You are on page 1of 13

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No.

5, October, 333345

Seismic behaviour of structural walls with


specific details
S. W. Han! , Y.-H. Oh{ and L.-H. Lee!
Hanyang University

Bearing wall systems have been commonly used for low to mid-rise buildings particularly in low to moderate
seismic zones. This study investigates the seismic performance of bearing walls with rectangular sectional shape
and specific details of reinforcements. Such details have been developed for 10- to 15-storey apartment buildings in
Korea, and used most commonly in apartment building construction. To investigate seismic behaviour of such walls,
experimental tests were carried out. Structural behaviour is expressed in terms of ductility, deformation, and
strength capacities. For this purpose, three full-scale test specimens were constructed having different shear-span
ratios (2 and 3). The test results of this study are compared with those of other researchers. By this comparison,
seismic performance of the walls with specific details is discussed. Also this study compares the response
modification factor (R) for the bearing wall systems in different seismic design provisions.

Vcr

Notation
A, A a , Av
Acv

Ag
C, Cs
db
f 9c
fy
I
lw
M
R, Rw
S
T

zone factor
gross area of concrete section bounded by
web thickness and length of section in the
direction of shear force considered
gross area of a section
seismic coefficient
diameter of a reinforcement
concrete compressive strength
reinforcement yield stress
importance factor
length of entire wall or of segment of wall
considered in the direction of shear force
magnitude of an earthquake
response modification factor (strength
reduction factor)
soil factor
fundamental period

! Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University,


Seoul 133-791, Korea.
{ Advanced Structure Research Station (STRESS), Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea.
(MCR 971) Paper received 14 September 2001; last revised 27 March
2002; accepted 22 April 2002

Vmax
Vy
max
y
u
"

shear force corresponding to first cracking


(experimental)
maximum shear force
shear force corresponding to yielding
maximum displacement
yield displacement
maximum drift ratio
ductility ratio

Introduction
Structural walls have been commonly used for resisting the lateral forces induced by winds and earthquakes
because of their efficiency in resistance. Many low to
mid-rise RC buildings have either interior or exterior
walls. These walls are placed to resist lateral and gravity forces. This type of wall system is very common in
low to moderate seismic regions, which is classified as
bearing wall system.
This system has been most commonly used for constructing mid-rise (1015 storeys) apartment buildings
in Korea, which is classified as a low and moderate
seismic zone according to the Korean Seismic Design
1
Provisions. Since this system is used for residence
buildings, a rectangular sectional shape is preferred for
providing better interior space. Also, to secure the
seismic resistance of walls in mid-rise apartment build333
0024-9831 # 2002 Thomas Telford Ltd

Han et al.

Design base shear and R factor


In current seismic design provisions, the lateral force
demand by earthquakes is represented by seismic design base shear. In general, the formula for calculating
design base shear is expressed as the following equation
V

Cs W
R

(1)

where V denotes design base shear, and Cs , R, and W


denote seismic coefficient, response modification factor
and weight, respectively. Seismic coefficient Cs is the
Linear Elastic Design Response Spectrum (LEDRS) of
design earthquake with mean return period of 475
years. Thus, in equation (1), the numerator (Cs times
W ) is the seismic force demand of an elastic system.
Since the design earthquake is a rare event, current
seismic design provisions introduce the R factor in
order to allow the structures to behave in the inelastic
range against design level earthquake. Consequently,
Cs =R can be referred to as Inelastic Design Response
Spectrum (IDRS). If structures are designed using the
334

elastic design base shear (Cs W ), the structures may


behave elastically during design level earthquake
ground motions.
The R factor is related to reserve strength, ductility,
8,9
and viscous damping. The response modification fac9
tor may be calculated as the product of three factors
R R" 3 Rs 3 R#

(2)

where Rs is a period-dependent strength factor, R" is a


period-dependent ductility factor, and R# is a damping
factor. Fig. 1 shows the relationship between LEDRS
and IDRS. Also this figure shows IDRSs for ultimate
strength and working strength levels. According to the
814
investigations by many researchers
there are several
weaknesses in R factor used in current seismic design
9
provisions. Detail discussion can be found in ATC 19.
However, this study does not attempt to solve the
weaknesses in R factor. This is beyond the scope of this
study. Instead, this study compares design base shear
forces for bearing wall systems in UBC (1994), ATC
7
1
3-06, and KSDP.

Comparison of seismic design base shear


in different provisions
The design base shear formula has been developed
based on either a working stress or ultimate strength
basis. For example, the design base shear in UBC
(1994) is on a working stress basis, but both NEHRP
15
7
Provisions and ATC 3-06 have an ultimate strength
design base shear.
KSDP was established in 1988 and revised in 2000.
The design base shear in this provision is working
stress level. Table 1 shows the design base shear for7
1
mulas in UBC, ATC 3-06 and KSDP. Assigned values
for R factor in these provisions are also shown in Table
2.
Figure 2 is the plot for comparison of design base
shears in ATC 3-06, UBC and KSDP. The R factor in
this plot is the value for bearing wall system with
reinforced concrete shear walls. For this comparison,
the zone factor, importance factor, and soil factor are
set to be 012 (A = 012, Z = 012, A a = Av = 012), 10

Normalised spectral acceleration

ings against earthquakes, special reinforcement details


have been provided.
This study investigates the structural behaviour of
walls with a rectangular sectional shape and special
reinforcement details. For this purpose, three full-scale
wall test specimens, which have different shear-span
ratios of 2 and 3, were made. Since the size of the
laboratory is limited, the size of all specimens was the
same, but a special setting was made to simulate the
different shear-span ratios. In this study, strength, deformation and ductility capacities are estimated based
on experimental results. The capacities of each specimen are compared with the results of other re26
searchers
and the drift limit in seismic design
provisions (UBC, ATC3-06). Based on this comparison,
the performance of walls with specific details is discussed.
Also, this study compares the R factor of bearing
wall systems in three different seismic design provi7
sions such as UBC (1994), ATC 3-06, and Korean
1
Seismic Design Provisions (KSDP). KSDP has been
developed based on UBC and ATC 3-06. Thus, in
calculation of design base shear according to KSDP, R
factor is included in the formula for calculating design
base shear. The major role of R factor is to reduce the
elastic design base shear whereby structures can behave
in the inelastic range during design level earthquake
ground motions (mean return period of 475 years). R
factors are assigned according to material and structural
systems. Based on the comparison of R factors in three
different provisions and the investigation of structural
behaviours of the tested walls, the R factor for the walls
with specific details is discussed.

1
LEDRS (Cs)

IDRS (Cs/R)
IDRSw (Cs/Rw)

Period: s

Fig. 1. LEDRS and IDRS


Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Seismic behaviour of structural walls


Table 1. Comparisons of base shear formulation in each seismic provision
Korea Seismic Design
Provisions (2000)
Design base shear

V=

C=
Notation

AIC
W
R

UBC (1994)

V=

S
pffiffiffi , 175
1:2 T

C=

ATC 3-06 (1978)

ZIC
W
Rw

1:25
2

T3

V = Cs W

, 275

Cs =

1:2 Av S
2

RT 3

2:5 A a
R

A: zone factor

Z: zone factor

I: importance factor

I: importance factor

S: soil factor

S: soil factor

S: soil factor

Working stress
design

Working stress
design

Ultimate strength
design

Design method to
be considered

Av , Aa : zone factor

Table 2. Comparison of response modification factors in each seismic provision


Structural systems

Earthquake resisting
systems

R
(ATC, 1978)

R
(ICBO, 1994)

R
(Korea, 1988)

Bearing wall system

Reinforced concrete
shear walls

45

Reinforced masonry
shear walls

35

Unreinforced masonry shear walls,


Partially reinforced
masonry shear walls

125

Reinforced concrete
shear walls having
boundary elements
like tied columns

35

Reinforced concrete
shear walls

55

Frame system

Design base shear: V/W

0.08
0.07

Korea 2000 (R ! 3)

0.06

ICBO 1994 (Rw ! 6)


ATC 3-06 (R ! 4.5)

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 .0

0.5

1.0

1 .5

2.0

2.5

3 .0

Period: s

Fig. 2. Normalised design base shear for bearing wall system

and 10, respectively. A zone factor of 012 is the


assigned value for the Seoul area in Korea. These
figures show that design base shear in KSPD is larger
than that in UBC (1994) throughout the whole period
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

R
(Korea, 2000)

range. Also, the design base shear in KSDP exceeds


that of ATC 3-06 when the fundamental period becomes either less than 02 s or larger than 07 s.
By simply comparing design base shear for the
bearing wall system, it is concluded that the design
based shear used in KSDP is the highest. If it is
assumed that the values for design base shear in ATC
3-06 and UBC are reasonable, the R factor in KSPD
needs to be calibrated to reduce the design base
shear. This study assumes that R factors provided in
ATC 3-06 and UBC are accurate. Thus, R factor is
calibrated to make the design base shear in KSDP
similar to that in UBC (1994). However, in calibrating R factor, both structural details and structural
performance are important since R factor is related
to those. Details of walls and experimental tests for
investigating their structural performance are explained in the following section.
335

Han et al.

Provisions for structural wall details


Requirements for the design of structural walls are
introduced in chapter 11 (shear and torsion), chapter 14
(walls), and chapter 21 (special provisions for seismic
15
design) in ACI 318. The design code of Korean Concrete Institute (2000, referred to as KCI hereafter) has
been basically developed based on ACI 318 (Building
Code and Commentary, 1995 and 1999).
According to ACI 318, structural walls are classified
as ordinary and special reinforcement concrete structural walls. Ordinary reinforced concrete structural walls
must satisfy the requirements from chapter 1 to 18 in
ACI 318 and special reinforcement concrete structural
walls must satisfy the requirements of chapter 21 (216)
in ACI 318 in addition to the requirements for ordinary
reinforcement concrete structural walls. In the case of
special reinforced concrete structural wall design,
boundary element or details of a wall should satisfy the
requirements in chapter 21 (21663).
Details of structural walls commonly used for bearing wall systems in Korea are quite different from those
used in the USA. Fig. 3 shows wall details commonly
used in Korean construction practice for mid-rise residence buildings. The sectional shape is rectangular
rather than barbell shape with boundary elements. A
rectangular shape provides more usable interior space.
Flexural reinforcement is concentrated at the wall
boundary (the end region with 10% of wall length, l w )
as shown in Fig. 3.
U-type transverse reinforcements and tie bars are
placed. The spacing of U-type transverse reinforcements and tie bars is determined from the code requirement for column in KCI and ACI 318. Tie spacing in
columns should not determine more than the minimum
value among: (a) 16 longitudinal bar diameters; (b) 48
tie diameters; and (c) least dimension of a column. In
case of walls considered in this study, the minimum
dimension requirement governs. The wall thickness
commonly used in Korea is 200 mm so that the thickness can easily place the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcements at the ends of a wall. U-type transverse
reinforcements are extended into the wall web with the
length of 20d b (d b : diameter of reinforcement). This is
also determined based on the development length in
KCI. The ends of ties are anchored by a 908 or 1358
bend around a bar (see Fig. 3). This study investigates
the structural behaviours of these walls, which are
represented in terms of strength, ductility and deformation capacities.

Former studies of structural walls


In this section, researches related to structural walls
16
are introduced. Cardenas and Magura tested rectangular shape walls with different arrangements of longitudinal reinforcement. According to their study,
336

flexural, deformation and energy absorption capacity of


shear walls are enhanced when vertical reinforcement
is concentrated at the end of a wall. Thus, walls having
uniformly distributed longitudinal reinforcement have
less deformation capacity. This is an important conclusion, since deformation capacity has an influence on
determining the R factor (see R" in equation (2)).
Experimental tests by PCA researchers were carried out
for walls having various section-shapes (rectangular,
2
barbell, flanged) and different failure modes. Test results showed that all specimens have displacement ductilities larger than 30 and have drift ratios larger than
15%.
17
Wallace and Moehle
investigated the level of
damaged buildings in the city of Vina del Mar due to
Chiles earthquake (M = 78) occurring in 1985. They
reported that in the city of Vina del Mar there were
about 400 modern reinforced concrete buildings, which
contained numerous shear walls and had been designed
for lateral forces comparable to those used in regions
of high seismicity in the USA. Seismic design provisions in Chile do not require boundary element like in
the USA. Also, reinforcement details, according to their
paper, are less stringent than those commonly used in
the USA. However, they reported that these walls performed well with little or no apparent damage in the
majority of buildings during the earthquake.
Figures 4 and 5 show drift and ductility capacities
versus maximum observed shear stress of various walls
2,46,1820
tested by many researchers.
Detailed information for each specimen in this figure is in Table 3. The
test parameters of these structural walls were sectional
shapes (rectangular, barbell, and flange shape), details
of reinforcement distribution (concentrated or uniform
distribution of longitudinal vertical reinforcement, and
distribution of horizontal reinforcement), shear span
ratio, existence of boundary element, ratio of axial load,
etc.
It is considered that deformation and ductility capacities of walls depend on the level of maximum shear
stress and/or failure mode because the level of maximum shear stress is related to the failure mode of
structural walls. Figure 4 shows that all specimens have
a drift capacity of over 15% except for one specimen
governed by shear.
A drift ratio of 15% is the allowable limit value
8
against a design earthquake in seismic provisions.
Thus, it is judged that most structural walls have satisfactory deformation capacities irrespective of the test
variables.
When maximum shear stress is lower than 01 MPa,
all specimens have a ductility capacity larger than 30
(see Fig. 5). It is prescribed in the UBC (1994) provisions that the R factor for a shear wall system is 80
(see Table 2). Expected maximum displacements according to the 1994 UBC can be calculated by multiplying the design displacement by 3=8 Rw . This
implicitly indicates that the displacement ductility caMagazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Seismic behaviour of structural walls


700
40

100

350

7-D25

500

D13@150

7-D25
40
500
7-D25

7-D25

125

25@500

30

100

D13

D10

D10@250

2000

D13

D10@200
200
250

D10@250

70@500
250

250

125

D13

7-D25

100

7- D25

D13@150

D13@150

500

7- D25
100

500

7-D25

700
ELEVATION

SECTION

50

50

30
D10@200

200

D10@200

D10@250

200

150

4-D13

D10@220
1500

150

(unit ! mm)

50
220

300

(a) W2 and W3 specimen


300

50

130

D10@250

800

300

300
D10 D10@200

D10@200 50

200

D10@200

4-D13

200

150

30

100 100 50

200
(b) WF2 specimen
SECTION A-A

BOUNDARY DETAILS for W2, W3 and WF2

Fig. 3. Wall configuration and specific wall details

pacity of a wall should be larger than 30. Thus drift


capacity of 15% and displacement ductility ratio of 3
can be treated as the limit values of deformation and
ductility capacities, which structural tests shall verify.
According to Figs 4 and 5, most walls have satisfactory
capacities in ductility and deformation.
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

In Fig. 4, the scattering of drift capacities of structural walls is large with respect to maximum shear stress.
It is worthwhile noting that there is a relationship
between maximum shear stress and drift capacity.
Ductility capacity decreases as maximum shear
stress increases. As maximum shear stress increases,
337

Han et al.
7

Monotonic loading

PCA (flexure failure)


Northwestern (flexure failure)
Michigan (flexure failure)
Clarkson (flexure failure)
This Study (flexure failure)
PCA (shear failure)
Northwestern (shear failure)
Berkeley (shear failure)
Michigan (shear failure)
Clarkson (shear failure)

Drift ratio: u/Hw (%)

5
4

Monotonic loading

3
2
1
0
0.00

Flexure failure
drift ratio ! 1.5%
0.05

Shear failure
drift ratio ! 1%

Flexure-shear failure:
drift ratio ! 1.5%
0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Maximum shear stress: (Vmax/!fc Acv, MPa)

Fig. 4. Maximum shear stress versus drift ratio

16

PCA (flexure failure)


Northwestern (flexure failure)
Michigan (flexure failure)
Clarkson (flexure failure)
This Study (flexure failure)
PCA (shear failure)
Northwestern (shear failure)
Berkeley (shear failure)
Michigan (shear failure)
Clarkson (shear failure)

Monotonic loading

Displacement ductility ratio:

14
12
10
8

Monotonic loading

6
4
2

Flexure failure:
! "80 Vmax # 10
Flexureshear failure
!2

0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Shear failure
!2
0.20

0.25

0.30

Maximum shear stress (Vmax/!fc Acv, MPa)

Fig. 5. Maximum shear stress versus displacement ductility ratio

structural walls become more likely to be shear-critical


members. From Figs 4 and 5, the relationship between
maximum shear stress and ductility, deformation capacities can be derived as follows

338

$u
1:5%
Hw

if

$u
1:0%
Hw

if

Vmax
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , 0:2MPa
f 9c A cv

(3a)

Vmax
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi $ 0:2MPa
f 9c A cv

(3b)

Vmax
"$ 10 # 80 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f 9c A cv

"$ 2:0

if

if

Vmax
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , 0:1MPa
f 9c A cv
(4a)

Vmax
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi $ 0:1MPa
f 9c A cv

(4b)

But, this is limited since it considers only isolated walls


rather than an entire structural system.
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Table 3. Test parameters and performance of wall specimens by other researchers


Specimen

Sectional
shape

Loadinga

H wb
Lw

Dimension
Length
(cm)

Boundary
(cm)

(cm)

Thickness
(cm)

Reinforcmentc

P
A g f 9c

r be
(%)

rv
(%)

rh
(%)

rs
(%)

Ref.
No.

(%)

f 9c e

Vmax
pffiffiffiffiffi
f 9c A cv

$yf

$u g

(MPa)

(MPa)

(cm)

(cm)

"$ h

$u
Hw

Failure
mode

(%)

Rectangular

IC

1905

191

102

102

24

147

025

031

04

11

447

003

135

1031

766

226

Flexure

PCA-R2

Rectangular

IC

1905

191

102

102

24

400

025

031

207

04

11

464

005

216

1334

618

292

Flexure

PCA-R3

Rectangular

MC

1905

381

102

102

24

600

022

042

133

70

21

244

019

343

762

222

167

Shear

PCA-R4

Rectangular

IC

1905

279

102

102

24

350

028

031

107

75

21

227

010

224

762

341

167

Flexure

PCA-B1

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

111

029

031

03

11

530

006

178

1323

744

289

Flexure

PCA-B2

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

03

11

536

015

254

1039

409

227

Shear

PCA-B3

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

111

029

031

128

03

11

473

007

178

1796

1010

393

Flexure

PCA-B4

Barbell

1905

305

305

102

24

111

029

031

128

03

11

450

008

203

3175

1563

694

Flexure

PCA-B5

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

03

11

453

018

279

1267

454

277

Shear

PCA-B6

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

081

141

11

218

029

333

782

235

171

Shear

PCA-B7

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

79

11

493

023

351

1321

377

289

Shear

PCA-B8

Barbell

IC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

138

135

93

11

420

024

312

1306

418

286

Shear

PCA-B9

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

89

11

441

024

345

1379

399

302

Shear

PCA-B10

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

197

029

063

135

86

11

456

017

297

1267

426

277

Shear

PCA-F1

Flanged

IC

1905

102

914

102

24

389

030

071

04

11

385

022

254

505

199

111

Shear

PCA-F2

Flanged

IC

1905

102

914

102

24

435

031

063

143

76

11

455

021

287

1016

354

222

Shear

PCA-CI-1

Rectangular

MC

1905

318

102

102

288

240

028

042

107

10

27

233

011

368

1270

345

231

Shear

PCA-USJP

Rectangular

IC

1575

142

57

57

278

126

037

037

075

49

20

317

007

114

660

578

151

Flexure

UCB-SW1

Barbell

MC

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

142

79

32

345

024

178

1067

600

350

Shear

UCB-SW2

Barbell

IC

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

142

76

32

356

024

178

508

286

167

Shear

UCB-SW3

Barbell

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

139

78

30

348

024

198

1727

872

567

Shear

339

(continued overleaf )

Seismic behaviour of structural walls

PCA-R1

Specimen

Sectional
shape

Loadinga

H wb
Lw

Dimension
Length
(cm)

Boundary
(cm)

(cm)

Thickness
(cm)

Reinforcmentc

P
A g f 9c

r be
(%)

rv
(%)

rh
(%)

rs
(%)

(%)

Ref.
No.

f 9c e

Vmax
pffiffiffiffiffi
f 9c A cv

$yf

$u g

(MPa)

(MPa)

(cm)

(cm)

"$ h

$u
Hw

Failure
mode

(%)

UCB-SW4

Barbell

IC

2388

254

254

102

128

352

083

083

139

75

30

359

022

193

686

355

225

Shear

UCB-SW5

Rectangular

2413

279

279

102

128

634

063

063

179

73

30

334

020

147

737

500

242

Shear

UCB-SW6

Rectangular

IC

2413

279

279

102

128

634

063

063

179

70

30

345

019

163

711

438

233

Shear

NWU-B11

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

03

21

537

016

292

1270

435

278

Shear

NWU-B12

Barbell

MC

1905

305

305

102

24

367

029

063

135

04

21

417

020

290

1016

351

222

Shear

NWU-F3

Flanged

IC

1905

102

914

102

24

229

025

031

085

59

21

279

013

221

1016

460

222

Shear

UM-W1

Barbell

IC

1220

127

127

76

29

300

030

030

040

80

345

008

265

1041

393

294

Flexure

UM-W3

Barbell

IC

1220

127

127

76

29

300

030

030

040

80

345

010

271

531

196

150

Shear

CU-RW2

Rectangular

IC

1220

190

102

102

313

289

033

033

158

70

28

437

008

229

838

366

219

Flexure

CU-RW3Od

Rectangular

IC

1220

190

102

102

313

289

033

033

205

100

28

310

010

286

826

289

216

Shear

Notes:

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

IC = cyclic loading with incremental displacement amplitude


MC = cyclic loading with different displacement amplitude
M = monotonic loading
b
Aspect ratio where Hw = wall height from the base to applied load line, Lw = wall length
c
r be = the ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area
r v = the ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section
r h = the ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross section
r s = the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement at the boundary element
d
Specimen with opening
e
actual concrete compressive strength obtained at testing
f
displacement when all boundary longitudinal reinforcement yield
g
displacement corresponding to 80 percent of maximum strength
h
displacement ductility ratio calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by the yield displacement.

Han et al.

340

Table 3. (continued)

Seismic behaviour of structural walls

Structural behaviour of walls with specific


details
In order to investigate the structural behaviour of a
wall with specific details (rectangular in sectional
shape and specific arrangement of reinforcements),
three full-scale test specimens were made. Variables for
these specimens were shear-span ratio (2 and 3). Table
4 shows sectional shape and reinforcement details.
Also, Fig. 3 shows model dimension. Since the size of
the laboratory is limited both specimens were made the
same size, but a special setting was made for simulating a shear-span ratio. As shown in Figs 6 and 7, this is
feasible when two vertical actuators are controlled to
give axial force to produce additional moment in addition to vertical axial force. If the ratio of moment to
shear is 2, it did not require the additional moment by
the two vertical actuators.
The specimens were cast monolithically in the
horizontal direction. The maximum size of aggregate
in the concrete mix was 19 mm. At least 3 cylinder
tests were carried out at 3, 7, 28 days, and testing
day. Average concrete compressive strengths for specimens W2, WF2 and W3 obtained before the test
were 342, 345 and 369 MPa, respectively. Reinforcement was deformed bars with three different diameters: 10 mm (D10), 13 mm (D13) and 25 mm
(D25). Table 5 shows the measured material properties of the reinforcement.
Figure 6 shows the experiment test setup and Fig.
7 shows the displacement history and loading
scheme. Incremental pseudo static cyclic loads controlled by deformation were applied to each specimen. To keep a constant shear span ratio, the forces
produced by three actuators were calculated at each
loading step as shown in Figure 7. Axial loads due

Fig. 6. Test setup for varying moment-to-shear depth ratio

to gravity were kept constant (01 A g f 9c ) throughout


the test.

Test results and discussion


Figure 8 shows the hysteretic behaviour of each
specimen. The important values of these figures are
shown in the box in Fig. 8. According to Fig. 8, every
specimen has a deformation capacity larger than 15%
and has a displacement ductility ratio larger than 30.
Displacement and ductility capacity are measured when
the applied load is reduced by 20% of maximum
strength. Yield displacements were measured when all
longitudinal bars at the end (10% of l w ) have yielded.
Also, in Figs 4 and 5, the deformation capacities and
displacement ductility ratios of the specimens are
plotted with those of other experimental results shown
in Table 3.

Table 4. Test parameters of specimens


Shear span
ratio
(M=VD)

Axial load
(N =A g f 9c )

f9c a
(MPa)

fy b
(MPa)

rb c
(%)

r hd
(%)

rv e
(%)

rs f
(%)

W2

20

010

276

3571

4-D13
(127)

D10
@250
(028)

D10
@220
(032)

D10
@200
(099)

WF2

20

010

276

3571

4-D13
(127)

D10
@250
(028)

D10
@220
(032)

D10
@200
(099)

W3

30

010

276

3571

4-D13
(127)

D10
@250
(028)

D10
@220
(032)

D10
@200
(099)

Specimen

Notes:

Section shape

Design compressive strength of concrete


Design strength of reinforcement
c
Ratio of boundary longitudinal reinforcement to boundary element area
d
Ratio of web horizontal reinforcement to vertical cross section
e
Ratio of web vertical reinforcement to horizontal cross section
f
Volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement at the boundary element
b

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

341

Han et al.

Top storey drift ratio: /hw

0.03
! 1/50

0.02
0.01

! 1/600 ! 1/400 ! 1/300 ! 1/200

! 1/150 ! 1/100

M
VH # PL
P
!
!2#3
VD
VD
V

! 1/75

N
2

0.00

V
H

"0.01
"0.02
"0.03

N
2

12

15

18

21

24

27

"P

D
L
Loading scheme to vary M/VM

Cycle number

Fig. 7. Displacement history and loading scheme for varying M/VD

Table 5. Mechanical properties of reinforcement


Rebar
no.
D10

Nominal
area
(mm2 )

Yield
strength
(N=mm2 )

Yield
strain
(3 10#6 )

Elastic
modulus
(N=mm2 )

Ultimate
strength
(N=mm2 )

Elongation
(%)

713

335

2004

183 3 105

443

176

D13

1267

395

2206

182 3 10

601

144

D25

5067

400

2035

217 3 105

610

150

Figure 9 also shows the cracks at the final stage of


the test specimen. Specimen W2 has more shear cracks
than specimen W3. At the final stage both specimens
lost their strength due to the crushing of concrete in
lower end part of the wall.
From Figs 4 and 5, the walls with specific details
(rectangular in sectional shape and specific reinforcement arrangements) have satisfactory displacement and
ductility capacities compared to the walls tested by
other researchers. This may be due to the fact that
satisfactory capacities of tested walls were obtained
due to the arrangement of longitudinal bars (concentration at the ends of a wall) and lateral reinforcement (U
stirrup and tie reinforcement). This investigation is very
21
similar to the study by Cardenas and Magura. Building using the walls considered in this study can have an
R factor equivalent to those used in UBC or ATC 3-06
even if those details are somewhat different. Such a
conclusion requires the assumption that the R factor
used in UBC and ATC 3-06 is appropriate for wall
systems.
Deformation capacities are important even to structures located in low to moderate seismic zones since
rare seismic events should be considered in design.
Also, the observed maximum strength of both walls is
higher than the calculated strength, as shown in Table
6. In Table 6, calculated maximum strengths (Vmax(cal) )
were determined as the minimum value between nominal shear strength by ACI 318-95 and shear strength
corresponding to maximum flexural strength obtained
from sectional analysis. Flexural strengths were calculated by assuming a linear strain distribution across
342

the section and a peak compressive strain of 0003 in


the concrete. Strain hardening of the longitudinal reinforcement and actual material strengths were considered. For all specimens, maximum strengths were
governed by shear strength corresponding to maximum
flexural strength obtained from sectional analysis.
Also, these values correspond well with maximum
shear strength observed from the test of each specimen.

Conclusions
This study investigates the seismic behaviour of
structural walls with specific details and rectangular
sections. This experimental study was carried out for
this purpose. Three full-scale wall test specimens were
made. The conclusions obtained from this study are as
follows.
(a) All specimens have ductility and deformation capacities greater than 30 and 15% of height, respectively. Thus, the walls considered in this study have
satisfactory deformation and ductility capacities.
(b) The maximum observed strength of each specimen
was well estimated by the calculated maximum
strength which was determined by comparing the
nominal shear strength by ACI 318 and the shear
strength corresponding to maximum flexural
strength obtained from sectional analysis.
(c) The design base shear for bearing walls in KSDP
is higher than that of ATC 3-06 in the period range
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Seismic behaviour of structural walls

Lateral load: kN

500
400

Vcr: 186.2 kN

y: 12.4 mm

300

Vy: 348.9 kN

max: 80.9 mm

200

Vn: 448.9 kN

: 6.5

Vmax: 386.1 kN

u: 2.7%

100

! 1.5%

! 2.0%

Vy

Vcr

"100

Vcr: "197.9 kN

y: "9.2 mm

"200

Vy: "332.2 kN

max: "53.4 mm

"300

Vn: "448.9 kN

: 5.8

"400

Vmax: "442.9 kN u: 1.8%

"500
"100

"80

"60

"40

"20
0
20
Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(a)
500
400
300

Lateral load: kN

200
100

! 2.0%

! 1.5%

Vcr : 268.5 kN

y: 5.6 mm

Vy: 355.7 kN

max: 55.9 mm

Vy

Vn: 437.1 kN

: 9.98

Vcr

Vmax: 444.6 kN

u: 1.86%

max

"100
"200

Vcr: "252.8 kN

y: "9.6 mm

"300

Vy: "467.5 kN

max: "49.7 mm

"400

Vn: "515.5 kN

: 5.18

"500

Vmax: "573.3 kN u: 1.66%

"600
"100

"80

"60

"40

"20
0
20
Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(b)
400
Vcr : 94.1 kN

y: 9.8 mm

Vy: 191.1 kN

max: 59.6 mm

200

Vn: 449.5 kN

: 6.1

100

Vmax: 311.6 kN

u: 2.0%

Lateral load: kN

300

Vy
Vcr

max
y

"100
"200
"300
"400
"100

! 2.0%

! 1.5%

Vcr: "107.8 kN

y: "8.9 mm

Vy: "172.5 kN

max: "59.3 mm

Vn: "449.5 kN

: 6.7

Vmax: "321.4 kN u: 2.0%


"80

"60

"40

"20
0
20
Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(c)

Fig. 8. Hysteresis loops for (a) W2, (b) WF2 and (c) W3 specimens
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

343

Han et al.

Lateral load: kN

500
400

Vcr: 186.2 kN

y: 12.4 mm

300

Vy: 348.9 kN

max: 80.9 mm

200

Vn: 448.9 kN

: 6.5

Vmax: 386.1 kN

u: 2.7%

100

! 1.5%

! 2.0%

Vy

Vcr

"100

Vcr: "197.9 kN

y: "9.2 mm

"200

Vy: "332.2 kN

max: "53.4 mm

"300

Vn: "448.9 kN

: 5.8

"400

Vmax: "442.9 kN u: 1.8%

"500
"100

"80

"60

"40

"20
0
20
Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(a)

500
400
300

Lateral load: kN

200
100

! 2.0%

! 1.5%

Vcr : 268.5 kN

y: 5.6 mm

Vy: 355.7 kN

max: 55.9 mm

Vy

Vn: 437.1 kN

: 9.98

Vcr

Vmax: 444.6 kN

u: 1.86%

max

"100
"200

Vcr: "252.8 kN

y: "9.6 mm

"300

Vy: "467.5 kN

max: "49.7 mm

"400

Vn: "515.5 kN

: 5.18

"500

Vmax: "573.3 kN u: 1.66%

"600
"100

"80

"60

"40

"20
0
20
Top displacement: mm

40

60

80

100

(b)

Fig. 9. Crack pattern at the loading stage, specimens: (a) W2 and (b) WF2

shorter than 02 s and longer than 07 s. Also it is


higher than UBC in the whole range of period. It is
noted that design base shear in Korean Seismic
Design Provisions (KSDP) and UBC are working
stress level whereas that in ATC 3-06 is strength
level.
(d ) Since the elastic design shear forces in UBC and
KSDP are almost identical, it is concluded that
KSDP assigned a lower value of R factor for bearing wall systems, which causes a higher value of
design base shear. Considering the performance of
the test walls it is conservative to assign a lower
344

value of the R factor in KSDP. If it is assumed that


the value assigned for R factor in UBC is appropriate the R factor used in KSDP needs to be
calibrated.

Acknowledgements
The support of the advanced Structural Research
Station (STRESS) of the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) at Hanyang University is
greatly acknowledged.
Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

Seismic behaviour of structural walls


Table 6. Observed strengths and deformability of wall specimens
Specimen

Loading
direction

fc,test(28) a
(MPa)

Vcr b
(kN)

Vy c
(kN)

Vmax(test) d
(kN)

Vmax(cal) e
(kN)

Vmax( test) f
Vmax(cal:)

$yg
(mm)

$max h
(mm)

"$ i

u j
(%)

W2

positive

342
(294)

1862

3489

3861

3783

102

124

809

65

27

1980

3322

4429

118

92

534

58

18

2685

3557

4466

5018

089

56

559

100

19

2528

4675

5733

5449

105

96

497

52

17

941

1911

3116

2528

123

98

596

61

20

1078

1725

3214

127

89

593

67

20

negative
WF2

positive

345
(286)

negative
W3

positive

negative
Notes:

369
(298)

Concrete compressive strength at test (and at 28th day)


Observed shear strength at first cracking
c
Observed shear strength when all boundary longitudinal reinforcement yield
d
Maximum observed shear strength during the test
e
Maximum strength calculated as a minimum value between nominal shear strength by ACI 318-95 and shear strength corresponding to
maximum flexural strength obtained from sectional analysis
f
The ratio of maximum observed shear strength to maximum calculated strength
g
Displacement when all boundary longitudinal reinforcement yield
h
Displacement corresponding to 80 percent of maximum strength
i
Displacement ductility calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by the yield displacement
j
drift ratio calculated from dividing the maximum displacement by wall height
b

References
1. KOREA CONCRETE INSTITUTE (KCI). Korean Concrete Design
Code (KCDC), Seoul, Korea, 2000.
2. CORLEY W. G., FIORATO A. E. and OESTERLE R. G. Structural
Walls, ACI SP 72-4, ACI, Detroit, Michigan, 1981, pp. 77131.
3. OESTERLE R. G., FIORATO A. E. and CORLEY W. G. Reinforcement details for earthquake-resistance structural walls. Concrete
International, 1980, 2, No. 12, 5566.
4. VALLENAS J. M., BERTERO V. V. and POPOV E. P. Hysteretic
behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls. Report UCB/
EERC-79/20, UC at Berkeley, CA, 1979, 234 pp.
5. ALI A. and WIGHT J. K. RC structural walls with staggered door
openings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1991, 5,
15141531.
6. TOMSEN IV J. H. and WALLACE J. W. Displacement-based design
of RC structural walls: an experimental investigation of walls
with rectangular and t-shaped cross-sections. Report No. CU/
CEE-95/06, Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, New York, 1995.
7. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (ATC). Tentative provisions for
the development of seismic regulations for buildings, ATC Report
3-06 (ATC 3-06), Palo Alto, California, 1978.
8. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (ATC). A critical review of
current approaches to earthquake-resistant design. ATC Report-34
(ATC 34), Redwood City, California 1995.
9. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (ATC). Structural response
modification factors, ATC Report ATC-19 (ATC 19), Redwood
City, California, 1995.
10. UANG C. M. and BERTERO V. V. Earthquake simulation tests and
associated studies of a 03 scale model of a six story concentrically braced steel structure, EERC. UCB/EERC Report-86/10,
UC at Berkeley, CA, 1986.
11. FOUTCH D. A. et al. Seismic testing of full scale steel buildingpart I. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1987, 113, No.
11, 21112129.
12. HAN S. W., OH Y.-H. and LEE L.-H. Investigation on the structural performance of the slender structural walls with different de-

Magazine of Concrete Research, 2002, 54, No. 5

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

tails. Proceedings of Advances in Structural Engineering and


Mechanics (ASEM99), 1999, Seoul, Korea.
HAN S. W. and WEN Y. K. Methods of reliability-based seismic
design-I, equivalent nonlinear systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1997, 123, No. 3, 256263.
HAN S. W., LEE L.-H. and OH Y.-H. Determination of ductility
factor considering different hysteretic models. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1999, 28, 957977.
BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL (BSSC). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings
1994 Edition FEMA 222A, FEMA 223A, Washington DC 1995.
CARDENAS A. E., HANSON J. M., CORLEY W. G. and HOGNESTAD
E. Design provisions for shear walls. PCA Research and Development Bulletin, Skokie, IL, 1972, pp. 111.
WALLACE J. W. and MOEHLE J. P. Ductility and Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Building, Journal of the Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 1992, 118, No.6, pp. 16251644.
MORGAN B. J., HIRAISHI H. and CORLEY W. G. US-Japan quasi
static test of isolated wall planar reinforced concrete structure.
PCA Report, Construction Technology Division, Skokie, IL,
1986, 111 pp.
OESTERLE R. G. Inelastic analysis for in-plane strength of reinforced concrete shear walls. PhD thesis, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL, 1986, 332 pp.
WANG T. Y., BERTERO V. V. and POPOV E. P. Hysteretic behavior
of reinforced concrete structural walls. Report UCB/EERC-75/23,
UC at Berkeley, CA, 1975, 367 pp.
CARDENAS A. E. and MAGURA D. D. Strength of high-rise shear
walls rectangular cross section, PCA Research and Development Bulletin, Skokie, IL, 1972, pp. 125.
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI). Building Code and
Commentary, ACI 318-95 & 99, Farmington, Michigan, 1995,
1999.

Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by


1 April 2003

345