t t DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY — 38¥ under the curve giving the theoretical elastic laminar shear, q. Neither should the strength of the coupling system significantly exceed the demand, shown by the continuous curve, because this may unnecessarily increase the overturn- ing capacity of the structure, thus overloading foundations, It will be shown in the complete example design of a coupled wall structure in Section 5.6 how this can be readily checked. While satisfying the moment cquilibrium requirements of Eq. (5.3), it is also possible to redistribute moments between the (M, + M,) and [T compo- nents, involving a change in the axial force, 7’, and hence in shear forces in the coupling system. However, this is hardly warranted because with the two procedures above only, as illustrated in Fig, 5.23, usually a practical and economical allocation of strength throughout the coupled structural wall system can readily be achieved. 5.4 DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 5.4.1 Failure Modes in Structural Walls A prerequisite in the design of ductile structural walls is that flexural yielding in clearly defined plastic hinge zones should control the strength, inelastic deformation, and hence energy dissipation in the entire structural system {B14}. As a corollary to this fundamental requirement, brittle failure mecha- nisms or even those with limited ductility should not be permitted to occur. As stated earlier, this is achieved by establishing a desirable hierarchy in the failure mechanics using capacity design procedures and by appropriate detail- ing of the potential plastic regions. The principal source of energy dissipation in a lateraily loaded cantilever wall (Fig. 5.24) must be the yielding of the flexural reinforcement in the plastic hinge regions, normally at the base of thc wall, as shown in Fig. 5.24(b) and (e). Failure modes to be prevented ate those due to_diagonal tension [Fig. 5.24(c)] or diagonal compression caused by shear, instability of thin walled sections or of the principal compression reinforcement, sliding shear along construction joints, shown in Fig. 5.24(d), and shear or bond fal to) te) (a) te) Fig. 5.24 Failure modes in cantilever walls.c 3d STRUCTURAL WALLS (Dettection/Height) 1073 Fig. 5.25 Hysteretic response of a structural wall controlled by shear strength. failure along lapped splices or anchorages. An example of the undesirable shcar-dominated response of a structural wall to reversed cyclic loading is shown in Fig. 5.25. Particularly severe is the steady reduction of strength and ability to dissipate energy. In contrast, carefully detailed walls designed for flexural ductility and protected against a shear failure by capacity design principles exhibit greatly improved response, as seen in Fig. 5.26, which shows a one-third full size cantilever structural wall with rectangular cross section. The test unit simu- 1200 P0.1691:4, Me § 1000 Fig. 5.26 Stable hysteretic response of a ductile wall structure [G1].DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTII AND DUCTILITY 391 lates one wall of a coupled wall structure that was subjected to variable axial compression between the limits shown. It is seen that a displacement ductility of approximately 4 has been attained in a very stable manner [G1, P44]. Failure due to inclastic instability, to be cxamined subsequently, occurred only after two cycles to a displacement ductility of 6, when the lateral deflection was 3.0% of the height of the model wall [P44]. ‘The hysteretic response shown in Fig. 5.26 also demonstratcs that the flexural overstrength developed depends on the imposed ductility. The ideal flexural strengths shown were based on measured yield strength of the vertical bars which was 18% in excess of the specified yield strength that would have been used in the design. Thus it can be seen that when a displacement ductility of 4 was imposed in the positive direction, the strength of the wall was approximately 32% in excess of that based on specified yield strength. The observed hysteretic behavior of well-detailed structural walls is similar to that of beams. Plastic rotational capacity may, however, be affected by axial load and shear effects, and these will be examined subsequently. Also, shear deformations in the plastic hinge region of a cantilever wall may be significantly larger than in other, predominantly elastic, regions [02]. 5.42 Flexural Strength (a) Design for Flexural Strength It was shown in Section 3.3.i(b) and Fig. 3.21 that because of the multilayered arrangement of vertical reinforcement in wall sections, the analysis for flexural strength is a little more complex than that for beam sections such as scen in Fig. 3.20. Therefore, in design, a successive approximation technique is generally used. This involves initial assumptions for’ section properties, such as dimensions, reinforcement con- tent, and subsequent checking (i.e., analysis) for the adequacy of flexural strength. This first assumption may often be based on estimates which in fact can lead close to the required solution, and this is illustrated here with the example wall section shown in Fig, 5.27. Wall dimensions are generally given and subsequently may require only minor adjustments. Moment M and axial load P combinations with respect lo the centroidal axis of the wall section are also known. Thus the first ol X % Fig. 5.27 Example wall section.392 STRUCTURAL WALLS estimate aims at finding the approximate quantity of vertical reinforcement in the constituent wall segments, such as 1, 2, and 3 in Fig. 5.27. The amount of reinforcement in segment 2 is usually nominated and it often corresponds to inimum recommended by codes. However, this assumption need not be made because any reinforcement in area 2 in excess of the minimum is equally effective and hence will correspondingly reduce the amounts required in the flange segments of the wall. By assuming that all bars in segment 2 will develop yield strength, the total tension force T, is found. Next we may assume that when M, = e,P,, the center of compression for both concrete and steel forces C, is in the center of segment 1. Hence the tension force required in segment 3 can be estimated from x42, — x47; Tye iT +X, and thus the area of reinforcement in this segment can be found. Practical arrangement of bars can now be decided on. Similarly, the tension force in segment area | is cstimated when M, = e,P, from XoPy — X2Tr xy +x, Te Further improvement with the estimates above may be made, if desired, by checking the intensity of comprcssion forces. For example, when P, is considered, we find that Cy =P, +71, + Ts and hence with the knowledge of the amount of reinforcement in segment 1, to provide the tension force T,, which may now function as compression reinforcement, the depth of concrete compression can be estimated. It is evident that in the example of Fig. 5.27, very little change in the distance x, and hence in the magnitude of 7 is likely to occur. With these approximations the final arrangement of vertical bars in the entire wall sections can be made. Subsequcntly, the ideal flexural strength M; and the ficxural overstrength (M,,,,), based on f, and A,f,, respectively, of the chosen section can be determined using the procedure given in Section 3.3.\(c). This will also provide the depth of the compression zone of the wall section, c, an important quantity, which, as Section 5.4.3 will show, indicates the ductility capacity and the need, if any, for confining parts of compressed regions of the wall section. (6) Limitations on Longitudinal Wall Reinforcement For practical reasons the ratio of longitudinal (ie., vertical) wall reinforcement to the gross concrete area, p,, as given by Eq, (5.21), over any part of the wall should not4 4 DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 399 be less than 0.7/f, (MPa) (0.1/f, (ksi)) nor more than 16/f, (MPa) (2.3/f, (ksi)). The upper limit, which controls the magnitude of the maximum steel force, is likely to cause congestion when lapped splices are to be provided. It has also been recommended [XS] that in boundary elements of walls, such as the edge regions of sections shown in Figs. 5.26, 5.39, 5.51, and 5.56, concentrated vertical reinforcement not less than 0.0026,1,, should be pro- vided. ‘The lower limit stems from traditional recommendations of codes [A1, X3], where the primary concerns were sbrinkage and temperature effects. In some countries this practice is considered to be excessive, and nominal reinforccment contcnt in walls as low as 0.1% are used. Obviously, designers must ensure that requirements for wind force resistance, which may exceed those due to design earthquakes, are also satisfied. Of concern is the fact that when too little reinforcement is used in walls, cracks, few in numbers, when they form, can become unacceptably wide. ‘This is because the reinforcement provided is insufficient to replace the tensile strength of the surrounding concrete, significantly increased during the high strain rate imposed by an earthquake, and bars will instantaneously yield with crack formation. Thus response to a moderate earthquake may result in structural damage requiring costly repair. Moreover, during more intense shaking comparable to the design earthquake, excessively large tensile strains may be imposed on bars. Because of the extremely large range of strain variation in bars crossing these widely spaced cracks and partial buckling when in compression, fracture of bars may set in after only a few cycles of displacement reversals, This has been observed in the 1985 Chile earthquake [W6]. In reinforced concrete walls that are thicker than 200 mm, preferably two layers of reinforcement, one near each face of the wall, should be used. In regions where the wall section is to be confined, the horizontal spacing of vertical bars should not exceed 200 mm (8 in.), and in other (i.e., elastic) regions, 450 mm (18 in.) or three times the thickness of the wall. The diameter of bars used in any part of a wall should not exceed one-eighth of the thickness of the wall. Several of these recommendations are based on engineering judgment and traditional practice rather than on specific studi (©) Curtailment of Flexural Reinforcement Typical bending moment dia- grams under the specified lateral forces are shown for coupled structural walls in Figs. 5.23(a) and (6). If the flexural reinforcement were to be curtailed exactly in accordance with the moment so indicated, plastic hinges could form with equal probability anywhere along the height of such walls during a strong earthquake. This would be undesirable from a design point of view because potential plastic hinges require special and necessarily more expensive detailing, as discussed in Section 5.4.3. Also, when plastic hinges form_at some height above the base of the wall, the curvature ductility,.to attain a required red displacen t ductility, 1S s greatly increased. Moreover, as in tie case of beams, the car inforced concrete walls will ‘ar strength of394 STRUCTURAL WALLS Floor Level Fig. 5.28 Dynamic moment envelopes for 4g a 20-story cantilever wall with different “0 at 08 12 16 20 base yield moment strengths [F2]. Max. Bending Moment {in-kips *10°) diminish in regions where yielding of the flexural reinforcement occurs. This would then necessitate additional horizontal shear reinforcement at all levels. It is more rational to ensure that plastic hinges can develop only in predeter- mined locations, logically at the bases of walls, by providing flexural strongth over the remainder of the wall, which is in excess of the likely maximum demands. Bending moment envelopes, covering moment demands that arise during the dynamic response, are different from bending moment diagrams resulting from code-specified equivalent lateral forces. This may be readily shown with modal superposition techniques [B11]. Similar results are obtained from time-history analyses of inelastic wall structures using a variety of earthquake records [B11, F2, I1]. Typical bending moment envelopes obtained analyti- cally for 20-story cantilever walls with different base yield moment strengths and subjected to particular ground excitations are shown in Fig. 5.28 [F2]. It is seen that there is an approximate linear variation of moment demands during both elastic and inelastic dynamic response of the walls to ground shaking. For the sake of comparison, bending moments due to static forces, corresponding to 10% of the base shear being applied at the top and 90% in the form of an inverted triangularly distributed force, are shown in Fig. 5.28 by dashed lines for two cases, As a consequence, it is recommended that the. flexural reinforcement in cantileyer walls be curtailed §9 as to give not less than_a linear variation of moment ¢ nent of | resistance ‘with height. The interpretation ‘of this ‘suggestion is.DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 395 Fig. 5.29 Recommended design moment en- velope for cantilever walls. shown in Fig. 5.29, Once the critical wall section at the base has been designed and the exact size and number, as well as the positions of flexural - bars, have been established, the ideal flexural strength of this section, to be developed in the presence of the appropriate axial load on the wall, can be evaluated, The shaded bending moment diagram in Fig. 5.29 shows moments that would result from the application of the lateral static force pattern with this ideal strength developed at the base. The straight dashed line represents the minimum ideal flexural strength that should be provided in terms of the recommendation above. When curtailing vertical bars the effect of diagonal tension on the internal flexural tension forces must be considered, in accor- dance with the recommendations of Section 3.6.3. Accordingly, the tension shift is assumed to be equal to the length of the wall [,, Hence bars to be curtailed should extend by a distance not less than the beyond the Tevelat which according (9 the shaded bidi required to develop yield strength, The demand for flexural reinforcement in a cantilever wall is not propor- tional to the bending moment demand, as indicated, for example, by an envelope, as in the case of prismatic beams, because axial compression is also present. If the flexural steel content is maintained constant with height, the flexural resistance of the section will reduce with height because the axial compression due to gravity and/or earthquake effects becomes smaller. This will be evident from Fig. 5.17. Cantilever walls are normally subjected to axial compression well below the level associated with balanced strains, and the M-P interaction relationship clearly shows that in that range the wall scction is rather sensitive to the intensity of axial compression. As examples in Section 5.6.2 will show, this issue is seldom critical, but conservatism with curtailment is justified. ‘The recommended procedure for curtailment is compared in Fig. 5.30, with the analytically predicted moment demand resulting from the inelastic‘ c ‘396 STRUCTURAL WALLS. Levels Fig. 5.30 Comparison of dynamic moment de- mands in a coupled wall. Moment (Mim! dynamic response of a coupled wall to three different carthquake records (73). (d) Flexural Overstrength at the Wall Base As in the case of ductile frames, several subsequent aspects of the design of wall systems depend on the maximum flexural strength that could be developed in the walls. In accor- dance with the definitions in Section 1.3.3(d) and (f), this is conveniently quantified by the wall flexural overstrength factor, defined as flexural overstrength M, NC FEF cen 5.13 moment resulting from code forces My (5.13) where both moments refer to the base section of the wall. To ensure ductile wall response by means of a plastic hinge at the wall base only, it will be necessary to amplify all subsequent actions, such as shear forces acting on the foundations, by this factor, and to proportion other components so as to remain essentially elastic under these actions. An important and convenient role of the factor #,,, is to measure the extent of any over- or underdesign by choice, necessity, or as a result of an error made [Section 1.3.3(f)]. Whenever the factor ¢,,,, exceeds the optimal value of A,/é [Eg. (1.12)] the wall possesses reserve strength. As higher resistance will be offered by the structure than anticipated when design forces were established, it is expected that corresponding reduction in ductil- ity demand in the design earthquake will result. Often, benefits may be derived when, as a consequence, design criteria primarily affected by ductility capacity may be met for the reduced (jz,) rather than the anticipated (.,) ductility. Hence in the following sections reductions in expected ductilityDESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 397 demands 42, will be made so that the reduced ductility becomes dS Lar Ma (5.14) Pow Values of A, [Section 3.2.4(e)] are known and = 0.9. This ratio will be incorporated in several equations that follow which serve the purpose of checking ductile performance. Example 5.1 A wall has been designed for an overturning moment of Mg = 10 MNm (7380 kip-ft) corresponding with 4. = 5. Reinforcement with f, = 400 MPa and overstrength factor A, = 1.4 has been provided, consider ing also the practicality of the placement of bars. As a result, the moment capacity of the wall at overstrength is found to be M,,,, = 18.7 MNm (13800 kip-f0), s0 that ,, = 18.7/10 = 1.87. Hence the required ductility capacity can be expected to be reduced from py = 5 to 1.4/0.9 ( 1.87 Js-aa Par 5.4.3 Ductility and Instability (a) Flexural Response ‘The ability of a particular section to sustain plastic rotations, as measured by the curvature ductility, follows from the same simple principles used to evaluate flexural strength, as reviewed in Section 3.3.1. It was shown (Fig. 3.26) that at the development of flexural strength the ratio of the concrete compression strain in the extreme fiber €,, t0 the neutral axis depth c, quantifies the associated curvature ¢,,. With the definition of yield curvature ,, the curvature ductility yz, is then readily determined (Section 3.5.2). Strain profiles 1 and 2 in Fig. 5.31 show that for the same extreme concrete strain ¢,, compression on a rectangular wall section, requiring a Fig. 5.31 Strain patterns for rectangular wall sections.398 © STRUCTURAL WALLS Fig. 5.32 Strain profiles showing ductility capacity in “| channel-shaped walls. large neutral axis depth c, will result in much smaller curvature than in the case of no or small axial compression load. If two walls are part of an interconnected wall system, such as shown in Fig. 5.18, similar curvatures will be required in both walls. This means that ‘one wall with a large compression load will have to develop the strain profile shown by line 2’ in Fig. 5.31 to attain the same curvature as the less heavily loaded wall, given by line 1, This would imply concrete compression strains in the extreme fiber, €,,, considerably in excess of the critical value, ¢,. Clearly, such curvature could not be sustained unless the concrete subjected to excessive compressive strains is confined. This is examined in Section 5.4.3(c). The effect of sectional configuration on the ductility potential of a wall section can be studied with the example of a channel-shaped wall in Fig. 5.32, In the case of wall A, subjected to earthquake forces in the direction shown, the potential width of the compression zone is considerable, Consequently, only a smal] compression zone depth c, is needed to balance the wall axial compression load and the internal tension forces resulting from the longitudi- nal reinforcement placed in the webs. Hence the ensuing strain gradient, corresponding to e, and shown by the dashed line, is extremely large. It is probable that such a large curvature would not need to be developed under even an extreme earthquake, and possibly the one shown by the full line would be adequate. Thus concrete compression strains might remain subcriti- cal at all times. In cases such as this, even at moderate ductility demands, moments well in excess of the ideal flexural strength may be devcloped because of strain hardening of the stcel located in regions of large tensile strains. Wall B of Fig. 5.32, on the other hand, requires a large neutral axis depth, ¢2, to develop a compression zone large cnough to balance the tension forces gencrated in the flange part of the section and the axial force on the wall. fen specified minimum wall reinforcement placed in a long wall, as in Fig. 5.32, can develop a significant tension force when yiclding. As the dashed-lineDESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 399 strain profile indicates, the curvature developed with the idcal strength will in this case not be sufficient if the same displacement as in wall A, shown by the full-line strain profiles, is imposed. The excessive concrete compression strain in the vicinity of the tip of the stems of wall B, will require confine- ment to be provided if a brittle failure is to be avoided. It is thus seen that the depth of the neutral axis, c, relative to the length of the wall, ,, is a critical quantity. If a certain curvature ductility is to be attained, the ratio c/l,, may need to be limited unless critically compressed regions of the wall section are confined. This is examined in Section 5.4.3(e). ‘As in the case of beams and columns, the ideal flexural strength of wall sections is based on specified material properties f’ and f,. During large inelastic displacement pulses, particularly when large curvature ductility demands arise, such as shown for wall A in Fig. 5.32, much larger moments may be developed at the critical wall section. In accordance with the principles of capacity design this strength enhancement needs to be taken into account, It can be quantified with the flexural overstrength factor ¢, [Section 1.3.3(f)], which in the case of cantilever walls is the ratio of the overstrength moment of resistance to the moment resulting from the code- specified lateral forces expressed by Eq. (5.13), where both moments refer to the base section of the wall. (6) Ductility Relationships in Walls The displacement sect cama capaci i Hy = A,/A, of walls studied so far depends on the totational capacity of the, plastic”hinge” at _the dase, It is most conveniently expressed in terms <3 curvature ductity capacity, which, when necessary, can readily be evaluated when the wall section is designed for strength (Section 3.3.1(c)]. Definitions of types of ductility and their relationships to each other, reviewed in Section 35, are applicable, A detailed study of the parameters affecting the ductility capacity of reinforced masonry walls is presented in Section 7.2.4, and the conclusions there are also relevant to reinforced concrete walls. One of the major parameters affecting curvature ductilities in walls is the length of the plastic hinge /, (Fig. 3.27), which cannot be defined with great precision. Its magnitude is affected primarily by the length of the wall J,,, the moment gradient at the base (i.e., shear), and axial load intensity. Plastic tensile strains at one edge of a wall section will invariably extend over a greater height of the wall than inelastic compression strains, if any, at the opposite edge. Therefore, it is not possible to define a unique section above the wall base which separates elastic and inclastic regions. ‘Typical values of the plastic hinge length are such that 0.3 ae Fig. 5.36 Minimum dimensions of boundary elements of wall sections in the plastic hinge region.404 STRUCTURAL WALLS Fig. 5.37 Diagonal cracking and buckling in the plastic hinge region of a structural wall [G1] where, because of the anticipation of noncritical compression strains, no confinement [Section 5.4.3(e)] has been provided. Thus crushing of the concrete outside the confined end region may result in a brittle failure. Figure 5.37(c) shows such a failure initiated by crushing of unconfined concrete some distance away from the edge seen. Example 5.2. A reinforced concrete cantilever wall, such as wall 5 in Fig. 5.50, is 6.5 m (213 ft) long and 20 m (65.6 ft) high and is to have a displacement ductility capacity of 1, = 5. The height of the first story is 1, = 4m (13.1 f0. With 2, = 6.5 > 1.6 X 4= 6.4m and A, = 20/65 = 3.08 from Fig. 5.35, we find that b, = 0.054 x 6400 = 346 mm (13.6 in.) > 4000/16 = 250 mm (9.8 in.) Example §.3° One 18-story reinforced concrete coupled wail with {,, = 5.5 m (18 ft), f, = 4 m (13.1 f0, and A, = 10 with a displacement ductility capacity of 424 = 6 will require a thickness in the first story of b, = 0.075 X 5500 = 413 mm (16.4 in.) > 4000/16 From Eq. (5.16) the area of boundary element should not be fess than Ayp = 413? = 170,000 mm? (264 in2) or A,, = 413 x 5500/10 = 227,000 mm? (352 in2) A $00-mm (20-in.)-square boundary clement may be provided. Alternatively, a flange, as at the right-hand edge of the wall section in Fig. 5.36, can be arranged, with minimum thickness 6, > 4000/16 = 250 mm (10 in.) and a flange length of 6 = 227,000/250 = 908 = 1000 mm (40 in.).\ DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 405 When boundary clements are provided, the wall thickness 5, will be gov- erned by requirements for shear strength (Section 5.4.4(b)). Example 5.4 A rcinforeed masonry block cantilever wall with the following properties is to be used: px, = 3.5, 1, =3 m (9.8 ft), h; =3 m (8 fe), A, = 12 m G9.3 ft), A, = 12/3 = 4. A single layer of reinforcement will be used, and hence, from Fig, 5.35, 6, = 0.06 x 3000 = 180 mm (7 in.) < 3000/16 = 188 mm (d) Limitations on Curvature Ductility It has been shown that the ultimate curvature of a wall section is invers roportional to the dept! f the compression zone {Fig- 5.31). It is thus apparent that given a limiting strain in the extreme compression fiber, adequate curvature ductility can be Tissuré by limiting the compression zone depth. It has also been found that the telationship between curvature ductility and displacement ductility depends on the aspect ratio of a wall, as shown in Fig. 5.33. Because relatively small axial load due to gravity needs to be carried and the flexural reinforcement content 1s generally small, in the groat majority of wall Séctions, ‘the depth of compression is al an This s generally the case for rectangular and symmetrical flanged wall sections, and therefore the curvature. ductility capacity of such sections is in excess of the probable duetlvy demand during a major earthquake. For this type of wall section a ehgde but rather conservative simple check may be made to estimate the maximum depth of the compression zone c, which would allow the desired curvature to develop. As shown in Section 3.5.2(a), the yield curvature of the wall section may be approximated by by = (ey + ce) Aw (5.17) where ¢, is the yield strain of the stecl assumed at the extreme wall fiber and €ce is the elastic concrete compression strain developed simultaneously at the opposite edge of the wall. If desired, the value of ¢,, may be determined from a routine elastic analysis of the section. However, for the purpose of an approximation that will generally overestimate the yield curvature, it, may be assumed that e, = 0,002 and ¢,, = 0.0005. The latter value would feséssitafe) a rather large quantity of uniformly distributed vertical reinforcement in a rectangular wall, in excess of 1%. With this estimate the extrapolated yield curvature shown in Fig. 3.26(a) [Eq. (5.17)] becomes | % 753(0.002 + 0.0005), ~ 0.00331, // By relating the curvature ductility 4g to the associated displacement ductility 4. demand, which was assumed when selecting the appropriate406 STRUCTURAL WALLS force reduction factor K in Section 2.4.3, the information provided in Fig. 5.33 may be utilized. Again by making limiting assumptions for cantilever walls, such as 4,=h,/l, <6 and js <5, quantities that are larger than those encountered in the great majority of practical cases, we find from Fi 5.33 that 2g = 13, Hence by setting the limiting concrete compression strain, associated with the development of the desired ultimate curvature of @, = 13 x 0.0033/1,, = 0.043/1,,, at €, = 0,004, we find from that the maximum depth of compression is =1,/10 (5.184) In tests at the University of California, Berkeley, average curvatures ranging from 0.045 /1,, to 0.076/1,, were attained in walls with J, = 2388 mm (94 in.) while displacement ductility ratios were on the order of xy = 9 (VD. When this order of curvature ductility (i.c., 14 = 13) is developed, and €, = 0.004, maximum tensile strains will approach 4%, and hence significant strain hardening of the steel will occur. Hence at this stage the flexural overstrength of the wall section M,,,, [Section 1.3.3(f)] will be mobilized. In accordance with capacity design procedures, the flexural overstrength of the wall base section, as detailed, will nced to be computed [Section 5.4.2(a)]. Therefore, it is more convenient to relate c, to the ficxural overstrength rather than the required ficxural strength My [Scction 1.3.3(b)], which corresponds to the selected reduction factor R (ic., displacement ductility factor 4.4), as described in Section 2.4.3. Thus, by making allowances in proportions of excess or deficiency of flexural strength and ductility demands, Eq. (5.18a) can be modified to M, Sly M, c= ee 3 te Mowe <" GoMe/#) Ha 10” 22K ,ngMe (5.185) It is emphasised that Eq. (5.185) serves the purpose of a conservative check, If it is found that c, computed at flexural overstrength, is less than c,, no further attention need be given to the compressed concrete, as maximum strains are expected to remain below €, = 0.004, A more detailed estimate of the critical value of the depth of compression, taking into account variations in aspect ratio A, and the yield strength of the tension reinforcement, may be made by expansion of the relationships givenDESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY doz in Fig. 5.33 in this form ke Mow $e Cg —OTAT HAAS, (5.18¢) where k, = 3400 MPa or 500 ksi. Unless the aspect ratio A, excceds 6, Eq. (5.18c) will always predict larger values of c, than Eq, (5.186), If it is found that c is larger than that given in Eq, (5.18c), extreme concrete strains in excess of ¢, = 0,004 must be expected and, accordingly, to sustain the intend ductility, the compressed concrete needs to be confined. This is considered in the next section. When T- or L-shaped wall sections or those with significantly more reinforcement at one edge than at the other are used, yield curvature ¢, should be checked from first principles. In this casc the critical depth of compression in the section can be estimated from 0.004 AD Roby (5.18) (&) Confinement of Structural Walls From the examination of curvature relationships in the simple terms of c/l,, ratio, it is seen that in cases when the computed neutral-axis depth is larger than the critical value c,, at least a portion of the compression region of the wall section needs to be confined. The provision of confining reinforcement in the compression region of the potential plastic hinge zone of a structural wall must address the two interrelated issues of the concrete area to be confined and the quantity of hoops to be used, The confinement of longitudinal reinforcement to avoid buckling is another issue. () Region of Compression Zone to Be Confined: The definition of the arca of confinement may be approached with the precept that unconfined con- crete should not be assumed to be capable of sustaining strain in excess of 0.004. The strain profile (1) in Fig, 5.38 indicates the ultimate curvature, $,, that might be necessary to enable the estimated displacement ductility, 414, for a particular structural wall to be sustained when the theoretical concrete strain in the extreme compression fiber reaches 0.004. The value of the associated neutral axis depth, c,, may be estimated by Eq. (5.18). To achieve the same ultimate curvature in the wall when the neutral-axis depth c is larger, as shown by strain profile (2) in Fig. 5.38, the length of section subjected to compression strains larger than 0.004 becomes a'c,. It is this length that should be confined. From the geometry shown in Fig. 5.38, a! =1~c,/c. However, some conservatism in the interpretation of the simple curvature and ductility relationships, shown in Figs. 5.31 and 5.32 and Eq. (5.18), should be adopted. This is because during reversed cyclic loading408 STRUCTURAL WALLS. &>a000 \ 00004 Confinement IS required Fig. 5.38 Strain patterns for wall sections. the neutral-axis depth tends to increase, due to the gradual reduction of the contribution of the cover concrete as well as that of the confined core to compression strength, or the out-of-plane bending of the compression zone of thin sections, discussed in Section 5.4.3(c). It is therefore suggested that the length of wall section to be confined should not be less than ac, where a =(1~0.%c,/c) 2 05 (5.19) whenever ¢,/e < 1. When c is only a little larger than ¢., a very small and impractical value of a is obtained. The lower limit (i.e., 0.5) is suggested for this case. The application of this approach is shown in Scction 5.6.2. (ii) Quantity of Confining Reinforcement: The principles of concrete con- finement to be used are those relevant to column sections, examined in 3.6.1(a), with the exceptions that very rarely will the need arise to confine the entire section of a wall. Accordingly, using the nomenclature of Section 3.6.1, it is recommended that rectangular or polygonal hoops and supplementary ties surrounding the longitudinal bars in the region to be confined should be used so that A, fi c Ayo oane( 3 -1 Flos + o9=) (5.202) f c Agq = 0.125,4 (0 S+0. oF) (5.206) Fon 4, whichever is greater. In practice, the ratio c/t,, will scldom exceed 0.3.\ \ DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 409 In the equations above: A = gross area of the wall section that is to be confined in accordance with Eq. (5.19) AX = area of concrete core within the area A*, measured to outside of peripheral hoop legs The area to be confined is thus extending to ac, from the compressed edge as shown by crosshatching in the examples of Figs. 5.31 and 5.32. For the confinement to be effective, the vertical spacing of hoops or supplementary ties, s,, should not exceed one-half of the thickness of the confined part of the wall or 150 mm ( in. whichever is least [X3]. When confinement is required, walls with a single layer should not be used for obvious reasons. (iii) Vertical Extent of Regions to Be Confined: Confining transverse rein- forcement should extend vertically over the probable range of plasticity for the wall, which for this purpose should be assumed to be equal to the length of the wall, J,, [X3], or one-sixth of the height, h,,, whichever is greater, but need not exceed 21, ‘An application of this procedure is given in Section 5.6.2. (iv) Confinement of Longitudinal Bars: A secondary purpose of confinement is to prevent the buckling of the principal vertical wall reinforcement, where it may be subjected to yielding in compression. The approach to the stability of bars in compression in beams and columns was studied in Sections 4.5.4 and 4,6.11(d). The same requirements are also relevant to vertical bars in walls, It is considered that in regions of potential yielding of the longitudinal bars within a wall with two layers of reinforcement, only those bars need be supported laterally, which contribute substantially to compression strength. ‘Typically, affected bars will occur in the edge regions or boundary elements of wall sections. Accordingly, transverse hoops or tics with cross-sectional area A,,, given by Bq. (4.19), and with vertical spacing 5, not excecding six times the diameter of the vertical bar to be confined should be provided where the longitudinal wall reinforcement ratio p, computed from Eq. 6.21), exceeds 2/f, (MPa) (0.29/f, (ksi)). The vertical reinforcement ratio that determines the need for transverse ties should be computed from p= LA,/bs, (3.21) where the terms of the equation, together with the interpretation of the requirements above, are shown in Fig. 5.39. The interpretation of Eq. (5.21)‘ ‘ 410 STRUCTURAL WALLS $200; wot tied tS Closed tie Le. Fig. 5.39 Transverse reinforcement in potential yield zones of wall section. with reference to the wall return at the left-hand end of Fig. 5.39 is as follows: p; = 2A,/bs,. The distance from the compression edges of walls over which vertical bars should be tied, when p, > 2/f, (MPa) (0.29/f, (ksi)), should not be less than c — 0.3¢, or 0.5¢. Over this distance of the compression zone the yielding of the vertical reinforcement must be expected. However, with reversed cyclic loading, compression yielding of vertical bars may occur over a much larger distance from the extreme compressed edge of the wail, because bars that have yielded extensively in tension must yield in compression before concrete compression can be mobilized. It is unlikely, however, that at large distances from the compression edge of the wall section, the compression reinforce- ment ratio p, will exceed 2/f, (MPa) (0.29/f, (ksi)). Vertical bars arranged in a circular array and the core so confined by spiral or circular hoop reinforcement in a rectangular boundary element, such as at the right-hand side of the wall section in Fig. 5.39, have been found to be very effective [V1] even though a larger amount of concrete is lost after spalling of the cover. In areas of the wall in upper stories, where p, >2/f, (MPa) (0.29/f, (ksi)) and where no compression yielding is expected, the lateral reinforce- ment around such bars should satisfy the requirements applicable to the noncritical central region of columns in ductile frames [Ai]. {v) Summary of Requirements for the Confinement of Walls: The réquire- ments of transverse reinforcement in the potential yield region of a wall are summarized for aa example wall section in Fig. 5.40. 1, When for the direction of applied lateral forces (north) the computed neutral-axis depth exceeds the critical value, c,, given by Eqs. (5.180) and (5.18c), reinforcement confining the concrete over the outer ac length of the4 DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 411 Required region for confining concrete Longitudina! bers provided TI ae Transverse reinforce= G _ Ment for shear or use Longitudinal bars provided give y>2zty rans verse Tes N Earthquake actions { . . ~considere: “STbalns: Ss Fig. 5.40 Regions of a wall section where transverse reinforcement is required for different purposes (f, in MPa). compression zone, shown by crosshatching, should be provided in accordance with Section 5.4.3(e) (ii). 2. In the single shaded flange part of the channel-shaped wall, over a distance ¢ — 0.3¢,, antibuckling ties around vertical bars of the type shown in Fig. 5.39 should be provided in accordance with Eq. (4.19) when p; > 2/f, (MPa) (0.29/f, (ksi)). 3. In the web portion of the channel-shaped wall, vertical bars need to be confined, using antibuckling ties in accordance with Section 5.4.3(eX4) be- cause p, > 2/f, (MPa) (0.29/f, (ksi)). The affected areas arc shaded. 4, In all other areas, which are unshaded, the transverse (horizontal) reinforcement need only satisfy requirements for shear. 5. Some judgment is necessary to decide whether confinement of the compressed concrete is necessary at other locations, for cxample at the corners where flanges join the wcb part of the section in Fig. 5.40 when the wall is subjected to skew (bidirectional) earthquake attack, 544 Control of Shear (a) Determination of Shear Force To ensure that shear will not inhibit the desired ductile behavior of wall systems and that shear effects will not significantly reduce energy dissipation during hysteretic response, it must not be allowed to control strength. Therefore, an estimate must be made for the maximum shear force that might need to be sustained by a structural wall during extreme seismic response to ensure that energy dissipation can be confined primarily to flexural yielding,\ 412 STRUCTURAL WALLS Note tomered centroid wy “ j— Ac). be A oni Mes hile Ww A at A Ss Me toes {fo} Code inertio force (b) First mode inertia (1 Dynomic forced) Bending moment distribution. force distribution of distribution ot diagram (tirst model flexurel overstrength Alexurol overstrength Fig. 5.41 Comparison of code-specified and dynamic lateral forces. The approach that may be used stems from the capacity design philoso- phy, and its application is similar to that developed for ductile frames in Chapter 4. Allowance needs to be made for flexural overstrength of the wall M,, and for the influence of higher mode response distorting the distribu- tion of seismic lateral forces assumed by codes. In comparison with beams, there is a somewhat larger uncertainty involved in walls with respect to the influence of material properties. Wall sections with a small neutral-axis depth, such as shown in Fig. 5.31, will exhibit greater strength enhancement due to early strain hardening. The flexural strength of compression dominated wall sections will increase significantly if at the time of the earthquake the strength of the concrete is considerably in excess of the specified strength, f’. However, this type of wall is rare. Increase of shear demand may result from dynamic effects. During a predominantly first-mode response of the structure, the distribution of iner- tial story forces will be similar to that shown in Fig. 5.41(a) and (6). The force pattern is similar to that of standard code-specified static forces, The center of inertial forces is typically located at approximatcly A, ~ 0.7h,, above the base. At some instants of response, displacement and accelerations may be strongly influenced by the second and third modes of vibration, resulting in story force distributions as scen in Fig. 5.41(c), with the resultant force being located much lower than in the previous case [M17], Shapes in the second and third modes of vibration of elastic cantilevers (Fig. 2.24(b)) with fixed or hinged bases are very similar. This suggests that the formation of a plastic hinge at the wall base may not significantly affect response in the second and third modes. While a base plastic hinge will greatly reduce wall actions associated with first mode response, it can be expected that those resulting from higher mode responses of an inelastic cantilever will be comparable with elastic response actions [K8]. A plastic hinge may still form at the wall base under the distribution of forces shown in Fig. 5.41(c) becauseDESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 413 wall flexural strength is substantially lower than “elastic” response strength. As a consequence, the induced shear near the base corresponding to flexural hinging with second- and third-mode response is larger than that in the first mode. However, the probability of a base hinge developing overstrength in a higher-mode response is not high, because of reduced plastic rotations. Bending moments associated with force patterns shown in Fig. 5.41(a) to (c) are shown in Fig. 5.41(d). The contribution of the higher modes to shear will increase as the fundamental period of the structure increases, implying that shear magni cation will increase with the number of stories. From a specific study of this problem [B11], the following recommendation (X3] has been deduced for estimation of the total design shear. Vy = Kuan = Orb o,0Mer (5.22) where V; is the horizontal shcar demand derived from code-specified lateral static forces, b,... is as defined by Eq. (5.13), and w, = h/hz, as shown in Fig. 5.41(c), is the dynamic shear magnification factor, to be taken as @, = 0.9 +n/10 (5.234) for buildings up to six stories, and 13 +/30 (5.230) for buildings over six stories, where 7 is the number of stories, which in Eq. (5.236) need not be taken larger than 15, so that @, < 1.8. Theoretical consideration [A11] and parametric analytical studies [M17] indicate that dynamic shear magnification is likely also to be a function of expected ground accelerations. The inclusion of more accurate predictions of shear stiffness, fundamental period instead of the number of stories, leading to modal limit forces, suggests that improved analytical predictions for the value of the dynamic magnification factor will be available [K8]. Predictions by Eq. (5.22) compare with results obtained from these studies for rather large accelerations. As subsequent examples will show, the design shear force at the base of a structural wall, derived from Eq. (5.22), can become a critical quantity and may control the thickness of the wall. Although Eq. (5.22) was derived for shear at the base of the wall, it may be used to amplify the code-level shear at heights above the base. However, this is an approximation, and imposed shear force envelopes based on inelastic dynamic analyses have been sug- gested (I1]. Because the magnitude of the design shear at greater heights above the base is much less than that near the base of the wall, and because at these heights inelastic flexural response is suppressed, the design and prediction for shear strength in the upper stories will seldom be critical. Some walls, particularly those of low- or medium-rise buildings, may have inherent flexural strength well in excess of that required, even with minimum414 STRUCTURAL WALLS reinforcement content. In such a wall little or no flexural ductility demand will arise, and it will respond essentially within the elastic domain. Provided that it resists all or the major fraction of the total shear for the building, it is therefore unnecessary to design such a wall for shear which would be in excess of the elastic response demand. Hence the design shear force for such a wall may be limited to Vou $ tae / (5.24a) When the overstrength of onc wall in an interconnected wall system, such as shown in Fig. 5.19, is dispropostionately excessive; that is, when $,.,, > Yo, [Sections 1.3.3(f) and (g)], the required shear strength of the affected wall need not exceed its share of the total shear of an elastically responding system. By similarity to Eq. (5.24a) and using Eq. (5.10), this can be quantified as h Kon 5 57 He /$ (5.240) The shear demand so determined, Vy, should be equal to or more than the ideal shear strength of the wall, V;. However, as explained in Table 3.1, for this upper-bound estimate of earthquake resistance a strength reduction factor of @ = 1.0 is appropriate. (b) Control of Diagonal Tension and Compression (i) Inelastic Regions: As in the case of beams, it must be recognized that shear strength will be reduced as a consequence of reversed cyclic loading involving ficxural ductility. However, the uniform distribution of both hori- zontal and vertical reinforcement in the web portion of wall sections is considered to preserve better the integrity of concrete shear-resisting mecha- nisms {C12], expressed by the quantity v,, given by Eq. (3.39). Because of the additional and unwarranted computational effort involved in evaluating the effective depth, d, in structural wall sections, it is customary IAL, X3], as in the case of column sections, to assume that d = 0.81, and _ hence the average shear stress {Eq. (3.29)] at ideal strength, v,, is 0, = V/0BByly (5.25) Web reinforcement, consisting of horizontal bars, fully anchored at the extremities of the wall section, must then be provided in accordance with Eq. (3.40). The vertical spacing of bars, s,, should not exceed 2.5 times the thickness of the wall, or 450 mm (Section 3.3.2(aXvii)]. Experiments have shown that other conditions being equal, the hysteretic response of structural walls improves when the web reinforcement consists of\ DESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY — 415 — Fig. 5.42 Web crushing in a wall after several load cycles with large ductility demands [V1]. smaller-diameter bars placed with smaller spacing [12]. The provisions above should ensure that diagonal: tension failure across plastic hinges docs not occur during a very large earthquake. Diagonal compression failure may occur in walls with high web shear stresses, even when excess shear reinforcement is provided. As a conse- quence, codes [A1, X3, X5] set an upper limit on the value of ; [Section 3,3,2(aXii)]. Because the web of the wall may be heavily cracked diagonally in both. directions, as seen in Fig. 5.37, the diagonal compression strength of the concrete required to sustain the truss mechanism may be reduced dramati- cally. Therefore, it is recommended [Section 3.3.2(a)ii)] that in this region the total shear stress be limited to 80% of that in elastic regions (Eq. (3.30)] (ie, Usman S 0-16f.). Tests conducted by the Portland Cement Association [O11] and the Univer- sity of California at Berkeley [B12, V1] have demonstrated, howcver, that, despite the limitation on maximum shear stress above, web crushing in the plastic hinge zone may occur after a few cycles of reversed loading involving displacement ductility ratios of 4 or more. When the imposed ductilities were only 3 or less, a shear stress equal to or in excess of 0.16f; could be attained. Web crushing, which eventually spreads over the entire length of the wall, can be seen in Fig. 5.42. When boundary clements with a well-confined group of vertical bars were provided, significant shear after the failure of the panel (web) could be carried because the boundary elements acted as short columns or dowels. However, it is advisable to rely more on shear resistance of the panel, by preventing diagonal compression failure, rather than on the second line of defense of the boundary elements. To ensure this, either the ductility demand on a wall with high shear stresses must be reduced, or, if this is not done, the shear stress, used as a measure of diagonal compression, should be limited as follows: 0.22.6. Unmax S Ha + 0.03) 2 < 0.16f, < 6MPa (870 psi) (5.26)416 STRUCTURAL WALLS For example, in coupled walls with typical values of the overstrength factor boy = 14 and Hy = 3, Vinay = 0.092f;. In a wall with restricted ductility, corresponding values of $,,,, = 14 and jig = 2.5 would give 0, mux = 0.153%, close to the maximum suggested. The expression also recognizes that when the designer provides excess flexural strength, giving a larger value of @,,.» a reduction in ductility demand is expected, and hence Ea. (5.26) will indicate an increased value for the maximum admissible shear stress. (ii) Elastic Regions: Since ductility demand will not arise in the upper stories of walls, if designed in accordance with capacity design principles and the moment envelope of Fig. 5.29, shear strength will not be reduced. Several of the restrictions applicable to inelastic regions are then unnecessary, and the general requirements of Section 3.3.2 need be satisfied only. (c) Sliding Shear in Walls Well-distributed reinforcement in walls provides better control of sliding than in beams where sliding, resulting from high- intensity reversed shear loading, can significantly affect the hysteretic re- sponse. This is because more uniformly distributed and embedded vertical bars in the web of the wall provide better crack control and across the potential sliding plane better dowel shear resistance. Another reason for improved performance is that most walls carry some axial compression due to gravity, and this assists in closing cracks across which the tension steel yielded in the previous load cycle. In beams several small cracks across the flexural reinforcement may merge into one or two large cracks across the web, thereby forming a potential plane of sliding, as seen in Fig. 3.24. Because of the better crack control and the shear stress limitation imposed by Eq. (5.26), it does not appear to be necessary, except in some cases of low-rise ductile walls, examined in Section 5.7.4, to provide diagonal reinforcement across the potential sliding planes of the plastic hinge zone, as has been suggested in Section 3.3.2(b) for some beams. The spacing of vertical bars in walls crossing potential horizontal sliding planes, such as construction joints should not exceed 24 times the wall thickness or 450 mm (18 in.). Across sliding planes in the plastic hinge region, a much closer spacing, typically equal to the wall thickness, is preferable. Construction joints represent potential planes of weakness where excessive sliding displacements may occur [P1]. Therefore, special attention should be given to careful and thorough roughening of the surface of the hardened concrete. The principles of shear friction concepts may then be applied, Accordingly, vertical reinforcement crossing the construction joints should be determined from Eq. (3.42). Commonly, the designer simply checks that the total vertical reinforcement provided is in excess of that required as shear friction reinforcement. In assessing the effective reinforcement that can provide the necessary clamping action, all the vertical bars placed in wall sections, such as shown in Fig. 5.5(a) to (d) may be considered. BecauseDESIGN OF WALL ELEMENTS FOR STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY 417 shear transfer occurs primarily in the web, vertical bars placed in wide flanges, such as scen in Fig, 5.5(e) to (h), should not be relied upon. In coupled walls with significant coupling [i.e., when according to Eq. (5.4), A > 0.33}, the structure may be considered as one cantilever, both walls may be considered to transfer the entire shear, and the earthquake-induced axial load need not then be considered on individual component elements, How- ever, construction joints of walls of weakly coupled structures, when A < 0.33, should preferably be considered as independent units with gravity and carthquake-induced axial load acting across such joints. 5.4.5 Strength of Coupling Beams (@) Failure Mechanisms and Behavior ‘The primary purpose of beams be- tween coupled walls (Fi 1) during earthquake actions is the transfcr of (Sica ot ot Wall fo the BGR wEEHOWA in Fig. 522(0. In considering the behavior of coupling beams it should be appreciated that during an earth- quake significantly larger inelastic excursions can occur in such beams than in the walls that are coupled. Moreover, during one half-cycle of wall displace- ment, several moment reversals can occur in coupling girders, which are tather sensitive to changes in wall curvature. This is caused mainly by the response of the structure in the second and third modes of vibration. Thus during one earthquake significantly larger numbers of shear reversals can be expected in the beams than in the walls [M9]. Many coupling beams have been designed as conventional flexural mem- bers with stirrups and with some shear resistance allocated to the concrete. Such beanis will inevitably fail in diagonal tension, as shown in Fig. 5.43(a). This was experienced, for example, in the 1964 Alaska earthquake [U2] in the city of Anchorage (see Fig, 1.5). It is evident that the principal diagonal failure crack will divide a relatively short beam into two triangular parts. Unless the shear force associated with flexural overstrength of the beam at the wall faces can be transmitted by vertical stirrups only, a diagonal tension failure will result. In such beams it is difficult to develop full flexural strength even under monotonic loading [P22], and therefore such conventional beams are quite unsuitable [P1] for energy dissipation implied in Fig. 5.23(d). Fig. 5.43 Mechanisms of shear resistance in coupling beams,