Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
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
Lateral Force
0.75V U
y , Yield disp.
u , Ultimate
Lateral Displacement
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
(2)
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
Experimental F- hysteretic
curves
Flexural
REJECTED
Plot F-
Curves
Failure Mode
Check
Calculated F- Response
curve
Shear
ACCEPT
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
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.
35
Fexp
Lateral Force
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.
36
Lateral Force
Experimental response
envelope of flexure-shear
failure
Calculated First Yield
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.
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
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.
M/V
d
M/V
M
M
Shear Span Ratio = M/Vd = h/d
Column Single Curvature
40
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
M/V
Vi
Vi
Lw
M/V
Lw
Multi-Story Wall
avg = V/Ag
max = (3/2)V/Ag
Ag
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 ),
41
avg = V/Aweb
(xy)max
Aweb
(xy)min
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
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
43
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
FIGURE 13 Plastic truss model for tall and squat cantilever walls.
l
hw ,
tan cr
(10)
(11)
45
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)
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
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
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.
49
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
50
P = 3
M
1.0.
Vlw
(16)
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)
lw c
lw c
P=
P.
2M/V
hw
(19)
(20)
(21)
52
M
1.0.
Vlw
(22)
(23)
1.0.
(24)
Av fy hcr
.
s
(25)
l
hw .
tan cr
(26)
30 45
2
M
V lw
+ 45 30 .
(27)
(28)
Vp = P tan ,
(29)
where the angle is the simplified linear compression strut measured from the vertical
axis of the member.
53
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
55
cr = Mcr (Ec Ic )
cr = cr lw (fct Ec )
Mu
Mn
Moment
My
Bilinear Idealization
Moment-Curvature Response
Mcr
cr
y y
u
Curvature
56
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
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
Force-Displacement
Response
Fcr
cr
y n
u
Displacement
fc (0.8Ag ) + P tan .
(50)
58
kse =
GAv
hw
(43)
se =
Fcr
kse
(44)
ksf =
GAv
hw
EIeff
EIg
(45)
sf =
Vcr Fcr
ksf
(46)
ks,sc =
t (0.25)
Eb d
0.25+nt s w
(47)
s,sc =
Fy Vc,sc
ks,sc
(48)
s,d = f s,sc
f ,y
(49)
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
s,e s,f
f,fu
Flexural Response
s,sc
s,d
Shear Response
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
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
5. Results
61
START
Section Properties and Member
Characteristics
Input Variables Required:
Lw, t, H, M/VLw, fc, fy, t, l
Concrete
Mechanism
VC
Horizontal
Reinforcement
Vs
Axial Force
Mechanism
Vp
Construct Force-Displacement
Response Curve
Flexural Cracking
Fcr
Shear Cracking
Vcr
Phase 2: Flexural
Cracked Response
T,sc
Overlay Plots
Find Intersection
Output:
Shear Strength
Ultimate Displacement
Failure Mode
END
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.
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
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
C) Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio
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
D) Transverse Reinforcement Ratio
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
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
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.
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
C) Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
D) Transverse Reinforcement Ratio
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
4
6
A) Test Number
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
Vexp / Vpred
0
0
65
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
D) Transverse Reinforcement Ratio
0.004
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.
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
Flexural
Strength
Shear Strength
Envelope
Displacement Ductility,
Displacement Ductility,
Displacement Ductility,
a) Flexural response
b) Flexural-shear failure
67
y calc
EXP =
Lateral Force
Shear capacity
envelope
0.8Vexp
0.75Vexp
CALC =
y exp
u calc
u
y exp
calc
y calc
Displacement
u
.
y
(51)
68
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
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
0
0
Proposed
exp/pred
exp/pred
69
0.5
1
1.5
Shear Span Ratio
2.5
2
4
6
Displacement Ductility
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.
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.