Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5, October, 333345
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
Vmax
Vy
max
y
u
"
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.
Cs W
R
(1)
(2)
1
LEDRS (Cs)
IDRS (Cs/R)
IDRSw (Cs/Rw)
Period: s
V=
C=
Notation
AIC
W
R
UBC (1994)
V=
S
pffiffiffi , 175
1:2 T
C=
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
Earthquake resisting
systems
R
(ATC, 1978)
R
(ICBO, 1994)
R
(Korea, 1988)
Reinforced concrete
shear walls
45
Reinforced masonry
shear walls
35
125
Reinforced concrete
shear walls having
boundary elements
like tied columns
35
Reinforced concrete
shear walls
55
Frame system
0.08
0.07
Korea 2000 (R ! 3)
0.06
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
R
(Korea, 2000)
Han et al.
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
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
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
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
16
Monotonic loading
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
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)
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 )
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:
Han et al.
340
Table 3. (continued)
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
341
Han et al.
0.03
! 1/50
0.02
0.01
! 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
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
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
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
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
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
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)
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-
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
345