1 Up votes0 Down votes

529 views12 pagesIt has been demonstrated repeatedly by many disastrous

Jan 25, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

It has been demonstrated repeatedly by many disastrous

© All Rights Reserved

529 views

It has been demonstrated repeatedly by many disastrous

© All Rights Reserved

- BS8110 structure use of concrete
- Advanced Mechanics of Materials and Applied Elasticity 5th Edition Chapter 01
- Chapter 14 Cellular Cofferdams
- Analysis and Design of Shear Wall
- Advanced Mechanics of Materials (Boresi, Schmidl ,1993)
- Performing Pushover Analysis in Etabs
- (1993) Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering Conflicts Between Desingn and Reality
- Design & Construction of Shear Wall
- Shear Wall Design Guide
- Design of Pile Caps Final
- Design Examples-shear Walls
- Design Shear Wall
- Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures
- Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete - HK - 1987
- Finite-element Design of Concrete Structures, 2nd Rombach
- simplified design of reinforced concrete buildings.pdf
- Ductility Factor by Park
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings - T.paulay,M.priestley (1992)_+
- Thesis
- Shear Walls by Etabs

You are on page 1of 12

with the consideration of axial compression ratio

J S Kuang & Y P Yuen

To cite this article: J S Kuang & Y P Yuen (2015) Ductility design of reinforced concrete shear

walls with the consideration of axial compression ratio, HKIE Transactions, 22:3, 123-133, DOI:

10.1080/1023697X.2015.1071027

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2015.1071027

Article views: 52

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thie20

Download by: [University of Malaya]

Vol. 22, No. 3, 123133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2015.1071027

Ductility design of reinforced concrete shear walls with the consideration of axial compression

ratio

J S Kuanga and Y P Yuenb

a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, Peoples

Republic of China; b Department of Civil Engineering, Bursa Orhangazi University, Turkey

To evaluate and quantify the eect of the axial compression ratio on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete

walls, a comprehensive statistical analysis with 474 sets of experimental data was conducted. Stipulated limits on the

axial compression ratio and their evaluation methods in various design codes were analysed and compared. Based on

the results of these analyses, methods for calculating the eective axial compression and the limiting value of the axial

compression ratio for reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls stipulated in the Code of Practice for Structural Use

of Concrete 2013 may be amended and improved on a more scientic basis. Recommendations are made for possible

amendments to the provision of design or detailing for ductility of structural walls in Clause 9.9.3 of the Hong Kong

structural concrete code 2013.

Keywords: shear wall; axial compression ratio; ductility; reinforced concrete; seismic design

Introduction

It has been demonstrated repeatedly by many disastrous

earthquakes [14] that well-designed structural walls can

render excellent lateral stability and drift ductility to

medium-to-high-rise reinforced concrete (RC) buildings

under seismic actions. Under reversed cyclic loading,

well-detailed and conned RC shear walls display very

good and stable exural deformability and energy dissipation capacity, which are attributed to the high curvature

ductility and extended plastic hinge length.[5] Meanwhile, as compared with the frame systems, the structural

behaviour of shear-wall systems is less inuenced by

random non-structural component eects such as inll

panels, which often trigger soft-storey phenomena in the

frame structures.[6] Shear walls are thus recognised as the

very important structural members with relatively high

ultimate lateral load-carrying capacity in seismic resistant

design.[2,7]

With credit given to the eorts made in experimental and analytical studies undertaken by researchers in the

past decades, the design and analysis methods for typical

RC walls have been well-established and standardised.

RC shear walls in high-rise buildings are often characterised by high compression forces and aspect ratios, as

a consequence of architectural designs which maximise

clear oor heights and usable oor areas. Recent studies [8,9] indicated that structural wall elements in tall

buildings can sustain axial compression ratios as high

*Corresponding author. Email: cejkuang@ust.hk

2015 The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

as 0.4 fc Ac or above, which is already beyond the typical range of 0 to 0.2 investigated experimentally.[1012]

A few studies on RC walls under an axial force ratio

above 0.3 can be found in the literatures,[1215] and

these experimental studies revealed that high axial force

ratios severely deprive drift ductility and stability of

RC walls. Shear walls suddenly fail in a brittle manner

when subjected to lateral reversed-cyclic loading under

a high axial compression ratio, thus losing their vertical

load-carrying capacity.

The 2010 Chile earthquake is a good example where

lessons were learned on the eect of high axial forces on

the seismic performance of RC structural walls. It has

been indicated from post-earthquake eld investigations

that thin walls, with thicknesses ranging from 150 mm to

200 mm, in newly built high-rise buildings are normally

subjected to a higher axial compression and suered severer damage than thicker walls in old buildings during

the earthquake.[16,17] Out-of-plane insatiability of walls,

buckling or fracturing of the boundary reinforcement, and

compression failure over the entire wall lengths are typical signicant damage modes observed in thin RC walls,

as shown in Figure 1. The design of new buildings in

Chile mainly follows the American Concrete Institutes

1995 building code for structural concrete, but the provisions on the detailing of transverse reinforcement at wall

boundaries are not included, which can be a major cause

of the signicant wall damage.

124

Denitions and eects of axial compression ratios

Eect on ductility of RC walls

Axial force has a crucial role in governing the drift

ductility of RC walls. An apparent and instant eect

with a higher axial compression is the reduction of the

curvature ductility of walls,[5,21] which is directly

and inversely proportional to the natural axis depth c

and in turn is a monotonic increasing function of axial

compression, given as follows:

u

cu lw

=

,

y

2.00y c

(1)

where lw is the wall length. Hence, the curvature ductility, as well as the drift ductility , decreases with an

increase in axial compression. On the other hand, when

the strain penetration eect is deemed negligible and the

plastic hinge length is assumed to be lp 0.08lw , the

drift ductility of exural-controlled wall segments can be

estimated as follows:

y H 2 /3 + (u y )lp H

u

y

y H 2 /3

1 0.12cu

0.24 ,

=1+

V y cV

=

Chile earthquake. (Courtesy of M Francisco; acquired from

NISEE e-Library, EERC, University of California, Berkeley, the

USA).

many design codes of practice for RC structures,

including the Hong Kong structural concrete code

2013 (HKConcrete2013),[18] Chinese seismic code GB

500112010,[19] and Eurocode 8,[20] stipulated upper

limits for axial compression ratios and boundary-element

detailing requirements for various ranges of axial compression ratios. Nonetheless, later it can be seen that the

provisions in dierent codes of practice have dissimilarities, including the denitions and limiting values. In view

of this issue, this paper presented a comprehensive survey

and study on the suitability of various code provisions

on axial compression ratios. The detailed eect of axial

compression ratios on the seismic performance of RC

walls was rstly studied, followed by a comprehensive

comparison and discussion on the corresponding code

provisions. Based on an analysis of the results, methods

for calculating the eective axial compression and the

limiting value of axial compression ratio for RC structural

walls stipulated in the Code of Practice for Structural Use

of Concrete 2013 [18] may be amended and improved on

a more scientic basis. Recommendations were made for

possible amendments to the provision of design or detailing for ductility of structural walls in Clause 9.9.3 of the

HKConcrete2013.

(2)

wall height.

Equation (2) further indicates that the aspect ratio V ,

concrete crushing strain cu and steel yielding strain y are

also eective parameters of the drift ductility of a wall

segment, as well as the natural axis depth c as an inuential parameter. This explains why conning boundary

elements for wall segments subjected to high axial forces

are required by various design codes to compensate for

the reduced ductility due to axial compression. The conned concrete in the conning boundary elements can

attain a much higher ultimate crushing strain, cu , than the

unconned concrete; hence, the higher curvature ductility can be achieved in RC walls with conning boundary

elements.

In addition, strength and stiness degradation of RC

members under cyclic loading is much more pronounced

under high axial compression, which is attributed to the

low cyclic fatigue eect.[22] High axial compression can

prompt pre-emptive buckling of thin RC walls, thus leading to a sudden and complete loss of axial force carrying

capacity in a brittle manner. Although on some occasions,

axial compression may be benecial to the shear strength

of squat RC walls with potential shear failure modes such

as diagonal tension and sliding shear,[23] this benet generally cannot compensate for the overall adverse eect.

It is thus widely recognised that RC walls subjected to

the high axial compression are more vulnerable to seismic

eects.

HKIE Transactions

To parametricise the axial compression eect on

the structural performances of RC walls, the axial

compression ratio is usually used, dened as follows:

N

.

fc A

(3)

aspect ratios, lap and splices etc., the axial compression ratio is a very important indicator for evaluating

the expected ductility and fragility of RC walls during

earthquakes. However, it should not be confused with the

load and resistance design or limit state design concepts,

since the axial compression ratio alone cannot represent

or be used to assess the actual seismic performance of

RC walls. Furthermore, this axial compression ratio is

particularly eective for RC structures with high ductility demands such as under seismic or other exceptional

loading cases. Therefore, the axial force in the numerator is often evaluated based on the realistic situation,

when the rare loading cases take place and no critical load combination procedure is generally required by

design codes.

(a)

125

A comprehensive statistical analysis was conducted

for evaluating and quantifying the eect of the axial

force ratio on the seismic performance of RC structural walls. A total of 474 sets of data, composed of

experimental results of small to full-scale RC walls of

various shapes and detailing methods, were collected

from the literatures.[1015,22,2454] The gathered loaddisplacement data were analysed, wherein the denitions of yield displacement, ultimate displacement and

displacement ductility of the loading curves are based

on Park.[55]

In the collected database, more than 60% of the tests

were conducted with a relatively low axial force ratio of

below 0.05; in contrast, only about 15% and 7% were

tested with an axial force ratio of above 0.15 and 0.30,

respectively. Nonetheless, these high axial force tests

demonstrated that RC walls fail in very dierent manners

such as out-of-plane buckling, resembling the observed

damage modes of walls in the 2010 Chile earthquake

(Figure 1). RC walls that fail in out-of-plane buckling

are generally the very brittle members, which exhibit

(b)

(c)

Figure 2. Relationship between displacement ductility and axial compression ratio for dierent types of RC (a) all walls; (b) slender

walls; and (c) squat walls.

126

evaluation methods that assumed in-plane exural failure

are no longer applicable to these walls.

Figure 2(a) shows the relationship between drift ductility and axial force ratio of dierent kinds of RC shear

walls. It is shown that RC walls can easily achieve

high ductility ( 6) at a low axial force ratio (

10%) as long as the boundary elements are well detailed

and designed. However, when the axial compression

ratio increases to above 20%, RC walls can only barely

maintain moderate ductility (4 < 6) and special

detailing methods like composite-reinforced boundary

elements are necessary in order to acquire high ductility.

When the axial compression ratio is above 35%, preemptive out-of-plane buckling can be the dominating

failure mode as reported in the literatures,[1315] thus

RC walls are not suitable for providing lateral and vertical

resistances in seismic design.

(a)

ratio (H /L) lower than 1.5 are prone to shear failure, in

particular sliding shear failure rather than exural failure,

and the displacement ductility is not necessarily reduced

by an increase in axial compression. In contrast to the

ductility of slender shear walls (Figure 2(b)), the ductility of squat walls (Figure 2(c)) is less inuenced by the

axial compression ratio such that the inherent ductility

generally remains in the range of 2 < 5.

The relationship between the ultimate displacement

capacity and axial compression ratio of various types of

RC shear walls is also plotted in Figure 3(a). Again, as

shown in Figure 3(b), there is a trend of diminishing the

ultimate displacement capacity of slender walls with an

increase in axial compression ratio, owing to the reduction in neutral axial depth, low cycle fatigue eect and

potential out-of-plane buckling. In contrast, the ultimate

displacement capacity of squat walls tends to increase

(b)

(c)

Figure 3. Relationship between ultimate displacement ratio and axial compression ratio for dierent types of RC (a) all walls; (b)

slender walls; and (c) squat walls.

HKIE Transactions

with the axial compression ratio, as shown in Figure 3(c).

This reversed trend is actually due to the fact that the

shear strength and sliding resistance of cracks in squat

walls are enhanced by axial compression, which increases

the interfacial friction between crack faces.

Another important structural property of RC walls

related to axial compression is the shear strength. For

comparison purposes, the peak base shears reported by

the tests in the database are further normalised by the

following equation:

vn =

Vp

,

fc 0.5 Aw

(4)

Figure 4 shows the relationship between the normalised shear strength and the axial compression ratio.

It shows that a higher axial compression tends to increase

the shear strength of all types of RC walls, in particular the squat RC walls, as shown in Figure 4(c). This is

because axial compression not only can enhance the shear

strength of walls, but also the moment resistance in some

(a)

127

attributed to axial compression cannot generally compensate for the adverse eect of reduced drift capacity, and

after all, the system ductility is far more important than

the strength in seismic design.

In view of the adverse eect of axial compression on the

seismic performance of RC structural walls, most of the

modern design codes of practice for RC structures stipulate upper limits for the axial compression ratio. RC walls

with an axial compression ratio beyond the limits are generally deemed to be ineective in resisting seismic action,

even with connement detailing in the critical regions of

the members (such as expected plastic hinges). These provisions, in addition to connement detailing, intend to

ensure that sucient drift ductility and axial force carrying capacity can be retained in RC structures during

earthquakes or other exceptional load cases.

(b)

(c)

Figure 4. Relationship between the normalised shear strength and axial compression ratio for dierent types of RC (a) all walls; (b)

slender walls; and (c) squat walls.

128

The HKConcrete2013

In Clause 9.9.3.3 of the HKConcrete2013,[18] the upper

limit of axial compression ratios of RC structural walls is

specied as follows:

NW,HK

0.75,

0.45fcu Ac

(5)

1.6Qk (wherein Gk is the total permanent or dead load and

Qk is the total live load for the wall due to gravity load);

fcu is the characteristic cube strength of concrete under

uniaxial compression at 28 days; and Ac is the gross area

of the concrete section.

It was noted that the safety factor for concrete compressive strength used in the Hong Kong code is 1.5,

which is divided by the characteristic concrete strength

giving the design strength. The constant 0.45 = 0.67/1.5

in the denominator converts the characteristic concrete

strength into the equivalent design compressive strength

for the sections subjected to the dominant exural bending action, wherefore another multiplying factor 0.67 is

used. Meanwhile, the axial force in the numerator takes

the ultimate load value due to the sole gravity action,

without considering possible non-permanent imposedload reductions or representative gravity action during

rare events with exceptional loading actions, such as

earthquakes and explosions.

Chinese seismic design code (GB500112010)

In the Chinese seismic design code GB500112010,[19]

the upper limits of the axial compression ratio for RC

shear walls (sectional aspect ratio L/t > 8) take dierent values under dierent seismic fortication intensities

and structural grades. There are four classes of structural

grades: Grade I structures have high drift ductility, Grade

II and III structures have moderate-to-high drift ductility,

and Grade IV structures have relatively low drift ductility. The upper limits for structures with dierent grades

are given as follows:

NW,C

0.5 Grade I, Intensity 7 or 8

,

(6)

fc Ac

0.6 Grade II or III

Grade IV

where NW,C isthe factored axial force for the wall, which

is 1.2(Gk + i rdi Qki ) (wherein rdi is the combination

coecient ( 1) for variable action i [19] due to representative gravity load); and fc is the design axial compressive strength of concrete under uniaxial compression at 28

days, which is equal to the characteristic axial strength of

concrete fck divided by the safety factor 1.4.

The characteristic axial strength fck is determined by

150 mm 150 mm 300 mm prism compression tests.

0.67 of the characteristic cube strength fcu,k , which resembles the value of fcu adopted in the Hong Kong code.

The average value of the ratio fck /fcu,k or so-called eectiveness factor is about 0.76 based on the experimental

studies.[56,57]

More stringent provisions are set for short pier RC

shear walls (4 < L/t 8) such that the axial compression ratios for Grades I, II and III short pier walls should

not exceed 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55, respectively in the critical

regions (JGJ3-2010).[58] The axial force in Equation (6)

is rst

calculated from the representative gravity action

(Gk + i rdi Qki ), instead of the ultimate gravity action,

and expected to be taken by structures during earthquakes; then a multiplying factor of 1.2 is used to account

for the additional axial force incurred by unforeseen and

excluded actions on the walls. In the calculation of the

representative gravity action, the combination coecient

rdi is used to consider the reduced likelihood that full

variable actions are considered during earthquakes and,

for instance, the combination coecient for residential

oor live load is 0.5. The reduction factors for oor

live loads (GB50009-2012) [59] in multi-storey buildings

are already absorbed in the combination coecients; in

other words, variable actions Qki should not be reduced

before multiplying by combination coecients. Furthermore, it was noted that the design axial compressive

strength fc used in Equation (6) can be rewritten in the

form of characteristic compressive cube strength as fc =

0.67fcu /c = 0.67fcu /1.4 = 0.48fcu , which is close to the

value (0.45fcu ) used in the Hong Kong code calculation,

which is presented in Equation (5).

Eurocode 8 (EC8) (EN 1998-1:2004)

EC8 [20] stipulates the upper limits for axial compression

ratio (calculated from the normalised axial force) for ductile walls and columns designed for moderate (DCM) and

high (DCH) ductility classes, but there is no restriction

for low (DCL) ductility classes as follows:

0.35 DCH

NED,EC

0.4

(7)

DCM ,

fcd Ac

DCL

where NED,EC is the design axial force from the

analysis

for the seismic design situation (i.e. Gk +

i E,i Qki + E, wherein E is seismic action and E,i

is the combination coecient ( 1) for variable action

Qki ); and fcd is the design (with a safety factor of 1.5)

cylinder strength of concrete under uniaxial compression

at 28 days, which approximately equals 0.8 times the

corresponding cube strength.

The denitions of axial compression ratio for RC

walls and columns are identical in EC8. The denominator

HKIE Transactions

in Equation (7) has a similar form to that of Equation (6),

but the cylinder strength is used in RC designs with EC8.

If the design cylinder strength fcd in EC8 is converted to

the characteristic cube strength fcu , it can be shown below:

The design axial force in Equation (7) consists of two

major components: (i) axial force induced by representative gravity action and (ii) axial force induced by seismic

action. Similar to the Chinese seismic code, the limits for

columns are less restrictive than walls and the representative gravity load is used by EC8 in calculation of the axial

force, in which the eect of seismic action for RC walls is

also included. Although axial forces incurred in cantilever

walls by seismic loads are relatively minor as compared

with permanent gravity action in general, coupled shear

walls have to bear signicantly extra axial forces incurred

by seismic action due to the coupling action aggregated

from the shear forces of coupling beams, which obviously

has a non-negligible eect on the seismic performance of

the walls. Therefore, amongst the three aforementioned

design codes, the denition of the axial compression ratio

used in EC8 can be considered as the most appropriate description of realistic stress states experienced by

RC structures during earthquakes. Actually, limits of the

axial compression ratio stipulated in EC8 can readily

be compared with experimental studies to see whether

the provisions can ensure sucient ductility of the RC

members.

New Zealand concrete code (NZS 3101:2006) and

other design codes

New Zealand concrete code NZS 3101:2006 [60] does not

have similar provisions on the axial force ratios as those

in the Hong Kong, GB and EC codes, but does specify

129

hinge regions for dierent RC members (Clause 2.6.1.3.4,

Part 1:2006). Limiting material strains is apparently the

most direct method to control curvature ductility of RC

members; however, whether it is sucient to prevent the

low cyclic fatigue phenomenon or rapid strength and stiness degradation of RC members under cyclic loading is

uncertain.

It is also worth mentioning that the United States (US)

ACI 318-11 [61] also does not introduce similar limits on the axial compression ratio for RC columns and

walls. Nevertheless, a standard for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings ASCE/SEI 41-06 [62] stated that RC

walls with axial loads greater than 35% of nominal axial

load strength P0 shall not be considered eective in resisting seismic forces. The Canadian concrete code CSA

A23.3-04 (R2010) [63] also stated that exural members

with factored axial loads in excess of 0.35P0 shall have

a nominal resistance greater than the induced member

force, i.e. not be designed to form potential plastic hinges

and dissipate energy in any circumstances under seismic

eects.

Comparisons of code provisions

Although the denitions of axial force ratio in the Hong

Kong, GB and EC codes are not the same, particularly the

axial forces in the numerators, the compressive strength

term in the denominators can conveniently be converted to the characteristic equivalent axial strength with

fck = 0.67fcu for comparison. Table 1 summarises the key

comparisons of the provisions on the axial compression

ratios dened in the three codes.

At rst sight, looking at the last row in Table 1, the

Hong Kong code has the least stringent limit on the axial

compression ratio for RC walls as compared with the

other two codes. In addition, it was noticed that the axial

compression ratio

Limit

Seismic/lateral force eects

Variable load reduction

Re-normalised axial

compression ratio limit vs

fck

HKConcrete2013

GB50011-2010

EC8

NW,HK

0.45fcu Ac

NW,C

fc A c

NED,EC

fcd Ac

0.75

NW,HK

0.50

fck Ac

0.4

0.5

0.6

Grade I, Intensity 9

Grade I, Intensity 7 or 8

Grade II or III

Grade IV

fck Ac

Grade IV

0.35 DCH

0.4

DCM

DCL

NED,EC

fck Ac

*Limits for Grades I, II and III short pier RC shear walls (4 < H /B 8) are 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55, respectively.

0.28 DCH

0.32 DCM

DCL

130

the limit of the HKConcrete2013 is somehow unjustiable in the sense of targeting to control the ductility

and is far beyond the other limits stipulated in GB and

EC8, if it is accepted that the ultimate design gravity

1.4Gk + 1.6Qk is eective in evaluating the axial compression ratio during exceptional loading cases. Therefore, the provision in the HKConcrete2013 on the axial

compression ratio for RC walls has some improvable aspects, including the denition, load combination

method and specied limit.

expected achievable ductility.

of the GB and EC codes, where the full ultimate gravity

action is considered instead of the representative gravity action. For instance, if both sides of the inequality

are divided by 1.4 (a safety factor for dead loads in the

HKConcrete2013), the limit is immediately toughened to

0.36 and the possible reduction in variable or live loads

is not even considered yet. The limits of axial compression ratio stipulated in the Chinese code resemble those

in EC8, but again, the combinations of actions for calculating the axial forces are dierent in the two codes

as mentioned before. For cantilever walls, the Chinese

code is virtually more stringent because the safety factor

1.2 is used to amplify the action. But for coupled shear

walls, it is not conclusive in which one of the two codes

is more conservative, since the factor of 1.2 may not be

sucient to cover the exceeding axial forces induced by

the coupling action. Nevertheless, EC8 provides a more

realistic assessment for these cases by taking into the

consideration of seismic action or generally lateral force

eects.

If the relationship between the displacement ductility

and the axial compression ratio shown in Figure 2 is introduced again and plotted together with the code-specied

limits of the axial compression ratio, the expected achievable ductility of RC walls can clearly be evaluated

as shown in Figure 5. In general, the required displacement ductility for fully ductile structures under

moderate-to-high seismic eect should not be less than

3.5 [5] and EC8 provisions undoubtedly satisfy this target level of ductility. The Grade I structures designed

according to the Chinese code can also satisfy this

target, but the Grade II and III structures may only

have restricted inherent ductility and are susceptible to

Clause 9.9.3, the HKConcrete2013

Based on the results of a comprehensive statistical analysis using 474 sets of experimental data and comparisons

with other design codes, the methods for calculating

the eective axial compression and the limiting value

of the axial compression ratio for RC structural walls

stipulated in the HKConcrete2013 may be amended and

improved on a more scientic basis. Recommendations

are made for possible amendments to Clause 9.9.3, the

HKConcrete2013 as follows:

(1) In Clause 9.9.3.3, the value of axial compression

should be calculated based on the realistic representative or the eective gravity action rather

than the ultimate gravity action; hence it should

be determined as follows:

ri Qki ,

(8)

NW,HK = 1.2 Gk +

i

reducing the imposed action Qki to the corresponding eective gravity action during rare

loading cases. Values of ri for various actions

in dierent usage can be taken from Table 2. The

factor of 1.2 is used to account for incurred axial

force due to excluded actions.

(2) As Hong Kong is a region of moderate

seismicity,[19] for the design of building structures, it would be appropriate to design for displacement ductility values corresponding to

the structures of limited ductility [64] and the

ductility factor may be taken as 2 < 4.

Referring to the results of the comprehensive

statistical analysis presented in Figure 5, a reasonable limit on the axial compression ratio of RC

structural walls is found and given as follows:

ncr =

N W,HK

0.4.

fck Ac

(9)

HKIE Transactions

Table 2.

Specic use

Storey

activities, oces and places where

people may congregate.

Examples

Roof

Storeys with correlated

occupancies.

Independently occupied storeys.

stores, storage, industrial use and

accumulation of goods may occur.

then the axial compression ratio of RC structural walls

is given as follows:

131

ncr =

N W,HK

0.27.

fcu Ac

(10)

compression ratio, it is not necessary for the factor of 0.45

to be included in the denominator (Equation (5)).

Conclusions

Excellent lateral stability and drift ductility of reinforced

concrete shear walls are important in the design of

medium-to-high-rise buildings to resist seismic actions

and other exceptional loads. However, shear walls in

modern buildings are often subjected to very high axial

compression, which has been pushing the limits of the

conventional design and analysis theories.

A comprehensive statistical analysis using 474 sets

of experimental data was conducted to investigate the

eect of the axial compression ratio on the structural performance of various types of RC structural wall. It was

shown that the ductility of shear walls generally diminished with an increase in axial compression ratio, and

this trend was particularly noticeable for slender walls

with an aspect ratio greater than 1.5. Provisions on the

limits of the axial compression ratio stipulated in various design codes of practice were then compared. The

expected attainable ductility of RC walls designed to

dierent codes was evaluated and compared with the

statistical analysis results.

Based on the analysis results, recommendations were

made for possible amendments to Clause 9.9.3 detailing for ductility of walls in the HKConcrete2013 [18]

for calculation of the eective axial compression and

determination of the limiting value of the axial compression ratio. The suggested amendments include: (1) the

calculation of the eective axial compression in RC structural walls should be based on a realistic, representative

gravity action; and (2) the limiting value for the axial

compression ratio should guarantee that well-detailed RC

structural walls can attain moderate or at least restricted

ductility.

ri

1.0

0.8

0.5

room, etc.

1.0

Funding

This work was supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants

Council [grant number 614011].

Notes on contributors

Ir Prof J S Kuang is a Professor of

Civil and Environmental Engineering,

the Hong Kong University of Science

and Technology. His areas of expertise span seismic engineering, with an

emphasis on seismic design and the

behaviour of concrete structures, seismic vulnerability assessment of tall

buildings, large-scale testing of structural concrete, and computational mechanics and simulation

in structural engineering. Ir Prof Kuangs awards include the

Telford Premium and the TK Hsieh Award from the Institution of Civil Engineers UK in 2014 and 2006, respectively, and

the HKIE Transactions Prize from the Hong Kong Institution of

Engineers in 2007.

Professor of the Department of Civil

Engineering at the Bursa Orhangazi

University, Turkey. His research interests include seismic analysis and engineering of building and bridge structures, theoretical and computational

mechanics of materials, reinforced

concrete and masonry structures, and

tall building structures. Dr Yuen is the recipient of the 2014

Telford Premium from the Institution of Civil Engineers in the

UK, presented for the best paper on engineering and computational mechanics.

References

[1] Fintel M. Need for shear walls in concrete buildings for

seismic resistance: observations on the performance of

buildings with shear walls in earthquakes of the last thirty

years. In: Hsu and Mau, editors. Concrete shear in earthquake. London-New York: Elsevier Science Publishers,

Inc.; 1992; p. 3442.

[2] Holden T, Restrepo J, Mander JB. Seismic performance of

precast reinforced and prestressed concrete walls. J Struct

Eng-ASCE. 2003;129(3):286296.

[3] Sezen H, Whittaker AS, Elwood KJ, Mosalam KM. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the

132

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic

design and construction practise in Turkey. Eng Struct.

2003;25:103114.

Wyllie LA Jr, Filson JR. Armenia earthquake reconnaissance report. Earthq Spectra Publication No. 89.01,

Special Supplement; 1989.

Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced

concrete and masonry buildings. New York: John Wiley

& Sons; 1992.

Yuen YP, Kuang JS. Nonlinear responses and failure of

inlled RC frame structures under biaxial seismic excitation. 15th World Conf Earthq Eng. Lisbon, Portugal;

2012.

Kuramoto H. Seismic design codes for buildings in Japan.

J Disaster Res. 2006;1(3):341356.

Su RKL, Wong SM. A survey on axial load ratios of

medium-rise residential buildings in Hong Kong. HKIE

Transactions. 2006;14(3):4046.

Wallace JW, Massone LM, Bonelli P, et al. Damage and

implications for seismic design of RC structural wall

buildings. Earthq Spectra. 2012;28(S1):S281S299.

Adebar P, Ibrahim AMM, Bryson M. Test of high-rise core

wall: eective stiness for seismic analysis. ACI Struct J.

2007;104(5):549559.

Bohl A, Adebar P. Plastic hinge lengths in high-rise concrete shear walls. ACI Struct J. 2011;108(S15):148157.

Kazaz I, Glkan P, Yakut A. Deformation limits for

structural walls with conned boundaries. Earthq Spectra.

2012;28(3):10191046.

Qian J, Chen Q. A macro model of shear walls for pushover analysis. P I Civil Eng-Str B. 2005;158(2):119132.

Su RKL, Wong SM. Seismic behaviour of slender reinforced concrete shear walls under high axial load ratio.

Eng Struct. 2007;29:19571965.

Zhang Y, Wang Z. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to high axial loading. ACI

Struct J. 2000;97(5):739750.

Adebar P. Compression failure of thin concrete walls during 2010 Chile earthquake: lessons for Canadian design

practice. Can J Civil Eng. 2013;40:711721.

EERI. The Mw 8.8 Chile earthquake of 27 February 2010.

EERI Special Earthquake Report. Newsletter. Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute, California; 2010.

Buildings Department. Code of practice for structural use

of concrete 2013. Hong Kong: The HKSAR Government;

2013.

National Standard of the Peoples Republic of China. Code

for seismic design of buildings (GB 500112010). Beijing:

China Architecture & Building Press; 2010. Chinese.

CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake

resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules

for buildings (EN 19981:2004). European Committee for

Standardization, Brussels; 2004.

Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Displacementbased seismic design of structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS

Press; 2007.

Borg RC, Rossetto T, Varum H. The eect of the number

of response cycles on the behaviour of reinforced concrete

elements subject to cyclic loading. 15th World Conf on

Earthq Eng. Lisbon, Portugal; 2012.

Kappos A, Penelis GG. Earthquake resistant concrete

structures. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1996.

Ali A, Wight JK. RC structural walls with staggered door

openings. J Struct Eng-ASCE. 1991;117:15141531.

[25] Barda F, Hanson J, Corley W. Shear strength of lowrise walls with boundary elements. Reinf Concrete Struct

Seism Zones, SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,

1977;149202.

[26] Birely AC. Seismic performance of slender reinforced

concrete structural walls [Ph.D. thesis]. Washington (DC):

University of Washington; 2011.

[27] Cardenas AE, Magura DD. Strength of high-rise shear

walls rectangular cross sections. Response Multistory

Concrete Struct Lateral Forces, SP-36, American Concrete

Institute, Detroit, 1973;119150.

[28] Carrillo J, Alcocer SM. Backbone model for performancebased seismic design of RC walls for low-rise housing.

Earthq Spectra. 2012;28(3):943964.

[29] Carrillo J, Alcocer SM. Acceptance limits for performancebased seismic design of RC walls for low-rise housing.

Earthq Eng Struct D. 2012;41:22732288.

[30] Dazio A, Beyer K, Bachmann H. Quasi-static cyclic tests

and plastic hinge analysis of RC structural walls. Eng

Struct. 2009;31:15561571.

[31] Devi GN, Subramanian K, Santakumar AR. Experimental investigations on reinforced concrete lateral load

resisting systems under lateral loads. Exp Techniques.

2011;35(4):5973.

[32] Ghorbani-Renani I, Velev N, Tremblay R, Palermo D,

Massicotte B, Lge P. Modeling and testing inuence of

scaling eects on inelastic response of shear walls. ACI

Struct J. 2009;106(3):358367.

[33] Han SW, Oh YH, Lee LH. Seismic behaviour of structural walls with specic details. Mag Concrete Res.

2002;54:333345.

[34] Kuang JS, Ho YB. Seismic behavior and ductility of squat

reinforced concrete shear walls with nonseismic detailing.

ACI Struct J. 2008;105(2):225231.

[35] Kuang JS, Ho YB. Enhancing the ductility of nonseismically designed reinforced concrete shear walls. P I

Civil Eng-Str B. 2007;160(3):139149.

[36] Hirosawa M. Past experimental results on reinforced concrete shear walls and analysis on them. Ministry of Construction, Tokyo; 1975. Japanese.

[37] Hidalgo PA, Ledezma CA, Jordan RM. Seismic behavior

of squat reinforced concrete shear walls. Earthq Spectra.

2002;18(2):287308.

[38] Lefas ID, Kotsovos MD, Ambrasseys NN. Behaviour

of RC structural walls: strength, deformation characteristics and failure mechanism. ACI Struct J. 1990;87(1):

2331.

[39] Lefas ID, Kotsovos MD. Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced concrete walls under load reversals.

ACI Struct J. 1990;87(6):716726.

[40] Liao FY, Han LH, Tao Z. Seismic behaviour of circular CFST columns and RC shear wall mixed structures: experiments. J Constr Steel Res. 2009;65(89):

15821596.

[41] Morgan BJ, Hiraishi H, Corley WG. US-Japan quasi static

test of isolated wall planar reinforced concrete structure.

PCA Report, Construction Technology Division, Skokie,

Illinois; 1986.

[42] Oesterle RG. Inelastic analysis for in-plane strength

of reinforced concrete shear walls [Ph.D. dissertation].

Evanston (IL): North-western University; 1986.

[43] Pilakoutas K, Elnashai AS. Cyclic behaviour of RC cantilever walls, part I: experimental results. ACI Struct J.

1995;92:271281.

HKIE Transactions

[44] Qian J, Jiang Z, Ji X. Behavior of steel tube-reinforced

concrete composite walls subjected to high axial force and

cyclic loading. Eng Struct. 2012;36:173184.

[45] Riva P, Franchi A. Behavior of reinforced concrete walls

with welded wire mesh subjected to cyclic loading. ACI

Struct J. 2001;98(3):324334.

[46] Salonikios T, Kappos A, Tegos I, Penelis G. Cyclic

load behavior of low-slenderness reinforced concrete

walls: design basis and test results. ACI Struct J.

1999;96(4):649660.

[47] Shiu KN, Daniel JI, Aristizabal JD, Fiorato AE, Corley

WG. Earthquake resistant structural walls tests of walls

with and without openings. Report to the National Science Foundation. Portland Cement Association, Skokie,

Illinois; 1981.

[48] Takahashi S, Yoshida K, Ichinose T. Flexural drift capacity

of reinforced concrete wall with limited connement. ACI

Struct J. 2013;110(S10):95104.

[49] Thomsen JH, Wallace JW. Displacement-based design

of reinforced concrete structural walls: an experimental

investigation of walls with rectangular and t-shaped crosssections. Report No. CU/CEE-95/06, Potsdam, N.Y.:

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Clarkson University; 1995.

[50] Vallenas MV, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Hysteretic behaviour

of reinforced concrete structural walls. UCB/EERC Report

79/20, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1979.

[51] Wallace JW, Moehle JP. Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall buildings. J Struct Eng-ASCE.

1991;118(6):16251644.

[52] Wang TY, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Hysteretic behavior

of reinforced concrete framed walls. UCB/EERC Report

75/23, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 1975.

[53] Yuen H, Choi C, Lee L. Earthquake performance of

high-strength concrete structural walls with boundary elements. 13th World Conf on Earthq Eng. Vancouver, B.C.,

Canada; 2004.

133

[54] Zhou Y, Lu X. SLDRCE database on static tests of structural members and joint assemblies. State key laboratory

of disaster reduction in civil engineering. Shanghai, China:

Tongji University; 2008. Chinese.

[55] Park R. Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural

assemblages from laboratory testing. B New Zeal Natl Soc

Earthq Eng. 1989;22(3):155166.

[56] Zhang Q. Concrete structure design: Basic theory, methods

and examples. Jiangsu: Jiangsu Science and Technology

Publishing House; 1993. Chinese.

[57] Nielsen MP. Limit analysis and concrete plasticity. 2nd ed.

Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999.

[58] National Standard of the Peoples Republic of China.

Technical specication for concrete structures of tall

building (JGJ 32010). Beijing: China Architecture &

Building Press; 2010. Chinese.

[59] National Standard of the Peoples Republic of China. Load

code for the design of building structures (GB 50009

2012). Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press;

2012. Chinese.

[60] Standards New Zealand. Concrete structure standard-the

design of concrete structures (NZS 3101:Part 1:2006).

Wellington, New Zealand: SNZ; 2006.

[61] American Concrete Institute. Building code requirements

for structural concrete (ACI 31811) and Commentary.

Farmington Hills, MI: ACI; 2011.

[62] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41).

Reston, Virginia: ASCE; 2006.

[63] Canadian Standard Association. Design of concrete structures (CSA:A23.304 (R2010)). Ontario, Canada: CSA;

2010.

[64] Park R. Design procedures for achieving ductile behaviour

of reinforced concrete buildings. In: Lam ESS, Ko JM,

editors. International workshop on earthquake engineering for regions of moderate seismicity. Hong Kong: the

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; 1998.

p. 4550.

- BS8110 structure use of concreteUploaded bySauting Lam
- Advanced Mechanics of Materials and Applied Elasticity 5th Edition Chapter 01Uploaded byAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- Chapter 14 Cellular CofferdamsUploaded byPrince Cool
- Analysis and Design of Shear WallUploaded bymohammedzeeshan
- Advanced Mechanics of Materials (Boresi, Schmidl ,1993)Uploaded bySerawit Tadesse
- Performing Pushover Analysis in EtabsUploaded byStavros Apostolidis
- (1993) Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering Conflicts Between Desingn and RealityUploaded byalvaro_ave
- Design & Construction of Shear WallUploaded bysuman33
- Shear Wall Design GuideUploaded byNemer Abu
- Design of Pile Caps FinalUploaded byImam Shakil
- Design Examples-shear WallsUploaded byHafez Taheri
- Design Shear WallUploaded byCaoTrungThành
- Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Reinforced Concrete StructuresUploaded bybetacivil
- Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete - HK - 1987Uploaded bynebojsadj6411
- Finite-element Design of Concrete Structures, 2nd RombachUploaded byCristi Andone
- simplified design of reinforced concrete buildings.pdfUploaded by1975JACC21
- Ductility Factor by ParkUploaded byCrisStructEng
- Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings - T.paulay,M.priestley (1992)_+Uploaded byFreddy Mauricio Lucay
- ThesisUploaded byZaki Siddiqui
- Shear Walls by EtabsUploaded byJevgenijsKolupajevs
- Important Notes-Tall Building Structures- Analysis and DesignUploaded byHoo Yen How
- Stress Fields & Strut Tie Model STM - Ruiz MuttoniUploaded byoflores64
- 23410595 ACI 318 99 Provisions for Seismic Design of Structural WallsUploaded byEssined Aividlav
- Thomsen, Wallace - 1995 - Displacement Based Design of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls an Experimental Investigation of Walls With_yazıUploaded byÖzlem Temel Yalçın
- 287426290-M-J-N-Priestley-G-M-Calvi-M-J-Kowalsky-Displacement-Based-Seismic-Design-of-Structures.pdfUploaded byRasyid Lathief Amhudo
- Pushover analysisUploaded byPiero Sánchez
- How to Design Concrete Structures to EuroCode 2Uploaded bybeddows_s

- Improving the Bond Cohesion of Patch Repair Material and Substrate WithUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Wood AggregatesUploaded byMohamad Reza
- The Impacts of Buildings on the Environment and on the HealthUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Behaviour Factor Evaluation of SheathedUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Rovide Concrete ExamplesUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Axial Compression Effect on Ductility Design of RcUploaded byMohamad Reza
- The Applicable Restrictions of These Curves AreUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Compared With the Equation ForUploaded byMohamad Reza
- The Better the DeformationUploaded byMohamad Reza
- ModulusUploaded byMohamad Reza
- The Computed Hysteretic ResultsUploaded byMohamad Reza
- StiUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Performance OfUploaded byMohamad Reza
- New Bridge in the High Velocity Train to the Northwest of SpainUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Rapid Electrokinetic Nanoparticle Transport in ConcreteUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Behaviour of Buildings During EarthquakesUploaded byMohamad Reza
- EBB_001_30May2013Uploaded bytfemilian
- ConcreteUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Definition of Concrete WordsUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Behavior of FRPUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Effect of Shear Resistance on Flexural Debonding LoadUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Cost and Ductility Effectiveness of Concrete Columns Strengthened With CFRP and SFRP SheetsUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Development of SelfUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Polarization Induced Deterioration of Reinforced Concrete With CFRP AnodeUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Influence of Wind Pressure on the Carbonation of ConcreteUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Structural Performance of Polymer Fiber Reinforced Engineered Cementitious Composites Subjected to Static and Fatigue Flexural LoadingUploaded byMohamad Reza
- Ultrafine-Grained Austenitic Stainless SteelsUploaded byMohamad Reza

- Wikipedia (17 Nov 2012) MMI ScaleUploaded byMukesh Kumar
- Dam Safety & Earthquakes PPT CivilUploaded byRohan Saha
- UD 2 the Atmosphere 1º ESOUploaded byNoelia Francisco Pastor
- Lecturer 2- Geomorphology and Weathering_14Uploaded byJoseph Zotoo
- Report - LLNL Underground Coal Gasificaton ReviewUploaded bysr605
- True Triaxial in sandstoneUploaded byIvan Satriadi
- DYNAMIC MODELLING OF ARCH DAMS.pdfUploaded bySanjay Sibal
- media-file-1 downloadpages bluescopeUploaded byapi-325627613
- 205233420-Spain-Volume-II.pdfUploaded byAntonio M Picardo Atencia
- Design, Control and Monitoring of Pit and Dump Slopes in Opencast MinesUploaded byminingnova
- TothUploaded byfvaladez14
- GravityUploaded byFirdha Firdaus
- Reporte de Arabia Saudita PetroleoUploaded byJohan B. Chavez Contreras
- QUANTITY AND COST MODELLING OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS OF 12 TO 20 STOREY DESIGNED FOR SEISMIC EFFECTS (V. Thiruvengadam, Guite Thangmuansang)Uploaded byThangmuansang Guite
- Contributions of Sarasvati Civilization to Tin-Bronze Revolution of 3rd Millennium BCEUploaded bySrini Kalyanaraman
- Gans Ser 1973Uploaded byJulián Vargas Parra
- M6D2 Internal vs. External ProcessesUploaded byhollandgh357
- Saddle LoadsUploaded byAnthony Dudley
- IPA01-G-056Uploaded byRatna Hope Zo-My
- prf2105Uploaded bylunarrayz
- Low-Frequency Impedance ModelingUploaded byMahmoud Eloribi
- Borehole LogUploaded byvpamatya
- Triggering Mechanisms of LandslidesUploaded bychenjude
- paleontology word searchUploaded byapi-233194737
- Carpathian_List.V23Uploaded byunsafeagent
- Mavko SlidesUploaded byRenda Rachman
- ASTM D2166-06Uploaded bycaritorh
- Thesis Shale Gas NSB.pdfUploaded byLulut Fitra Fala
- ppt-sieveanalysis-130303223118-phpapp02.pdfUploaded bystefpan
- fossil notesUploaded byapi-293690555

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.