ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 116-S20
Experimental Investigation: New Ductility-Based Force
Modification Factor Recommended for Concrete Shear
Walls Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars
by Ahmed Hassanein, Nayera Mohamed, Ahmed Sabry Farghaly, and Brahim Benmokrane
Reinforced concrete shear walls are the most common lateral-force-
resisting system in reinforced concrete structures. Recent exper-
imental studies have proven the applicability of using glass
fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement in lateral-resisting
concrete structural systems (shear walls and columns). In this
study, five concrete shear walls reinforced with GFRP bars and
spirals were tested under reversed cyclic quasi-static loading and
constant axial load. The main difference between the walls was
the GFRP reinforcement configuration in the boundary elements.
Two shear walls included boundaries reinforced with square GFRP
spirals, while the third shear wall had boundaries reinforced with
circular GFRP spirals. The remaining two shear walls had higher
confinement of boundary elements consisting of square GFRP spiral
embedded inside rectangular GFRP spiral in one and rectangular
GFRP spiral with two GFRP ties in the other. The main objectives
were to assess the impact of increasing the confinement level in the
boundaries and the effect on inelastic deformation capacity. The
walls with higher confinement clearly achieved higher drift ratios
and strength. The envelope curves were bilinearly idealized. The
elastic-plastic transition point and the maximum deformation limit
were identified based on the seismic performance of the test spec-
imens. The recorded inelastic rotation capacity of the test walls
achieved the required level for lateral-resisting systems. Moreover,
the ductility-based force modification factor was assessed and a new
value of 2.4 was suggested for implementation in FRP design codes.
Keywords: deformation; force modification factor; glass fiber-reinforced
polymer; seismic; shear wall.
INTRODUCTION
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars
are finding greater acceptance as a construction material in
reinforced concrete (RC) structural elements (ACI 440.1R-
15). Numerous research studies have proven that lateral-cy-
clic-resisting concrete elements reinforced with GFRP bars
exhibit acceptable levels of strength, stiffness, and energy
dissipation in addition to corrosion resistance (Sharbatdar
and Saatcioglu 2009; Mady et al. 2011; Mohamed et al.
2014a,b; Tavassoli et al. 2015).
Observations from earthquakes have indicated that
well-designed RC shear walls can be used effectively as a
primary lateral-load-resisting system in response to both
wind and earthquake loading (Fintel 1995). In compar-
ison to other lateral-resisting systems, RC shear walls have
proven to provide excellent, cost-effective, lateral resis-
tance (Cardenas et al. 1973; Fintel 1995). A recent experi-
mental study conducted by Mohamed et al. (2014a) involved
three concrete shear walls reinforced with GFRP bars with
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
different aspect ratios and one steel-reinforced shear wall
under combined reversed lateral and axial loading. The
GFRP-reinforced shear walls evidenced good performance
in resisting lateral loads associated with adequate strength
and deformation capacity compared to the steel-reinforced
shear wall. The elastic behavior of the GFRP reinforcement
kept the hysteresis-envelope tips ascending until failure
with no strength degradation and with an acceptable level
of energy dissipation. Mohamed et al. (2014b) proposed a
deformation capacity model based on the test specimens
with a minimum level of confinement.
Confinement level is a key parameter that affects defor-
mation capacity, as confining the concrete at the boundary
of a shear wall with transverse reinforcement would signifi-
cantly increase the compressive strain at which the concrete
fails (Wallace and Moehle 1992). In the case of GFRP-
reinforced shear walls, concrete crushing at the base of the
wall should control the strength, inelastic deformation, and
energy dissipation due to the elastic behavior of the GFRP
bars. In other words, the concrete is the source of deforma-
bility (Mohamed et al. 2014b) and, therefore, increasing the
level of confined concrete at the boundary of the shear wall
would delay the concrete’s compression failure and thus
enhance the shear wall’s deformability. Therefore, this study
addressed the effect of the confinement level. In this study,
five full-scale GFRP-reinforced shear walls were tested
under quasi-static cyclic loading with different levels of
confinement to assess the effect of confinement on the calcu-
lated strength and drift capacity. Increasing the confinement
level of GFRP-reinforced shear walls might lead to modi-
fications to the suggested design equations of deformation
capacity and the deformation-demand model proposed by
Mohamed et al. (2014b).
Moreover, in its provisions for designing shear wall lateral-
resisting elements, the National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC 2015) adopts a force modification factor for each
seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS) to determine the
design lateral force. This force modification factor is deter-
mined by the equal-displacement approach for the ductili-
ty-related force modification factor (Rd) and a statistical
approach to evaluate the overstrength-related force modi-
ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, January 2019.
MS No. S-2017-483, doi: 10.14359/51710867, was received December 24, 2017,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright ©  2019, 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 ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
213
Fig. 1—Cross section and reinforcement details of tested walls.
fication factor (Ro) as reported by Mitchell et al. (2003).
According to CSA S806 (2012), due to the lack of research
on the seismic response of FRP-reinforced elements, the
force modification factor (Rd Ro) is suggested to be equal
to unity. Mohamed et al. (2014b, 2015) proposed a value
for the force-reduction factor based on the limited experi-
mental program with a suggestion of limiting the deforma-
tion capacity to 2.5%. They suggested taking the ductility
and overstrength force modification factors (Rd and Ro) as
1.5 and 1.3, respectively, for GFRP-reinforced shear walls.
In this study, based on the previous experimental data in
addition to the recently tested GFRP-reinforced shear wall
specimens with higher confinement levels, the force modifi-
cation factor and equations to calculate the rotation capacity
and demand were reevaluated.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
FRP design codes and guidelines (ACI 440.1R-15 and
CSA S806 [2012]) do not have seismic provisions due to
the lack of seismic experiments on FRP-reinforced concrete
elements. Hence, this study aimed at filling the knowledge
gap by assessing the force modification factor and equations
to calculate the rotation capacity and demand of concrete
shear walls reinforced with GFRP bars. For this purpose,
five full-scale GFRP-reinforced concrete shear walls with
different levels of confinement were constructed and tested
under reversed cyclic quasi-static loading and constant axial
load at the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) Struc-
tural Laboratory in the Department of Civil Engineering at
the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. The
objectives of this study were to:
214
1. Estimate the elastic-plastic and maximum allowable
deformation;
2. Bilinearly idealize the envelope curve;
3. Reevaluate the values for ductility-related and over-
strength force modification factors; and
4. Modify the existing design equations.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Five full-scale concrete shear walls reinforced with GFRP
bars were fabricated and tested under the combined action
of axial and lateral cyclic loads. All the walls had the same
dimensions with an aspect ratio of 2.33 to be classified as
midrise shear walls according to CSA and ACI codes. The
following sections describe the design and details of the tested
shear walls, materials, testing procedure, and instrumentation.
Specimen dimensions and design
The tested GFRP-reinforced shear-wall specimens were
200 mm (7.87 in.) in thickness, 1500 mm (59.1 in.) in length,
and 3500 mm (137.8 in.) in height, resulting in a model of
a single midrise shear wall. The five fabricated and tested
GFRP-reinforced shear walls were GX, GnoX, GCi, GDC1,
and GDC2. In these labels, “G” stands for GFRP reinforce-
ment; “X” and “noX” indicate the presence or absence of
diagonal bars as sliding-shear reinforcement between the
shear-wall specimen and footing, respectively; “Ci” for
a circular spiral in the boundary element; and “DC” for
double-confined boundary elements.
Figure 1 shows the cross section and the detailed reinforce-
ment and dimensions of the tested shear walls. Table 1 pres-
ents the dimensions and reinforcement ratios. The design
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Table 1—Details of test specimens
Wall Axial ratio fc′, MPa b, mm lb, mm lweb, mm ρb, % ρweb, % ρh, % ρv, %
GX 0.15 26.1 200 165 1170 1.73 0.55 1.58 4.0
GnoX 0.15 29.5 200 165 1170 1.73 0.55 1.58 4.0
GCi 0.15 29.1 200 190 1120 1.50 0.57 1.58 3.8
GDC1 0.15 28.9 200 275 950 1.81 0.53 1.58 5.8
GDC2 0.15 24.3 200 275 950 1.56 0.53 1.58 5.0
Notes: ρb is boundary longitudinal ratio; ρweb is web longitudinal ratio; ρh is horizontal reinforcement ratio; and ρv is boundary volumetric ratio. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

of reinforcement details and wall thickness complied with Table 2—Mechanical properties of reinforcement
CSA S806-12, ACI 440.1R-15, CSA A23.3-14, and ACI
Bar db A Ef ffu εf
318-14, where applicable. The shear-wall specimens had
two boundary elements at both sides with different lengths GFRP #3 9.5 71.3 62.5 1346 2.30
and reinforcement ratios. Plane sectional analysis was used GFRP #4 12.7 126.7 61.3 1303 2.35
to calculate the flexural strength. Shear-wall specimens were
Notes: db is bar diameter (mm); A is area (mm2); Ef is modulus of elasticity (GPa);
designed with an adequate amount of distributed and concen- ffu is tensile strength (MPa); and εf is tensile strain (%). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 mm2 =
trated reinforcement to ensure flexural domination and to 0.00155 in.2; 1 MPa = 145 psi.
prevent shear and sliding-shear failures. Sufficient shear rein-
forcement was provided according to CSA S806-12 and CSA
A23.3-14. Sliding-shear resistance was calculated according
to CSA A23.3-14. Detailed design equations and procedures
can be found in Mohamed et al. (2014a). Ignoring the dowel
action of the longitudinal FRP reinforcement (ACI 440.1R-
15) resulted in one additional layer of diagonal No. 3 GFRP
bars in two directions across the potential sliding planes at
an angle of 45 degrees and spaced at 100 mm (4 in.) in GX.
This additional sliding-shear reinforcement was not used in
GnoX. The footings were heavily reinforced with steel bars
to avoid any influence on wall deformations during the tests.
The footings were used to attach the specimens to the rigid
lab floor and served as an anchorage length for all vertical
bars, as no lap splices were used. Fig. 2—Boundary, horizontal, and vertical reinforcement.
Generally, GX, GnoX, and GCi had the minimum confine-
ment specified in design codes (CSA S806-12, ACI 440.1R-
15) of one spiral in each boundary. GDC1 and GDC2 had
higher confinement of boundary elements, consisting of
square spiral embedded inside rectangular spiral in GDC1
and rectangular spiral with two ties in GDC2 (Fig. 1).

Materials
The specimens were divided into three areas: two boundary
elements on each end and web in the middle. The vertical web
reinforcement consisted of two vertical layers of No. 3 sand-
coated GFRP bars spaced at 120 mm (4.72 in.) extending
with no lap splice into the footing to the full depth of
700 mm (27.6 in.). The horizontal reinforcement consisted of
two layers of No. 4 GFRP bars spaced at 80 mm (3.15 in.).
The clear concrete cover was 25 mm (1 in.) in all cases. The
tensile properties of the GFRP reinforcing bars, presented in
Table 2, were obtained from tensile tests according to ASTM
D7205. Figure 2 shows the vertical, horizontal, tie, and spiral
reinforcement and a typical assembled cage. All the shear
walls were cast with ready mixed normalweight concrete with
a target compressive strength (fc′) of 30 MPa (4.35 ksi).

Test procedure and instrumentation

Figure 3 shows the test setup. A specially fabricated Fig. 3—Test setup.
steel-beam assembly was used to transfer both axial and

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 215

Fig. 4—Applied-load history.
lateral loads to the shear-wall specimens. An axial load of
0.15Agfc′ was applied and maintained constant by manually
controlling the two hydraulic jacks mounted on both sides
of the steel beam. Moreover, strain gauges were mounted on
the axial-load-applying bars to monitor the axial load during
the test. Cyclic lateral displacements were applied through a
1000 kN (224.8 kip) MTS actuator mounted horizontally to
a reaction wall. The displacement history applied was iden-
tical to that used by Mohamed et al. (2014a) and is shown in
Fig. 4. A lateral bracing system was mounted at the level of
the steel-beam assembly and was fixed to a reaction wall and
rested on the steel-beam through bearings to prevent out-of-
plane displacement with no friction resistance to the in-plane
displacement.
The shear-wall specimens were instrumented with a
combination of potentiometers and linear variable differen-
tial transducers (LVDTs) to measure displacements. Strain
gauges were used to measure critical response quantities in
the vertical and horizontal web reinforcement and the longi-
tudinal reinforcement and spirals in the boundary elements.
Concrete strain in the boundary elements was measured with
two LVDTs mounted close to the base of the shear walls.
Shear deformations were measured with two sets of four
potentiometers in an X-configuration at two segment heights
at 1 and 2 m (39.4 and 78.7 in.) from the base. Four potenti-
ometers were used to measure the flexural deformation in the
boundary elements at 1 and 2 m (39.4 and 78.7 in.) from the
base. Three potentiometers were used to measure the lateral
deformation at heights of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.5 m (19.7, 59.1, and
137.8 in.) from the base. Figure 5 shows the instrumentation
of the tested shear walls.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Cracking progress and failure mode
Cracking progressed similarly in all specimens with
flexural-dominated behavior. The first crack was observed
on the tensile side at an approximate height of 300 mm
(11.81 in.) from the base of the specimens and was asso-
ciated with significant stiffness degradation. As the applied
horizontal displacement increased, horizontal cracks gradu-
ally formed along the wall height and extended diagonally
toward the center of the wall. The length of the horizontal
cracks originating from the wall edge decreased as the
distance from the wall base increased. The stiffness kept
decreasing throughout the test due to crack spreading and
216
Fig. 5—Specimen instrumentation.
the lateral strength kept increasing. Vertical splitting cracks
typically appeared at the boundaries when the concrete
compression strain ranged between 3000 and 3500 με.
After this level, gradual cover spalling was observed with
the formation of a plastic hinge; Fig. 6(a) presents a typical
crack pattern at failure. Despite the absence of GFRP bar
yielding, a plastic-hinge region formed at the lower portion
of the wall due to the plastic deformation of the concrete
in the boundaries. The height of the plastic hinge zone was
approximately at half of the wall length.
The failure was mainly controlled by concrete crushing as
flexural behavior dominated the response; Fig. 6(b) shows
a typical failure mode of the tested specimens. Failure
occurred at the maximum lateral strength of the specimens
in the following sequence: 1) vertical-bar fracture occurred
on the compression side in the boundary element (Fig. 6(c)),
leading to a significant increase in the boundary-core internal
pressure on the confining spirals accompanied with a slight
degradation in axial and lateral strengths; 2) displacement
increased with almost constant lateral load, forming a small
horizontal plateau in the load-displacement curve; and 3)
another vertical-bar fracture was recorded, followed by rupture
of the spirals and concrete crushing in the boundary-element
core.
Lateral load capacity
Table 3 provides the predicted and experimental ultimate
flexural strength. Plane sectional analysis was used to predict
the flexural behavior through force equilibrium based on the
following assumptions: 1) plane sections before bending
remain plane after bending, which implies that the strains
across the depth of a section are proportional to distances
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 6—Typical failure pattern.

Table 3—Experimental results

Wall εcu Vexp Vper Vexp/Vper, % Δu Drift V1st crk Vsplit Vspalling
GX 0.013 475 469 101.2 113.2 3.23 176 318 385
GnoX 0.013 498 496 100.5 116.1 3.32 196 315 361
GCi 0.012 492 507 97.0 100.0 2.86 181 281 399
GDC1 0.016 693 652 106.2 156.0 4.46 187 344 436
GDC2 0.015 594 571 104.0 146.8 4.19 161 309 422

Notes: εcu is concrete compression strain at failure; Vexp is experimental ultimate load (kN); Vper is predicted ultimate load based on plan sectional analysis (kN); Δu is displacement
corresponding to ultimate load (mm); “Drift” is drift values corresponding to ultimate load (Δu/lw); V1st crk is load at first crack (kN); Vsplit is load at concrete cover splitting (kN); and
Vspalling is load at concrete cover spalling (kN). 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

from the neutral axis; 2) perfect bond was assumed between
the GFRP bars and concrete; and 3) the experimentally
measured concrete compression strain at ultimate strength
was used for the calculations. The agreement between
predicted and experimental values confirms the applica-
bility of using plane section analysis to predict the flexural
strength of FRP-reinforced shear walls.
Hysteretic response
Figure 7 shows the load-displacement hysteretic responses
for the test specimens. In general, all specimens reached their
ultimate predicted strength with pinched hysteretic loops
with no strength decay up to failure. The reloading branches
followed a loading path like the previous cycle path, but at a
lower loading stiffness, resulting in lower peak strength. An
initial linear branch corresponding to the uncracked condi-
tion of the wall was evident. The first crack was formed at the
lateral displacement of +8.00 mm (0.31 in.), corresponding
to a lateral load of 176, 196, 181, 187, and 161 kN (39.6,
44.1, 40.7, 42, and 36.2 kip) for GX, GnoX, GCi, GDC1,
and GDC2, respectively. Cracks were propagated both in the
web and along the wall height, nearly reaching half the wall
height at a concrete compression strain ranging between
3000 and 3500 με. Cover splitting started to visually appear
on the boundary element side at cycles +35 to +40 mm (1.4
to 1.6 in.), corresponding to a lateral load of 304, 345, 315,
327, and 317 kN (68.3, 77.6, 70.8, 73.5, and 71.3 kip) for
GX, GnoX, GCi, GDC1, and GDC2, respectively. Spalling
of the concrete cover was not observed at that point, but
wall stiffness was significantly reduced due to the initiation
of inelastic compression deformation in the concrete in the
boundaries. Gradual spalling of concrete cover was associ-
ated with the progress of flexural-shear cracks along the wall
height, which continue to propagate near failure. GDC1 and
GDC2 attained a higher displacement level of 4.46% and
4.19% drift, respectively, due to the higher level of confine-

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 217

Fig. 7—Hysteresis response.
ment provided by the rectangular spiral with square spiral
or ties compared to GX, GnoX, and GCi, which achieved
3.23%, 3.32%, and 2.86% drift.
The diagonal X-bars had no effect, as no sliding was observed
between the wall and base of GnoX; no differences were
observed in the strength and deformation of GX and GnoX.
Effect of confinement configuration
Confining the concrete at the base of a shear wall with
transverse reinforcement would significantly increase the
218
compressive strain at which the concrete fails and, thus,
delay compression failure of the concrete there. It can help
to form a plastic hinge at the base of the wall before the
collapse and ensure that the wall fails in a less brittle manner.
That is why ACI 318-14, CSA A23.3-14, and ASCE/SEI
41-13 require boundary element confinement for shear walls
subject to earthquake loading.
With increasing applied loads, the concrete core in the
boundary elements compresses and starts to expand. GFRP
spirals and ties restrain such expansion and lead to a substan-
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 8—Concrete compression strain.
tial improvement in strength and ultimate strain. The test
specimen results clearly show that increased confinement
level at the boundary element significantly enhanced both
the lateral strength level and drift ratio (Table 3). Figure 8
shows the developed concrete compression strain for the
tested walls throughout the loading cycle. The developed
compression strain was similar for the five shear walls up to
1% drift ratio, which corresponds to a concrete compressive
strain of 3000 με. GCi with circular spirals at the boundary
developed the lowest strain rate compared to the other spec-
imens with square and rectangular spirals due to the lower
strength capacity of the bent portion of the square and rect-
angular spirals. The concrete compressive strain achieved
at failure in the specimens with higher volumetric ratios
(GDC1 and GDC2) was 40% higher than that of the walls
with lower volumetric ratios (GX, GnoX, and GCi) due to
the higher confinement at the boundary.
FORCE MODIFICATION FACTORS
Force modification factors are essential seismic design
tools that define the level of inelasticity expected in struc-
tural systems during an earthquake event. They also reflect
the structure’s capacity to dissipate energy through inelastic
behavior. They are used to reduce the design forces in
earthquake-resistant designs, which accordingly would
reduce construction costs. The force modification factors
account for damping, energy-dissipation capacity, and
structure overstrength. According to the NBCC (2015), the
seismic design load (V) is determined by reducing the elastic
seismic load (Ve) by ductility-related modification factor (Rd)
and overstrength-related modification factor (Ro), as shown
in Fig. 9 and expressed by the following equation
S (Ta ) M v I eW
V= (1)
Rd Ro
where S(Ta) is the design spectral acceleration with a proba-
bility of exceedance of 2% in 50 years (2475-year return) at
the selected period; Mv is the higher mode effect factor; W is
the seismic weight; and Ie is the structure importance factor.
To account for the various components contributing to
the overstrength-related force modification factor Ro, the
following formulation is used
Ro = RsizeRRyieldRshRmech (2)
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 9—Determination of lateral design force V.
where Rsize accounts for overstrength in code-restricted
dimensions for design; R accounts for overstrength of
material resistance factors defined in CSA standards; Ryield
is the ratio of “actual” yield strength to minimum speci-
fied yield strength; Rsh accounts for the overstrength due
to the development of strain hardening; and Rmech is the
overstrength of mobilizing the full capacity of the structure
such that a collapse mechanism is formed. All the parameters
in Eq. (2) can be derived statistically, exhibiting the difference
between design solutions and actual behavior. The rationale for
calculating each parameter was given by Mitchell et al. (2003).
The ductility-related modification factor (Rd) is a measure
of the global nonlinear response of a structure and depen-
dent on building period and ductility. Therefore, to estimate
the ductility modification factor for the GFRP-reinforced
concrete walls, the actual strength-displacement response
should be idealized with the linearly elastic-perfectly plastic
curve. To generate the bilinear idealization, a well-defined
explicit transition between the elastic and inelastic deformation
must be clear to identify the elastic-plastic transition point. In
addition, the maximum deformation limit should be identified.
Maximum deformation limit
Various assumptions are available in the literature for
steel-reinforced structural elements to identify the maximum
deformation capacity (Δu) of shear walls. Park (1989)
suggested four possible assumptions: 1) maximum displace-
ment corresponding to a limit value for compression strain
(εc); 2) displacement corresponds to ultimate load-carrying
capacity (Pu); 3) post-peak displacement at 20% reduction
of the load-carrying capacity; and 4) displacement at which
the longitudinal or transverse reinforced material fractures
under tension or buckles under compression. The latter three
assumptions are not applicable to GFRP-reinforced shear
walls, as there was no strength degradation up to the failure
point (refer to Fig. 7). Accordingly, and as recommended by
219
Mohamed et al. (2014b), the ultimate displacement ended
at the ultimate lateral strength, where the longitudinal rein-
forcement fractured under compression, followed by spiral
rupture and concrete crushing. Using a limit value for
compression strain in FRP-reinforced shear walls would be
more conservative to prevent collapse. The measured strains
in the GFRP reinforcement and concrete through the failure
progression were as follows:
1. The initial stiffness slope for all walls was similar until
the first crack initiated at nearly 0.2% drift and at different
lateral strengths. The measured strains were minimal near
the base in both the concrete and longitudinal bars (less than
500 µε). As the confinement was not activated at that load
level, the measured stains at the spirals were not significant.
2. At a lateral drift ranging from 0.7% to 0.8%, the
concrete compressive strain was between 3000 and 3500 µε.
Concrete cover splitting was observed, indicating the start of
inelastic deformations due to the progression of microcracks in
the boundary element core. At this point, strains in the spirals
were initiated and measured between 800 and 1000 µε. The
corresponding strains in the longitudinal bars on the tension
side were 4000 to 6000 µε.
3. The concrete cover gradually spalled until the lateral
drift reached 2%. The concrete compressive strain was in a
range of 6500 to 7000 µε. Hysteresis loops were stable and
lateral strength increased with no decay. Strains in the longi-
tudinal bars were redistributed along the height away from
the base, causing new cracks to propagate along the height
and existing cracks to extend through the web. Strains in
the spirals varied between 1500 and 2000 µε. The maximum
recorded strains in the outermost longitudinal bars on the
tension side were in the range of 9000 to 12,000 µε.
4. As the lateral drift increased, the specimens continued
to carry the load without any decay or instability. The cracks
extended, however, all over the web and a sign of residual
strains in longitudinal bars corresponding to zero displace-
ments was observed. The average drift ratio for this level of
damage was 3% drift. Concrete compressive strains measured
from 9800 to 10,000 µε. The corresponding strains in the
longitudinal bars on the tension side were 14,000 to 15,000 µε
and, in the spirals, measured from 3000 to 3400 µε.
5. Failure of the tested walls occurred when a longitudinal
bar fracture occurred on the compression side, accompanied
with axial strength degradation and a significant increase in
the confining pressure leading to spiral rupture followed by
crushing of the boundary concrete core. The recorded strains
at failure were concrete compressive strains of 12,000 to
17,000 µε, longitudinal bar strains on the tension side of
20,000 to 22,000 µε, and less than 7000 µε on the spirals.
The ultimate displacement (Δu) of steel-reinforced shear
walls is generally defined as a 20% loss of ultimate lateral
strength (NBCC 2015). In contrast, the actual ultimate
displacement in the ends of GFRP-reinforced shear walls
occurs at the ultimate lateral strength at which the spiral
ruptures and longitudinal reinforcement fractures under
compression. In this study, however, the authors defined
the maximum allowable displacement (Δu) of the GFRP-
reinforced concrete shear walls corresponding to an earth-
quake to be less than the actual ultimate displacement
220
Fig. 10—Equal-energy idealized bilinear elastic-perfectly
plastic response.
capacity to maintain a conservative value and avoid collapse.
This maximum allowable limit of Δu was 2.5% drift, which is
the maximum drift under seismic loads allowed under ASCE
7 (2010) and NBCC (2015). Confinement details should be
considered in the design procedure based on the concrete
compressive strain achieved at the suggested value of 2.5%
drift (Wallace and Moehle 1992; Paulay and Priestley 1995;
Saatcioglu et al. 2013; Mohamed et al. 2014a,b).
Elastic-plastic transition point
The elastic-plastic transition point of a structural element
is defined as the point at which it begins to produce plastic
deformations, while ductility is a measure of its ability to
deform plastically without substantial reduction in strength.
Plastic deformation starts in steel-reinforced structural
elements as soon as the steel bars reach their yield strength.
There are several methods for obtaining yield displacement
in steel-reinforced shear walls through the bilinear idealiza-
tion of the load-displacement hysteretic response.
The literature contains several useful discussions about
the appropriate definition of elastic-plastic transition point
(Δy) for steel-reinforced shear walls (Park 1989; Paulay and
Priestley 1995). The best procedure based on the experi-
mental results was used. Park (1989) discussed the defini-
tions of Δy. The yield point (Δy) was defined as one of: 1)
yield displacement of the equivalent elastic-plastic system
with the same elastic stiffness and ultimate load as the real
system; 2) yield displacement of the equivalent elastic-plastic
system with the same energy absorption as the real system;
and 3) yield displacement of the equivalent elastic-plastic
system with reduced stiffness, found as the secant stiffness
at either first yield or at 0.75 of ultimate load (Pu), whichever
is less, where 0.75Pu is due to cracking.
Other common procedures used in Europe, Australia,
North America, and Japan for estimating the idealized curve
from the actual load-displacement curves generated from
laboratory tests are explained and reviewed in Munoz et al.
(2008) and Mohamed et al. (2014b).
Based on these reviews of existing idealization methods
for concrete shear walls as well as data interpretation proce-
dures for nonlinear testing (Park 1989), the authors decided
to incorporate the equivalent energy elastic-plastic (EEEP)
method for bilinear idealization (Fig. 10). It should be noted,
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
 Table 4—Ductility force modification factor
Px/Pu
Wall Δe idz, mm (Fig. 12) P1, kN P2, kN Rd = P2/P1
GX 22.4 56% 388 1014 2.61
GnoX 18.9 57% 411 1183 2.88
GCi 20.6 54% 404 1107 2.74
GDC1 27.3 40% 439 1068 2.43
GDC2 23.0 43% 397 1020 2.57

Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

The ductility-based force modification factor (Rd) is

defined as the ratio between elastic lateral load (P2) and
the idealized wall capacity (P1). As listed in Table 4, the
GFRP-reinforced concrete shear walls had Rd values ranging
from 2.4 to 2.9. Based on the estimated values, the lower-
bound value of 2.4 for (Rd) is recommended for the tested
walls, despite the pinched behavior of the GFRP-reinforced
walls. Recent research (Sharbatdar and Saatcioglu 2009;
Mohamed et al. 2014a) indicates that hysteretic pinching
without strength degradation does not produce undesirable
responses and can result in less structural deformation than
elastic-perfectly plastic behavior. Therefore, the behavior of
Fig. 11—Determination of equivalent linear elastic response. the tested GFRP-reinforced shear walls can be accepted in
resisting lateral forces. Moreover, the lack of early strength
however, that the idealized curve of the GFRP-reinforced
decay indicates no lack in shear capacity, concrete confine-
concrete shear walls using 0.4Pu did not capture the actual
ment, or joint and bond failure, thereby justifying that the
initiation of inelastic deformation, which was experimen-
pinched hysteretic response has no effect on the proposed
tally observed for walls with lower confinement levels (GX,
Rd = 2.4.
GnoX, and GCi) and which led to actual stiffness degrada-
tion higher than the idealized curve.
DESIGN OF GFRP-REINFORCED CONCRETE
SHEAR WALLS
Ductility-based force modification factor (Rd)
To ensure adequate seismic performance, CSA A23.3-14
To estimate the ductility-modification factor (Rd), the
and ACI 318-14 require the inelastic rotation demand (θid)
actual strength-displacement response should be idealized
and inelastic rotation capacity (θic) to be calculated and
with the linearly elastic-perfectly plastic curve. As stated,
compared when designing steel-reinforced concrete shear
however, using 0.4Pu to estimate the idealized curve would
walls. Based on the same hypothesis, the rotation demand
not produce accurate values of the elastic-plastic transition
(θd) for GFRP-reinforced concrete shear walls should be less
point. The concrete is the source of plasticity in the FRP-
than the rotation capacity (θc)
reinforced concrete shear walls and, therefore, the confine-
ment level could affect plasticity level and, in return, affect
θc ≥ θd (3)
the percentage at which the elastic-plastic point is defined.
Therefore, having a constant value (0.4Pu according
The total rotation demand (θd) consists of two components:
to EEEP) is not applicable. Based on that, the actual
the elastic rotation demand (θed) and the inelastic rotation
elastic-plastic transition point was used with the maximum
demand (θid), which are illustrated in Fig. 12. The demanded
deformation point to obtain the corresponding percentage
elastic and inelastic rotations (θed and θid, respectively) can
of ultimate load intersection (Fig. 10). The best percentage
be expressed as follows
of the maximum load was approximately 0.4Pu for highly
confined walls (GDC1 and GDC2) and 0.55Pu for lower
θd = θed + θid (4)
confinement levels (GX, GnoX, and GCi).
According to current design codes, the elastic-plastic tran-
θed = ∆ed/hw (5)
sition point (Δe) represents the design capacity (strength
capacity) equal to or exceeding the required factored
∆ id
code-specified seismic force (P1), which is the maximum θid = (6)
load, as shown in Fig. 11. P2 is the design seismic force due (hw − 0.5λ p )
to an earthquake of intensity as specified in the given seismic
map area but corresponding to full elastic structural response; Combining Eq. (4), (5), and (6), the rotation demand can
P2 was obtained using equal-energy principle (Fig. 11). be expressed as

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 221

Fig. 12—Elastic and inelastic deformations of shear walls.
∆ ed ∆ id
θd = + (7)
hw (hw − 0.5λ p )
The elastic displacement (Δed) was estimated as the total
displacement (Δtotal) divided by the force modification factor
(R), resulting in the following expressions for calculating the
total rotation demand (θd), as proposed by Mohamed et al.
(2014b)
∆  ∆ (1 − 1/R ) 
θ d = total +  total  (8)
Rhw  (hw − 0.5λ p ) 
∆ ed ( Rhw − 0.5λ w )
θd = (9)
hw (hw − 0.5λ w )
where the elastic displacement demand (Δed) can be calcu-
lated from the nominal strength of the shear wall (P) as
follows
 h3 h 
∆ ed = P  w + w  (10)
3 E
 c eI Gc Ae 
where P is the lateral design force; hw is the wall height;
lw is the wall length; EcIe is the effective stiffness taken as
a suggested percent of the gross stiffness of the uncracked
section (EcIg); Gc is the concrete shear modulus assumed as
0.4 of the elastic modulus (Ec); and Ae is the effective shear
area (area between the extreme compression fiber and the
center of the tension reinforcement). The effective shear area
of an elastic homogenous uncracked member with a slender
section is equal to
Ae = Ag(5 + 5ν)/(6 + 5ν) (11)
where Ag = bwlw and ν = 0.2, which is a typical Poisson’s
ratio for concrete.
On the other hand, the rotation capacity (θc) was estimated
based on experimental strain profiles as the average curva-
tures over the wall height by using the idealized curvature
profile illustrated in Fig. 13. Based on the figure, the rotation
capacity consists of elastic and inelastic portions and can be
expressed based in Eq. (12) (Mohamed et al. 2014b)
222
Fig. 13—Plastic-hinge length analysis.
h 
θc = φec  w − l p  + φc l p (12)
 3 
where the elastic curvature capacity (ec) was experimen-
tally calculated based on the longitudinal-bar strain gauges
by idealizing the curvature profile over height (Fig. 13),
corresponding to the maximum deformation limit at 2.5%
drift. The curvature profile for each wall specimen was
idealized into a portion of the linear curvature (ec) over the
height and a portion of the equivalent inelastic curvature
(ic) over the plastic hinge length, as depicted in Fig. 13.
Figure 14 provides the resultant idealized curvature profiles.
The elastic curvature values were 0.014, 0.013, 0.012, 0.022,
and 0.021 rad/m (0.00036, 0.00033, 0.0003, 0.00056 and
0.00053 rad/in.) for GX, GnoX, GCi, GCD1, and GCD2,
respectively. Accordingly, the elastic curvature capacity was
set to 0.018/lw, equal to the lowest measured elastic curva-
ture (0.012 rad/m [0.0003 rad/in.]).
The plastic-hinge length (lp) was calculated from the
curvature profile along the height (Fig. 14) and ranged from
0.5lw to 0.7lw. The lower limit of 0.5lw was set for calculating
the rotation capacity as a conservative value. The ultimate
curvature capacity (c) is related to the ultimate concrete
compressive strain (εcu) corresponding to the maximum
specified deformation limit (2.5% drift) and the compression
zone length (c), as follows
c = εcu/c (13)
where the compression-zone length c was calculated based
on the plane-sectional analysis at the same deformation limit
(2.5% drift). Using these specified limits of curvature and
plastic hinge length in Eq. (12), the rotation capacity equa-
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019
Fig. 14—Curvature profiles at 2.5% drift.

Table 5—Rotation capacity and demand

θc, % (Eq. (14))
Wall εcu at 2.5% drift Δed, mm c, mm 2.5% drift At failure θd, % (Eq. (9))
GX 0.010 55.0 436 2.22 2.98 1.79
GnoX 0.010 55.1 429 2.25 3.03 1.80
GCi 0.009 57.1 348 2.44 3.30 1.94
GDC1 0.012 61.5 431 2.59 3.85 2.26
GDC2 0.011 59.7 397 2.58 3.41 2.13
G10 *
0.007 54.2 288 2.57 3.13 1.85
G12* 0.007 51.9 337 2.31 2.85 1.88
G15 *
0.007 55.9 393 2.34 2.94 1.75
*
GFRP-reinforced walls tested by Mohamed et al. (2014a).

tion proposed by Mohamed et al. (2014b) can be modified (Eq. (9)) at the 2.5% drift limit and at failure. As listed in
and expressed as follows Table 5, the calculated rotational capacities of all the shear
walls exceeded the rotational demand values. Moreover,
ε cu lw 0.006 hw they also achieved the desired rotation capacity of 2.5% set
θc = − 0.009 + (14)
2c lw by NBCC (2015) and ASCE/SEI 41 (2013).

Equation (14) was proposed based on the modification CONCLUSIONS

of the equation presented by Mohamed et al. (2014b) to
account for the confinement effect at the boundary elements.
Table 5 presents the calculated rotation capacity (Eq. (14))
of the tested walls in the current study and the three walls
tested by Mohamed et al. (2014a). The calculated rotation
capacity was compared to the calculated rotation demand
An experimental study comprising five full-scale
GFRP-reinforced concrete shear walls with different levels
of confinement was conducted to estimate the ductility-based
force modification factor and evaluate the calculated rota-
tion demand and capacity. The concluding remarks can be
summarized as follows:

ACI Structural Journal/January 2019 223

• The tested concrete walls achieved an acceptable level
of deformation according to NBCC (2015) and ASCE/
SEI 41 (2013) as well as a stable hysteretic response
with no sign of premature failure.
• The diagonal X-bars had no effect as no sliding between
the wall and base was observed in GnoX.
• The presence of more confinement in the boundary
element (GDC1 and GDC2) clearly enhanced the
strength and deformation capacity of the walls.
• The plane sectional analysis was confirmed as being
applicable in predicting the ultimate flexural strength of
the GFRP-reinforced shear walls.
• The elastic-plastic transition point could be identified
based on the seismic performance of the test specimens
and was found to correspond to a concrete compressive
strain ranging from 3000 to 3500 µε. The maximum
deformation limit was set to 2.5% drift.
• The ductility force modification factor was evaluated
based on the idealized curve and found to range from 2.4
to 2.9. A conservative value of Rd = 2.4 is recommended.
• For the test specimens, the achieved rotation capacity
exceeded the evaluated rotation demand as required by
seismic design guidelines.
This study is expected to provide the impetus for building
concrete shear walls reinforced with GFRP bars and consti-
tute a step toward using GFRP bars in such lateral-resisting
systems. Analytical studies that incorporate the load-
displacement relationships of shear walls are, however,
needed before final provisions for seismic design can be
proposed. This includes nonlinear time-history dynamic
analysis of GFRP-reinforced structures, designed according
to the recommended procedure, under selected earthquake
records, as well as shake-table testing. These studies would
allow for better assessment of the demand for this type of
shear wall and building.
AUTHOR BIOS
Ahmed Hassanein is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Civil Engi-
neering at the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. His research
interests include testing of concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced
polymers and seismic analysis of reinforced concrete structures.
Nayera Mohamed is an Assistant Professor at Assiut University, Assuit
City, Egypt. She received her BSc and MEng from Assiut University and
her PhD from University of Sherbrooke. Her research interests include
seismic analysis of reinforced concrete structures and behavior of struc-
tural concrete reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymers.
Ahmed Sabry Farghaly is a Research Associate in the Department of Civil
Engineering at the University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. He
received his MEng and PhD from Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
His research interests include nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
structures and seismic behavior of structural concrete reinforced with
fiber-reinforced polymers.
Brahim Benmokrane, FACI, is a Professor of civil engineering and Tier-1
Canada Research Chair in Advanced Composite Materials for Civil Struc-
tures, and NSERC Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete
Infrastructure in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke. He is a member of ACI Committee 440, Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their special thanks and gratitude to the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
224
the Canada Research Chair in Advanced FRP Composite Materials for Civil
Structures, the NSERC Research Chair in FRP Reinforcement for Concrete
Infrastructure, the Fonds de la recherche du Québec en nature et technol-
ogies (FRQ-NT), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and the
technical staff of the structural lab in the Department of Civil Engineering
at the University of Sherbrooke.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 520 pp.
ASCE/SEI 41-13, 2013, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 518 pp.
ASTM D7205/D7205M-06(2011), 2011, “Standard Test Method for
Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 13 pp.
Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, 2015, “National
Building Code of Canada (NBCC),” National Research Council of Canada,
Montreal, QC, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association, 2014, “Design of Concrete Structures
Standard (CSA A23.3-14),” Mississauga, ON, Canada, 240 pp.
Canadian Standards Association, 2012, “Design and Construction of
Building Components with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (CSA S806-12),”
Mississauga, ON, Canada, 208 pp.
Cardenas, A. E.; Hanson, J. M.; Corley, W. G.; and Hognestad, E., 1973,
“Design Provisions for Shear Walls,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 70,
No. 3, pp. 221-230.
Fintel, M., 1995, “Performance of Buildings with Shear Walls in Earth-
quakes of the Last Thirty Years,” PCI Journal, V. 40, No. 3, pp. 62-80. doi:
10.15554/pcij.05011995.62.80
Mady, M.; El-Ragaby, A.; and El-Salakawy, E., 2011, “Seismic Behavior
of Beam-Column Joints Reinforced with GFRP Bars and Stirrups,” Journal
of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 15, No. 6, pp. 875-886. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000220
Mitchell, D.; Tremblay, R.; Karacabeyli, E.; Paultre, P.; Saatcioglu, M.;
and Anderson, D. L., 2003, “Seismic Force Modification Factors for the
Proposed 2005 Edition of the National Building Code of Canada,” Cana-
dian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 30, No. 2, pp. 308-327. doi: 10.1139/
l02-111
Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A. S.; Benmokrane, B.; and Neale, K. W.,
2014a, “Experimental Investigation of Concrete Shear Walls Reinforced
with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Bars under Lateral Cyclic Loading,” Journal
of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 18, No. 3, p. A04014001 doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000393
Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A. S.; Benmokrane, B.; and Neale, K. W.,
2014b, “Drift Capacity Design of Shear Walls Reinforced with Glass
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 1397-1406. doi: 10.14359/51687099
Mohamed, N.; Farghaly, A. S.; and Benmokrane, B., 2015, “Seismic
Response Modification Factors for GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls,” The 11th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Cana-
dian Association for Earthquake Engineering (11CCEE), Victoria, BC,
Canada, 8 pp.
Munoz, W.; Salenikovich, A.; Mohammad, M.; and Quenneville, P.,
2008, “Determination of Yield Point and Ductility of Timber Assemblies:
in Search for a Harmonised Approach,” Proceedings of Meeting 41 of
CIB-W18, St. Andrews, NB, Canada.
Park, R., 1989, “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural
Assemblages from Laboratory Testing,” Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society of Earthquake Engineering, V. 2, No. 3, pp. 155-166.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1995, Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 735 pp.
Saatcioglu, M.; Palermo, D.; Ghobarah, A.; Mitchell, D.; Simpson, R.;
Adebar, P.; Tremblay, R.; Ventura, C.; and Hong, H., 2013, “Performance
of Reinforced Concrete Buildings during the 27 February 2010 Maule
(Chile) Earthquake,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 40, No. 8,
pp. 693-710. doi: 10.1139/cjce-2012-0243
Sharbatdar, M. K., and Saatcioglu, M., 2009, “Seismic Design of FRP
Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Asian Journal of Applied Sciences, V. 2,
No. 3, pp. 211-222. doi: 10.3923/ajaps.2009.211.222
Tavassoli, A.; Liu, J.; and Sheikh, S., 2015, “Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer-Reinforced Circular Columns under Simulated Seismic Loads,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 103-114.
Wallace, J. W., and Moehle, J. P., 1992, “Ductility and Detailing
Requirements of Bearing Wall Buildings,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 6, pp. 1625-1644. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:6(1625)
ACI Structural Journal/January 2019