Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 105-S24

Seismic Behavior and Ductility of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls with Nonseismic Detailing

by J. S. Kuang and Y. B. Ho

Large-scale nonseismically detailed, squat reinforced concrete shear walls with aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5, as practiced in low to moderate probability of seismic occurrence regions, are tested under reversed cyclic loading. The seismic behavior and displacement ductility of the shear walls are investigated. Emphasis of the study is placed on the inherent displacement ductility of the walls with nonseismic standard and improved reinforcement details. Experi- mental results show that the inherent displacement ductility factor of 2.5 to 3 is commonly achieved with the current nonseismic design practice and that of 4.5 to 5 with minor modifications in the reinforcement detailing techniques. It has been shown that an ordinary squat shear wall with nonseismic design and detailing may not possess sufficient ductility to respond adequately to an unexpected moderate earthquake. The proposed reinforcement details, which include minor modifications to the detailing techniques of currently practiced nonseismic designs, can effectively lead to a reasonable improvement of ductile response behavior of the squat shear walls.

Keywords: ductility; reinforced concrete; seismic behavior; squat shear walls.

INTRODUCTION During the past three decades, research efforts in earth- quake engineering concentrated on earthquake disaster mitigation for regions of high seismicity. It was not until the earthquake in Newcastle, Australia, in 1991—a moderate earthquake (M = 5.6) that caused approximately $2.5 billion in damage 1 —that attention to the potential hazard in a region of moderate seismicity was revived. The Newcastle earth- quake showed that an earthquake with low to medium intensity can still cause loss of life and economic hardship in a region of moderate seismicity, where no urban earthquake disaster management program is in place. Indeed, an understanding of seismic behavior of reinforced concrete structures without considering seismic effects in design and detailing is essential to evaluate the existing nonseismically designed buildings in regions of low to moderate seismicity, which could need strengthening or retrofitting. This may eventually lead to modifying existing nonseismic design codes for moderately earthquake-resistant design of buildings without resorting to a full seismic design. Recent experimental studies on the seismic performance

columns, 2 beam-column

joints, 3 structural walls, 4

moment-resisting frames, 5 and

wall frames 6 designed for only gravity and wind loads in the as-built structures indicated that the nonseismically designed reinforced concrete structures and structural components are very marginal or may not withstand moderate seismic events. In fact, squat reinforced concrete shear walls under reversed cyclic loading generally possess relatively poor energy dissipation characteristics, showing pinched hysteresis loops and experiencing significant stiffness degradation and possible sudden loss in lateral capacity. 7-12 Modifications in

and inherent ductility of existing

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

the reinforcement detailing specifications for nonseismic design should be made to improve the seismic behavior and enhance the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of these structures and components. Few research investigations have been carried out on the potential seismic damage of nonseismically designed squat reinforced concrete shear walls in regions where earthquakes are not considered to be a major problem; hence, studies from which such structures’ ductility capacity can be extrapolated are not readily available. In this paper, laboratory tests of large-scale squat reinforced concrete shear walls under reversed cyclic loading, which are designed and detailed without seismic considerations as practiced in low probability of seismic occurrence regions, are reported.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE This study is intended to verify the seismic performance and available displacement ductility of squat reinforced concrete shear walls designed and detailed without explicitly considering seismic design requirements. The results can directly be used as a meaningful measure of the vulnerability of nonseismically designed squat shear walls under reversed cyclic loads, thus providing a basis of proposing design or strengthening work where appropriate. It is also intended to show that minor modifications in reinforcement detailing techniques in squat shear walls may lead to significant improvement of the seismic performance and enhancement of the displacement ductility of these walls.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Test specimens In the experimental program, eight large-scale, squat, nonseismically detailed, reinforced concrete shear walls with height-to-width aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5 are fabricated and tested under reversed cyclic loading. The specimens are divided into two groups: 1) walls with conventional nonseismic detailing; and 2) walls with improved detailing. Steel reinforcement is detailed in accordance with the practice for buildings specified in BS 8110 13 and IStructE design regu-

lations,

where only gravity and wind loads are considered.

This steel detailing typifies that of a nonseismic detailing technique for structural concrete. The variables involved include the wall-panel aspect ratio, distribution of longitudinal reinforcement, boundary confinement, and configurations of transverse steel.

14

ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, March-April 2008. MS No. S-2006-481.R2 received December 29, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the January- February 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by September 1, 2008.

225

J. S. Kuang is an Associate Professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology, Hong Kong, China. His research interests include earthquake-resistant concrete structures and seismic evaluation of concrete buildings.

Y. B. Ho is a PhD candidate at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

His research interests include earthquake engineering and seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete tall buildings.

Specimen details and properties are summarized in Table 1. All specimens had the same rectangular cross section of

1200

x 100 mm (47.24 x 3.94 in.), with wall panel heights of

1200

mm (47.24 in.) and 1800 mm (70.87 in.), corresponding

to the aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5, respectively. The concrete

cylinder strengths ranged from 30.4 to 37.7 MPa (4408 to 5467 psi), while the steel yield strength was 520 MPa (75,420 psi). In the first column of Table 1, the letters U and C in the specimen labels stand for the arrangements of uniformly

the specimen labels stand for the arrangements of uniformly Fig. 1—Cross section details. (Note: in mm;

Fig. 1—Cross section details. (Note: in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Table 1—Properties of specimens

     

Concrete f c , MPa (psi)

Longitudinal steel

Main

Aspect

Boundary

 

ρ

s ,

transverse

Specimen

ratio

confinement

Distribution

%

steel ρ v ,%

     

30.4

     

U1.0

1.0

No

(4408)

Uniform

0.92

1.05

     

34.9

     

U1.5

1.5

No

(5060)

Uniform

0.92

1.05

     

35.2

     

C1.0

1.0

No

(5104)

Concentrated

1.05

1.05

     

34.2

     

C1.5

1.5

No

(4959)

Concentrated

1.05

1.05

     

31.3

     

U1.0-BC

1.0

Yes

(4539)

Uniform

0.92

1.05

     

33.8

     

U1.5-BC

1.5

Yes

(4901)

Uniform

0.92

1.05

     

34.1

     

U1.0-BC2

1.0

Yes

(4945)

Uniform

0.92

1.05

     

37.7

     

U1.0-CT

1.0

No

(5467)

Uniform

0.92

1.05

226

distributed and concentrated longitudinal reinforcement, respectively. The number that follows (1.0 or 1.5) represents the aspect ratio, which is defined as a ratio of height to width of the wall panels. The letters BC and CT stand for the boundary confinement and crosstie arrangement in the wall cross sections, respectively. Cross section details of the specimens are shown in Fig. 1. Longitudinal reinforcing bars in all the specimens are fully anchored in a 500 mm (19.69 in.) deep base girder that was bolted to the strong laboratory floor. A 300 x 300 mm (11.81 x 11.81 in.) top beam is cast with the wall panel. Details of the geometry and reinforcement are shown in Fig. 2. Specimens U1.0 and U1.5 were typically detailed nonseis- mically. It is seen from Fig. 1(a) and 2(a) that two layers of longitudinal steel were uniformly placed with a spacing of 180 mm (7.09 in.), whereas the spacing of the transverse steel was 150 mm (5.91 in.), and two layers of transverse reinforcement at the same level were fully lapped with U-shaped bars at the two wall panel boundaries. Specimens C1.0 and C1.5 were detailed adopting the similar technique to that of Specimens U1.0 and U1.5. The only difference was made in the distribution of longitudinal reinforcement where the steel

distribution of longitudinal reinforcement where the steel Fig. 2—Geometry and reinforcing details. (Note: in mm; 1

Fig. 2—Geometry and reinforcing details. (Note: in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

bars were concentrated at the boundaries of wall panels, whereas extra longitudinal reinforcement was added near the center of the specimens for the purpose of the crack control, as shown in Fig. 1(b) and 2(b). In Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC, minor modifications to the steel detailing in Specimens U1.0 and U1.5 were made, where secondary (or confining) stirrups were provided at the wall boundaries and detailed at the same level of the main transverse reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 1(c) and 2(c), creating boundary-confinement zones in the wall panel. The secondary stirrups of Specimen U1.0-BC2 were placed at levels between the main transverse reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 2(d). These secondary stirrups placed between the main transverse steel in Specimen U1.0-BC2 may have enhanced the confinement more effectively than those detailed at the same levels of that in Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC. Crossties are commonly used in nonseismic detailing. Few studies have been conducted, however, on the effects of crossties as a means of confinement on improving the ductility of reinforced concrete shear walls. Specimen U1.0-CT was specially detailed by incorporating crossties, as shown in Fig. 1(d), for the experimental evaluation in this study.

Test setup and procedure The test setup is shown in Fig. 3. The specimen was mounted on the strong floor. Vertical loading was first applied through the Wiffle tree then the top beam to the wall panel by two hydraulic jets connected with a pair of loading frames, which can move horizontally together with the specimen. Lateral load reversals were then applied to the top beam by a servo actuator that was supported by the strong reaction wall in the laboratory. In the test, both load and displacement controls were adopted at different loading stages. The load-control method was used at the early loading stage; one cycle of horizontal loading up to ±0.5P i and then ±0.75P i were applied, where the load P i was the reversed applied load at the top of the specimen when the wall panel reached its ultimate flexural

was determined using the

strength M u . The value of M u

BS 8110 13 rectangular stress block for concrete at the ultimate limit state without considering partial factors of safety. Figure 4 shows a general reversed cyclic load-deflection relationship of reinforced concrete members under the test. It is well recog- nized that the yield displacement can be determined by 15

Δ y

Δ 1

+

Δ 2

= ------------------------

2

(1)

where Δ 1 and Δ 2 are the horizontal displacements corre- sponding to lateral loads of P i and –P i , respectively, and the values can be obtained by linearly extrapolating the straight line, which represents the stiffness at load levels of ±0.75P i to load levels of ±P i , as shown in Fig. 4. The arrangement of load-control reversed cyclic loading was then switched to the displacement control; the test specimens were then subjected to two complete cycles of reversed loading gradually to achieve μ = ±1, ±2, ±3… where the displacement ductility factor was defined as μ = Δ/Δ y . Each test continued until the specimen experienced a significant loss of capacity, where it was assumed that the failure occurred when the restoring force dropped to 80% of the maximum applied lateral load.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

Instrumentation The relative horizontal displacement of the top beam with respect to the base girder was captured by linearly variable differential transformers (LVDTs). The LVDTs were placed at a steel platform standing and bolted on the base girder of each specimen, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The average shear distortion was evaluated by

γ ave

)

= -------------------------

(

d′ Δd

ave

hl

(2)

where d, h, lare shown in Fig. 5(b), and Δdave is the average differential change of d.

TEST RESULTS All specimens failed with longitudinal reinforcement yielding and concrete crushing at the boundary of the

yielding and concrete crushing at the boundary of the Fig. 3—Test setup. Fig. 4—Yield displacement. Fig.

Fig. 3—Test setup.

crushing at the boundary of the Fig. 3—Test setup. Fig. 4—Yield displacement. Fig. 5—LVDT arrangement and

Fig. 4—Yield displacement.

the boundary of the Fig. 3—Test setup. Fig. 4—Yield displacement. Fig. 5—LVDT arrangement and shear distortion.

Fig. 5—LVDT arrangement and shear distortion.

227

compressive zone. Table 2 summarizes the failure behavior and the theoretical and maximum test strengths of the specimens

where the shear capacities V n are calculated using the softened

strut-and-tie model.

16

General behavior It can be seen from Table 2 that all the experimental failure loads of specimens P max are much lower than the theoretical shear strengths V u , showing that the strengths of specimens are mainly governed by flexure. The crack patterns and failure modes of all specimens are shown in Fig. 6. During the test, flexural cracks were observed when the specimens were loaded to approximately half the calculated strength ±0.5P i . Extensive flexural cracks were commonly

±0.5 P i . Extensive flexural cracks were commonly Fig. 6—Crack patterns and failure of specimens.

Fig. 6—Crack patterns and failure of specimens.

228

developed when the lateral load increased to ±0.75P i . At the same time, diagonal shear cracks also appeared, running at approximately 45 degrees. A fan-shaped compression field was developed in wall panels within a region with a height- to-width ratio of 1.0 for both specimens with the aspect ratios of 1.0 or 1.5, as shown in Fig. 6(a) to (f), where few cracks were observed in the upper side of the specimens with an aspect ratio of 1.5. No observable plastic hinge in the specimens can be found until failure. The modes of cracks changed from nearly ordinary horizontal, flexural, or sliding ones near the base to purely diagonal shear ones near the top of the panels, which agreed with the fan-shaped compression field. On the other hand, crack widths were generally small. Flexural crack widths near the base of the tensile boundary were found to be the largest. Based on the measurements from LVDTs, the typical contributions of different deformation modes to the total lateral deformation of specimens are shown in Fig. 7, where it can be seen that shear deformation contributes approximately 30 to 60% of the total deformation. The shear deformation goes up linearly with the total deformation level. A small drop of the shear curve is observed when the ductility approaches the ultimate value, thus the failure is not likely to be governed by shear. The sliding behavior only contributes approximately 5% of the total deformation. Similar to shear deformation, the sliding deformation tends to decrease with the increase of the deformation level, thus the failure is not governed by sliding. It is also seen from Fig. 7 that the sliding deformation is generally small and may be ignored. No specimen failed with a sliding mode. Although flexural cracks join together to form potential sliding planes under the cyclic load reversals, the crack widths were small enough to effectively transfer the shear stresses. Measurements from the LVDTs showed that the sliding displacement does not exceed 1.5 mm (0.06 in.). In fact, with a practical value of

exceed 1.5 mm (0.06 in.). In fact, with a practical value of Fig. 7—Contributions of different

Fig. 7—Contributions of different deformation modes to total lateral deformation.

Table 2—Failure behavior and theoretical and test strengths

 

Theoretical strength

Maximum test load P max , kN (kips)

 

Specimen

P i , kN (kips)

V u , kN (kips)

Failure mode

U1.0

321

(72.16)

737

(165.68)

360

(80.93)

 

U1.5

246

(55.30)

689

(154.89)

277

(62.27)

C1.0

430

(96.66)

718

(161.41)

455 (102.28)

Reinforcement

C1.5

280

(62.94)

681

(153.09)

304

(68.34)

yielding and concrete crushing

at boundaries of

U1.0-BC

343

(71.11)

741

(166.58)

415

(93.29)

U1.5-BC

232

(52.15)

684

(153.76)

280

(62.94)

wall panels

U1.0-BC2

340

(76.43)

742

(166.80)

368

(82.73)

U1.0-CT

359

(80.70)

763

(171.52)

378

(84.97)

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

applied axial loading, which was approximately 10 to 30% of the ultimate axial strength, sliding shear failure was commonly suppressed. 17 Recent research shows that this is also true for an axial load level as low as 7% of the ultimate axial strength of the walls. 9,11

Hysteretic behavior and capacity of energy dissipation Figure 8 presents the hysteresis loops of test specimens. It is observed from Fig. 8(a) through (d) that hysteretic loops of the specimens without boundary-confinement zones (Specimens U1.0 and U1.5 and Specimens C1.0 and C1.5) have a small amount of pinching and relatively rapid drop of strength after reaching the maximum strength, indicating a relatively low capability of energy dissipation and a possible undesirable sudden failure after certain loading cycles. The similar cyclic behavior can also be found in hysteretic loops of the specimens with boundary-confinement zones (Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC), as shown in Fig. 8(e) and (f). It is interesting to point out that with the presence of boundary-confinement zones detailed with 150 mm (5.91 in.) spacing secondary stirrups at the same level of the main transverse reinforcement, no observable improvement in seismic performance can be found. In Fig. 8(g), hysteretic loops of Specimen U1.0-BC2, which was detailed with secondary stirrups placed between the main transverse reinforcement and of the same amount as that in Specimen U1.0-BC, show a much wider and thicker shape, where the larger enclosed area of the loops indicated much higher energy dissipation capacity, as compared with that of Specimen U1.0-BC. Moreover, degradation of both strength and stiffness were also observed as rather gradual and steady, and the load-displacement performances in positive and negative cycles were similar. It is indicated that Specimen U1.0-BC2 possesses relatively desirable seismic behavior. The use of crossties in Specimen U1.0-CT, whose effect on the enhancement of squat shear wall ductility was not examined before, gave unexpectedly high ductile behavior, as shown in Fig. 8(h). Although the hysteretic loops of Specimen U1.0-CT showed a thinner and pinched shape, the softening behavior before the ultimate displacement was not observed. Values of the energy dissipation were obtained by measuring the area inside the hysteretic loops before the failure cycle. The normalized energy dissipated in the load displacement hysteresis was defined as

E n

μΔ y

0

PdΔ = --------------------- P i Δ y

(3)

The yield displacement, displacement ductility factor, and normalized energy dissipation capacity of the specimens were given in Table 3. It is seen from Table 3 that similar values of energy dissipation capacity of Specimens U1.0 to U1.5-BC were observed, which have different aspect ratios of 1.0 and 1.5, respectively. Values of the normalized energy dissipation capacity of the conventionally detailed shear walls, including Specimens U1.0 and U1.5, C1.0 and C1.5, and U1.0 and U1.5-BC, follow approximately the same order relationship with displacement ductility of the corre- sponding specimens, while for Specimens U1.0-BC2 and U1.0-CT, they follow a second-order relationship with the ductility of the corresponding specimens. It is also seen that

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

for Specimen U1.0-BC2, which had a reduced spacing of the boundary restrain, or for Specimen U1.0-CT, which was detailed with crossties, the normalized energy dissipation capacity can be increased to more than three times the inherent values of the conventional ones.

DISCUSSIONS Longitudinal steel arrangement and boundary confinement The overall hysteretic behaviors of the two types of specimens with uniformly distributed vertical steel and concentrated steel at the boundaries of a wall panel were very similar, as shown in Fig. 8(a) to (f). On the other hand, more diagonal shear cracks and a larger portion of shear deformation were observed on the wall panels with the arrangement of concen- trated longitudinal reinforcement at the ends of shear walls.

longitudinal reinforcement at the ends of shear walls. Fig. 8—Hysteretic loops of specimens. Table 3—Yield

Fig. 8—Hysteretic loops of specimens.

Table 3—Yield displacement, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity

 

Yield

displacement Δ y , mm (in.)

 

Normalized energy

Displacement

ductility

 

dissipation

   

Specimen

factor μ

E

n

Relative value

U1.0

3.8

(0.150)

3.1

10.0

1.67

U1.5

5.0

(0.197)

2.8

6.0

1.00

C1.0

4.8

(0.189)

3.1

7.5

1.25

C1.5

6.1

(0.240)

2.6

7.9

1.32

U1.0-BC

4.5

(0.177)

3.0

8.3

1.38

U1.5-BC

4.8

(0.189)

3.0

7.9

1.32

U1.0-BC2

3.7

(0.146)

4.4

19.8

3.30

U1.0-CT

2.8

(0.110)

5.0

21.7

3.62

229

This is probably caused by the difference between shear and flexural capacity, together with a more observable shear- dominated zone. In addition, there are potential damages of shear walls detailed with concentrated steel at the ends because the walls may be more vulnerable to shear failure due to the reduction in the ratio of shear to flexural strengths. Shear strength from the arching action (longitudinal reinforce- ment as ties) may not be mobilized in the shear wall, thus the actual shear strength can further be reduced. It is seen from Table 3 that the shear walls with boundary- confinement zones (Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.5-BC) showed little improvement on energy dissipation capacity than those without boundary-confinement zones (Specimens U1.0 and U1.5 and C1.0 and C1.5). This agrees with the observation

from the investigation

on the level of damaged reinforced

concrete buildings in the city of Vina del Mar due to the

earthquake (M = 7.8) in Chile in 1985, where boundary- confinement zones were not required in seismic designs.

18

Secondary stirrups Both Specimens U1.0-BC and U1.0-BC2 were provided with the same amount of secondary (confining) stirrups in the boundary-confinement zones (Fig. 1(c)), but these stirrups were placed at different locations, as shown in Fig. 2(c) and (d). It can be seen from Fig. 8(e) and (g) that two specimens had different seismic behavior and energy dissipation capacity. Specimen U1.0-BC2 with secondary stirrups at the level between the main transverse reinforcement performed much better seismically than Specimen U1.0-BC in which the secondary stirrups were placed at the same level of the main transverse steel. The normalized energy dissipation capacity was more than two times that of Specimen U1.0-BC, and the corresponding displacement ductility factor reached 4.4, much higher than that of 3.0 for Specimen U1.0-BC. It is thus indicated that the secondary stirrups that were placed at levels between the main transverse reinforcement were very effective in achieving better seismic behavior and enhancing ductility and energy dissipation capacity. This can be explained and confirmed from the measurement of tension strains attained in the boundary-confinement stirrups of Specimen U1.0-BC, where the maximum strain was found to be only approximately 0.001, far below the material yield strain that was equal to 0.0026. It may then be revealed that the secondary stirrups placed at the same level of the main transverse reinforcement were very ineffective on providing boundary confinement to a wall, thus obtaining little improvement on the seismic performance and ductility capacity. Other than the confinement effect, the secondary stirrups placed between the main transverse reinforcement could also effectively prevent the premature buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement at wall boundaries. For the specimens without detailing closely-spaced transverse steel at the boundary zones, lateral deformation of the longitudinal steel in compressive boundaries is found to be relatively large. Premature loss of concrete area, owing to spalling of concrete before crushing, is observed in these specimens. It is probably because these longitudinal bars were highly stressed due to the large lateral deformation, thus pushing the concrete cover away before attaining the original crushing strain. It was clearly observed in Specimen U1.0-CT that the concrete cover spalled off while the concrete inside the rein- forcement cage was still not completely crushed. It has been shown 19,20 that yield strength can only be sustained in the post-yielding branch of the stress-strain curve if the spacing

230

of lateral restraint is smaller than 8 to 10 times the bar diameter. Reducing the stirrup spacing is necessary to control buckling of vertical steel and spalling of concrete cover together providing a continuous longitudinal confinement to the concrete core.

Crossties Specimen U1.0-CT at failure is shown in Fig. 6(h). From both the actual measurements of LVDTs and the analytical calculations, the crushed region of the wall panel is considered to go beyond the neutral axis depth corresponding to the maximum test load, which is approximately 12 in. (304.8 mm). This failure is usually caused by high shear stresses. Therefore, providing crossties throughout the cross section of the wall panel helps effectively not only to prevent shear failure at the central part of the section, but also to enhance confining stresses of the entire section.

Aspect ratio of wall panel In the experimental tests, little effect of the aspect ratio on the failure mode of specimens was observed. It is seen from Table 2 that the shear-to-flexural strength ratio of shear walls with an aspect ratio of 1.0 is generally lower than that with an aspect ratio of 1.5, indicating that the walls with a low aspect ratio may be more vulnerable to shear failure than those with a higher aspect ratio. On the other hand, it is seen from the hysteretic behaviors shown in Fig. 8 that the degradation of both strength and stiffness for specimens with a lower aspect ratio tends to be steadier, as compared with that with a higher aspect ratio.

CONCLUSIONS The experimental investigation of large-scale, nonseismically detailed, squat, reinforced concrete shear walls on seismic behavior and ductility capacity reveals that the inherent displacement ductility factor of 2.5 to 3 may generally be achieved for the walls without boundary confinement. Hence, ordinary squat shear walls designed and detailed without seismic considerations may not sufficiently satisfy the ductility demand for shear wall building structures with limited ductility in a region of moderate seismicity, where a displacement ductility factor of approximately 3 is recom-

mended by Park.

details should be made to improve the seismic performance and enhance the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of nonseismically designed, squat, reinforced concrete shear walls for resisting moderate earthquakes. The walls with boundary-confinement zones, where the secondary (confining) stirrups are placed at the same level of main transverse reinforcement, have shown little improvement on deformation and energy dissipation capacity than those without boundary-confinement zones. When the secondary stirrups are provided in the confinement zones and detailed at the level between the main transverse reinforcement, however, the seismic behavior and energy dissipation capacity of the shear walls will significantly be improved and the ductility capacity will effectively be enhanced. The displacement ductility factor of 4.5 to 5 can be achieved by simply modifying the current nonseismic design practice of reinforcement details. The modification includes introducing boundary-confinement zones at the ends of a wall panel and providing the secondary stirrups between the main transverse reinforcement in the confinement zone (such as Specimen U1.0-BC2), and/or detailing crosstie sets

Modifications in nonseismic reinforcement

21

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

throughout the cross section (such as Specimen U1.0-CT). The proposed reinforcement details are simple and will not significantly increase both the construction cost and difficulty because the techniques are weighted for consistency with the level of risk and as-practiced detailing techniques in a moderate seismic region.

REFERENCES

1. Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team, The Newcastle,

Australia Earthquake, Institution of Structural Engineers, UK, 1991.

2. Kuang, J. S., and Wong, H. F., “Improving Ductility of Non-Seismically

Designed RC Columns,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,

Structures and Buildings, V. 158, No. 1, 2005, pp. 13-20.

3. Kuang, J. S., and Wong, H. F., “Effects of Beam Bar Anchorage on

Beam-Column Joint Behaviour,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, V. 159, No. 2, 2006, pp. 115-124.

4. Kuang, J. S., and Ho, Y. B., “Inherent Ductility of Non-Seismically-

Designed and Detailed Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Transactions of

the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, V. 14, No. 1, 2007, pp. 7-12.

5. Kuang, J. S., and Atanda, A. I., “Enhancing Ductility of Non-Seismically

Designed Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, V. 158, No. 4, 2005, pp. 253-265.

6. Atanda, A. I., and Kuang, J. S., “Inherent Ductility of Non-Seismically

Designed and Detailed Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall-Frame Buildings,” Transactions of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, V. 12, No. 3, 2005, pp. 1-5.

7. Paulay, T.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Synge, A. J., “Ductility in Earth-

quake Resisting Squat Shearwalls,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 4, July-Aug. 1982, pp. 257-269.

8. Pilakoutas, K., and Elnashai, A., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced

Concrete Cantilever Walls—Part 1: Experimental Results,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 271-281.

9. Salonikios, T. N.; Kappos, A. J.; Tegos, I. A.; and Penelis, G. G.,

“Cyclic Load Behavior of Low-Slenderness Reinforced Concrete Walls:

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008

Design Basis and Test Results,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July- Aug. 1999, pp. 649-660.

10. Mo, Y. L., and Lee, Y. C., “Experimental Studies on Low-Rise

Structural Walls with Various Sections,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 52, No. 3, 2000, pp. 177-184.

11. Salonikios, T. N., “Shear Strength and Deformation Patterns of R/C

Walls with Aspect Ratio 1.0 and 1.5 Designed to Eurocode 8,” Engineering Structures, V. 24, No.1, 2002, pp. 39-49.

12. Hidalgo, P. A.; Ledezma, C. A.; and Jordan, R. M., “Seismic Behavior

of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 18, No. 2, 2002, pp. 287-308.

13. British Standards Institution, “BS 8110: Structural Use of Concrete—

Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction,” London, UK, 1997.

14. Institution of Structural Engineers, “Standard Method of Detailing

Structural Concrete,” IStructE, London, UK, 1989.

15. Park, R., “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural

Assemblages from Laboratory Testing,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 22, No. 3, 1989, pp. 155-166.

16. Hwang, S. J.; Fang, W. H.; Lee, H. J.; and Yu, H. W., “Analytical

Model for Predicting Shear Strength of Squat Walls,” Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 1, 2001, pp. 43-50.

17. Zhang, Y., and Wang, Z., “Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

Shear Walls Subjected to High Axial Loading,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97,

No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2000, pp. 739-750.

18. Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., “Ductility and Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, 1993, pp. 1625-1644.

19. Mau, S. T., “Effect of Tie Spacing on Inelastic Buckling of Reinforcing

Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1990, pp. 671-677.

20. Mander, J. B.; Panthaki, F. D.; and Kasalanati, A., “Low-Cycle

Fatigue Behavior of Reinforcing Steel,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 6, No. 4, 1994, pp. 453-468.

21. Park, R., “Design Procedures for Achieving Ductile Behaviour of

Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” Proceedings of the International Workshop on Earthquake Engineering for Regions of Moderate Seismicity, Hong Kong, China, 1998, pp. 45-50.

231