls in the
pre-emptive shear database with horizontal reinforcement as the UCSD shear model. There
is a notable improvement over the results from the UCSD model for members with low
horizontal reinforcement, suggesting the proposed model has improved the estimate of the
concrete contribution.
The model appears to remain somewhat conservative for wall tests 16, 17, and 18.
These specimens have a shear span ratio of 0.35 and no horizontal shear reinforcement. For
these three wall specimens, each wall had an initial shear failure in one direction, resulting
in unbalanced hysteresis loops for the positive and negative cyclic response.
The recorded experimental shear strength of the specimen for this research is taken
as the average strength of the positive and negative envelope hysteretic response curves.
Typically, for symmetric sections, both positive and negative hysteretic responses have
similar strength. For sections with brittle failures one side of the specimen can have a
significant loss of strength across a single diagonal crack. As the load cycle is reversed,
61
START
Section Properties and Member
Characteristics
Input Variables Required:
Lw, t, H, M/VLw, fc, fy, t, l
Construct Shear Capacity

Envelope
Calculate Shear Strength, as a

function of Displacement Ductility:
Concrete
Mechanism
VC
Horizontal
Reinforcement
Vs
Axial Force
Mechanism
Vp
Construct Force-Displacement
Response Curve
Calculate Member Limit States
Flexural Cracking
Fcr
Shear Cracking
Vcr
Calculate Member Response
Phase 1: Elastic Response

T,fcr
Phase 2: Flexural
Cracked Response
T,sc
Flexural First Yield

M- Analysis
Ultimate Flexural Strength

M- Analysis
Phase 3: Shear Cracked

Response
T,fy
Phase 4: Response After

First Yield
T,fu
Convert Shear Capacity Envelope from

Displacement Ductility to Lateral
Displacement
Calculate Lateral Displacement for each

Limit State
Plot Shear Capacity Envelope
Plot Force-Displacement Response Curve
Overlay Plots
Find Intersection
Output:
Shear Strength
Ultimate Displacement
Failure Mode
END
FIGURE 28 Calculation flow chart, proposed shear model.
62
TABLE 7 Comparison of proposed and UCSD shear model: measured shear strength to
calculated strength for specimens failing in pre-emptive shear
Results Vexp /Vpred
With Horizontal
Reinf.
Without Horizontal
Reinf.
All Specimens
Mean
CoV
Mean
CoV
Mean
CoV
ACI 318
CSA A23.3
Eurocode 8
Proposed
UCSD
1.52
0.207
1.94
0.287
1.71
0.289
1.41
0.140
4.02
0.411
2.71
0.651
1.75
0.152
2.08
0.226
1.89
0.226
1.07
0.065
1.31
0.223
1.18
0.211
1.10
0.060
2.09
0.260
1.60
0.398
the crack closes and the section regains strength. In this case the average of the hysteretic
response loses practical meaning and does not represent the primary or governing failure strength of the section. To demonstrate this relationship an example plot of Wall 17
(Specimen H-30 from Hidalgo et al., 2002) is provided in Fig. 30.
The predicted shear strength from the proposed model for these walls is found to be
closer to the recorded peak strength in the direction of the first shear failure. Therefore, the
proposed model provides a closer prediction of the ultimate strength of the specimen than
is reflected in the plotted results of Fig. 29.
5.2. Calculation of flexure-shear failure
For ductility dependent shear models, the calculation of nominal yield displacement
from the force-displacement response is required to set the ductility scale of the shear
capacity curve. The calculated nominal yield displacement by definition corresponds
with a displacement ductility of one. The procedure used in this research to calculate the
combined force-displacement response includes the effects of shear deformation and loss
of stiffness after shear cracking. Accounting for this additional displacement shifts the
shear capacity curve.
When measuring the accuracy of the shear capacity envelope using test specimens
failing in flexure-shear, different interpretations of the predicted strength are possible.
Kowalsky and Priestley [2000] provided an example of the different interpretations possible and recommended a methodology to examine the accuracy of the predicted ultimate
strength of a test specimen using ductility dependent shear models.
The method used by Kowalsky and Priestley [2000] is employed to calculate the
experimental/predicted ratios for flexure-shear failures independent of flexural response.
The predicted strength is calculated using the measured ultimate experimental displacement
and the shear capacity envelope. First, the ultimate experimental displacement, defined as
the displacement corresponding to a rapid loss in strength limited to 0.8 times the peak
strength (see Fig. 1), is converted to displacement ductility. Second, the calculated shear
capacity envelope is plotted with the ultimate experimental displacement ductility. The
predicted strength is read from the point of intersection. An example of this procedure is
plotted in Fig. 31.
The calculated shear capacity from the proposed model and the UCSD shear model
are compared to the recorded strength of the test specimen in the flexure-shear database.
Table 8 gives the mean value and coefficient of variation of the proposed and UCSD
model of the measured experimental strength divided by the predicted strength. Included in
Table 8 are the results from the building codes ACI 318-05, CSA A23.3-04, and Eurocode
8 for comparison.

Proposed Shear Model
3
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
UCSD Shear Model

3
0
5
10
15
20
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
A) Test Number
20
10
15
A) Test Number
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
C) Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
D) Transverse Reinforcement Ratio
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
63
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
F) Shear Span Ratio (M/Vlw)
2.5
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
F) Shear Span Ratio (M/Vlw)
FIGURE 29 Calculation of flexure-shear failure: Comparison of UCSD model and

proposed model (results organized by significant variables).
FIGURE 30 Example plot of Specimen H-30 (Wall 17) from Hidalgo et al. [2002].
Vpred
Calculated Shear
Capacity Envelope
Strength
64
Experimental
Displacement
Ductility
Ductility
exp
FIGURE 31 Shear strength assessment based on displacement ductility.
TABLE 8 Comparison of proposed and UCSD shear model: measured shear

strength to calculated strength for specimens failing in flexure-shear
Results Vexp /Vpred
Mean
CoV
ACI 318
CSA A23.3
EC 8
Proposed
UCSD
1.13
0.106
1.10
0.061
1.43
0.088
0.99
0.063
0.98
0.061
Figure 32 represents the ratio of experimental shear strength to predicted shear strength
from the UCSD model and proposed model for the specimens of the flexure-shear database.
The ratios of experimental to predicted shear strength are plotted by test number in the first
graph, Fig. 32a. The remaining figures present the ratios of experimental shear strength to
predicted shear strength arranged by variable.
Both models produce fairly accurate results in predicting the shear strength for walls
governed by flexure-shear failure. Both models also shows consistent dispersion when the
data is arranged by each significant variable.

Proposed Shear Model
UCSD Shear Model

2
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
0
2
4
6
A) Test Number
10
Vexp / Vpred
10
1
2
3
B) Displacement Ductility at Failure
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
B) Displacement Ductility at Failure
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
4
6
A) Test Number
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02

2
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
0
0
65
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
FIGURE 32 Calculation of pre-emptive shear failure: Comparison of UCSD model and

Proposed model (Results organized by significant variables).
66
The identification of failure mode can help engineers determine the limiting behavior of
a wall or lateral system and help determine the course of action, whether it retrofit or
new design. To determine the accuracy of each of these models in identifying the shear
failure mode, the calculated shear strength envelopes are plotted with the calculated flexural response for all specimens of the collected database. Based on the criteria shown
in Figure 33, the intersection of the curves yields three possible failure modes, flexure,
flexure-shear, and pre-emptive shear.
The proposed and UCSD shear model are used to identify the failure modes of all
walls in the pre-emptive and flexure-shear database. The UCSD model, even with the under
prediction of shear strength of specimens without horizontal reinforcement, correctly identified all but one specimen in the pre-emptive shear database. The proposed shear model
is found to correctly predict pre-emptive shear failures and flexure-shear failure for all
specimens of the collected database.
5.4. Displacement Ductility
Flexural Strength
Shear Force, V
Shear Strength
Envelope
Flexural Strength
Shear Strength
Envelope
Shear Force, V
The calculation of the ductility capacity of primary lateral load resisting elements is a fundamental component in understanding structural seismic behavior and displacement based
design. For flexure controlled sections, the calculation of ductility capacity is well calibrated using moment-curvature analysis. On the other hand, the calculation of displacement
ductility for flexure-shear controlled elements has a higher degree of variability. This variability is due to several factors, including the calculation of the nominal yield displacement,
the shear capacity envelope, and the shape of the shear capacity envelope relative to displacement ductility. However, even as such, a well-calibrated ductility dependent shear
model can help engineers determine the limitations of the structure in question by predicting the displacement ductility or ultimate displacement of a wall element governed by
flexure-shear with sufficient accuracy for assessment or design.
The following procedure is used to calculate the displacement ductility capacity
predicted by the shear strength models.
First, the experimental displacement ductility for each specimen in the flexure-shear
database is calculated from the measured experimental response envelope. Ductility is
defined as the ratio of deformation at a given response level to deformation at yield
response. For this evaluation of test data, the bilinear response curve is allowed to be
Shear Force, V
5.3. Identification of Failure Mode
Flexural
Strength
Shear Strength
Envelope
Displacement Ductility,
a) Flexural response
b) Flexural-shear failure
c) Pre-emptive shear failure
FIGURE 33 Failure modes categories of reinforced concrete walls.
67
Calculated nominal yield displacement
y calc
Envelope of experimental response

Bilinear response curve
Intersection point of
bilinear response and
shear capacity envelope
Vexp
EXP =
Lateral Force
Shear capacity
envelope
0.8Vexp
0.75Vexp
CALC =
y exp
u calc
u
y exp
calc
y calc
Displacement
FIGURE 34 Calculation of displacement ductility using shear capacity envelope.

perfectly plastic (zero slope) beyond yield. Figure 34 graphically demonstrates the relationship between the experimental response and the bilinear approximation. If the ultimate
experimental displacement is u , the ultimate displacement ductility is defined as:
exp =
u
.
y
(51)
Second, the total force-displacement response including shear deformation is calculated

and is used to determine the calculated nominal yield displacement. The calculated nominal
yield is in turn used to set the displacement ductility scale of the shear capacity envelope.
Third, the shear capacity envelope is calculated and the calculated nominal yield displacement is used to convert displacement ductility into displacement. The calculated shear
capacity envelope is then plotted in terms of displacement.
Finally, the envelope of experimental response and bilinear response curve are added
to the plot. The experimental bilinear curve at ultimate strength is extended until it intersects with the shear strength envelope. From the intersection point of the two curves, the
predicted displacement is recorded. The maximum calculated displacement is converted to
displacement ductility. A sample is shown in Fig. 34.
In the end, this examination not only reveals the accuracy of the shear models to predict the ductility capacity, but also helps to determine the precision of the shear capacity
envelope relative to the other axis.
For each shear model the ratio of experimental displacement ductility, EXP , to calculated displacement ductility, CALC , is recorded for all specimens of the flexure-shear
database. (A ductility capacity prediction for walls in the pre-emptive shear database is not
made, because all pre-emptive shear failures have by definition no ductility.)
The calculated displacement ductility from the proposed model and the UCSD model
is compared to the measured displacement ductility of the test specimen in the flexureshear database. Table 9 gives the mean value and coefficient of variation of the measured
68

TABLE 9 Displacement ductility prediction for specimens failing in
flexure-shear
Results EXP / CALC
Proposed
UCSD
0.99
0.148
1.05
0.510
Mean
CoV
UCSD
0
0
4
6
Test Number
Proposed
exp/pred
exp/pred
10
0
0
4
6
Test Number
10
FIGURE 35 Ductility prediction for UCSD and Proposed shear model.
experimental displacement ductility divided by the predicted displacement ductility for the
proposed and UCSD shear model.
The ratio of the experimental to predicted displacement ductility for the UCSD shear
model is presented for each specimen in Fig. 35. The figure shows that the displacement
ductility of test number 8, Specimen SW6 [Pilakoutas and Elnashai, 1995], is significantly
under-predicted.
The UCSD shear model predicts a brittle shear failure for Specimen SW6, but is close
to the limits. Therefore, the model under predicts the displacement ductility. If specimen
SW6 is removed from the database the mean value drops to 0.88 and coefficient of variation
drops to 25.4%. This low mean value of the displacement ductility suggests that the UCSD
model is over-predicting the displacement ductility of the wall sections in the flexure-shear
database.
The proposed shear model produced more accurate results overall in predicting the
displacement ductility of walls in the flexure-shear database with a lower dispersion in the
results. The ratio of the experimental to predicted displacement ductility for the proposed
shear model is also presented for each specimen in Fig. 35.
Currently in the proposed model the first transition of low displacement ductility is
set at 2.0 and the second transition of high displacement ductility is set at 6.0. Figure 36
contains two plots of the ratio of experimental to predicted displacement ductility for the
proposed model versus the specimen aspect ratio and the displacement ductility. In the first
plot, the dispersion in the data appears to have a relationship with shear span ratio. The
calculated value reduces with reducing shear span ratio.
The results plotted in Fig. 36 support past research where squat walls or members with
low shear span ratios are found to have reduced displacement ductility, in this context meaning a somewhat more rapid degradation of the concrete contribution, Vc , to shear strength.
Based on this observation the proposed shear capacity envelope could be improved if the

Proposed
0
0
Proposed
exp/pred
exp/pred
69
0.5
1
1.5
Shear Span Ratio
2.5
2
4
6
Displacement Ductility
FIGURE 36 Displacement ductility prediction for proposed shear model arranged by

significant variables.
transition points form brittle shear to flexure-shear failure and from flexure-shear to flexure
failure varied based on the members shear span ratio.
One suggestion for extremely squat walls is that the first transition of the shear capacity
envelope for brittle shear failures could start at displacement ductility of 1.0, rather than
2.0. This value would increase linearly to 2.0 for members with a shear span ratio of 1.5
or greater. This adjustment would result in more conservative estimates of the ultimate
displacement ductility of wall sections with shear span ratios less than 1.5. In the end,
insufficient data is available to verify these refining adjustments to the proposed model.
6. Further Research
The formulation of the proposed shear model is based on a collected experimental database
of a limited range of properties. Therefore, there is a need for further investigation of the
shear model with an expanded experimental database of wall tests.
7. Summary and Conclusions

The goal of this research is to develop a shear strength model focused on the assessment
and design of reinforced concrete walls. The proposed shear model recommends changes to
the UCSD model to improve the correlation of the calculated results for reinforced concrete
walls with low shear span ratios to the experimental test data.
Attempts have been made in the formulation of the proposed shear model to improve
the calculation of the primary components contributing to the shear resistance of reinforced concrete walls with low shear span ratios. The focus of the proposed changes to
the UCSD shear model are on the contribution of the horizontal reinforcing and concrete
shear resisting mechanisms. The recommended changes improve the concrete contribution
to shear resistance, introduce a variable cracking angle proportional to shear span, limit the
horizontal steel truss contribution, and reduce the upper limit of displacement ductility.
The proposed shear model is found to have equivalent accuracy of the UCSD shear
model for all specimens with horizontal reinforcement failing in both pre-emptive shear
and flexure-shear. The proposed model results in significant improvement in the calculated shear capacity of walls without horizontal shear reinforcement, suggesting better
calibration of the calculated concrete contribution to shear resistance. The proposed model
70
correctly identifies the failure mode for all specimens. Furthermore, the proposed model
provided the most accurate prediction of the ultimate displacement ductility.
Based on these results the proposed shear model is recommended for the calculation of
the shear strength of reinforced concrete walls, including those with low shear span ratios.
It is envisioned that the proposed shear model can be used as a new tool for the assessment or design of reinforced concrete walls in existing buildings or in the design of new
structures.
References
ACI Committee 318 [2005] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ACI-ASCE Committee 326 [1962] Shear and diagonal tension, Journal of the American Concrete
Institute Proceedings 59(13), 1395.
ACI-ASCE Committee 426 [1973] The shear strength of reinforced concrete members, Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE 99(ST6), 10911187.
Ang, B. G., Priestley, M. J. N., and Paulay, T. [1989] Seismic shear strength of circular reinforced
concrete columns, ACI Structural Journal 86(1), 4549.
ASCE-ACI Task Committee 426 on Shear and Diagonal Tension. [1973] The shear strength of
reinforced concrete members, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 99(ST6), 10911187.
ATC [1981] Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges, ATC-6, Applied Technology Council,
Berkeley, California.
ATC [1983] Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines for Highway Bridges, ATC 6-2, Applied Technology
Council, Berkeley, California.
ATC [1983] Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame Joints: Implication
of Recent Research for Design Engineers, ATC-11, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California.
ATC [1999a] Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic
Procedures Manual, Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA-306 Report, Washington, D.C.
ATC [1999b] Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Technical
Resources, Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-307
Report, Washington, D.C.
CSA Committee [2004] Design of concrete structures, CSA A23.3-04, Canadian Standards
Association, Mississauga, Canada.
CEN [2003] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, ENV 1998-1:2003, Comit Europen de Normalisation,
Brussels, Belgium.
Elstner, R. C. and Hognestad, E. [1957] Laboratory investigation of rigid frame failure, ACI Journal
53(1), 637668.
Ghee, A. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Paulay, T. [1989] Seismic shear strength of circular reinforced
concrete columns, ACI Structural Journal 86(1), 4558.
Hidalgo, P. A., Ledezma C. A., and Jordan R. M. [2002] Seismic behavior of squat reinforced
concrete shear walls, Earthquake Spectra 18(2), 287308.
Hidalgo, P. A., Jordan, R. M., and Ledezma, C. A. [1998] Experimental study of reinforced concrete walls under shear failure, Paper No. 297, 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Seattle.
Kowalsky, M. J. and Priestley, M. J. N. [2000] Improved analytical model for shear strength of
circular reinforced concrete columns in seismic regions, ACI Structural Journal 97(3), 388396.
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. [1999] Shear and flexural behavior of lightweight
concrete bridge columns in seismic regions, ACI Structural Journal 96(1), 136148.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. [1988a] Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering 114(8), 18041826.
71
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. [1988b] Observed stress-strain behavior of confined
concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering 114(8), 18271849.
MacGregor, J. G. and Wight, J. K. [2005] Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, PrenticeHall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Miranda, P. H., Calvi, G. M., Pinho, R., and Priestley, M. J. N. [2005] Displacement-based assessment of RC columns with limited shear resistance, ROSE Research Report No. 2005/04, IUSS
Press, Pavia, Italy.
Mrsch, E. [1902] Der Eisenbetonbau (Concrete-Steel Construction), Verlag von Konrad Wittwer,
Stuttgart, Germany.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. [1975] Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. [1992] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Paulay, T., Priestley, M. J. N., and Synge, A. J. [1982] Ductility in earthquake resisting squat
shearwalls, ACI Journal 79(4), 257269.
Pilakoutas, K. and Elnashai, A. [1993] Interpretation of testing results for reinforced concrete
panels, ACI Structural Journal 90(6), 642645.
Pilakoutas, K. and Elnashai, A. [1995a] Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete cantilever walls, Part
I: Experimental results, ACI Structural Journal 92(3), 271281.
Pilakoutas, K. and Elnashai, A. [1995b] Cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete cantilever walls, Part
II: Discussions and Theoretical Comparisons, ACI Structural Journal 92(4), 425434.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., Verma, R., and Xiao, Y. [1993] Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns, Reports No. SSRP-93/06, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla,
California.
Priestley, M. J. N., Verma, R., and Xiao, Y. [1994] Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete
columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 120(8), 23102329.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi G. M., and Kowalsky M. J. [2007] Displacement Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Ritter, W. [1899] Die Bauweise Hennebique (Hennebiques Construction System), Schweizerische
Bauzeitung 33(7), 5961.
Ugural, A. C. [1991] Mechanics of Materials, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P. [1986] The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI Journal Proceedings 83(2), 219231.

2011 562049

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2011 562049

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This article was downloaded by: [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet]

On: 31 May 2015, At: 00:19

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete

J. Krolicki , J. Maffei & G. M. Calvi

Arup , San Francisco, California, USA

Rutherford & Chekene , San Francisco, California, USA

Institute for Advanced Study IUSS , Pavia, Italy

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(S1):3071, 2011

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Arup, San Francisco, California, USA

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

J. Krolicki, J. Maffei, and G. M. Calvi

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

FIGURE 1 Definition of experimental yield displacement and ultimate displacement.

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

shear friction strength, where shear friction reinforcement is perpendicular to the

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

where K1 = 400psi for normal weight concrete.

J. Krolicki, J. Maffei, and G. M. Calvi

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

Determine Mode of Shear

FIGURE 2 Shear failure screening processes for wall experimental database.

2.3. Pre-emptive Shear Database

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Idealized F- response curve

Calculated F- response curve

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

Calculated First Yield

y Calculated yield displacement

FIGURE 3 Definition of pre-emptive shear failure.

2.4. Flexure-Shear Database

J. Krolicki, J. Maffei, and G. M. Calvi

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

y Calculated yield displacement

FIGURE 4 Definition of flexure-shear failure.

3. Development of the Proposed Shear Strength Model

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

J. Krolicki, J. Maffei, and G. M. Calvi

FIGURE 6 Distribution of internal shears in beam with web reinforcement [ASCE-ACI,

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

3.2. Comparison of the Shear Resistance of Columns and Walls

Shear Span Ratio = M/Vd = h /2d

FIGURE 7 Columnshear span ratio, double and single curvature.

J. Krolicki, J. Maffei, and G. M. Calvi

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

Shear Span Ratio = M/VL w

FIGURE 8 Wallshear span ratio.

FIGURE 9 Shear stresses in a rectangular cross section.

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

FIGURE 10 Shear stresses in flanged section.

Downloaded by [Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet] at 00:20 31 May 2015

J. Krolicki, J. Maffei, and G. M. Calvi

FIGURE 11 Average crack angle, .

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls

(b) Aspect Ratio