Professional Documents
Culture Documents
63-10
Synopsis:
The results of an experimental investigation to determine strength of rectangular low-rise
structural walls for buildings are presented in this
report,
Seven large specimens with "height-to-hor izontal-length" ratios of 1.0 were subjected to static
in-plane horizontal loads.
One of the specimens was
subjected to ten cycles of load reversals.
Variables
in the test program were amount and distribution of
vertical and horizontal reinforcement.
The walls did
not have any boundary elements or special hoop reinforcement.
No vertical load was applied.
Results indicate that low-rise rectangular walls
can develop shear stresses on the order of 10 ~ psi
(0.83
MPa), Also,
results indicate that shear
strengths implied by Section 11.10, Special Provisions
for Walls, of the 1977 ACI Building Code provide a
reasonable lower bound capacity, even when load reversals are applied.
Jib
221
222
BACKGROUND
A review of theoretical and experimental research
concerning walls as lateral load resisting elements
has been presented previously (1).
It was implied
(1,2) that structural wall systems can be divided
into two major categories.
These are high-rise walls
and low-rise walls.
For high-rise walls, geometric characteristics of
the element and its vertical and horizontal load distributions make flexure the controlling design parameter in most cases.
It has been stated (1) that for
many of these walls, the minimum amount of horizontal
and vertical shear reinforcement, as specified in the
1977 ACI Building Code (3) will be adequate to ensure
development of flexural strength of the wall.
However, the Code provisions are based upon monotonic
loading.
For this reason, their applicability to
earthquake loading conditions has been questioned.
Low-rise walls must have relatively large shear
capacity to enable flexural strength development.
In
this case, amount and relative distribution of the
horizontal and vertical reinforcement are the major
parameters affecti~g strength of the wall.
Other
223
224
Specimen Characteristics
Overall dimensions for each of the seven specimens
were 75x3x75 in. (l905x76xl905 mm) as shown in Fig. l.
The "height-to-horizontal-length" ratio, of the wall,
was constant at 1.0 for all specimens.
Among the
variables were amount and distribution of vertical
and horizontal reinforcement.
These are listed in
Table l. Specimen SW-13 was also subjected to loadreversals. Applied vertical load was not included in
this investigation.
Vertical
reinforcement was
either
distributed
uniformly over the horizontal wall length or concentrated near the ends, as listed in Table l. All horizontal
and
vertical
reinforcement
consisted
of
straight bars.
Reinforcement details are given in
Fig. 2.
In Specimen SW-7, the ratio of vertical reinforcement, Pn in the interior wall region was approximately 0.01.
There was no vertical reinforcement in
the interior wall portions of Specimens SW-10, SW-11,
and SW-12.
When vertical reinforcement was uniformly
distributed throughout the horizontal length of the
wall, the amount was held constant at Pn = 0.03.
Horizontal
reinforcement,
when
provided,
was
uniformly distributed along the wall height.
The
ratio, Ph varied from 0.0027 to 0.01.
Specimen
SW-10 did not have horizontal or vertical reinforcement in the interior region. This wall was tested to
determine the shear contribution attributed to the
concrete.
Specimens SW-9 and SW-13 had the same reinforcement distribution. However, SW-13 was loaded to evaluate the effect of high shear force reversals on the
strength of the wall. Specimen SW-9 was subjected to
monotonic loading.
Specimen SW-13 was subjected to
ten cycles of reversing load.
Nominal concrete compressive design strength was
6000 psi. (41.4 MPa).
All reinforcement met requirements of ASTM Designation: A615-68, Grade 60 (8).
Loading and Instrumentation
All specimens, except SW-13, were tested in a
manner similar to the high-rise walls reported pre-
225
226
227
In Specimens SW-9 and SW-13, vertical and hor izontal reinforcement restrained the growth of the
inclined cracks.
For SW-13, cracks were orthogonal
and at about 45 as shown in Fig. 4.
With increased
load, the compressive force transmitted through the
diagonal concrete struts appeared to initiate crushing on a horizontal plane.
Eventually the crushing
propagated to a section near the base of the wall as
shown in Fig. 4.
This tension type of behavior
occurred when most of the vertical reinforcement had
yielded and the specimen had reached its calculated
shear strength.
It should be noted, however, that Specimen SW-13,
subjected to load-reversals, had about 7% less measured horizontal load capacity than SW-9.
This difference can be attributed to a decrease in strength
due to load reversals, the scatter of test results,
or both.
Curves
showing
applied
load
versus
measured
deflection for all specimens without load reversals
are given in Fig. 6. For all specimens, the relationship between load and deflection was approximately
linear until just prior to maximum load.
In all
cases, destruction of the specimen was sudden with
very little flattening of the load-deflection curve.
For Specimen SW-13 subjected to load reversals,
load-deflection loops were obtained for each load
cycle.
By joining the ends of each loop for the
different cycles,
a load-deflection envelope was
obtained. The envelope is shown in Fig. 7. For comparison purposes, the load-deflection curve for Specimen SW-9 is also shown.
It is evident that load
reversals had very little effect on the load-deflection relationship.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
The experimental results reported in this paper
were used in the development of section 11.10, Special
Provisions for Walls, of the 1977 ACI Building Code
(3).
At that time, the results included only one
test on walls subjected to reversals of high shear
forces.
However, recent experimental data on walls
tested at the Portland Cement Association under load
reversals (4,5) have been developed.
A comparison of measured strength and calculated
shear strength of structural walls is shown in Fig. 8.
The calculated values were obtained by using Section
228
2.
In this investigation, strength of a wall subjected to monotonic loading was on the order of
7% greater than for a similar wall subjected to
reversals of high shear forces.
Other investigations (4) have indicated a decrease of 10% for
low-rise walls under high shear forces.
3.
229
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation was carried out at the Structural Laboratory of the Portland Cement Association.
Particular credit is due B. W. Fullhart and B. J.
Doepp for their work in manufacturing and testing the
specimens.
REFERENCES
l.
2.
3.
"Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77) ," American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1977, 102 pp.
4.
5.
6.
230
7.
Esteva, L. and Guerra, O.R., "Equivalent Properties and Ductility Requirements in Seismic Analysis of Nonlinear Systems," Proceedings of Sixth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New
Delhi, India- January, 1977.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
231
Williams, H.A. and Benjamin, J.R., "Investigation of Shear Walls - Part 3 - Experimental and
Mathematical Studies of the Behavior of Plain
and Re1nforced Concrete Walled Bents Under Static
Shear Load1ng," Department of C1vil Engtneering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, July
1953, 142 pp.
15.
16.
As
Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension steel (Taken as 0.8 Qw or
greater).
f'c
Compressive
strength
of
standard
(l52x305 mm) concrete cylinders.
fct
fy
Wall thickness.
Qw
vc
Vs
vu
Vu
6xl2-in.
232
Pn
Reinforcement
Concrete
Vertical
Specimen
Designation
llorizontaJ.
Ratio
pn *
Yield
Stress
f
y
psi
Ratio
ph
Yield
Stress
f
y
psi
Camp.
Strength
fI
c
psi
Tensile
Split.
Strength
f
ct
psi
SW-7
0.0230+
65,000
0.0027
60,000
6,240
630
SW-8
0.0300
65,000
0.0027
67,500
6,160
565
SW-9
0.0300
65,000
0. 010 0
60,000
6,240
630
SW-10
0.0165++
65,000
None
None
5,850
565
SW-11
0.0230+
65,000
0.0075
65,000
5,540
535
SW-12
0.0230+
65,000
0.0100
65,000
5,570
530
SW-13
0.0030
65,000
0.0100
66,000
6,300
630
pn
As
was
distri-
concentrated
extremity of
in interior
SI
units
are 1 ft
0.305 m;
Flexural Strength
Moment at base, kip-ft
Shear Strength
Measured
Ratio
d/Qw
at
ultimate*
Measured
Calculated*
Measured
Calculated
v +
vu
kips
Calculated**
_u_ _
v_
+_
vs
_c
hd~
psi
.ff'c
Measured
Calculated
Observed Mode
of Destruction
6"
~I
psi
0.74
729
980
0.74
116.7
8.2
5.3
l. 55
Shear
::;a
r;:;
0.65
801
1000
0.79
128.1 I
9.1
5.6
1.63
Shear
(I)
0.65
954
1000
0.95
152.7110.7
10.0
1.07
Flexure-Shear
SW-10
0.94
429
700
0.61
68.7 I
4.3
3.3
l. 30
She<~r
SW-11
0.94
856
1000
0.86
137.0 I
8.7
9.8
0.89
Shear-Anchorage
SW-12
0.94
925
1000
0.93
148.0 I
9.4
10.0
0.94
Shear-Anchorage
SW-13++
0.65
888
1000
0.89
142.11 10.0
10.0
l.OO
Flexure-Shear
swswsw-
* Based on limiting concrete strain of 0.003, strain compatibility and measured material properties.
tl)
"c''
0.
c
et
f'ii"'
~
~
~
Reinforcement Percentage
Specimen
No.
f'
Shape*
Boundary
Web
Vertical
pf
Pn
Web
Horizontal
ph
Strength
c
psi
vu
.Jfi
c
Meas~red
ps1
Calcu~ated
ps1
B5-4
B6-4
F
F
F
F
F
F
B7-5
B4-3
B8-5
1.8
0.5
0.5
4200
15.5
6.4
0.5
0.5
2370
15.8
10.0
4.1
0.5
0.5
3920
9.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
0.5
2760
14.1
15.4
0 .5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4190
8.3
8.9
3080
12.3
9.8
3730
14.8
9.3
4.1
0.25
0.5
0.5
3400
12.1
8.9
3.3
9.5
F1
3.9
0.3
0.7
5580
10.5
7.8
B2
3.7
0.3
0.6
7780
7.2
6.0
....(ll
;,:,
(ll
(ll
!E.
....
Q..
("')
""
tr
Fiorato et al (5)
* F
""
Q..
t'D
Barda et al (4)
Bl-1
B2-l
B3-2
("')
~
= Flange, B = Barbell
psi = 6.895 kPa; Jfl psi
c
0.0830
.Jfic
MPa
"'<
235
18"
in.= 25.4 mm
236
.....
-r-
15-04
@5'
21#5@3-1/2"
,--
'I
15-D4
tj5"
'--
SW-8
SW-7
21#5@ 3-1/2"
--
1941'3
f) 3-3/4"
"' ,,,,
SW-9, SW-13
SW-10
6#6
+II+-
--
14# 3
19#3
@ 5"
@ 3-3/4 "
,,
-SW-11
All bars ore straight.
'I
SW-12
I in.= 25.4 mm
237
(V)
.......
3
Vl
s::
OJ
r-
OJ
0.
Vl
s....
.e
0.
::l
+'
OJ
Vl
+'
Vl
OJ
II
I
(V)
,,_
LL.
......,
......
l.
... ..;.
...,
~- ,___ ,. ~
..
n
~
.
/ . .
=~>~r
SW-8
SW-7
Pn =0.023
vu =8.2
Pn =0.0027
Pn=0.030
../fZ psi
""'
Q.
~
:..-~~?
SW-9
p h=OOO
. 27
Pn=0.030
vu=9.1 ~psi
vu
ph=O.OIO
'
=10.7 ~psi
Cll
c'-='
Cll
Cll
-~
,//</
'-.:"/~
,/
/
"
<.-
,.,.
-. .;..
.:~-;~~-
/
/
,,,..
/'"/
> .
-777~..-7"~...-?"'"~......-......-~
SW-10
Pn=0.017
Ph= 0.0
vu =4.3
-/fC psi
SW-11
Pn=0.023
Ph=0.0075
vu =8.7
v'fC psi
-~.~' ~~/.!
:r
.//J/::
/~/,/:~-1
.
,. .--
L~;,;:;~
SW-12
v'fi psi
'
=
Q.
?.1:
~ .... -~~
_,,
Vu = 9.4
..
::l.
~
"<
SW-13
Pn=0.030
Ph=O.OIO
239
750
150
Applied
Load,
kN
Applied
Lood,
kips
500
100
250
50
0~----~-----L----~~----L-----~-----+----~o
Measured Deflection
1..
I"= 25.4mm
240
Deflection, mm
0
5
10
175 r - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - ,
750
150
125
Applied
Load,
100
kips
500
Load,
kN
75
- t - SW-9
- - - SW-13 (Load Reversals)
250
0.25
0.5
Deflection, in.
241
"
6.
+
+R
"
+R
..."
"'0
6.
0
10Fc
+ +R
R
6.
0
6
6.
6 xR
rn
6.
6.
+R
xR
to.D.. /
{l
{l
5~
+R o
Measured,
vu, psi.
(cp =10)
0 85
/
/
cp=
Test Results
0 Cardenas el. ol. (2)
+ Bordo el al (4)
Fiaralo el. al (5)
"Y Mula, Ogura el. al. (12,13)
6. Benjamin B Williams (14,15)
D Anleb1 el. al (16)
0
Calculated, vu , psi.