Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 95-S19

High-Strength Concrete Structural Walls

Title no. 95-S19 High-Strength Concrete Structural Walls by Anshu Gupta and B. Vijaya Rangan Eight high-strength
Title no. 95-S19 High-Strength Concrete Structural Walls by Anshu Gupta and B. Vijaya Rangan Eight high-strength

by Anshu Gupta and B. Vijaya Rangan

Eight high-strength concrete (HSC) structural walls were tested under in-plane axial and horizontal loads. The test parameters included in the study were longitudinal reinforcement ratio, trans- verse reinforcement ratio, and axial load. The shear strength of walls is calculated using a stress analysis of the central panel of the wall. The flexural strength is calculated by the conventional theory of reinforced concrete sections subjected to combined bending moment and axial compression. The theoretical predic- tions are compared with the test results reported herein as well as those available in the literature. The predicted values show good correlation with the test strengths. The predictions by the design provisions given in the current Australian Standard AS 3600 and the American Concrete Institute Building Code ACI 318 are also compared with the test results.

Keywords: design; high-strength concrete; shear; shear walls; structural walls.

INTRODUCTION Reinforced concrete structural walls, commonly known as shear walls, are frequently used in multistory buildings primarily to resist lateral loads due to wind forces and seismic effects. A wall panel within a story is subjected to vertical loads as well as lateral loads transmitted by the floors. Structural walls are therefore subjected to axial compression, bending moment, and shear force. Superior performance of buildings containing structural walls in resisting earthquakes is well documented. 1,2 In recent years, high-strength concrete with compressive strengths in the range of 60 to 100 MPa (9 to 14 ksi) have been successfully used in the columns and core-walls of multistory buildings. The advantages of structural high- strength concrete (HSC) walls in resisting wind forces have been demonstrated by Martin and Peyton. 3 The economic advantage of HSC has been reported. 4 However, very little research has been carried out on the behavior and strength of HSC structural walls. Fintel 1 expressed the need to develop analytical and exper- imental information on the strength and behavior of rein- forced concrete structural walls so that their proportioning can be brought to the same level of confidence as presently available for beams and columns. Also, the design procedure in the current codes is based on data obtained from tests carried out on low-strength concrete structural walls. The applicability of these design equations to HSC structural walls needs examination.

194

The objectives of the research are as follows:

• To develop analytic models to predict the strength of reinforced concrete structural walls under in-plane loads. Both flexure and shear modes of failure are to be considered.

• To test scaled model of HSC structural walls.

• To compare the analytical predictions with test results reported in this study, as well with those available in the literature.

• To compare the design equations given in the codes with the test results. The scope of the experimental work was limited to tests on isolated wall specimens. The test specimens were subjected

to constant axial load. The horizontal load was monotoni- cally increased from zero up to failure value. Other parame-

ters included in the study were vertical load, longitudinal

(vertical) reinforcement, and transverse (horizontal) rein-

forcement. The overall dimensions of the test specimens were kept constant.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK Complete details of the experimental work are given else- where. 5 Only salient features are described here.

Test specimens In all, eight large-scale isolated wall specimens were tested. The test specimens are identified as S-1, S-2, S-3, S- 4, S-5, S-6, S-7, and S-F. The dimensions of test walls are given in Fig 1. The test specimens used in the present study were similar to those tested by other investigators. 6,7 The test walls represented approximately one-third scale

models of a prototype structural wall in a multistory building.

The test wall was 75 mm (3 in.) thick with 375 x 100 mm (15 x

4 in.) edge elements. The overall length of the wall was 1000

mm (40 in.) and the height was 1000 mm (40 in.).

The dimensions of the top beam and the bottom (foundation) beam were selected such that they did not suffer premature failure and that they were stiffer than the wall. As shown in

ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 2, March-April 1998. Received May 30, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy- right © 1998, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 1999 ACI Structural Journal if received by September 1, 1998.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

Anshu Gupta obtained his BE and ME degrees from Punjab University, India, and his PhD from Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Dr. Gupta has more than ten years of experience in structural design. He is currently a senior engi- neer with a structural engineering firm in Perth, Western Australia.

B. Vijaya Rangan, FACI, is Professor and Head of the School of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Dr. Rangan is co-author of a textbook on reinforced concrete, widely used in Australia, and has received ACI’s Raymond C. Reese Structural Research Award. He is a member of several ACI committees and is also a member of the Concrete Structures Committee of Standards Australia.

Fig. 1, the top beam was 1300 mm long, 575 mm wide, and

200 mm deep. The bottom (foundation) beam was 1800 mm

(5 in.) long, 575 mm (23 in.) wide, and 400 mm (16 in.) deep.

Commercial ready-mixed concrete with replacement of 5 percent (by weight) cement by silica fume was used. The nominal 28-day compressive strength of the mix was 70 MPa (10 ksi). The maximum size of aggregate was 7 mm (0.3 in.) in order to ensure good compaction of concrete in the test specimens. For each test wall, 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders and

150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) cylinders were made. The 100 x

200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders were used to measure the compressive strength and the 150 x 300 mm (6 x 12 in.) cylinders were used to determine the splitting tensile strength of concrete. The compressive strength and the splitting tensile strength on the day of wall test are given in Table 1.

The reinforcement details of test walls are given in Fig. 2. The bar marks “a,” “b,” “c,” etc., in Fig. 2 are explained in Table 2. The longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in the wall of test specimens was selected such that the area of steel was

approximately 1.0 percent of the wall cross-section in Spec- imens S-1, S-2, S-3, S-7, and S-F, and 1.5 percent in Speci- mens S-4, S-5, and S-6. Except for Specimen S-7, the area of transverse (horizontal) reinforcement in the wall was approximately 0.5 percent of the wall cross-section. In Spec- imen S-7, the area of transverse (horizontal) reinforcement was approximately l.0 percent of wall cross-section. Accordingly, the longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement (symbol “a” in Fig. 2 and Table 2) in Specimens S-1, S-2, S-3, S-7, and S-F consisted of six hard-drawn wires of 7.1 mm (0.28 in.) diameter at each wall face. In Specimens S-4, S-5, and S-6, the longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in the wall comprised eight hard-drawn wires of 8 mm (0.31 in.) diameter at each wall face. Except for Specimen S-7, the transverse (horizontal) rein- forcement in the wall in all specimens was identical and consisted of ten hard-drawn wires of 5 mm (0.20 in.) diam- eter at each wall face. In Specimen S-7, ten 7.1 mm (0.28 in.) diameter hard-drawn wires at each face were used as trans- verse (horizontal) reinforcement. The reinforcement in the edge elements, varied (see Symbols “b” and “c” in Fig. 2 and Table 2). Specimen S-F was designed to fail in flexure. The edge elements in this

Table 1—Concrete specimens

Specimen

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-F

Compressive strength,

79.3

65.1

69.0

75.2

73.1

70.5

71.2

60.5

MPa

Splitting tensile

7.33

6.13

7.27

7.73

6.57

7.83

6.53

6.00

strengths, MPa

Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi

6.53 6.00 strengths, MPa Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi Fig. 1—Dimensions of test wall ACI

Fig. 1—Dimensions of test wall

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

195

Fig. 2—Reinforcement details of specimens Table 2—Reinforcement details of test walls Bar mark in Fig.

Fig. 2—Reinforcement details of specimens

Table 2—Reinforcement details of test walls

Bar mark in Fig. 2

 

Specimen

 

S-F

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

 

6W7.1

6W7.1

6W7.1

6W7.1

8W8

8W8

8W8

6W7.1

“a”

(E.F.)

(E.F.)

(E.F.)

(E.F.)

(E.F.)

(E.F.)

(E.F.)

(E.F.)

“b”

4W7.1

4W7.1

4W7.1

4W7.1

4W8

4W8

4W8

4W7.1

       

4W12.5 and

 

4W12.5 and

   

“c”

4W5

4W10

4W12.5

2W10

4W12.5

2W10

6W12.5

4W12.5

“d”

4Y16

4Y16

4Y20

4Y24

4Y16

4Y16

4Y24

4Y20

“e”

4Y16

4Y16

4Y20

4Y24

4Y16

4Y24

4Y24 and 2Y16

4Y20

Note: “a” = longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in wall at each face “b”,“c” = longitudinal (vertical) reinforcement in edge element “d”,“e” = reinforcement in foundation beam

specimen contained four hard-drawn wires of 7.1 mm (0.28 in.) diameter plus eight hard-drawn wires of 5 mm (0.20 in.) diameter. The edge elements of other specimens were more heavily reinforced in order to ensure that the flexure failure did not precede the shear failure. The longitudinal reinforce- ment in the edge elements was enclosed by closed ties made of 6 mm (0.24 in.) diameter plain bars placed at center-to- center spacing of 100 mm (4 in.). Deformed bars were used as reinforcement in the top beam and the bottom (foundation) beam. The details are given in Fig. 2 and Table 2. All reinforcing bars were provided with adequate anchorage lengths at their ends. This was achieved by providing cogs at

196

the ends of the bars. The vertical bars in the wall and in the edge elements were taken well into the top and bottom beams. All closed ties terminated with 135-deg hooks. In all specimens, the clear concrete cover to reinforcement was 12 mm (0.5 in.). Three samples of each reinforcing bar or wire were tested in tension. The yield strength (0.2 percent proof stress) and the ultimate strength of hard-drawn wires W5, W7.1, W8, W10, and W12.5 are given in Table 3. The reinforcing bars used in the top and bottom (foundation) beams were 400Y grade bars with a minimum yield strength of 400 MPa (58 ksi).

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

Fig. 3—Test setup. The 6 mm (0.24 in.) round bar used as closed ties was

Fig. 3—Test setup.

The 6 mm (0.24 in.) round bar used as closed ties was 250R grade with a minimum yield strength of 250 MPa (36 ksi). The test wall specimens were cast horizontally in timber molds. The mold was made of 17 mm (0.67 in.) thick plywood (formply) which was applied with a few coats of polyurethane sealant to make it water-resistant. Aluminium and steel angles were used at the corners to stiffen the mold. The specimen dimensions achieved were within ±0.5 percent accuracy. A systematic procedure was followed during casting of each test specimen. 5 Immediately after casting, the test specimens and the control cylinders were covered with polyethylene sheets to prevent any loss of moisture by evap- oration. The sides of the test specimen and the control cylin- ders were stripped one day after casting. The test specimen and the cylinders were immediately covered with wet hessian and polyethylene sheets. The test specimens were stripped completely off the mold on the fourth day after casting. The curing of concrete by the wet hessian continued for seven days. Care was taken to keep the hessian wet during these seven days. After seven days of curing, the specimen and the cylinders were uncovered from the wet hessian and left to air dry until testing.

Test setup The wall specimens were tested in a self-straining steel test rig that was specially designed and built for the purpose. A schematic arrangement of the test set-up is given in Fig. 3. The test set-up included specially built assemblies to hold down the test specimen and prevent it from lifting or sliding during load application. The test rig was designed to apply up to 3000 kN (675 kips) vertical load and 2000 kN (450 kips) horizontal load on the test walls. The loads were applied by hydraulic jacks with a 50 mm (2 in.) maximum ram travel. The loading assembly comprised of the jack, the load cell,

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

Table 3—Yield and ultimate strength of reinforcement

Bar mark

W5

W7.1

W8

W10

W12.5

Area of cross-section, mm 2

19.6

39.6

50.2

78.5

122.5

Yield strength, MPa

578.0

545.0

533.2

529.3

531.4

Ultimate strength, MPa

632.1

592.9

575.1

582.2

590.2

Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi ; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

the spherical seat, and the load spreader. The jacks were operated by hydraulic pumps.

The vertical load was maintained concentric to the test wall at all stages of loading. This was achieved by means of

a special assembly attached to the top of the vertical load

cell. The special assembly consisted of a Teflon TM sheet sandwiched between two platens. The top platen was fixed to the loading rig. The bottom platen was attached to the vertical load cell. After each increment of horizontal load, the bottom platen and the vertical load assembly became

eccentric to the top platen (and hence to the line of application of the vertical load). The bottom platen was then manually moved until the vertical load was, once again, concentric. The Teflon TM sheet was well-lubricated to minimize any friction and

to facilitate the movement of bottom platen.

Both vertical and horizontal loads were measured using load cells capable of maintaining linearity up to 1500 kN (340 kips). The load cells were calibrated before and after

each test in a test machine. The displacements of test walls were measured using Linear Variable Differential Trans- ducers (LVDTs). An independent reference steel frame was erected to hold all LVDTs. The top horizontal displacement

at the location of the horizontal load, the uplift of the foun-

dation beam, and the horizontal movement of the base of the

wall were measured by LVDTs. Lateral movement of the

197

foundation beam and the out-of-plane movement of the spec- imen, if any, were also monitored. The horizontal movement of the vertical load assembly was monitored by an LVDT. As mentioned before, this movement was corrected after each increment of horizontal load so that the vertical load was concentric to the test wall. The data from the load cells and LVDTs were captured by a data logger.

Test procedure The test specimen was placed in the test rig several days before the day of the test. The specimen was made to butt against the transverse steel beam in the test rig, which prevented it from sliding during the test. The specimen was aligned and leveled by placing a thin layer of rich cement mortar underneath it. The alignment of the test specimen was checked using a digital spirit level capable of measuring slopes up to 0.1 percent. One or two days after positioning the test specimen, the vertical load spreader was positioned concentric to the test specimen. Holes were drilled on the top beam of the test spec- imen and anchor bolts were use to connect the spreader to the specimen. The spherical seat supported by four springs was then placed on the spreader. The test specimen was prevented from uplift by securing the bottom (foundation) beam to the test rig. The horizontal load assembly was placed in position next. Care was taken that the horizontal load assembly was perpendicular to the vertical axis of the test specimen. On the day of the test, LVDTs and dial gauges were placed in their marked positions. The hydraulic pumps were connected to the loading jacks. The data acquisition system was connected and the specimen was ready for loading. The horizontal load was applied at a distance of 1087 mm (42.8 in.) from wall base. Initially, the test specimen was “exercised” by applying 5 kN (1.1 kips) horizontal and vertical loads in order to ensure that all systems were working. The initial load was then released and zero reading was taken. The full vertical load was applied in 6 to 8 incre- ments, and displacements, if any, were measured. The hori- zontal load was then applied in increments of 50 kN (11.2. kips) before racking and 25 kN (5.6 kips) after cracking. The load increments decreased to 10 kN (2.2 kips) when failure was impending. At each increment of horizontal load, the load was maintained for two minutes and complete data were captured by the data acquisition system. The specimen was checked for cracks, and crack patterns were marked on the test specimen. The vertical load assembly was moved by adjusting the special assembly mentioned earlier until the vertical load was concentric to the test specimen. The out-of- plane movement of the wall was also monitored. All speci- mens were loaded to failure. After the test, the test specimen was photographed. Control cylinders were tested on the day of test.

Test results The description of behavior of walls and complete details of test results are given elsewhere. 5 It was observed that the out-of-plane movement of the specimen and the horizontal, vertical, and lateral movements of the wall base were negli- gible at all stages of loading.

198

As expected, Specimens S-1 to S-7 failed in shear and Specimen S-F failed in flexure. A summary of test results is given in Table 4. The horizontal load versus drift index of all specimens are available in Reference 5.

SHEAR STRENGTH OF WALLS To predict the shear strength of test walls, the Compres- sion Field Theory due to Vecchio and Collins 8 is modified. The test walls were subjected to vertical and horizontal loads and comprise the end elements and the central panel. In order to simplify calculations, the following assumptions are made:

• The shear force due to the horizontal load is primarily resisted by the central panel.

• The effect of bending stresses on the shear behavior of the central panel is negligible.

• The state of stresses in the central panel is uniform.

• The average stresses in the central panel act over an effective shear area. As an approximation, the effective shear area is taken as the product of the horizontal length of the wall between centers of end elements, d w and the wall thickness, t w . In the absence of end elements, d w is assumed to be equal to 0.8 L w , where L w is the length of the wall. The central panel of a structural wall usually is provided with uniform reinforcement, i.e., bars of the same diameter at equal spacing in both longitudinal and transverse direc- tions. A typical element in the cracked central panel may be visualized as shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the l-t axes are the longitudinal and transverse directions of the wall. The model comprises a concrete strut tied together by reinforcing bars in the l - and t-directions. The reinforcing bars carry only axial stresses. The “stress analysis” of the model can proceed by consid- ering the equilibrium, the strain compatibility, and the stress- strain relationships of concrete and steel.

Equilibrium and compatibility The concrete strut, which is inclined at an angle α to the longitudinal direction, develops a compressive stress σ d along its axis and a tensile stress of σ r perpendicular to that axis (Fig. 4). Both σ d and σ r are considered as principal stresses in the concrete. The principal stresses σ d and σ r can be transformed in the longitudinal and transverse directions along with superposed stresses in reinforcing bars. Using Mohr’s circle of stresses, for equilibrium, we have

σ

l

σ

t

=

=

τ l t

σ

d

σ

d

=

cos

sin

(

σ

2

α

2

α

r

+

+

σ

σ

r

sin

2

α

+

ρ l f l

σ

r

cos

2

α

+

ρ t f t

d

sin

cos α

(1)

(2)

(3)

where σ l , σ t =normal stresses in l and t directions respec- tively and are positive for tension, σ d , σ r = principal stresses in d and r directions respectively (positive for tension), τ l t =

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

average shear stress in l and t co-ordinate system positive as shown and is due to shear force caused by the horizontal load acting on the wall, α = angle of inclination of the d-axis to l -axis, ρ l , ρ t = average reinforcement ratios in the wall in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively, and f l , f t = average stresses in reinforcing bars in l and t directions respectively. Also ρ l = A l /t w L w and ρ t = A t /t w H w , where A l is the area of longitudinal steel in the wall on both faces in length L w , and A t is the area of transverse steel in the wall on both faces in height H w . It is assumed that the directions of the principal strains coincide with the directions of principal stresses. This means the d-r co-ordinate system also indicates the directions of principal strains. The average strains in l and t directions can be related to principal strains by Mohr’s circle of strains as follows:

ε l

ε t

γ l t

= cos

ε

d

2 α +

ε

r

sin

2

α

(4)

= sin

ε

d

2 +

ε

r

α cos

2

α (5)

=

2

(

ε

r

ε

d

sin

cos α

(6)

where ε l , ε t = average strains in the element in l -t directions respectively (positive for tension), ε d , ε r = average principal strains in the element in d-r directions respectively (positive for tension), and γ l t = average shear strain in the element in l -t coordinate system.

Stress-strain relationships of concrete and steel Softened concrete in compression—The concrete strut is subjected to compressive-tensile stresses. It is well known that the compressive behavior of the concrete in the strut is not the same as that of a concrete cylinder in uniaxial compression. Due to the presence of a tensile strain in the perpendicular direction and due to cracking, the concrete in the strut undergoes a strength gradation in compression. To reflect this behavior, the strut concrete is designated by the term “softened concrete in compression.” Recently, Collins et al. 9 have proposed a stress-strain relation for (unsoftened) concrete compression. This relation which applies to concretes with compressive strengths up to 100 MPa (14 ksi) is adopted here. For softened concrete in the diagonal strut, the stress-strain relationship is expressed as

where

ε co

=

f c

-----

E c

σ d

n

------------

n – 1

ε ⎛ d ⎞ n = K ------- ⎠ ------------------------------------------ (7a) f p 3 ⎝
ε
d ⎞
n
=
K
------- ⎠
------------------------------------------
(7a)
f p
3 ⎝
ε
co
⎞ nk
ε d
n
1
+
-------
ε co
,
=
3320
′ + 6900 MPa
,
E c
f c

n

=

0.8

+ ------ f c

17

, and k = 1.0 when ε d ≤ ε co

or

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

d ≤ ε c o or ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998 Fig. 4—Typical element in crack central

Fig. 4—Typical element in crack central panel of a wall.

Table 4—Summary of test results

   

Horizontal load, kN

Specimen

Axial

At flexural

At diagonal

 

no.

thrust, kN

cracking

cracking

At failure

S-1

0.0

140.0

195.0

427.8

S-2

610.0

296.0

396.0

719.6

S-3

1230.0

360.0

500.0

850.7

S-4

0.0

160.0

240.0

600.0

S-5

610.0

386.0

470.0

790.2

S-6

1230.0

450.0

650.0

970.0

S-7

610.0

430.0

560.0

800.0

S-F

310.0

150.7

199.8

486 6

Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

k

=

0.67

+ ------ f c

62

when ε d > ε co ,

f c ' = compressive cylinder

strength of concrete, and

K 3

= 0.6

10

+ ------ 0.85

f c

.

The peak compressive stress f p is expressed as β f c ', where β is called a “softening factor.” In the present study, the value of β is taken as given by Vecchio 10 as

β

=

1

--------------------------------

0.85

ε d

-----

ε r

0.27

1.0

(7b)

Concrete in tension—The principal stress σ r is related to

the principal strain ε r by the following expressions:

σ

r

=

E

c

ε

r

when

0 ≤ ε r

ε ct

(8a)

σ r

=

f ct

(

ε

ut

ε

r

)

-----------------------

)

(

ε

ut

ε

ct

when

ε ct ≤ ε r

ε ut

(8b)

σ r

=

0

when ε r

>

ε ut

(8c)

In Eq. (8), f ct ' is the tensile strength of concrete in MPa and

, as given by the Australian

is taken as equal to

0.4

f c ′
f c ′

199

Standard AS 3600.11 Note that ε ct = f ct ' /E c . Also ε ut is the ultimate tensile strain beyond which the tensile stress is zero. In the present study, the value of ε ut is assumed to be equal to the yield strain of steel reinforcement. For a steel bar with a yield strength of 400 MPa (58 ksi), the yield strain is equal to 0.002. It is believed that there is negligible tensile stress in concrete when the strain reaches magnitudes in the order of 0.002 or more.

rein-

forcing steel is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic. Therefore,

Reinforcing

steel—The

stress-strain

relation

of

f l

= E ε

s

l when 0

<

ε

l <

ε y

(9a)

f t

f l

=

f t

=

f y

E ε

s

t

= f y

when ε l

when 0

<

ε

ε y

t <

when ε t

≥ ε y

ε y

(9b)

(10a)

(10b)

where Ε s is the modulus of elasticity and f y is the yield strength of reinforcing bars.

Solution

thirteen

unknowns, viz. σ l , σ t , σ d , σ r , τ l t , ε l , ε t , ε d , ε r , γ l t , α, f l , and f t . There are ten equations given by the equilibrium, the

The

stress

analysis

of

the

model

involves

strain compatibility, and the stress-strain relationships of concrete and steel, i.e., Eq. (1) to (10). For a given wall the vertical compressive force N is known. Assuming that the force N produces a uniform compressive stress on the wall cross-section, the intensity of this stress in the central panel in the l -direction is equal to N/A g where A g is the gross concrete area of the cross-section of the wall. Therefore,

σ

l

=

N

------

A g

(11)

For each load stage, the strain ε d can be specified. This condition and Eq. (11) provide two additional equations. Still one more equation is required to complete analysis. There are two possibilities. One possibility is to assume that the wall is infinitely restrained from movement in the transverse direction and therefore the strain ε t = 0. Such a restraint may be provided by the foundation beam in a test specimen shown in Fig. 2. Based on this assumption, Hsu and Mo 12 predicted the shear behavior of low-rise shear walls. Although these researchers found reasonably good agreement between test and predicted shear strengths, there were significant movements of test specimens in the trans- verse direction and the measured values of ε t were far from zero. Therefore, it appears that the assumption ε t = 0 cannot be applied to all values of height-to-length ratio of walls. Nevertheless, this assumption may yield an upper bound solution to the shear strength of walls. Another possibility is to assume that the wall is free to move in the transverse direction to such an extent that no resultant stress develops in that direction, i.e., σ t = 0, but

200

ε t 0. This assumption may provide a lower bound solution to the shear strength of walls. The actual shear strength of test specimens lies between these two bounds. For instance, in the case of test specimen S-5 reported in the present study, the assumption σ t = 0 yielded a calculated shear strength of 411.8 kN, whereas the assumption ε t = 0 produced a calculated shear strength of 1239.8 kN. The measured shear strength of 790.2 kN is in fact in-between these two calculated values. The crack patterns and failure modes of test specimens reported in this study as well as in the literature showed that the average strut angle α may be closely approximated by the

following expression:

tan

α

d

= -------

H w

w

(12)

where d w is the effective horizontal length of the wall as defined earlier and H w is the height of the wall.

Eq. (12) provides the last condition required to complete the analysis. However, certain limits may be necessary on the value of α calculated by Eq. (12). The limits correspond to the values of α obtained for the two bounds mentioned above. Accordingly, the angle α given by Eq. (12) is not taken larger than the value calculated for the condition when the transverse strain ε t = 0. Also, α is not taken smaller than the value obtained for the condition when the transverse stress σ t = 0. The analysis yielded the shear strength of test walls. The calculations were performed using a desk-top computer. 5

COMPARISON OF TEST AND PREDICTED FAILURE LOADS In addition to the walls reported in this paper, the details of test specimens available in the literature 6,7,13-18 were collected. The shear strength of test walls were calculated

using the theory presented above. The flexural strength of walls was calculated using the conventional analysis of a reinforced concrete section subjected to axial compression and uniaxial bending moment. 19 The smaller of the calcu- lated values is taken as the predicted strength. The results are presented in Table 5. In all, there are 69 test results. The mean of test/calculated horizontal loads at failure is 1.08 with a standard deviation of 0.175. All walls tested by Lefas 13 are predicted to have failed in flexure. The test/predicted mean value of failure loads is 1.30 with a standard deviation of 0.091. The test failure loads are greater than predicted capacities in all cases. From the test observations reported by the investigator, it was not possible to establish the exact reason for the conservative nature of the predicted values. For the walls tested by Oesterle et al., 14 the mean value of test/predicted failure loads is 1.22 with a standard deviation of 0.035. The predicted failure loads are smaller than observed test values in all cases. Four out of five specimens are predicted to have failed in flexural mode. Of the specimens tested by Maier and Thürlimann 6 Speci- mens S4, S9, and S10 were rectangular in cross-section. Specimen S10 was provided with nonuniform longitudinal

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

Table 5—Correlation of test and predicted strengths

   

Predicted shear

Predicted flexural

Predicted failure

Ultimate load (test), kN

 

Source

Specimen no.

capacity, kN

capacity, kN

mode

Test/Calc.

 

SW11

383.9

214.8

Flexure

260.0

1.21

SW12

432.6

263.7

Flexure

340.0

1.29

SW13

385.9

261.4

Flexure

330.0

1.26

SW14

329.0

208.4

Flexure

265.0

1.27

SW15

369.5

245.7

Flexure

320.0

1.30

SW16

473.5

290.2

Flexure

355.0

1.22

Lefas 13

SW17

365.8

212.8

Flexure

247.0

1.16

SW21

201.9

91.2

Flexure

127.0

1.39

SW22

222.7

112.2

Flexure

150.0

1.34

SW23

230.4

120.3

Flexure

180.0

1.50

SW24

209.9

92.9

Flexure

120.0

1.29

SW25

225.6

117.4

Flexure

150.0

1.28

SW26

119.3

86.7

Flexure

123.0

1.42

 

B5

675.5

595.6

Flexure

761.3

1.28

B6

685.3

713.9

Shear

824.4

1.20

Oesterle 14

B7

880.2

807.2

Flexure

979.6

1.21

B8

1277.9

789.0

Flexure

976.9

1.24

F2

854.3

745.8

Flexure

886.7

1.19

 

S1

850.1

649.0

Flexure

680.0

1.05

S2

1109.7

929.0

Flexure

928.0

1.00

S3

1008.9

1155.6

Shear

977.0

0.97

S4

643.0

320.1

Flexure

392.0

1.22

Maier 6

S5

853.3

643.0

Flexure

701.0

1.09

S6

753.5

568.8

Flexure

667.0

1.17

S7

1087.6

906.6

Flexure

836.0

0.92

S9

309.8

342.0

1.10

S10

729.0

590.2

Flexure

670.0

1.14

 

SW7

966.0

621.6

Flexure

518.7

0.83

SW8

1052.2

635.1

Flexure

569.3

0.90

Cardenas 15

SW9

1060.5

636.1

Flexure

678.7

1.07

SW-11

 

— 638.9

 

— 608.9

0.95

SW-12

 

— 639.0

 

— 657.8

1.03

Wiradinata 16

W1

891.2

519.2

Flexure

575.0

1.11

W2

879.0

905.3

Shear

680.0

0.77

 

B11

1132.8

1481.2

Shear

1217.3

1.07

B21

901.4

3801.9

Shear

977.6

1.08

Barda 17

B32

1300.8

2272.5

Shear

1107.2

0.85

B64

965.3

2571.6

Shear

875.6

0.91

 

B75

1249.1

5274.7

Shear

1138.6

0.91

B85

814.7

1346.7

Shear

884.8

1.09

reinforcement, i.e., more reinforcement was provided on tensile side of the wall. This specimen was analyzed for shear strength assuming that all longitudinal reinforcement was distributed uniformly in the wall. Specimen S9 did not contain any transverse reinforcement. The shear strength of this specimen was therefore not calculated. Only for Spec- imen S3, the predicted mode of failure is shear. The mean of

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

test/predicted failure loads of all specimens is 1.07 with a standard deviation of 0.099. For the walls tested by Cardenas et al. 15 mean of test/ predicted failure loads is 0.96 with a standard deviation of 0.095. All these specimens are predicted to have failed in flexure mode. In Specimens SW-11 and SW-12 there was no longitudinal reinforcement in central wall portion and all the

201

Table 5—Correlation of test and predicted strengths (cont.)

   

Predicted shear

Predicted flexural

Predicted failure

Ultimate load (test), kN

 

Source

Specimen no.

capacity, kN

capacity, kN

mode

Test/Calc.

 

NW-1

1096.1

822.8

Flexure

1062.0

1.29

NW-2

1657.3

1190.6

Flexure

1468.0

1.23

NW-3

707.3

693.2

Flexure

714.0

1.03

NW04

780.5

830.3

Shear

784.0

1.00

NW-5

847.9

838.8

Flexure

900.0

1.07

NW-6

883.7

927.9

Shear

1056.0

1.19

W08

1735.1

1516.2

Flexure

1670.0

1.10

W12

2192.3

1708.9

Flexure

1719.0

1.01

N1

1460.0

1796.0

Shear

1100.0

0.75

N2

1535.4

1863.0

Shear

1254.0

0.82

Kabeyasawa 18

N3

1568.5

1883.1

Shear

1378.0

0.88

N4

2225.9

2203.5

Flexure

1696.0

0.77

N5

964.1

1338.3

Shear

1158.0

1.20

N6

1619.1

1920.5

Shear

1411.0

0.87

N7

1611.9

1906.1

Shear

1498.0

0.93

N8

1715.5

1966.9

Shear

1639.0

0.96

W35X

1438.7

1161.9

Flexure

1049.0

0.90

W35H

1479.0

1174.3

Flexure

1054.0

0.90

W30H

1429.8

1149.5

Flexure

958.0

0.83

P35H

1334.6

1110.9

Flexure

1020.0

0.92

MW35H

1378.0

1133.9

Flexure

1011.0

0.89

 

S-1

349.7

483.0

Shear

427.8

1.22

S-2

603.1

881.6

Shear

719.6

1.19

S-3

903.3

1239.0

Shear

850.7

0.94

S-4

521.2

712.4

Shear

600.0

1.15

Present study

S-5

795.9

1106.1

Shear

790.2

0.99

S-6

1010.1

1427.0

Shear

970.0

0.96

S-7

624.0

888.5

Shear

800.0

1.28

S-F

528.0

392.3

Flexure

486.6

1.24

longitudinal reinforcement was provided within a distance of 10 percent of length of wall from either end. The shear strength of these specimens was therefore not calculated. For Specimen W1 tested by Wiradinata and Saaticioglou, 16 the test/predicted value of the failure load is 1.11. For the other specimen the predicted mode of failure is shear, and the observed failure load is significantly smaller than the predicted ultimate load. It has been reported that this spec- imen failed prematurely due to excessive sliding of wall rela- tive to stiff foundation. All the six specimens tested by Barda et al. 17 are predicted to have failed in shear mode. The mean of test/predicted failure loads is 0.99 with a standard deviation of 0.107. For the 21 high-strength concrete walls reported by Kabeyasawa et al., 18 the mean of test/predicted failure loads is 0.98 with a standard deviation of 0.154. Specimens NW-1 through NW-6 were designed to fail in flexure. The predicted mode of failure is flexure except for Specimens NW-4 and NW-6. For these specimens the difference in predicted shear and flexural capacities is small. The

202

predicted flexural strength is lower than the test value for these six specimens. Specimens W08 and W12 are predicted to fail in flexure. These specimens were subjected to anti- symmetric loading and failed in shear. The predicted and test failure loads agree well. Specimens N1 through N8 were designed to fail in shear. The predicted mode of failure of these specimens is shear except for Specimen N4. The correlation of test and predicted failure loads for Specimen N4 is not good. Specimen N4 was made of concrete with compressive strength of 103.4 MPa (15 ksi) whereas all other specimens of the series were made from 70 MPa (19 ksi) concrete. This specimen was also subjected to axial stress of more than 14 MPa (2030 psi) whereas other specimens were subjected to 8.5 MPa (1233 psi) axial stress. Whether these factors influenced the test behavior of this specimen is not clear from the test observations reported in the study. For Specimen N5 the Test/Predicted value of the failure loads is 1.20. For Specimen N5 the height-to-length ratio was 1.76 whereas for other specimens the ratio was 1.18. The five Specimens M35X through MW35H were designed to fail in

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

flexure. The predicted mode of failure agreed with the test observation. In the present study, Specimens S-1 through S-7 were designed to fail in shear and Specimen S-F was designed to fail in flexure. The predicted modes of failure are in agree- ment with the test observations. The mean value of test/ predicted failure loads of eight test specimens is 1.12 with a standard deviation of 0.137. Test failure loads were also compared with the predictions by the Australian Standard AS 3600 1 and the ACI 318 Code. 20 Complete details are given elsewhere. 5 The calcula- tion of flexural strength by both codes is identical, but the shear strength calculations are different. In the Australian Standard, the effect of axial load on shear strength of walls is not considered. Otherwise, the strength equations in both codes are similar. The mean of test/calculated failure loads by AS 3600 is 1.39 and by ACI 318 is 1.32, with standard deviations of 0.33 and 0.25, respectively.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The paper presented the analytical and experimental studies on the strength of reinforced concrete structural walls subjected to combined in-plane compressive axial load and lateral load. A theory was developed to evaluate the shear capacity of a reinforced concrete structural wall based on the stress analysis of the central panel of the wall. The flexural strength of structural walls was calculated using the conven- tional flexure theory of reinforced concrete sections subjected to axial compression and bending moment. The experimental component of the research involved testing of eight isolated high-strength concrete (HSC) reinforced struc- tural walls loaded to failure under in-plane constant axial load and increasing horizontal loads. In addition, test results from the literature were also studied. The design provisions given in the Australian Standard AS 3600 11 and the ACI Building Code 318 20 were examined. The ultimate loads and failure modes predicted by the analytical work presented in the paper have shown good correlation with test results obtained in this study as well as those of 61 other walls available in the literature. The mean of test/calculated horizontal loads at failure is 1.08 with a standard deviation of 0.175. The mean of test/calculated ultimate loads by the Australian Standard AS 3600 is 1.39 with a standard deviation of 0.33. These values by the ACI 318 are 1.32 and 0.25, respectively.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The experimental work was financed by Australian Research Council Grants. The concrete and the reinforcement required for the project were donated by CSR Readymix and Smorgon ARC, respectively. The first author was recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award. These generous contributions and the assistance provided by the laboratory staff during experimentation are gratefully acknowledged.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 1998

REFERENCES

Resistance?”

Concrete International, V. 13, No. 7, July 1991, pp. 48-53.

2. Saatcioclu, M., and Bruneau, M., “Performance of Structures during

the 1992 Erzincan Earthquake,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 20, 1993, pp. 305-325.

3. Martin, O., and Peyton, J. J., “Wind Design of Four Buildings up to 306 m

Tall,” RCD6, Concrete Publishing Company Pty. Ltd., Mar. 1989, 10 pp.

4. Lloyd, N. A., and Rangan, B. V., “High Strength Concrete: A

Review,” Research Report No. 1/93, School of Civil Engineering, Curtin

University of Technology, Perth, 1993, 199 pp.

5. Gupta, A., and Rangan, B. V., “Studies on Reinforced Concrete Struc-

tural Walls,” Research Report No. 2/96, School of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, May 1996, 165 pp.

6. Maier, J., and Thülimann, B., “Bruchversuche an Stahlbetonscheiben,”

Institute fur Baustatik und Konstruktion ETH, Zurich, 1985, 130 pp.

7. Oesterle, R. O.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Horato, A. E. Russell, H. O.;

1.

Fintel,

M.,

“Shearwalls—An

Answer

for

Seismic

and Corley, W. O, “Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls—Tests of Isolated Walls—Phase 2,” PCA Construction Technology Laboratories/ National Science Foundation, Washington D.C., Oct. 1979, 327 pp.

8. Vecchio, F., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified-Field Compression

Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, 1986, pp. 219-231.

9. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; and MacGregor, J. G., “Structural Design

Considerations for High-Strength Concrete,” Concrete International, V. 15, No. 5, May 1993, pp. 27-34.

10. Vecchio, F. J., “Finite Element Modelling of Concrete Expansion and

Confinement,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 118, No. 9, 1992, pp. 2390-2406.

11. “Australian Standard for Concrete Structures, AS3600-1994,” Stan-

dards Australia, North Sydney, 1988, 156 pp.

12. Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., “Softening of Concrete in Low-Rise-

Shearwalls,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1985, pp.

883-889.

13. Lefas, I. D., “Behaviour of RC Walls and its Implication for Ultimate

Limit State Design,” PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 1988, 330 pp.

14. Oesterle, R. G.; Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D.; Sihu, K. N.; and Corley, W. O.,

“Web Crushing of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls,” ACI JOURNAL,

Proceedings V. 81, No. 3, May-June 1984, pp. 231-241.

15. Cardenas, A. S.; Russell, H. O.; and Corley, W. O., “Strength of

Low-Rise Structural Walls,” Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Wind and Earthquake Forces, SP-63, American Concrete Institute, Farm- ington Hills, MI, 1980, pp. 221-241.

16. Wiradinata, S., and Saaticioglou, M., “Tests on Squat Shear Walls

under Lateral Load Reversals,” Proceedings 3rd U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, V. 2, 1986, pp. 1395-1406.

17. Barda, F.; Hanson, J. M.; and Corley, W. O., “Shear Strength of

Low-Rise Walls with Boundary Elements,” Reinforced Concrete Struc- tures in Seismic Zones, SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1977, pp. 149-202.

18. Kabeyasawa, T.; Kuramoto, H.; and Matsumoto, K., “Tests and

Analyses of High Strength Shear Walls,” Proceedings of the First Meeting of the Multilateral Project on the Use of High Strength Concrete, Kyoto, Japan, 1993, pp. 1-26.

19. Warner, R. F.; Rangan, B. V.; and Hall, A. S., Reinforced Concrete,

3rd Edition, Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, 1989, 553 pp.

20. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1995, 369 pp.

203