See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269873567

Empirical Equations for Peak Shear Strength of

Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Walls

Article in Aci Structural Journal November 2011

CITATIONS READS

14 117

2 authors, including:

Andrew Whittaker
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
447 PUBLICATIONS 5,079 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of modeling recommendations for squat reinforced concrete walls (ATC-114 /TASK ORDER
38) View project

Seismic isolation of large light water reactors using elastomeric and sliding bearings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Whittaker on 30 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 108-S09
Empirical Equations for Peak Shear Strength
of Low Aspect Ratio Reinforced Concrete Walls
by C. Kerem Gulec and Andrew S. Whittaker
Low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls are important structural
components in many commercial buildings and nearly all safety-
related nuclear structures. The accurate prediction of their shear
strength is important for both code-based design and seismic
performance assessment.
Building codes, manuals of practice, standards and guidelines,
and the literature provide a number of empirical equations for
peak shear strength of reinforced concrete walls. These equations
vary substantially in functional form and do not account for all
variables that affect the response of low aspect ratio walls. There
is substantial scatter in the predicted values of peak shear strength.
Improved empirical equations are developed using data from tests
of 227 walls with the objective of predicting the peak shear
strength of low aspect ratio walls without bias and with a small
coefficient of variation (COV).
Keywords: low aspect ratio; reinforced concrete; shear strength; shear walls.
INTRODUCTION
Low aspect ratio (squat, short) reinforced concrete walls
are widely used in conventional buildings and safety-related
nuclear structures. The resistance of such walls to lateral
loadings is generally controlled by shear strength, with failure
resulting from diagonal tension, diagonal compression, sliding
shear, or a combination thereof.1,2
Building codes,3 standards,4 and the literature5,6 provide a
number of empirical equations to predict the peak shear
strength (that is, the maximum shearing resistance of a wall
to lateral force) of reinforced concrete walls. Prior studies6-8
have indicated that these equations do not provide unbiased
estimates of peak shear strength and their predictions yield
significant scatter, which is problematic because shear
strength is the key variable for force-based design and
performance assessment of walls with a low aspect ratio
(ratio of height to length). Alternative empirical equations that
provide much-improved predictions of peak shear strength are
developed by statistical analysis of data from tests of 227
walls with an aspect ratio of 2 or less, considering those
variables that significantly affect the behavior of low aspect
ratio walls. The walls in the database are rectangular, barbell
(rectangular walls framed by boundary columns), or flanged
(rectangular walls framed by boundary flanges). The use of
these new equations is compared to those used in design
practice in the U.S. at this time.
It is important to note that the shear strength of low aspect
ratio walls rapidly degrades with repeated cycling7,8 and that
none of the procedures considered in this paper address this
important issue. Further, the predictive equations proposed
in the following are empirical, and their future use must not
preclude the development of physics-based models capable
of fully characterizing the response of low aspect ratio
reinforced concrete walls under random loading through failure.
80
TECHNICAL PAPER
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Peak shear strength is the key parameter in the design and
performance assessment of buildings and structures
constructed with low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls.
Existing empirical predictive equations for the nominal
shear strength of low aspect ratio walls are biased and cannot
reproduce results from physical tests. A database of results
from tests of 434 walls with aspect ratios of 2 and less was
developed to improve predictive shear strength equations,
finite element modeling of walls, and hysteretic models.
Empirical but unbiased predictive equations for peak shear
strength are proposed for rectangular, barbell, and flanged
walls, which are suitable for implementation in codes and
standards and for use in the performance assessment of
buildings, safety-related nuclear facilities, and other structures.
DATABASE
Gulec and Whittaker2 reviewed and catalogued the results
of tests of 434 low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls
with three different cross sections, namely, rectangular,
barbell, and flanged. Of the 434 walls, 150 had a rectangular
cross section and 284 had boundary elements in the form of
columns (191) or flanges (93). The test specimens in the
database have: 1) a minimum web thickness of 5 cm (1.97 in.);
2) a symmetric reinforcement layout; 3) no diagonal
reinforcement or additional wall-to-foundation reinforcement
to control sliding shear; and 4) aspect ratios (hw/lw) less than or
equal to 2.0. Detailed information on each wall and its loading
protocol can be found in Gulec and Whittaker.2
PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS FOR PEAK
SHEAR STRENGTH
Gulec et al.7,8 investigated the performance of five
procedures that are widely used to predict the peak shear
strength of reinforced concrete walls: Chapters 11 and 21 of
ACI 318-08,3 Barda et al.,5 ASCE 43-05,4 and Wood.6 They
concluded that: a) the use of the equations significantly
varied with respect to wall geometry (rectangular, flanged,
and barbell); and b) the coefficients of variation (COVs)
associated with the distributions of the ratio of predicted to
experimental peak shear strength were generally large. The
Wood equation6 best predicted the peak shear strength of
rectangular walls and the ASCE 43-05 equation4 performed
best for walls with boundary columns or flanges.
None of the five procedures explicitly considered the
effect of wall cross section type or boundary element
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 1, January-February 2011.
MS No. S-2008-327.R2 received January 13, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the November-
December 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2011.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011
ACI member C. Kerem Gulec is a Senior Engineer at Thornton Tomasetti Inc. in Los
Angeles, CA. He received his BS degree from Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey, and his MS and PhD from the University at Buffalo, The State University of
New York (SUNY), Buffalo, NY, in 2002, 2005, and 2009, respectively. His research
interests include earthquake engineering and performance-based seismic design
and assessment.
ACI member Andrew S. Whittaker is a Professor of structural engineering at the
University at Buffalo, SUNY. He received his BS from the University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and his MS and PhD from the University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, in 1977, 1985, and 1988, respectively. He is a
member of ACI Committee 349, Concrete Nuclear Structures, and S803, Faculty
Network Coordinating Committee. His research interests include earthquake and
blast engineering and performance-based seismic design and assessment.
reinforcement on peak shear strength. For two walls, one
with a rectangular cross section and the other with boundary
columns or flanges, each procedure would predict a single
value of peak shear strength if the walls had identical web
area, web reinforcement ratios, aspect ratio, axial force, and
fc. Figure 1 presents the variation of the experimentally
measured peak shear strength Vpeak with respect to moment-
to-shear ratio M/Vlw for the rectangular, barbell, and flanged
walls in the database. (Note: moment-to-shear ratio is
normalized by wall length.) In Fig. 1, the experimental peak
shear strength is normalized by the product of Aw and fc ,
where Aw is the web area calculated as the product of the wall
length lw and the web thickness tw, and fc is the concrete
compressive strength. The data presented in Fig. 1 shows that
the peak shear strength of walls with boundary columns or
flanges is on average much higher than that of rectangular walls.
Figure 1 indicates that the ranges of measured peak shear
strengths for barbell and flanged walls are comparable. The
normalized peak shear strengths for rectangular walls are
generally smaller than 10fc , whereas the majority of the
normalized peak shear strengths for walls with boundary
elements exceed 10fc , which is the upper limit on the peak
shear strength equation of Section 21.9 of ACI 318-08.3
DESIGN VARIABLES
The development of a robust predictive model requires the
objective selection of efficient predictor variables. To select
predictor variables, Gulec and Whittaker2 first evaluated the
response of low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls using
two finite element analysis codes, ABAQUS9 and
VecTor2,10 using data from tests of a number of the walls in
the database. The study concluded that VecTor210 could
predict the response of such walls under in-plane lateral
loading to within 10% of the experimentally measured value
in most cases for all three wall geometries. A numerical
experiment using factorial experimentation11,12 and VecTor210
was then performed to provide greater insight into the
contributions of different design variables to peak shear strength.
Six design variables were considered for these numerical
experiments: 1) aspect ratio; 2) horizontal web reinforcement
ratio; 3) vertical web reinforcement ratio; 4) concrete
compressive strength; 5) axial force; and 6) vertical boundary
element reinforcement ratio, because these variables have
been identified by others2,5,6 as influencing the peak shear
strength of reinforced concrete walls. The influence of each
factor (or variable) on peak shear strength was separately
investigated for the rectangular walls and for the barbell
walls. The study showed that aspect ratio was the most
influential parameter of the six considered. Vertical web
reinforcement ratio, vertical boundary element reinforcement
ratio, axial force, and concrete compressive strength were also
shown to significantly affect wall peak shear strength. The
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011
Fig. 1Variation of shear stress (normalized by product of
web area Aw and fc ) obtained using experimentally
determined peak shear strength Vpeak with respect to
moment-to-shear ratio M/Vlw. (Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.)
effect of horizontal web reinforcement ratio on the peak
shear strength was small for both cross-section types in
comparison to the other five factors.
PROPOSED EQUATIONS FOR PEAK
SHEAR STRENGTH
Methodology
New models to predict the peak shear strength of low-
aspect-ratio reinforced concrete walls were developed using
nonlinear regression on values of measured peak shear
strength recorded in the database. The values for the
unknown coefficients of the models were calculated using
the fmincon nonlinear solver in MATLAB,13 which can find
the minimum of a scalar function of several variables
starting with an initial estimate; the solver allows the user to
define one or more constraints. (Note: the function uses
sequential quadratic programming [SQP] to find the
minimum of a constrained nonlinear function with multiple
variables.) Herein, the constraint was that the mean value of
the ratio of predicted to experimental peak shear strength
was 1.0. No upper or lower values were set for the model
unknowns. The unknowns were calculated by minimizing
the COV associated with the ratios of predicted to
experimental peak shear strength as shown in Eq. (1) and (2)
Vm ( i )
r ( i ) = ------------------
- (1)
V peak ( i )
n
r(i)
constraint mean [ r ( i ) ] = i=1
-----------------
- = 1
n (2)
n
1
[ r ( i ) mean [ r ( i ) ] ]
2
minimize ------------
n1
i=1
where Vpeak is the experimentally measured peak shear
strength (Note: for cyclically or dynamically loaded specimens,
81
Table 1Coefficients calculated for two models
defined using Eq. (3)
Model ID 1 2 3 4
Vm1a 1.29 0.50 0.26
Vm1b 0.014 1.00 0.28
the peak shear strength is taken as the average of the peak
values in the first and third quadrants), Vm is the predicted
peak shear strength, r(i) is the ratio of the predicted to
experimental peak shear strength for i-th wall in the data set,
and n is the number of data points used for the model.
Data reduction for statistical analyses
Prior to performing the regression analysis, the size of the
experimental data set was reduced by eliminating those walls
that were: a) flexure-critical (90 walls); b) tested at high
strain rates (30 walls); c) not tested with a cantilever test
fixture (104 walls); d) reported to have prematurely failed
due to inadequate anchorage of the vertical reinforcement at
the top of the wall web (two walls), and constructed using
high-strength concrete (seven walls with fc between 12,500
and 15,100 psi (86 and 104 MPa). The final data set used for
the regression analysis included 74 rectangular walls, 79 walls
with boundary columns, and 74 walls with boundary flanges.
Functional form of predictive equations
An analysis of experimental and numerical data indicated
that six design variables previously identified were candidates
for inclusion in the functional relationship. Although Gulec
and Whittaker2 showed that the effect of horizontal web
reinforcement ratio on peak shear strength is modest for
squat walls, it was included in the models for completeness.
A free-body diagram (refer to Fig. 6.14 of Gulec and
Whittaker2) based on inclined (shear) cracking in a low
aspect ratio wall was used to identify the basic functional
form of the predictive equation because inclined cracks have
generally formed in walls at deformations associated with
peak shear strength, regardless of the mode of failure. The
predictive equation calculates peak shear strength as
2 performance of the two models (Vm1a and Vm1b) is small.
1 ( f c ) A eff + 3 F vw + 4 F hw + 5 F vbe + 6 P
V m = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( hw lw )
where 1 through 7 are model unknowns, fc is the
concrete compressive strength (in psi); Aeff (in in.2) is the
effective wall area; Fvw, Fhw, and Fvbe are the forces (in lb)
developed in vertical web, horizontal web, and vertical
boundary element reinforcement, respectively; P (in lb) is
axial force; hw is wall height; and lw is wall length. The terms
associated with reinforcement and axial force are linear
functions. The forces associated with wall reinforcement
(Fvw, Fhw, and Fvbe) are calculated using the total reinforce-
ment area and the corresponding yield stress because the
strains in the reinforcement crossing the inclined crack are
assumed to equal or exceed the yield value. The exponent on
the terms addressing the concrete contribution and the wall
aspect ratio were not initially defined. Two empirical peak
shear strength models were developed: one for walls with
82
rectangular cross sections and one for walls with boundary
columns or flanges.
5 6 7
Peak shear strength equations for
0.04 0.20 0.39 0.58 rectangular walls
0.05 0.22 0.40 0.64 Two models (equations) based on Eq. (3) were created
using the rectangular wall data set. The equations are valid
for the range of data from which they were developed,
namely, for an aspect ratio between 0.25 and 2.0; 0 and 835 psi
(5.8 MPa) for h fyh (horizontal reinforcement ratio h
multiplied by the yield strength of the horizontal web
reinforcement fyh); 0 and 1860 psi (12.8 MPa) for v fyv
(vertical reinforcement ratio v multiplied by the
corresponding yield strength of the vertical web reinforcement
fyv); 0 and 2050 psi (14.1 MPa) for be fybe (be is the
boundary element reinforcement ratio calculated as 2As,be/A,
where As,be is the area of vertical reinforcement in each
boundary element; A = Aw for rectangular walls; and A = At
for walls with boundary columns or flanges); 0 and 14% for
P/Aw fc, where Aw is the total wall area; and fc is 2000 and
7400 psi (13.7 and 51.0 MPa). The values of each variable in the
data set distribute somewhat uniformly across its range (refer to
Gulec and Whittaker2 for detailed information).
For the first model Vm1a, 2 was set to 0.5 because
concrete contribution to shear strength in widely used
equations is generally a function of fc, which is related to
the onset of inclined (shear) cracking. In the second model
(Vm1b), 2 was set equal to 1.0. Other values for 2 were
considered but not pursued. The effective wall area Aeff was
set equal to the total wall area Aw in both models.
The calculated coefficients for the two models are
presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents the statistics for the
ratio of the predicted to experimental peak shear strength
using the five widely used procedures (Vn1: Chapter 21 of
ACI 318-08,3 Vn2: Chapter 11 of ACI 318-08,3 Vn3: Barda
et al.,5 Vn4: ASCE 43-05,4 Vn5: Wood6) and the two new models.
As seen in Table 2, model Vm1a provides the best estimates
of peak shear strength with a median ratio of predicted to
experimental shear strength of 0.99 and a COV of 0.135,
which is the smallest among the procedures investigated.
The error (or residual) sum of squares statistics associated
with each model presented in the last column of Table 2 also
show that Model Vm1a yielded the smallest error in
calculating the peak shear strength. The difference in the
The two models based on Eq. (3) (Vm1a and Vm1b)
7
- (3)
performed significantly better than the five equations used in
design practice at this time (Vn1 through Vn5). This
observation suggests that the functional forms of these five
equations may not adequately account for the factors that
affect the peak shear strength of low aspect ratio rectangular
reinforced concrete walls. Another interesting observation
was that 4, which represents the contribution of the
horizontal web reinforcement ratio to peak shear strength,
was small for Models Vm1a and Vm1b, and much smaller than
the corresponding value for 3, which represents the
contribution of the vertical web reinforcement ratio to peak
shear strength. This observation agrees with the outcome of
the computational experiments performed using VecTor210
on rectangular walls.2
Figures 2 through 7 present the variation of the ratio of the
predicted to experimental peak shear strengths for Models Vm1a
and Vn1 (ACI 318-08,3 Chapter 21) with respect to the design
parameters of aspect ratio hw/lw, horizontal web
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011
Table 2Statistics for ratio of predicted to experimental peak shear strength obtained using five widely
used procedures and two additional models introduced herein
Mean Median Standard deviation COV Minimum Maximum Overpredictions, % Error sum of squares
Vn1/Vpeak 1.24 0.92 0.717 0.580 0.362 3.522 45.9 330,418
Vn2/Vpeak 1.07 0.88 0.541 0.507 0.371 2.740 40.5 191,377
Vn3/Vpeak 1.31 1.24 0.477 0.363 0.561 2.517 73.0 149,414
Vn4/Vpeak 1.46 1.34 0.486 0.334 0.751 2.731 81.1 165,098
Vn5/Vpeak 1.12 1.04 0.352 0.316 0.619 2.233 55.4 55,110
Vm1a/Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.135 0.135 0.746 1.359 44.6 9837
Vm1b/Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.138 0.138 0.741 1.347 44.6 10,384

Fig. 2Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to Fig. 4Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with respect to aspect experimental peak shear strength with respect to vfyv for
ratio for Models Vn1 and Vm1a. Models Vn1 and Vm1a. (Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.)

Fig. 3Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to Fig. 5Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with respect to hfyh for experimental peak shear strength with respect to befybe for
Vn1 and Vm1a. (Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.) Vn1 and Vm1a. (Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.)

reinforcement ratio h fyh, vertical web reinforcement ratio
v fyv, vertical boundary element reinforcement ratio be fybe,
normalized axial force P/(Aw fc), and fc. In a well-specified
model, the data points in Fig. 2 through 7 should be scattered
in a narrow band at approximately the value of 1.0 for the
ratio of predicted to experimental peak shear strength. The
solid lines in each figure are linear fits to Model Vm1a
predictions. These figures and the lines of best fit show that
Model Vm1a accurately captures the peak shear strength for
all six design variables over their ranges. The majority of the
ratios for Model Vm1a are between 0.75 and 1.25, whereas
the ratios for Model Vn1 are widely scattered and range

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011 83

Fig. 6Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with respect to normalized
axial force for Models Vn1 and Vm1a.
Fig. 7Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with respect to fc for
Models Vn1 and Vm1a. (Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.)
between 0.36 and 3.52. In Fig. 2 through 7, the data points
corresponding to Model Vn1 indicate signs of model
underspecification and/or heterogeneous variance.
Figure 8 presents the variation of experimental peak shear
strength and peak shear strength calculated using Model Vm1a
(normalized by total wall area and fc) with respect to aspect
ratio. Figure 8 shows that normalized experimental and
predicted peak shear strengths for the walls in the data set are
less than the upper limit for shear stress in ACI 318-083
of 10fc.
The need for an upper shear stress limit is unknown at this
time because the procedure does not overpredict the peak
shear strength of walls that developed relatively high
shear stresses.
Peak shear strength equations for walls with
boundary columns or flanges
Eight models (equations) based on Eq. (3) were created
using a data set involving walls with boundary columns
84
Fig. 8Variation of ratio of predicted Model Vm1a and
experimental shear strengths (normalized using total wall
area and fc) with respect to aspect ratio.
(barbells) and flanges. The barbell and flanged wall data sets
were merged for analysis because the two cross-section
types sustain a similar sequence of damage when subjected
to incremented cyclic lateral loading, namely: 1) cracking of
concrete due to shearing force; 2) spalling and crushing of
concrete; and 3) failure of diagonal compression struts.
Gulec and Whittaker2 showed by finite element analysis
that although barbells in low aspect ratio walls are fully
effective in resisting shearing force, flanges may not be.
Accordingly, the coefficients of Eq. (3) were computed for
four assumptions of effective flange width, beff = bf (flanges
fully effective), and fractions of the height of the wall (hw,
hw/2, and hw/4). (Note: a similar approach is used in ACI 318-083
to calculate the effective flange widths for flexure and axial
load design. In ACI 318-08,3 unless a more detailed analysis
is performed, the effective flange widths are required to be
extended from the face of the web to the smaller of 1/2 the
distance to an adjacent wall web and 25% of the total wall
height.) Similar to rectangular walls, two exponents on the
concrete contribution were studied, namely, 0.5 and 1.0. The
eight models are summarized in Table 3. These models are
valid for the range of data from which they were developed,
namely, for an aspect ratio between 0.20 and 1.0; 0 and
1650 psi (11.4 MPa) for h fyh; 0 and 1950 psi (13.4 MPa)
for v fyv; 155 and 1890 psi (1.1 and 13.0 MPa) for be fybe; 0
and 32% for P/At fc, where At is the total wall area; and 1450
and 8460 psi (10.0 and 58.3 MPa) for fc. The values of each
variable in this data set also distribute somewhat uniformly
across its range (refer to Gulec and Whittaker2 for
detailed information).
Table 4 presents the statistics for the ratio of predicted to
experimentally measured peak shear strength using the five
widely used predictive equations and the eight models of
Table 3. Table 5 presents similar statistics for the eight
models of Table 3 but results are presented separately for
barbell and flanged walls to assess the performance of each
model for each cross section. The data presented in Table 3
through Table 5 for Models Vm1a through Vm1h were
obtained by setting an upper limit of 0.15 on P/At fc (axial
force normalized by the product of total wall area and
concrete compressive strength) because a preliminary
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011
Table 3Specified effective flange width and concrete contribution coefficient and calculated coefficients
for eight models used to predict peak shear strength of walls with boundary columns or flanges
Model ID beff 2 1 3 4 5 6 7
Vm1a bf 1.0 0.04 0.30 0.12 0.12 0.37 0.51
Vm1b bf 0.5 2.08 0.29 0.18 0.11 0.39 0.57
Vm1c hw 1.0 0.04 0.34 0.05 0.13 0.35 0.49
Vm1d hw 0.5 2.49 0.33 0.09 0.11 0.36 0.53
Vm1e hw/2 1.0 0.04 0.43 0.09 0.14 0.34 0.48
Vm1f hw/2 0.5 2.91 0.43 0.06 0.11 0.35 0.51
Vm1g hw/4 1.0 0.05 0.52 0.12 0.13 0.32 0.48
Vm1h hw/4 0.5 3.21 0.52 0.09 0.09 0.33 0.51

Table 4Statistics for ratio of predicted to experimental peak shear strength obtained using five widely
used procedures and eight models based on Eq. (3)
Mean Median Standard deviation COV Minimum Maximum Overpredictions, % Error sum of squares
Vn1/Vpeak 0.86 0.82 0.370 0.429 0.182 2.984 28.8 3,971,144
Vn2/Vpeak 0.79 0.76 0.283 0.359 0.207 2.432 21.6 4,953,880
Vn3/Vpeak 0.80 0.79 0.195 0.243 0.404 1.389 13.1 3,980,676
Vn4/Vpeak 0.89 0.86 0.223 0.251 0.467 1.462 30.1 2,736,754
Vn5/Vpeak 0.52 0.48 0.165 0.317 0.269 1.026 0.7 9,638,110
Vm1a/Vpeak 1.00 0.98 0.151 0.151 0.725 1.688 46.4 548,395
Vm1b/Vpeak 1.00 1.00 0.173 0.173 0.702 1.860 48.4 649,504
Vm1c/Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.130 0.130 0.723 1.445 47.7 482,817
Vm1d/Vpeak 1.00 1.00 0.151 0.151 0.704 1.625 49.0 575,108
Vm1e/Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.110 0.110 0.705 1.264 44.4 432,125
Vm1f /Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.134 0.134 0.680 1.383 43.8 545,335
Vm1g/Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.129 0.129 0.672 1.344 45.8 597,209
Vm1h/Vpeak 1.00 0.98 0.151 0.151 0.649 1.428 43.1 742,765

Table 5Statistics for ratio of predicted to experimental peak shear strength obtained using eight models
based on Eq. (3)
Cross section Mean Median Standard deviation COV Minimum Maximum Overpredictions, %
Barbell 0.95 0.94 0.105 0.111 0.728 1.191 27.8
Vm1a/Vpeak
Flanged 1.05 1.05 0.172 0.163 0.725 1.688 66.2
Barbell 0.96 0.95 0.142 0.148 0.702 1.284 35.4
Vm1b/Vpeak
Flanged 1.04 1.03 0.193 0.185 0.712 1.860 62.2
Barbell 0.95 0.94 0.102 0.106 0.738 1.183 27.8
Vm1c/Vpeak
Flanged 1.05 1.05 0.139 0.132 0.723 1.445 68.9
Barbell 0.97 0.95 0.136 0.141 0.713 1.268 34.2
Vm1d/Vpeak
Flanged 1.04 1.04 0.157 0.152 0.704 1.625 64.9
Barbell 0.99 0.98 0.106 0.106 0.780 1.261 40.5
Vm1e/Vpeak
Flanged 1.01 1.00 0.115 0.114 0.705 1.264 48.6
Barbell 1.00 0.98 0.141 0.141 0.750 1.342 43.0
Vm1f /Vpeak
Flanged 1.00 0.99 0.126 0.126 0.680 1.383 44.6
Barbell 1.05 1.04 0.109 0.104 0.819 1.344 63.3
Vm1g/Vpeak
Flanged 0.95 0.95 0.130 0.137 0.672 1.246 27.0
Barbell 1.05 1.04 0.145 0.138 0.790 1.428 57.0
Vm1h/Vpeak
Flanged 0.95 0.95 0.138 0.146 0.649 1.339 28.4

analysis showed that these models overestimated the peak
shear strength of walls with P/At fc greater than 0.15.
As seen in Table 4, Model Vm1e , which uses an assumed
effective flange width of hw /2 and 2 = 1.0, provided the best
estimate of peak shear strength with a median ratio of
predicted to experimental peak shear strength of 0.99 and a
COV of 0.11, which was the smallest among the models
investigated. The model also yielded the smallest error (or
residual) sum of squares statistic of the eight models. The
model that used an assumed effective flange width of hw/2

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011 85


Fig. 9Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with respect to fc for:
(a) Model Vm1e; and (b) Model Vm1f. (Note: 1000 psi =
6.89 MPa.)
and 2 = 0.5 (Vm1f) had a COV of 0.134, which was
significantly greater than that computed for Model Vm1e
(COV = 0.11). Figure 9 presents the variation of ratio of
predicted to experimental peak shear strength with respect to
fc for Models Vm1e and Vm1f. The use of a concrete
contribution term based on fc underestimated the peak shear
strength of walls with concrete compressive strength in excess
of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa). Model Vm1e successfully predicted
peak shear strength across the range of concrete compressive
strength shown in Fig. 9(a), namely, 2000 to 8500 psi
(13.8 to 58.6 MPa).
Another observation from Table 4 is that 4 for Model Vm1e,
which is related to the contribution of horizontal web
reinforcement ratio to peak shear strength, is small (<0) and
approximately 1/5 of the value of 3, which is related to the
vertical web reinforcement ratio. A small value for 4 is
expected for the aforementioned reasons and was supported
by the results of the numerical experiments on walls with
boundary elements.2 The negative value may be a result of
multicollinearityintercorrelation (coupling) between the
predictor variablesbetween the vertical and horizontal
web reinforcement ratios because most walls in the database
were constructed with similar reinforcement ratios in the
horizontal and vertical directions. Because the value of 4
was small, the term associated with the contribution of
86
Fig. 10Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with respect to aspect
ratio for Model Vm1e.
Fig. 11Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with respect to normalized
axial force for Model Vm1e.
horizontal web reinforcement to peak shear strength was
deleted from the model. The remaining coefficients were
recalculated, as shown in the following section, which
presents simplified versions of the peak shear strength
models suitable for implementation in codes and standards.
(Note that deleting horizontal reinforcement from the
webs of low aspect ratio walls in new construction is not
being advocated.)
The statistics presented in Table 5 show that assuming a
fully effective flange results on average in an overestimation
of the experimental peak shear strengths for flanged walls
and underestimation of peak shear strength of walls with
barbells (refer to Table 5, Rows 1 through 4). The assumption
of beff = hw /2 for flanged walls results on average in an accurate
prediction of the experimental peak shear strength.
Figures 10 through 14 present the variation of the ratio of
predicted to experimental peak shear strengths for Model Vm1e
with respect to aspect ratio, normalized axial force, horizontal
web reinforcement ratio, vertical web reinforcement ratio, and
vertical boundary element reinforcement ratio, respectively.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011
Fig. 12Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to Fig. 14Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with hfyh for Model Vm1e. experimental peak shear strength with befybe for Model Vm1e.
(Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.) (Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.)

Fig. 13Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to Fig. 15Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
experimental peak shear strength with vfyv for Model Vm1e. experimental peak shear strength with Abe/At for Model Vm1e.
(Note: 1000 psi = 6.89 MPa.)

Lines of best fit are shown in each figure. The data points are
generally scattered in a narrow band at approximately 1.0 for
both cross-section types. The majority of the ratios
associated with Model Vm1e are between 0.75 and 1.25. The
observed trends in the figures are generally weak, indicating
that the model can successfully predict the peak shear
strength of low aspect ratio walls with boundary elements
within the ranges of the design variables considered.
Figures 15 and 16 present the variation of the ratio of
predicted to experimental shear strength with Abe/At and
bf /hw, respectively, where Abe/At is the ratio of the total
boundary element area to total wall area and bf /hw is the ratio
of flange width to wall height. The weak trends seen in Fig. 15
indicate that the model can successfully account for the
effect of the area of the barbells or flanges on peak shear
strength. The data of Fig. 16, which is only relevant to low
aspect ratio, flanged walls, indicate that the assumption of an
effective flange width of hw/2 is reasonable. As seen in the
figure, the ratios of predicted to experimental peak shear Fig. 16Variation of ratio of predicted shear strength to
strengths do not exhibit a trend with respect to the ratio of experimental peak shear strength with bf/hw for Model Vm1e
flange width to wall height. and flanged walls.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011 87


Fig. 17Variation of ratio of predicted Model Vm1e and
experimental shear strength (normalized using total wall area
and fc ) with respect to aspect ratio. (Note: 1000 psi =
6.89 MPa.)
Figure 17 presents the variation of experimentally measured
peak shear strength and peak shear strength calculated using
Model Vm1e (normalized with total wall area and fc) with
respect to aspect ratio. As seen in the figure and similar to
rectangular walls, the need for an upper shear stress limit for
Model Vm1e is unclear at this time because the procedure did not
yield unconservative estimations of the peak shear strength for
walls that developed relatively high shear stresses.
Simplification of empirical equations for peak
shear strength
The empirical equations presented herein provide
substantially better estimations of the peak shear strength of
low aspect ratio reinforced concrete walls than current code
procedures,3 standards,4 and the literature.5,6 The optimized
peak shear strength equations can be further simplified with
a little sacrifice in performance into a form suitable for
application in a design office. Model Vm1a performed best
for rectangular walls and Model Vm1e performed best for
walls with barbells or flanges. Accordingly, these models
were used as the basis for the code-oriented design equations
presented in the following. To simplify these equations, two
additional changes were made to Model Vm1a for rectangular
walls and Model Vm1e for walls with boundary elements:
1. The numerical analyses performed using VecTor210 in
Gulec and Whittaker2 and the evaluation of available data
show that the effect of the horizontal web reinforcement
ratio on peak shear strength is modest in comparison with the
effects of the other variables. Accordingly, a term associated
with horizontal web reinforcement ratio was not included in
the equations for walls with either rectangular cross sections
or with boundary columns or flanges.
2. The coefficient 7, which is associated with aspect ratio
in Eq. (3) (that is, [hw/lw]7) was 0.58 for Model Vm1a for
rectangular walls and 0.48 for Model Vm1e for walls with
boundary elements. This coefficient was set equal to 0.5.
The proposed peak shear strength equation for shear-
critical rectangular walls with an aspect ratio of 1.0 or less
(Vrec) is presented in Eq. (4)
88
Table 6Statistics for ratio of predicted to
experimental peak shear strengths obtained using
Vm1a and Vrec
Standard
Mean Median deviation COV Minimum Maximum
Vm1a/Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.135 0.135 0.746 1.359
Vrec/Vpeak 0.98 0.95 0.135 0.138 0.720 1.319
1.5 f c A w + 0.25 F vw + 0.20 F vbe + 0.40 P
V rec = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 f c A w (4)
hw lw
where Aw (in in.2) is the wall area, fc (in psi) is the compressive
strength of concrete, Fvw (in lb) is the force attributed to
vertical web reinforcement (calculated as the product of area
of vertical web reinforcement and the reinforcement yield
stress), Fvbe (in lb) is the force attributed to boundary
element reinforcement (calculated as the product of total
area of vertical boundary element reinforcement at each end
of the wall and the reinforcement yield stress), P (in lb) is the
axial force, hw is the wall height, and lw is the wall length.
(Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1000 lb = 4.4482 kN; 1000 psi =
6.895 MPa.)
The performance of Models Vm1a and Vrec is presented in
Table 6; the COVs for the two models are similar. An upper
limit on shear force of 10 f c A w is imposed in Eq. (4)
because the experimentally measured peak shear strength for
rectangular walls was always less than 10 f c A w .
The proposed peak shear strength equation for symmetric
shear-critical walls with boundary elements and an aspect
ratio of 1.0 or less (VBE) is presented in Eq. (5).
( 0.04f c )A eff + 0.40F vw + 0.15F vbe + 0.35P
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V BE = hw lw (5)
15 f c A t
where Aeff (in in.2) is the total wall area for barbell walls and
the effective area for flanged walls (equal to the sum of the
areas of the web plus the effective flanges area, where the area
of an effective flange is the product of the flange thickness and
one-half the wall height minus the web thickness). Equation (5)
can be applied to all barbell walls and flanged walls for which
At /Aw 1.25. For the design of flanged walls with 1.0 At/Aw
1.25, the peak shear strength should be taken as the smaller
of the values calculated using Eq. (4) and (5). Equation (5) is
a simplification of Model Vm1e, but the loss of performance
is only modest (refer to Table 7).
Figure 17 shows that the experimentally measured peak
shear strength of walls with barbells and flanges is generally
less than 15 f c A t . Accordingly, 15 f c A t is proposed as an
upper limit on peak shear strength per Eq. (5) until additional
data are available to support an alternative limit.
The experimental data used to develop the peak shear
strength equations for low aspect ratio walls were based on
tests of walls loaded in the plane of the web. For walls with
flanges or orthogonal walls sharing common boundary
elements, where the flanges or boundary elements are
subjected to loading perpendicular to the web, the equations
must be used with care because orthogonal loading will
generally degrade the integrity of the boundary elements and
may effectively reduce the cross section to a rectangular
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011
 Table 7Statistics for ratio of predicted to
experimental peak shear strengths obtained using
Vm1e and VBE
Standard
Mean Median deviation COV Minimum Maximum
Vm1e/Vpeak 1.00 0.99 0.110 0.110 0.705 1.264
VBE/Vpeak 1.02 1.02 0.114 0.112 0.721 1.292
shape. Large-scale test data are needed. In the interim, Eq. (5)
should only be used for walls with flanges if loading in the
plane of the flanges does not result in damage. Otherwise,
Eq. (4) should be used.
Concluding remarks
Building codes, standards of practice, and guidelines
provide predictive equations for the peak shear strength of
low aspect ratio (shear critical). These equations
substantially vary in functional form, do not account for all
of the important variables that affect the response of low
aspect ratio walls, and generally predict very different values
of shear strength from one another. Improved empirical
equations, suitable for inclusion in codes, standards, and
guidelines for both seismic design and seismic performance
assessment, have been developed for both rectangular walls
and walls with boundary columns and flanges by statistical
evaluation of the data from tests of 227 low aspect ratio walls
subjected to loading in the plane of the web of each wall.
These empirical equations accurately predict the
experimentally measured values of peak shear strength with
a low COV. Note that these equations (and all others
available at this time) do not address the loss of strength seen
in low aspect ratio walls subjected to repeated cyclic loading
and do not account for simultaneous loading in and
perpendicular to the plane of the web, where perpendicular
loading may degrade the strength of boundary elements in
walls with boundary columns and flanges). If used for
design, the proposed equations for nominal strength should
be adjusted using strength reduction factors per Chapter 9 of
ACI 318-083 and reinforcement in walls should be detailed
per Chapter 21 of ACI 318-08.3 The authors consider these
equations to be improvements to those available in codes and
standards at this time but note that they merely serve as a
stepping stone toward the development of physics-based models
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2011
View publication stats
that can capture the hysteretic response of low aspect ratio walls
subjected to random three-component cyclic loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Professors S. Wood, J. Moehle, M. Sozen,
D. Rothe, Y.-L. Mo, and M.-S. Sheu for providing information on tests of
low aspect ratio and reinforced concrete walls and Professors F. Vecchio and
A. Aref for providing advice on finite element modeling of reinforced
concrete walls. Financial support for these studies was provided by
MCEER, through grants from the Earthquake Engineering Centers Program
of the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Award No. EEC-9701471), and
New York State; and the NSF NEESR Program under Grant No. CMMI-
0829978. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of MCEER, NSF, or the state of New York.
REFERENCES
1. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
1992, 768 pp.
2. Gulec, C. K., and Whittaker, A. S., Performance-Based Assessment
and Design of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls, Report No. MCEER-
09-0010, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
Buffalo, NY, 2009, 291 pp.
3. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
4. ASCE/SEI 43-05, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems,
and Components in Nuclear Facilities, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA, 2005, 96 pp.
5. Barda, F.; Hanson, J. M.; and Corley, W. G., Shear Strength of Low-
Rise Walls with Boundary Elements, SP-53, Reinforced Concrete
Structures in Seismic Zones, N. M. Hawkins and D. Mitchell, eds.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1977, pp. 149-202.
6. Wood, S. L., Shear Strength of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete
Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1990, pp. 99-107.
7. Gulec, C. K.; Whittaker, A. S.; and Stojadinovic, B., Shear Strength
of Squat Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Walls, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 105, No. 4, July-Aug. 2008, pp. 488-497.
8. Gulec, C. K.; Whittaker, A. S.; and Stojadinovic, B., Shear Strength
of Squat Reinforced Concrete Walls with Boundary Flanges or Barbells,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 3, May-June 2009, pp. 368-377.
9. ABAQUS Standard, Version 6.5.1, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.,
Pawtucket, RI, 2004.
10. VecTor2, VecTor Analysis Group, University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada, 2007, 291 pp.
11. Box, G. E.; Hunter, W. G.; and Hunter, J. S., Statistics for
Experimenters, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1978, 653 pp.
12. Montgomery, D. C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, sixth
edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2005, 643 pp.
13. MATLAB Version 7.3.0, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, 2006.
89